Didn't GW go back and change their ruling on drop pod doors per the Space Marine FAQ? (Doors counting as part of the vehicle blocking LOS and contesting objectives)?
the 40kFB page has removed the errata to the side of the photos for the FAQS (which were generally more accurate).
My group and I could swear this change was made, but can't find evidence of it.
Does this mean if you want the doors open you have to DS it with the doors already open, or are you allowed to alter the physical profile of the model once it is in play (I. E. Open the doors)?
If it's the latter, and it scatters to the table edge, are you allowed to disembark without opening the doors to prevent a mishap, or even elect to open only those doors that will not cause a mishap?
The rules don't seem to provide too well for models with moving parts from what I can see
I think the best way to resolve is to place the Drop Pod with the doors open, then roll Scatter. This is not only the cleanest way to play it, but it may prevent the pod from scattering into awkward places, since the doors will make it stop before getting too close to other units.
The other awkward thing about this is that if the doors are part of the model, Marines getting out cannot be placed on the doors (despite there being steps inside the doors for them to use) ad models can never be placed on top of other models
Roll for scatter on arrival, Pod drops in
Doors open (that's what they're there for)
If a door can't be opened (for example, it might hit a model) then that door remains closed.
Models disembark up to 6 inches from Pod's central mass (you know, where the harnesses are)
Game continues
I truly believe this is the way it was designed to work.
Roll for scatter on arrival, Pod drops in
Doors open (that's what they're there for)
If a door can't be opened (for example, it might hit a model) then that door remains closed.
Models disembark up to 6 inches from Pod's central mass (you know, where the harnesses are)
Game continues
I truly believe this is the way it was designed to work.
Agreed, that seems like the most logical and true to the spirit of the game and rules answer there can be. Question then, what happens when the pod legally lands with the doors closed, but when they open one or more doors goes off the table edge?
Roll for scatter on arrival, Pod drops in
Doors open (that's what they're there for)
If a door can't be opened (for example, it might hit a model) then that door remains closed.
Models disembark up to 6 inches from Pod's central mass (you know, where the harnesses are)
Game continues
I truly believe this is the way it was designed to work.
Agreed, that seems like the most logical and true to the spirit of the game and rules answer there can be. Question then, what happens when the pod legally lands with the doors closed, but when they open one or more doors goes off the table edge?
Though this has never happened, I would simply say that those particular doors don't open. It can be imagined that they are up against a mountain, building, or some other obstruction that would prevent it from opening.
Roll for scatter on arrival, Pod drops in
Doors open (that's what they're there for)
If a door can't be opened (for example, it might hit a model) then that door remains closed.
Models disembark up to 6 inches from Pod's central mass (you know, where the harnesses are)
Game continues
I truly believe this is the way it was designed to work.
Agreed, that seems like the most logical and true to the spirit of the game and rules answer there can be. Question then, what happens when the pod legally lands with the doors closed, but when they open one or more doors goes off the table edge?
More interesting is what happens when the pod scatters into a place it can fit with the doors closed, but the doors can't be opened (due to orientation of the drop pod doors). It's not likely, but might be possible.
Roll for scatter on arrival, Pod drops in
Doors open (that's what they're there for)
If a door can't be opened (for example, it might hit a model) then that door remains closed.
Models disembark up to 6 inches from Pod's central mass (you know, where the harnesses are)
Game continues
I truly believe this is the way it was designed to work.
Agreed, that seems like the most logical and true to the spirit of the game and rules answer there can be. Question then, what happens when the pod legally lands with the doors closed, but when they open one or more doors goes off the table edge?
More interesting is what happens when the pod scatters into a place it can fit with the doors closed, but the doors can't be opened (due to orientation of the drop pod doors). It's not likely, but might be possible.
For me, that would never be an issue. Play it as the rules are written - disembark your models as best as possible, as long as they remain 1 inch away from any enemy model. Lots of people glue their Pod doors closed, it doesn't make the Pod an inescapable tomb. A little understanding and common sense go a long way in this game.
Roll for scatter on arrival, Pod drops in
Doors open (that's what they're there for)
If a door can't be opened (for example, it might hit a model) then that door remains closed.
Models disembark up to 6 inches from Pod's central mass (you know, where the harnesses are)
Game continues
I truly believe this is the way it was designed to work.
Agreed, that seems like the most logical and true to the spirit of the game and rules answer there can be. Question then, what happens when the pod legally lands with the doors closed, but when they open one or more doors goes off the table edge?
That's why I always play it as doors don't matter.
Although I also am amused by the image of a pod with the doors glued shut hitting the table, and you hear the little marines inside pounding on the doors demanding to be let out.
I'm agreed on the "Doors don't matter" camp. By making the doors count as part of the hull, it makes Drop Pods ridiculously huge when it comes to Board Control, for instance.
GW prefers you to play with the model's physical appearance, even if that means the same two models can be drastically different in effectiveness.
For me though I consider the doors to be closed and not see-through; You can technically open up a Rhino in the same way and shoot through it sideways or use it's doors to extend board control or some such, but it would be awkward as hell to watch it drive around like that and we generally model them with doors closed with no one complaining. For me, the models are just counters on the board, so it should be the most practical while aesthetics are left for...well aesthetics.
I still prefer back when drop pods didn't exist at all, you could just have all your marines deepstrike in(this is also back when deepstrikers had to fit on a large blast marker).
Drop pods have always created too many rules and modeling problems(many new modellers accidentally glue the doors shut, or a minor accident might break the pegs on a door).
Galef wrote:I think the best way to resolve is to place the Drop Pod with the doors open, then roll Scatter.
This is not only the cleanest way to play it, but it may prevent the pod from scattering into awkward places, since the doors will make it stop before getting too close to other units.
The other awkward thing about this is that if the doors are part of the model, Marines getting out cannot be placed on the doors (despite there being steps inside the doors for them to use) ad models can never be placed on top of other models-
Not true. Measuring is performed between bases and hull. Nothing in the FAQ states that the doors are hull. Remember, the doors can still block line of sight like a Bloodthirster's Wings, with the exception of the model itself.
Also remember, Drop Pods are Open-Topped, so doors do not matter for Disembarking for a Drop Pod.
Yarium wrote:Agreed, that seems like the most logical and true to the spirit of the game and rules answer there can be. Question then, what happens when the pod legally lands with the doors closed, but when they open one or more doors goes off the table edge?
If part of the model goes of the table edge during Deep Strike, it is a Mishap. While the doors aren't part of the hull, they are still part of the model. If the doors are going to go off table, better to keep them closed.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: GW prefers you to play with the model's physical appearance, even if that means the same two models can be drastically different in effectiveness.
For me though I consider the doors to be closed and not see-through; You can technically open up a Rhino in the same way and shoot through it sideways or use it's doors to extend board control or some such, but it would be awkward as hell to watch it drive around like that and we generally model them with doors closed with no one complaining. For me, the models are just counters on the board, so it should be the most practical while aesthetics are left for...well aesthetics.
Do you fire the weapon on the drop pod? The model shows the weapon to be on the inside, needing the doors to be open. If you're playing that the doors are closed and not see-through, then you shouldn't be able to fire the weapon. If you're able to fire the weapon, then you should be considering the doors open. No getting to completely block line of sight with them and still let them shoot.
I was being sarcastic But yeah I do actually forget to shoot with Rhinos too. They're much more useful as mobile cover when they turboboost in the shooting phase.
Considering all the crap inside a drop pod, very rarely will you be able to draw LoS through it, even with the doors open. As such I have no problem with doors blocking sight, but allowing the storm bolter to shoot.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: My friend said he plays them without doors at all. Apparently his marines survive through atmospheric entry through sheer testicular fortitude.
I could not find a legitimate flaw with his argument.
Or the doors are completely blown off on arrival. Either way works.
Technically speaking, Marine Power Armor is capable of high environmental temperatures and hostile atmospheres like the relative void of space. So dropping with doors is mostly to avoid the battering of atmosphere and debris/shrapnel/flakk during the approach and landing.
My answer was more for a general concept of not installing doors.
Technically speaking, Marine Power Armor is capable of high environmental temperatures and hostile atmospheres like the relative void of space. So dropping with doors is mostly to avoid the battering of atmosphere and debris/shrapnel/flakk during the approach and landing.
My answer was more for a general concept of not installing doors.
To clarify, they previously had each set of questions/answers off to the right of each picture with more up to date rules that often conflicted with the pictures.
I would play it as they're no longer hull when they're deployed. They're sitting on the ground, and in my opinion, become a piece of terrain.
Yet your opinion is contradicted by the FAQ.
Not quite true. The question was if doors are ignored, not if they are part of the hull. Unfortunately for game purposes, that only matters for blocking Line of Sight and Deep Strike Mishap, nothing else.
nosferatu1001 wrote: They don't become a piece of terrain, however. Which is clearly what I was referring to
If it was clear, then I would have noted it. Apparently you need to be more detailed in your responses. It's not like he defined the doors as a specific type of Terrain after all. No definition of Terrain makes them same as the open table, after all.
Why are the doors hull? Because it covers 90% of the insides when closed? The thing is classed as Open-Topped for a reason. Sure, they look like hull when closed, but then, so does the back door of a Rhino. If a Rhino's door is open in the back, I cannot use it to provide LoS or Range to the Rhino. Why then would the doors of the Drop Pod? Just because they are bigger and cover more model?
Although not very explicitly, the rules, combined with the FAQs, suggest that the doors are actually part of the hull.
The BRB does not have a definition of "hull", but it clearly says what is NOT part of the hull, namely "gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements". These features are ignored for every purpose, from movement to line of sight. Since those exceptions are clearly stated, one could think that anything that is not purely decorative is, in fact, part of the hull. Now, are the doors decorative? They certainly aren't, and the FAQs are pretty clear on that: since they can even block line of sight, while decorative elements are ignored for that purpose, then they are not decorative. And if they are not decorative, they are part of the hull.
Do you fire the weapon on the drop pod? The model shows the weapon to be on the inside, needing the doors to be open. If you're playing that the doors are closed and not see-through, then you shouldn't be able to fire the weapon. If you're able to fire the weapon, then you should be considering the doors open. No getting to completely block line of sight with them and still let them shoot.
Its Open topped .. so why shouldn't the weapon be able to fire out of it regardless of doors open or closed? My Dreads shoot out of my Lucius Pods when they come in and the doors are closed.
We play that the doors on normal pods count for nothing when they deploy...they in fact don't exist at that point. If you play it this way there is nothing to argue about. If your pods are glued shut, a reasonable look at LoS will determine if they have cover or not regardless of the doors placement. They don't block LoS or cause terrain checks.
nosferatu1001 wrote: I directly referenced their single stated opinion. I even referenced it. Hard to be more explicit, but Ihave now put it in bold to make it clearer.
Chill man. You are getting worked up. Apparently it was not interpreted the same way.
Its Open topped .. so why shouldn't the weapon be able to fire out of it regardless of doors open or closed? My Dreads shoot out of my Lucius Pods when they come in and the doors are closed.
We play that the doors on normal pods count for nothing when they deploy...they in fact don't exist at that point. If you play it this way there is nothing to argue about. If your pods are glued shut, a reasonable look at LoS will determine if they have cover or not regardless of the doors placement. They don't block LoS or cause terrain checks.
You can play any way you want, but this is a discussion about rule interpretations. As such, home rules or group agreements have no place here. Only actual rules count. And the GWFAQs specifically state that you look at the actual model for LoS, so closed doors DO block LoS.
The Lucius Pod is a very different case. Since it is a passenger of an open-topped vehicle, the Dread CAN shoot, you get to measure the distance from any point of the drop pod hull, and you can even shoot all around you (while the Dread itself could only shoot in its front arc if it wasn't embarked). But the weapon of the vehicle itself is NOT a passenger, and can ONLY shoot if it has LoS to the enemy, after you orient the gun in its direction. A Drop Pod with the doors closed, according to the rules, CAN'T use its storm bolter.
In your gaming group you can play differently, but those are the rules, you are consciously ignoring them. Which is fine, but your personal, unsupported interpretation has no place in a discussion about the rules themselves.
Teschio wrote: You can play any way you want, but this is a discussion about rule interpretations. As such, home rules or group agreements have no place here. Only actual rules count. And the GWFAQs specifically state that you look at the actual model for LoS, so closed doors DO block LoS.
The Lucius Pod is a very different case. Since it is a passenger of an open-topped vehicle, the Dread CAN shoot, you get to measure the distance from any point of the drop pod hull, and you can even shoot all around you (while the Dread itself could only shoot in its front arc if it wasn't embarked). But the weapon of the vehicle itself is NOT a passenger, and can ONLY shoot if it has LoS to the enemy, after you orient the gun it its direction. A Drop Pod with the doors closed, according to the rules, CAN'T use its storm bolter.
In your gaming group you can play differently, but those are the rules, you are consciously ignoring them. Which is fine, but your personal, unsupported interpretation has no place in a discussion about the rules themselves.
Considering that we here on Dakkadakka are NOT GW, I think personal rules interpretations (and even, yes, houserules) are appropriate to bring up. Especially when the GW ruling is pretty darn dumb.
JNAProductions wrote: Considering that we here on Dakkadakka are NOT GW, I think personal rules interpretations (and even, yes, houserules) are appropriate to bring up. Especially when the GW ruling is pretty darn dumb.
Step 1: Take a look at the YMDC page, the first topic on sticky, called "Tenets of You Make Da Call" (link for your convenience: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page )
Step 2: Please read point number 4.
Step 3: Realize that a discussion regarding the proper interpretation of the existing rules is necessarily about RAW, not about HYWPI.
Step 4: Understand why what you just said makes little sense in this particular environment. There is a section for home rules, and it's not this one.
This is a huge problem with the "play-with-toys" granularity of true LOS under the current 40k rules.
A better, simpler, and far more elegant solution would be to consider a keyword "vehicles": Any non-hovering vehicles block LOS. Vehicles which hover provide a 5+ cover save to models being shot at. This applies to enemy models as well.
Simple, easy and universal. No fiddling, no faddling. And it uses abstracts (which are important in a rule set) as opposed to the literality of true LOS, "pew, pew, I shot your guy because I could see 15% of his shoulder pad."
JNAProductions wrote: Fair enough. I'm still in favor of ignoring that ruling (it's just so dumb) but RAW... Yeah, doors are part of the hull according to the FAQ.
Incorrect. The answer never mentions hull in the FAQ. Associating the doors as part of the hull is a unjustified leap.
I agree, I was never a fan of true LoS, I prefer astraction and universal rules (like it was in WHFB before 7th edition kicked in: LoS was so abstract that you could, among friends, even proxy models using empty bases). But the rules clearly state how LoS works, and the only sensible thing to do is to accept this.
Incorrect. The answer never mentions hull in the FAQ. Associating the doors as part of the hull is a unjustified leap.
As I said before, the BRB never defines "hull". But it clearly and explicitly states what is NOT part of the hull. Therefore, the only universal definition is that any part of the vehicle that is not explicitly considered not part of the hull MUST be part of the hull. This is the only possible objective interpretation, everything else is completely subjective and therefore should be disregarded. And if we accept this premise, then the FAQs clearly indicate that doors are not decorative (they block LoS, and decorative elements never do that), and are therefore part of the hull.
Teschio the GWFAQ you use in your argument is still under "Draft" status.. so by all means the ruling is still under discussion and allowed in the premise of the forum. To claim that the doors are not decorative by the way of the "unofficial" Draft FAQ is arguable if you decide to accept the premise that these FAQS are official. However.. many..many of us don't consider Drafts as official at this time. So to claim that our ruling on the issue is a "House Ruling" is nonsense.
zedsdead wrote: Teschio the GWFAQ you use in your argument is still under "Draft" status.. so by all means the ruling is still under discussion and allowed in the premise of the forum. To claim that the doors are not decorative by the way of the "unofficial" Draft FAQ is arguable if you decide to accept the premise that these FAQS are official. However.. many..many of us don't consider Drafts as official at this time. So to claim that our ruling on the issue is a "House Ruling" is nonsense.
Of course it's based on the Draft, I never denied it. But that draft, while still a work in progress, are the closest thing we have to a FAQ, and in every tournament where I live is accepted as the current interpretation. I have always been one for rules, not subjective interpretations, and even though they are still in Draft, they are the closest thing we have to an objective ruling, and therefore I accept them, even when I don't agree with them. Do I think the rule about drop pods is stupid? Sure I do, that's obvious. But if it was confirmed, then the doors are part of the hull, there's not much doubt about that.
PS: there is an even more ridiculous ruling in those FAQs, the one that says Scout re-deployments are done after the Seize the Initiative roll, and this makes absolutely no sense because there are effects that are specifically resolved AFTER the scout re-deployment but BEFORE you can StI, like Cluster Mines. Therefore, the FAQ is most obviously wrong, because it specifically contradicts a codex. BUT I follow it nevertheless, because I recognize the value of objective rule interpretations. And because every tournament around here uses them.
My playgroup modified the faq so that the pod drops in closed. Once it drops, he can open any and all doors he wants, but can leave some of them closed (like if it would go into a building or off the board, or onto models.
Then the disembarking unit cannot disembark from those points. They have to use one of the open slots. Normally that isn't a big deal, the wings are spread enough to only deny like an inch or so. But deepstriking right up against enemy units or reducing scatter to just barely miss them means they have that much further to disembark, potentially removing models from melta range.
We feel that this is the most thematic and correct way to play them.
You know, outside of squishing units under drop pods and doors, immediately charging out into c.c. ... But we can't have everything
zedsdead wrote: Teschio the GWFAQ you use in your argument is still under "Draft" status.. so by all means the ruling is still under discussion and allowed in the premise of the forum. To claim that the doors are not decorative by the way of the "unofficial" Draft FAQ is arguable if you decide to accept the premise that these FAQS are official. However.. many..many of us don't consider Drafts as official at this time. So to claim that our ruling on the issue is a "House Ruling" is nonsense.
Of course it's based on the Draft, I never denied it. But that draft, while still a work in progress, are the closest thing we have to a FAQ, and in every tournament where I live is accepted as the current interpretation. I have always been one for rules, not subjective interpretations, and even though they are still in Draft, they are the closest thing we have to an objective ruling, and therefore I accept them, even when I don't agree with them. Do I think the rule about drop pods is stupid? Sure I do, that's obvious. But if it was confirmed, then the doors are part of the hull, there's not much doubt about that.
PS: there is an even more ridiculous ruling in those FAQs, the one that says Scout re-deployments are done after the Seize the Initiative roll, and this makes absolutely no sense because there are effects that are specifically resolved AFTER the scout re-deployment but BEFORE you can StI, like Cluster Mines. Therefore, the FAQ is most obviously wrong, because it specifically contradicts a codex. BUT I follow it nevertheless, because I recognize the value of objective rule interpretations. And because every tournament around here uses them.
That's fine..in my area the Draft FAQs aren't accepted. In the Tournaments I attend they aren't accepted. In the Tournament I run (BFS) they aren't accepted. So its all subjective. Claiming I had no right to include my thoughts on the discussion based on "YOUR" acceptance of the Draft FAQS even though they are a "work in progress" and "unofficial" is insulting. Also basing that claim because "that's how you play it in your area" doesn't make it any less then your areas "House Rule". You accept it fine... but trying to shut my voice on the subject down by pointing to forum rules is a bit much imho.
PS: Drop Pods is the discussion at hand here.. so Scout moves have no place in the discussion. However ...."following forum protocol" I can add further nonsense to the GWFAQ regarding Drop Pods. In accordance to the FW Lucius Drop Pod rules. Doors are to go open to there full extent on deployment. However also mentions walking on the doors to grant cover. Would I be able to walk on those doors if it was "Hull" ? Not really. Would my flamer templates be started at the ends of the doors lying on the ground virtually giving me 15" flamer shots ?
Well its Forgeworld right ? so do those rules matter ? I think they do because they were created under the guidelines of how GW Pods work.
I can go on all day regarding the ridiculous "UNOFFICIAL" rulings GW has made about Drop Pods.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr ghoti wrote: My playgroup modified the faq so that the pod drops in closed. Once it drops, he can open any and all doors he wants, but can leave some of them closed (like if it would go into a building or off the board, or onto models.
Then the disembarking unit cannot disembark from those points. They have to use one of the open slots. Normally that isn't a big deal, the wings are spread enough to only deny like an inch or so. But deepstriking right up against enemy units or reducing scatter to just barely miss them means they have that much further to disembark, potentially removing models from melta range.
We feel that this is the most thematic and correct way to play them.
You know, outside of squishing units under drop pods and doors, immediately charging out into c.c. ... But we can't have everything
How does that work for Dreadnoughts using GW Pods.. would they have to emergency disembark if there was not enough room to open enough doors ? Once doors are open can models walk on them? Do they count as difficult/dangerous terrain ? Can the disembarked unit walk on them ?
The difference is that you talked about how you view the rules IN YOUR GROUP, I didn't. Mine was not a subjective interpretation, it was a LITERAL interpretation of some rules. Are the rules in a draft stage? Sure. But I did not make them up. Whether they are accepted or not, it's undeniable that they come from GW. We may not like them, some are openly ridiculous, but they are the closest thing we have to FAQs for now. Using them as a base for discussion is MUCH different than saying "in my group we don't like the rule, so this is how we interpret it". I am interpreting existing material, you are making things up. Putting those two behaviours on the same level is a false equivalence.
As for the FW rules, you should ask yourself how old are those rules. Many FW units have rules that were written for 6th edition, and even though they are still allowed today, you need to take that into consideration. In past editions, iirc, the doors were terrain, but this doesn't mean they are NOW. The Lucius still has the part about doors opening fully upon arrival, which was written in the rules for DPs in past editions, but NOT in this one. This is how outdated those rules are. Still, being all for RAW, I WOULD use the rules from FW in case of the Lucius DP, even though they are written for a past edition, but I will not extend them to regular DPs.
Teschio wrote: The difference is that you talked about how you view the rules IN YOUR GROUP. Using them as a base for discussion is MUCH different than saying "in my group we don't like the rule, so this is how we interpret it". I am interpreting existing material, you are making things up. Putting those two behaviours on the same level is a false equivalence.
Where did I say this ? lol... you interpreted "We" as meaning all that ? lol...
I now understand your mind set. I guess your a forum MOD now as well and your responsibility is to direct the conversation to where you see fit and to interpret the motives of my comments ?
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW....as far is literal rules go..yea I use literal ones, that are official.. until they become official they are nothing but test rules and unofficial and ill base nothing off of them.
Dreads: same rules. It can emerge from any open door, but the door has to be able to fully (or at least mostly) land open to be able to disembark.
Shooting: counts and line of sight blocking, and shooting through another unit. 5+ cover, and the panels can block LoS to the inner gun just like a real life closed door.
For almost all purposes, doors are just open terrain. I kind of think they should be difficult (like moving over a wrecked vehicle for instance). Models from both sides may walk on the doors, must assault base pod to damage in cc.
Haven't thought about emergency disembark for a dread, but as we play it it is just like normal vehicle disembarking. If you can't fit the models, those models are destroyed as normal.
So I GUESS there could be an instance where a drop pod scatters into a perfectly round drop pod +1" hole in the middle of a swarm of rippers. When it lands, the marine player cannot legally choose to open any doors, so the unit inside can't disembark and is destroyed.
But just try to apply that into real world gameplay; it would take astronomical stupidity and luck to be able to pull that off. Its like tank shocking a planted storm surge. By the book, the storm surge is removed no doubts about that. But how are you ever going to get that flimsy box all the way up there without it exploding first?
It might sound bad at first, but its really cleaned up our games. We have like 6 or 7 marine players who all have access to pods. We worked it out together and we like the way it works.
It might sound bad at first, but its really cleaned up our games. We have like 6 or 7 marine players who all have access to pods. We worked it out together and we like the way it works.
And this Mr ghoti is in my opinion the most important thing right ?
unfortunately GW has yet to make an "official" ruling on drop pod doors beyond its new "Test" FAQs. Until that time, any rules regarding the DP Door is going to be some form of "house rule".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Teschio wrote: As for the FW rules, you should ask yourself how old are those rules. Many FW units have rules that were written for 6th edition, and even though they are still allowed today, you need to take that into consideration. In past editions, iirc, the doors were terrain, but this doesn't mean they are NOW. The Lucius still has the part about doors opening fully upon arrival, which was written in the rules for DPs in past editions, but NOT in this one. This is how outdated those rules are. Still, being all for RAW, I WOULD use the rules from FW in case of the Lucius DP, even though they are written for a past edition, but I will not extend them to regular DPs.
yes in older editions it did mention doors opening. And as you point out in the newest edition things have changed. Yes..there is no mention of doors opening in the SM:Codex. So the door issue shouldn't be even considered.
Its an opened topped vehicle. Open topped vehicles have no access points.
- Furthermore the doors/ramps/hatches and bases are "access points" in BRBpg 80 that's RAW on the description of those items.. it goes on to apply rules to those items on vehicles. Nothing about them being "Hull".
so RAW...and not my interpritation of the rules.. Or for that matter applying GWs test FAQ. Drop Pods are pretty simple in how they work.
Drop Pods have removed any description of doors opening in the SM codex
Drop Pod doors are at best "Access points" and not forced to open them as per the BRBpg 80 (rhino doors, Land Raiders ect have them... never played where they had to be open)
Drop Pods are "Open Topped".SM:Codex pg 158
Opened topped vehicles have no access points as per BRBpg 88
So there is no need to ever open a DP door to disembark from them.
Incorrect. The answer never mentions hull in the FAQ. Associating the doors as part of the hull is a unjustified leap.
As I said before, the BRB never defines "hull". But it clearly and explicitly states what is NOT part of the hull. Therefore, the only universal definition is that any part of the vehicle that is not explicitly considered not part of the hull MUST be part of the hull. This is the only possible objective interpretation, everything else is completely subjective and therefore should be disregarded. And if we accept this premise, then the FAQs clearly indicate that doors are not decorative (they block LoS, and decorative elements never do that), and are therefore part of the hull.
Try that again. Decorative items DO block LoS beyond the unit itself (just not to the unit itself).
There is no requirement to open a door on a Vehicle in the game. This allows us to easily be define a door as decorative when opened. When closed, they all hug the wall of the Vehicle so are immaterial for measuring to the Hull or being ignored or not for LoSTO the unit.
Have yo proved they are not hull yet CHaristoph? Do they fit into the category of items not considered hull? You relise you have to prove they arent hull, as tha tis how the rules are written, right?
Your misreading isnt a matter of interpretation. You just didnt read something thoroughly and made an error, and cannot admit it.
zedsdead wrote: yes in older editions it did mention doors opening. And as you point out in the newest edition things have changed. Yes..there is no mention of doors opening in the SM:Codex. So the door issue shouldn't be even considered.
Its an opened topped vehicle. Open topped vehicles have no access points.
- Furthermore the doors/ramps/hatches and bases are "access points" in BRBpg 80 that's RAW on the description of those items.. it goes on to apply rules to those items on vehicles. Nothing about them being "Hull".
so RAW...and not my interpritation of the rules.. Or for that matter applying GWs test FAQ. Drop Pods are pretty simple in how they work.
Drop Pods have removed any description of doors opening in the SM codex
Drop Pod doors are at best "Access points" and not forced to open them as per the BRBpg 80 (rhino doors, Land Raiders ect have them... never played where they had to be open)
Drop Pods are "Open Topped".SM:Codex pg 158
Opened topped vehicles have no access points as per BRBpg 88
So there is no need to ever open a DP door to disembark from them.
As I said earlier, the BRB does not have a definition of "hull". So, you can have 2 choices:
1) define what a hull is in your local group. I do this too, but when I play OUTSIDE of my local group, such as in tournaments, I NEED something else, something objective.
2) stick to an interpretation that, while provisional and sometimes blatantly absurd, has the advantage of being OBJECTIVE, which is needed in tournaments.
I choose the second one. You, on the other hand, recognize that the BRB does not define "hull", and so make up a definition of your own. Which is fine, it's just not UNIVERSAL. There's a section for home rules, and it ain't this one.
BTW, you contradict yourself: first you say that DPs do not have access points, and then that doors are access points. And if doors ARE access points like you say, then you CAN disembark within 6" of the tip of a door...
Oh, I AGREE that you can disembark even with closed doors: a drop pod is open topped, you can disembark from any point you want. Which include doors, since the only objective interpretation we have, with all its flaws, clearly shows that doors are part of the hull.
Try that again. Decorative items DO block LoS beyond the unit itself (just not to the unit itself).
It's very, very clear that you don't play in a competitive environment. It what you said was true, I would convert a model to have a HUGE banner, like 1 square foot or more, which can't be considered part of the model itself (so he can't be shot at) but that DOES block LoS, so that I can hide multiple units behind it. Do you realize how absurd this is? Better still, I can even have 2 of them that cover each other's units, so that I can safely advance with my entire army completely invulnerable out of sight. With your twisted interpretation, this is absolutely LEGAL. Decorative items do not block sight, period.
Roll for scatter on arrival, Pod drops in
Doors open (that's what they're there for)
If a door can't be opened (for example, it might hit a model) then that door remains closed.
Models disembark up to 6 inches from Pod's central mass (you know, where the harnesses are)
Game continues
I truly believe this is the way it was designed to work.
That way you basically gets best of both worlds though...No increased mishap chance(doors are closed, your footprint is small), then if doors can be opened you suddenly have VERY long charge range(as door is part of model=you measure from tip of the door). GWFAQ specifically states doors are part of the model so as per open topped you go from there...Measuring from central mass goes flat out against what GW stated in FAQ.
Yours is what many people played. But GWFAQ stated differently.
Teshio - actually it isnt a twisted interpretation, at all. What you described is MFA and would get the model removed in any competitive environment, so is not relevant
A model can have elements that block LOS to other models, but do not count when draweing LOS to the model. A blood thirsters wings DO block LOS, yet you canntod rawLOS to them.
It isnt twisted. Your interpretation is just flat out wrong.
What is the line between cool conversions and MFA? If it's subjective, then it has no place in a game. If it's objective, show me how you can determine it unequivocally.
I don't know how you guys play, but around where I live rules are important. And rules need to have NO subjective component whatsoever. That's why I can't stand the "imho, the most reasonable way to play this is..." approach. What is reasonable for you may not be for other people. Any game needs STRUCTURE, an objective set of rules all players can agree upon. Either we decide those in advance (something quite hard to do outside of gaming groups), or we need objectivity. In the example of the banner, is a 2"x2" banner ok? And a 2.5"x2.5"? What about 3"x3"? I can go on forever: unless you establish an OBJECTIVE criterion (i.e. "maximum surface area of a banner = x", and good luck doing that for EVERY type of conversion), I can legally have a 1'x2' banner. "Modeling for Advantage" is a meaningless label, because it does not provide objectivity: what may be acceptable to you could be unacceptable to me or vice versa. Guidelines are not enough: you need RULES, objective rules. Does you label of MFA have such strict rules to determine what is allowed and what is not? If it doesn't, then the entire concept of MFA makes no sense.
And yes, I actually used modeling in the past to get advantages when I was much younger, even though now I wouldn't do that anymore. In the old days of WHFB, there was a rule that said breath weapons come from the mouth of the model, but you could only assault the model or shoot at it measuring from his base. I brought to a tournament an hydra with a rubber neck 20" long... nobody asked me to remove the model. The TOs just added the home rule that breath weapons are measured from the base to their next infopack (home ruling is fine, IF all participant know that in advance). Because if a 1" neck is fine, and a 2" is fine too, then a 20" it's also fine. When playing competitively, leave subjectivity outside the door.
The game rules dont allow for conversions. They tell you to use GW modls. So there is your line. You dont get to covnert. Done.
Also, your suggestion was patently absurd. its up there with kneeling wraithlord and ground up genestealers. You know it, I know it. Dont try to pretend your point had anty merit in any "competitive environment"
Sounds like the TOs didnt write a sensible rule pack in the first place. Or they were weak TOs. If you had tried that in the ones I run there would have been a spot ruling that the weapon came from the base, and if you didnt like it, your model would be removed and you score 0 for every game. I have no time for idiots.
Your rant is noted, however you are completely wrong on the actual ruels, which has been pointed out. I suggest you start another thread for your novel opinion on how MFA isnt MFA because its subjective.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Have yo proved they are not hull yet CHaristoph? Do they fit into the category of items not considered hull? You relise you have to prove they arent hull, as tha tis how the rules are written, right?
Your misreading isnt a matter of interpretation. You just didnt read something thoroughly and made an error, and cannot admit it.
You have yet to prove an opened door is not anything more than a decorative item, which is what would make them Hull.
Opened Doors have zero-defined functionality in the game. That makes them a decorative item, i.e. not Hull.
Closed Doors are molded to mach the hull lines, so are pointless in trying to differentiate them from the Hull at all.
And Decorative Items still block LoS beyond them, so it becomes an leap to state that because they are not ignored automatically means they are Hull.
Try that again. Decorative items DO block LoS beyond the unit itself (just not to the unit itself).
It's very, very clear that you don't play in a competitive environment. It what you said was true, I would convert a model to have a HUGE banner, like 1 square foot or more, which can't be considered part of the model itself (so he can't be shot at) but that DOES block LoS, so that I can hide multiple units behind it. Do you realize how absurd this is? Better still, I can even have 2 of them that cover each other's units, so that I can safely advance with my entire army completely invulnerable out of sight. With your twisted interpretation, this is absolutely LEGAL. Decorative items do not block sight, period.
First: This question was not placed as from a competitive play stand point.
Second: Competitive play usually is attended by a set of tournament rules, ala ITC or ETC, which do not always follow the Rulebook, nor is this site the place to define such localized parameters.
Third: Most tournaments would classify such a modification as modelling for advantage, and so illegal and , which is part of the second point, not in the rulebook itself.
Fourth: You need to review Line of Sight rules. The only times Decorative Items are referenced with Line of Sight is that they cannot be used to define Line of Sight TO the model with the Decorative Items. Nothing is stated that they are ignored for determining Line of Sight beyond the model with the Decorative Item, which means regular rules are in play.
Again; prove they ARE decorative items. Items are hull UNLESS they are decorative.
Prove they are decorative. Third time of asking.
You are also differentiating between "open" and "closed" doors with zero rules basis to do so, and hand waving away that you treat the same item differently as it would be "pointless". This is a poor attempt at argumentation. I expect better
They're hull until proven otherwise. They're hull, until proven otherwise, whether "up" or "down"
And I cannot agree that the structure that protects the internals from atmospheric re-entry, and clearly has an aerodynamic role to play (no chance the pod would be stable as an open structure) is "decorative". It is as key as a valkyries wings, which are hull
They're hull. They cannot be ignored, as per the FAQ, so open may be disembarked from as any other part of hull. Yes, it's rubbish as an answer, but it's what we've got.
You're not going to be able to prove that they're decorative items; lkikewise, you're not going to prove that they're not decorative items. Gun barrels get classified as decorative items despiite the size of the barrels on Basilisks and the like, so the open doors could easily fall in the "etc." category.. Good luck proving that either they do or they don't without a direct answer from GW.
So, it really comes down to a house rule as to how to handle the open doors. To me, it seems that there are a lot fewer complications dealing with the doors as not counting as hull than if they do.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Again; prove they ARE decorative items. Items are hull UNLESS they are decorative.
Prove they are decorative. Third time of asking.
You are also differentiating between "open" and "closed" doors with zero rules basis to do so, and hand waving away that you treat the same item differently as it would be "pointless". This is a poor attempt at argumentation. I expect better.
They're hull until proven otherwise. They're hull, until proven otherwise, whether "up" or "down"
Actually, I am not really differentiating at all. And repeating yourself does not change the facts.
What are the in-game ramifications of a door, open or closed? The answer is none. Since there are no ramifications or rules for the door itself, it is purely decorative, open or closed. When open, the door means nothing in the rules. When closed, the door means nothing in the rules. Doors are purely decorative, open or closed, but are still part of the model.
Doors, when closed, do not do anything to extend or block the profile of the Hull, so addressing it either way is meaningless.
So, until you can provide some in-game evidence of a use for a door, it is purely decorative. If it is decorative, it is not part of the Hull. Your assertions alone do not provide proper evidence. Address my assertions and do not dismiss them.
nosferatu1001 wrote: And I cannot agree that the structure that protects the internals from atmospheric re-entry, and clearly has an aerodynamic role to play (no chance the pod would be stable as an open structure) is "decorative". It is as key as a valkyries wings, which are hull
That's fluff, not rules. If you take off the radio antenna can you not give the unit orders? The doors are not defined as having a role in the rules. The doors are not defined as being hull in the rules.
nosferatu1001 wrote: They're hull. They cannot be ignored, as per the FAQ, so open may be disembarked from as any other part of hull. Yes, it's rubbish as an answer, but it's what we've got.
The question is if they are ignored for game purposes, but the answer does not define how they are not ignored. A Bloodthirster who Deep Strikes and his Wing is hanging off the table is just a liable for a Mishap as if his base was. Those still get ignored for drawing Line of Sight to the Bloodthirster, and still block Line of Sight in the proper circumstances.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Please provide the in game use of a vlakyries wing. Page and graph.
Well, it's not page and graph, but the wings often serve as mounts for engines and weapon mounts, which are valid targets on non-flyers. Makes sense for the wing that's keeping them attached to be considered part of the hull too..
I don't have the book with me but isn't there a section in the rulebook specifically discounting "superficial stuff" and specifically naming wings as such?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I don't have the book with me but isn't there a section in the rulebook specifically discounting "superficial stuff" and specifically naming wings as such?
On non-vehicles, wings are decorative. They specifically state that wings count as the hull in the vehicle section.
There's no mention of open doors one way or the other, so the debate is whether it falls into the "etc." category of what's decorative.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Please provide the in game use of a vlakyries wing. Page and graph.
I won't bother with the page, because I sold the hard copy long ago. But I can supply the paragraph:
Spoiler:
Shooting at Vehicles When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle’s gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.). Note that, unlike for other models, a vehicle’s wings are not ornamental and are a part of its hull....
Now, please reciprocate and provide a similar designation for a Vehicle's Door. Can you demonstrate where in the rulebook a door is anything but decorative?
You must prove that it isnt. As it is an exclusive definition (hull unless defined otherwise)
So, please define it as decorative. I;ve already shown that the Doors have definite use to the model as represented
And all Charistoph has to say is that it is covered by the etc. part of the decorative items statement, and you're back at a stalemate. Can you prove that it isn't covered by the etc. clause? If not, you two are never going to be able to resolve it.
As I mentioned before, there come a whole crop of issues with treating it as hull compared to treating it as decorative, so if it can't be proven to work either way, I'd suggest treating them as decorative.
You must prove that it isnt. As it is an exclusive definition (hull unless defined otherwise)
So, please define it as decorative. I;ve already shown that the Doors have definite use to the model as represented
So, you cannot prove that it is hull, just claim that it is.
I claim that the rulebook provides the actual door with zero in game usage, and unlike the wings, are never defined as part of a hull. So, by definition, an item on a model which does not provide any in-game use would be simply decorative.
Can you provide anything in the rulebook which defines a door to remove it from the decorative status? I've only asked this (directly and indirectly) several times, now.
You must prove that it isnt. As it is an exclusive definition (hull unless defined otherwise)
So, please define it as decorative. I;ve already shown that the Doors have definite use to the model as represented
So, you cannot prove that it is hull, just claim that it is.
I claim that the rulebook provides the actual door with zero in game usage, and unlike the wings, are never defined as part of a hull. So, by definition, an item on a model which does not provide any in-game use would be simply decorative.
Can you provide anything in the rulebook which defines a door to remove it from the decorative status? I've only asked this (directly and indirectly) several times, now.
So the rules define parts of the vehicle model into two categories: Hull and Decorative.
Decorative has the unique property of not blocking Line of Sight
As per the FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
Ergo: due to the elimination of all other possibilities they must be a part of the hull.
JakeSiren wrote: So the rules define parts of the vehicle model into two categories: Hull and Decorative.
Decorative has the unique property of not blocking Line of Sight
As per the FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
Ergo: due to the elimination of all other possibilities they must be a part of the hull.
Where does it state that Decorative does not block Line of Sight?
I only know of where it states that Decorative items cannot be used to define Line of Sight to the model and cannot be used to provide cover on the model, but nothing about not blocking it.
JakeSiren wrote: So the rules define parts of the vehicle model into two categories: Hull and Decorative.
Decorative has the unique property of not blocking Line of Sight
As per the FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
Ergo: due to the elimination of all other possibilities they must be a part of the hull.
Where does it state that Decorative does not block Line of Sight?
I only know of where it states that Decorative items cannot be used to define Line of Sight to the model and cannot be used to provide cover on the model, but nothing about not blocking it.
You are right, it doesn't explicitly say that we ignore them for all LoS purposes. Now let me build some "impressive banners" 4ft wide in a way that unit A blocks LoS to B and B blocks LoS to A. Impervious to shooting, psychic and assault, how excellent is that?
JakeSiren wrote: You are right, it doesn't explicitly say that we ignore them for all LoS purposes. Now let me build some "impressive banners" 4ft wide in a way that unit A blocks LoS to B and B blocks LoS to A. Impervious to shooting, psychic and assault, how excellent is that?
That's modeling for advantage. While no longer against the rules in the BRB, you will find that most players outside of a tournament will give a look of being "That Guy" if you try it and leave you without a game (or at least a future one), and most Tournament Organizers will either reject you or offer you to replace the model as a result..
JakeSiren wrote: So the rules define parts of the vehicle model into two categories: Hull and Decorative.
Decorative has the unique property of not blocking Line of Sight
As per the FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
Ergo: due to the elimination of all other possibilities they must be a part of the hull.
Where does it state that Decorative does not block Line of Sight?
I only know of where it states that Decorative items cannot be used to define Line of Sight to the model and cannot be used to provide cover on the model, but nothing about not blocking it.
In the line of sight rules . . .
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Notice that it reads "we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body" and not "we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of the target model’s body".
Extraneous decorative items are ignored in the cases of the viewing, target, and intervening model.
I cannot draw line of sight from the top of a banner of a viewing model or draw line of sight to the top of a banner of a target model or have line of sight blocked by the banner of an intervening model.
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Notice that it reads "we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body" and not "we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of the target model’s body".
Extraneous decorative items are ignored in the cases of the viewing, target, and intervening model.
I cannot draw line of sight from the top of a banner of a viewing model or draw line of sight to the top of a banner of a target model or have line of sight blocked by the banner of an intervening model.
And you ignored several key points leading up to and following that highlighted statement which defines when to ignore them. In other words, you are ignoring the context in which the statement is made.
Namely: "For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.", and "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible.". Furthermore, how is "having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on" going to penalize the model that carries it when blocking Line of Sight as an intervening model? It won't. It provides bonuses or penalizes models behind it, but not the model in question.
Two of these paragraphs that you quoted in your spoiler are specifically talking about obtaining Line of Sight TO the model. Nothing in there is defining Line of Sight THROUGH the model any more than normal. In fact, nothing in the basic rules is ever stated about things being ignored when it is blocking Line of Sight to something else.
You must prove that it isnt. As it is an exclusive definition (hull unless defined otherwise)
So, please define it as decorative. I;ve already shown that the Doors have definite use to the model as represented
So, you cannot prove that it is hull, just claim that it is.
I claim that the rulebook provides the actual door with zero in game usage, and unlike the wings, are never defined as part of a hull. So, by definition, an item on a model which does not provide any in-game use would be simply decorative.
Can you provide anything in the rulebook which defines a door to remove it from the decorative status? I've only asked this (directly and indirectly) several times, now.
Please show any part of the drop pod is hull. Any of it. Show the spines have an "in game use" without using a tautology.
Exclusive definition. It's hull until you define it isn't. Prove the spines are hull first to show your first principles definition. Then derive your exceptions.
Two of these paragraphs that you quoted in your spoiler are specifically talking about obtaining Line of Sight TO the model. Nothing in there is defining Line of Sight THROUGH the model any more than normal. In fact, nothing in the basic rules is ever stated about things being ignored when it is blocking Line of Sight to something else.
I quoted the full rule and its context. The very first sentence describes the scenario of a viewing model, a target model, and the possibilities of intervening models.
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)
You are failing to adhere to the switch from target model to 'a model' in the rule provided.
The rule refers to "a model" so it refers to the viewing model, the target model, and any intervening model.
Spoiler:
we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
We do not draw line of sight from the top of a banner.
We do not count banners when tracing line of sight through intervening models.
We do not count banners when determining if we can see a target model.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Please show any part of the drop pod is hull. Any of it. Show the spines have an "in game use" without using a tautology.
You are the one attempting to define the hull as being an inclusive statement. Rule support has been requested and you continue to balk and use tautology.
The only definition I find for hull happens to be in English, and not the rulebook. Not something we can normally use in YMDC, due to the tenets, but it is defined as the main body of a vessel, including the bottom, sides, and deck, but not the masts, superstructure, rigging, engines, and other fittings. Doors are not considered part of a body aside from the definition you keep trying to apply.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Exclusive definition. It's hull until you define it isn't. Prove the spines are hull first to show your first principles definition. Then derive your exceptions.
Where does it state it is hull until you define it isn't?
Those spines (I assume these are the parts from the base to the engine between the doors and keep the engine and storm bolter up?) are part of the supporting structure of the model. That is a defining point of "body". The doors, however, are not needed for this level of integrity but serve to separate the crew from the environment and to denote entry points along the hull. Sure, an inventive builder could reverse the roles, but then you wouldn't be dropping the doors and avoiding the issue entirely.
Two of these paragraphs that you quoted in your spoiler are specifically talking about obtaining Line of Sight TO the model. Nothing in there is defining Line of Sight THROUGH the model any more than normal. In fact, nothing in the basic rules is ever stated about things being ignored when it is blocking Line of Sight to something else.
I quoted the full rule and its context. The very first sentence describes the scenario of a viewing model, a target model, and the possibilities of intervening models.
Yes, you quoted the rule, but ignored the context in your analysis.
col_impact wrote:
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)
You are failing to adhere to the switch from target model to 'a model' in the rule provided.
No such switch is stated or intimated in the statement you quoted again. This whole statement is part of the introduction to Line of Sight. It describes making a direction connection from a perceiving model to a target model, and must do so through intervening models
col_impact wrote:The rule refers to "a model" so it refers to the viewing model, the target model, and any intervening model.
Spoiler:
we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
We do not draw line of sight from the top of a banner.
We do not count banners when tracing line of sight through intervening models.
We do not count banners when determining if we can see a target model.
And you missed contextual data in the part you are talking about.
The second paragraph states:
Spoiler:
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Nothing in there about intervening models. So, we are not worrying about only the body of a model when making connections through models.
The third paragraph is:
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
In this paragraph, it is still talking about the bodies of models, but intervening models are not mentioned any more than the second paragraph. Visibility of an intervening model is not of a concern or mentioned, only the target's. So this paragraph does not apply to anything but the targeter and the target.
Do not continue to pick and choose statements and take them out of context to prove your statements.
the doors while "up" are required to maintain the crafts drop ability. Without these in place, the craft would tumble. It is as required for the functionality of the pod as the engines or stabilisers.
It's hull, up or down, and remains hull. The hull has no more in game purpose that you can point to than the doors do, hence despite asking again, you will not show your in games rules definition of hull.
The doors are functionally hull while up. So show either they stop being hull when down, or aren't hull, when up. You have yet to prove this.
In this paragraph, it is still talking about the bodies of models, but intervening models are not mentioned any more than the second paragraph. Visibility of an intervening model is not of a concern or mentioned, only the target's. So this paragraph does not apply to anything but the targeter and the target.
Do not continue to pick and choose statements and take them out of context to prove your statements.
Do not continue to ignore the difference between definite and indefinite articles. They are important.
Spoiler:
we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
The rule is referring to "a model" in the general sense and so we ignore wings, tails, and antennae for line of sight purposes (whether viewer, target or intervening). If it were only referring to 'the target model', then it would refer to 'the target model' and not generally "a model".
If you have trouble with what I am saying then you have trouble with GW's use of an indefinite article to refer generally to "a model". If their grammar offends you then take it up with them, but as stated models ignore wings, tails, and even antennae when dealing with what constitutes the body of a model for visibility.
You have presented no rules to support your assertion, even having been asked to do so multiple times at this point. You keep just stating it as if it is fact. That is demonstrating a hesitation or unwillingness to accept an undertaking or the refusal to do so, the definition of balk.
In other words, I have nothing to retract.
nosferatu1001 wrote: the doors while "up" are required to maintain the crafts drop ability. Without these in place, the craft would tumble. It is as required for the functionality of the pod as the engines or stabilisers.
An assumption of fluff. Where are the Drop Pod's doors stated to provide stability for the Drop? Also consider, does the Doors of a Drop Pod continue in this function when it has Arrived, or is merely nothing more than decoration? More importantly, where does this apply to a Rhino, a Land Raider, or a Devilfish? It needs to be consistent for everything to be considered properly.
Also consider, that many of those things which are not Hull are still part of maintain the Vehicle's functionality in the battlefield like weapon muzzles, Tank Commanders, and radio antennas.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It's hull, up or down, and remains hull. The hull has no more in game purpose that you can point to than the doors do, hence despite asking again, you will not show your in games rules definition of hull.
The doors are functionally hull while up. So show either they stop being hull when down, or aren't hull, when up. You have yet to prove this.
I have done more to support my position than you have done to support yours. An open door on the game table means nothing in the rules. A closed door on the table means nothing in the rules. Can you demonstrate otherwise? If not, then it is Decorative, and therefore cannot be recognized by the game as part of the Hull.
The Hull does have a game definition, sort of, and that it is an extrapolation of the term used with non-Vehicles for Line of Sight and as also used in regular parlance, the body of the Vehicle.
col_impact wrote:Do not continue to ignore the difference between definite and indefinite articles. They are important.
Fancy terms do not make ignoring context any less of a problem.
col_impact wrote:
Spoiler:
we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
The rule is referring to "a model" in the general sense and so we ignore wings, tails, and antennae for line of sight purposes (whether viewer, target or intervening). If it were only referring to 'the target model', then it would refer to 'the target model' and not generally "a model".
If you have trouble with what I am saying then you have trouble with GW's use of an indefinite article to refer generally to "a model". If their grammar offends you then take it up with them, but as stated models ignore wings, tails, and even antennae when dealing with what constitutes the body of a model for visibility.
I have trouble with what you are saying because it ignores the context surrounding the statement. Hence, why I said, do not just pick and choose your statements and take them out of context to prove your statements.
To help you identify the context, where does it state that only intervening models' bodies are to be considered for interfering with Line of Sight?
Whose bodies are being considered for Line of Sight in paragraph 2?
Why is visibility to an intervening model important, if at all?
I have trouble with what you are saying because it ignores the context surrounding the statement. Hence, why I said, do not just pick and choose your statements and take them out of context to prove your statements.
To help you identify the context, where does it state that only intervening models' bodies are to be considered for interfering with Line of Sight?
Whose bodies are being considered for Line of Sight in paragraph 2?
Why is visibility to an intervening model important, if at all?
Proper rules quotes now.
An indefinite article signifies that context is not important. The rule is referring to models generally ("a model") and not specifically ("the target model").
You are having trouble with general logical statements and using language to refer to things generally. If a rule is referring to something specific then it will use specific language.
Consider:
Laura adds the numbers 2 and 7 together.
Numbers are important.
Laura determines the result to be 9.
Now, is the passage telling us that 2 and 7 specifically are important (and saying nothing of any other number) or is it saying that all numbers are important?
The answer is that the passage is telling us that all numbers generally are important.
Similarly, the use of "a model" indicates that we are dealing with the general case of models.
Please prove the rule showing the in game use of the 5 "spines" such that they are thus hull. Page and graph.
I have shown more support, by stating you draw los to hull but you except decorative items etc. As you hsve bern unable to demonstrate a rule stating they are decorative, they retain their role as "hull".
Please provide the first principles in game rules definition of hull you are using to arbitrarily decide there is a difference between the open and closed state of a drop pods doors, and that landed vs dropping changes this.
Once you have done this you will, have proven your case. Until, then - that its hull until shown otherwise - holds.
col_impact wrote:An indefinite article signifies that context is not important. The rule is referring to models generally ("a model") and not specifically ("the target model").
And where is the quote to support this?
Indefinite articles do not ignore context, they just provide for a lack of specifics, such as a boy, a model, etc.
The subjects are regarding a model attempting to target another model, and that visibility must be established from that model's body to the target model's body. For this we ignore Wings, and other decorative items, so one cannot trace Line of Sight from a Flyrant Wing to a Captain's Banner. In all this, an intervening model is never mentioned or referred to.
col_impact wrote:You are having trouble with general logical statements and using language to refer to things generally. If a rule is referring to something specific then it will use specific language.
No, I do not. I just don't take one passage and exclude others to allow a general logic statement to have power where it would not otherwise belong. Hence, the questions I asked.
col_impact wrote:Consider:
Laura adds the numbers 2 and 7 together.
Numbers are important.
Laura determines the result to be 9.
Now, is the passage telling us that 2 and 7 specifically are important (and saying nothing of any other number) or is it saying that all numbers are important?
The answer is that the passage is telling us that all numbers generally are important.
Similarly, the use of "a model" indicates that we are dealing with the general case of models.
Consider: 1) One model must have visibility from its body to any part of the target's body.
2) Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner, ornament, wings, tails, and/or antennae.
3) In these cases, these are ignored and the model is not visible.
4) This is so that models do not get penalised for having impressive items on it.
That is the context of these two paragraphs.
Whose bodies are being considered for Line of Sight?
Where does it state that only intervening models' bodies are to be considered for interfering with Line of Sight?
Why is visibility to an intervening model important, if at all?
Where are intervening models of any kind mentioned at all in these two paragraphs?
Proper rules quotes now,please.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Please prove the rule showing the in game use of the 5 "spines" such that they are thus hull. Page and graph.
Do you need a definition of "body"? And again, you never clarified: are the "spines" the sections that are intended to support the engine and Storm Bolter in the air and the doors fit between, thus providing a structure for the model and Vehicle? I have never built a Drop Pod, so I do not know what their instructions call them.
What is not part of the body, for Line of Sight purposes: weapon, banner, ornaments, wings, tails, and antennae. The Wings restriction is removed for Vehicles.
What is the in-game purpose of a door: function or decoration? Quotes are needed to support the function answer.
nosferatu1001 wrote:I have shown more support, by stating you draw los to hull but you except decorative items etc. As you hsve bern unable to demonstrate a rule stating they are decorative, they retain their role as "hull".
What was the last rule you quoted? Where does it state that anything not defined as "not hull" is "hull"? What is the in-game purpose of a door in the rules?
You have provided zero answers to the last two questions after having been asked numerous times. Quit balking and provide the answers or admit failure.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Please provide the first principles in game rules definition of hull you are using to arbitrarily decide there is a difference between the open and closed state of a drop pods doors, and that landed vs dropping changes this.
Why should I? I am not, nor have not really stated any real difference between a door being open or closed, save that the door follows the hull line when closed. In fact, I have stated numerous times that there isn't.
My case (as I have stated, repeatedly) is that doors, open or closed, have no game function. Doors do not contribute to the structure of the model or Vehicle. They can be left completely off without compromising the Vehicle in game rules. As they have zero gaming function, they are purely decorative, and as such cannot be classed as part of the body/hull of the model.
I cannot provide a rules quote on this for the same reason I cannot provide a rules quote on the purchasing order of Options for a unit or what to do when a gorilla jumps on your table. The rules do not exist. If you can provide rules that doors do have a game purpose (open or closed does not matter), and that it is intrinsic to the body of the Vehicle, then you will be able to properly counter mine.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Once you have done this you will, have proven your case. Until, then - that its hull until shown otherwise - holds.
Again, for the fourth or fifth post now, I am going to need a quote to support this statement.
col_impact wrote:An indefinite article signifies that context is not important. The rule is referring to models generally ("a model") and not specifically ("the target model").
And where is the quote to support this?
Indefinite articles do not ignore context, they just provide for a lack of specifics, such as a boy, a model, etc.
The subjects are regarding a model attempting to target another model, and that visibility must be established from that model's body to the target model's body. For this we ignore Wings, and other decorative items, so one cannot trace Line of Sight from a Flyrant Wing to a Captain's Banner. In all this, an intervening model is never mentioned or referred to.
The rule refers to models generally ("a model"). It covers all cases of models in determining line of sight (e.g. viewing model, target model, intervening model)
Spoiler:
we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
If GW wanted to specify some subset of models not including generally all models, the rule would have specified "the target model" and/or some other specification.
The rule makes no specification and you are not allowed to add a specification.
Whenever we are dealing with models "we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model's body"
col_impact wrote: The rule refers to models generally ("a model"). It covers all cases of models in determining line of sight (e.g. viewing model, target model, intervening model)
Incorrect. The rule is a continuation of the first sentence of the paragraph. This is why it states, "Similiarly".
For a full quote with translation of the adverb:
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. In a similar way, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
Or:
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. In a similar event, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
The more interesting part is how much time you spent a few months ago accusing me of unnecessarily conflating and truncating a rule, yet you have been consistently doing this for all your posts in this thread. Case in point:
we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
If GW wanted to specify some subset of models not including generally all models, the rule would have specified "the target model" and/or some other specification.
There are two types of models being referenced in this paragraph as introduced by the paragraph before it. using an indefinite article is not allowing you to ignore context, it is being used because there are two types of models being used, the model seeking Line of Sight and the target model (the model we are trying to establish Line of Sight with). And you would know this if you bothered to recognize the context of the sentences and include the sentence adverb which ties this above quote in with the first and second sentence of the paragraph.
col_impact wrote: The rule makes no specification and you are not allowed to add a specification.
Sure it specifies, just in the sections of the rule you deliberately ignore, as have I pointed out. But I think that this is a case of a horse preferring his sewer water to the trough water I keep trying to lead him to, since you keep doing the same thing you always do: ignore what the other person says, continue repeating the same thing over and over again as if it had the same relevance before the response, and ignore any further requests for information. This is the second time you have ignored my requests in this thread, and the third time you have repeated yourself, almost verbatim.
In the second and third paragraphs of Line of Sight:
Whose bodies are being considered for Line of Sight?
Where does it state that only intervening models' bodies are to be considered for interfering with Line of Sight?
Why is visibility to an intervening model important, if at all?
Where are intervening models of any kind mentioned at all in these two paragraphs?
"we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body."
So we ignore wings, tails and antennae for any and all models.
That's what making a general statement means and using an indefinite article means. The rule generally and indefinitely applies.
The rule applies to all cases of "a model". That includes models on the moon, models on a boat, models that are viewing models, models with 3 shoes, models that like bacon, models that are target models, and models that are intervening models.
All cases of "a model".
The rule makes a general statement that is binding for all cases of "a model".
It does not matter whether 'intervening' is even mentioned in the whole section we are discussing. It only needs to be asserted that an intervening model is "a model". Which it obviously is.
Now if you can somehow present a BRB that reads . . .
"we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of the target model’s body"
. . . you would win the argument. But obviously the BRB does not read that way.
Whenever we are talking about "a model" "we ignore wings, tails and antennae" and an intervening model is obviously "a model".
The other way you could win the argument is to show how an intervening model is not "a model". Good luck with that!
Two of these paragraphs that you quoted in your spoiler are specifically talking about obtaining Line of Sight TO the model. Nothing in there is defining Line of Sight THROUGH the model any more than normal. In fact, nothing in the basic rules is ever stated about things being ignored when it is blocking Line of Sight to something else.
I quoted the full rule and its context. The very first sentence describes the scenario of a viewing model, a target model, and the possibilities of intervening models.
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)
You are failing to adhere to the switch from target model to 'a model' in the rule provided.
The rule refers to "a model" so it refers to the viewing model, the target model, and any intervening model.
Spoiler:
we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
We do not draw line of sight from the top of a banner.
We do not count banners when tracing line of sight through intervening models.
We do not count banners when determining if we can see a target model.
You misrepresent this. It is talking about drawing a line TO a model. The only mention of other models is that there might be models in the way of the model you are drawing a line of sight to. All of their talk about wings, decorative banners, etc. is on the target model itself you are trying to draw a line of sight to. There is no mention at all in that of banners, wings, etc not blocking line of sight to a model behind it.
The rule clearly states that FOR THE TARGET MODEL. It doesn't say that in relation to intervening models.
Incorrect.
The rule does not read this way.
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of the target model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of the target model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that targeted models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
If the rule read that way then your interpretation would be correct.
However, here is the actual rule.
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
The last paragraph is dealing with visibility and in fact makes no mention at all of "target".
The paragraph states generally that in any case where all that is visible of A MODEL is a banner, that model (whether targeted or intervening or on the moon) is not visible. Similarly, wings, tails, and antennae are ignored on anything that is A MODEL.
The rule clearly states that FOR THE TARGET MODEL. It doesn't say that in relation to intervening models.
Incorrect.
The rule does not read this way.
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of the target model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of the target model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that targeted models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
If the rule read that way then your interpretation would be correct.
However, here is the actual rule.
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
The last paragraph is dealing with visibility and in fact makes no mention at all of "target".
The paragraph states generally that in any case where all that is visible of A MODEL is a banner, that model (whether targeted or intervening or on the moon) is not visible. Similarly, wings, tails, and antennae are ignored on anything that is A MODEL.
Not incorrect at all: Let's break this down:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Okay, let's look at the boldfaced parts. Take the first part - sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament. That model is not visible. That's obviously referring to the TARGET model. How could you possibly interpret it as talking about an intervening model? Do you seriously think they're talking about all that's being visible of an intervening model being a weapon, banner or some ornament? It doesn't make sense to think that they're trying to include intervening models in that statement - if all that's seen of an intervening model is a weapon, etc, etc , nobody cares if that model's not visible - all that matters is whether the target model behind them is visible. They wouldn't reference an intervening model that way. Trying to extrapolate a statement obviously being made about the target model to include all intervening models is trying to stretch their statement beyond all credulity; it's taking the statement completely out of context and trying to apply it to something else. You're parsing the statements down so that you're not reading them in the context they are given, Your interpretation is parsing things down to the level of "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is".
Okay, let's look at the boldfaced parts. Take the first part - sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament. That model is not visible. That's obviously referring to the TARGET model.
The paragraph is literally referring to the visibility of A MODEL.
You are not permitted to add TARGET. The statement is more inclusive than merely target models. The visibility of anything that is considered "a model" is what is being discussed in this paragraph.
Okay, let's look at the boldfaced parts. Take the first part - sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament. That model is not visible. That's obviously referring to the TARGET model.
The paragraph is literally referring to the visibility of A MODEL.
A model THAT YOU ARE DRAWING LINE OF SIGHT TO.
col_impact wrote: You are not permitted to add TARGET. The statement is more inclusive than merely target models. The visibility of anything that is considered "a model" is what is being discussed in this paragraph.
Let's stick with the rules as they are written.
Yes, I am permitted to add TARGET when they are referring to a target. Your "rebuttal" did not address my points. Pretending that they're talking about all that's visible on an intervening model is a banner and then it's invisible is ludicrous. And, I am sticking with the rules as they are written. I'm not responsible that you cannot comprehend the rules because you do not know how to read them in context.
Judging solely from the assembly instructions that are supplied with the SM Drop Pod model, it would appear that the doors are indeed intended to open and intended to be opened. Would that mean that any Drop Pod model with its doors glued shut is without a doubt "modelling for advantage"?
The reason I ask is that rules are intended to be consistent. There does not seem to be the case here of the argument being made that Drop Pods are an exception to the normal rules, that Drop Pod hulls are exceptions to the standard vehicle hull rules and rulings. By logical extension, the conclusion must be drawn that either the doors ARE or ARE NOT purely decorative. By logical extension, this principle should apply to all other vehicle models as well unless SM Drop Pods are.an exception to normal rules.
The Door argument then has vast implications for anyone wishing to avoid "messy" situations and wishing to apply the same rules to their vehicle models as are being applied to Drop Pods. Where is the line then as to "modeling for advantage"? Has it been eliminated completely by the full logical extension of the 'doors as ornamental' argument?
Yes, I am permitted to add TARGET when they are referring to a target. Your "rebuttal" did not address my points. Pretending that they're talking about all that's visible on an intervening model is a banner and then it's invisible is ludicrous. And, I am sticking with the rules as they are written. I'm not responsible that you cannot comprehend the rules because you do not know how to read them in context.
I know how to read a general statement and not read into it more than what is there. The paragraph is discussing the visibility of models, which is certainly relevant to the prior separate paragraph on drawing line of sight to target models, but the statement is more general than specifically target models. The visibility of "a model" generally is stated. Until you can find the word "target" in that paragraph, your argument has no merit. The paragraph is stating exactly what it is stating, namely it is making a statement about the visibility of "a model".
If you cannot tell the difference between specific and general statements then you are not able to stick to the rules as written.
Where does it say that in that paragraph? The statement is talking about visibility in general.
And is also in context with the bold faced statement the paragraph before:
"For one model to have line of sight to another model, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body(the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target's body."
By ignoring that, you are ignoring the fact that they are talking about the target model and not intervening models. Hence my comments about reading in context and parsing. The statements you are talking about are them elaborating on the statement above. Ignoring that, you have taken it out of context. The statement in the paragraph is not independent of what is said before about drawing a line of sight to the target.
Where does it say that in that paragraph? The statement is talking about visibility in general.
And is also in context with the bold faced statement the paragraph before:
"For one model to have line of sight to another model, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body(the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target's body."
By ignoring that, you are ignoring the fact that they are talking about the target model and not intervening models. Hence my comments about reading in context and parsing. The statements you are talking about are them elaborating on the statement above. Ignoring that, you have taken it out of context. The statement in the paragraph is not independent of what is said before about drawing a line of sight to the target.
It's a new paragraph. If the writers meant "the target model" they would have written "the target model". Instead they wrote "a model". This is because the statement they are making in this new paragraph applies to the visibility of models generally. That's how reference in English works.
English requires that you:
(1) use the definite article when you refer to a specific thing (ie target model)
(2) restate the full subject for new paragraphs
The best you could argue is that GW is showing bad writing/bad referencing here and even though they wrote "a model" they really meant "the target model". However, that is making a RAI argument that begins with the premise (that is impossible to prove) that GW made two separate mistakes in their writing (failure to use the definite article and to restate the full subject for new paragraphs).
If you take the rule as RAW, the paragraph is making a general statement of visibility in models that is not specific to target models. That is the literal interpretaion of the rule which makes no RAI argument.
Where does it say that in that paragraph? The statement is talking about visibility in general.
And is also in context with the bold faced statement the paragraph before:
"For one model to have line of sight to another model, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body(the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target's body."
By ignoring that, you are ignoring the fact that they are talking about the target model and not intervening models. Hence my comments about reading in context and parsing. The statements you are talking about are them elaborating on the statement above. Ignoring that, you have taken it out of context. The statement in the paragraph is not independent of what is said before about drawing a line of sight to the target.
It's a new paragraph. If the writers meant "target model" they would have written "target model". Instead they wrote "a model". This is because the statement they are making in this new paragraph applies to the visibility of models generally. That's how reference in English works.
The best you could argue is that GW is showing bad writing/bad referencing here and even though they wrote "a model" they really meant "target model". However, that is making a RAI argument that begins with the premise (that is impossible to prove) that GW made a mistake in their writing.
If you take the rule as RAW, the paragraph is making a general statement of visibility in models that is not specific to target models.
The paragraph makes no sense at points reading it as you say. Ignoring the previous paragraph and the point of what they're writing makes no sense at all. You might think the best I can argue is BW having bad writing/bad referencing, but what I am seeing is blinkered reading comprehension on your part, to be honest. The parts of the statements that don't make sense reading it as RAW indicate that you aren't applying the context they have it written in, and that context must be applied. That's also part of RAW, making sure you've looked at all of the rules in the section you're quoting from and not selectively editing it down to twist something by taking it out of context.
The paragraph makes no sense at points reading it as you say. Ignoring the previous paragraph and the point of what they're writing makes no sense at all. You might think the best I can argue is BW having bad writing/bad referencing, but what I am seeing is blinkered reading comprehension on your part, to be honest. The parts of the statements that don't make sense reading it as RAW indicate that you aren't applying the context they have it written in, and that context must be applied. That's also part of RAW, making sure you've looked at all of the rules in the section you're quoting from and not selectively editing it down to twist something by taking it out of context.
The paragraph makes perfect sense reading it as the BRB has written it. The use of the indefinite article means that the rule statements applies generally to models. And there really is no problem with this. The rule in fact makes perfect sense.
In order for the statement to apply specifically to the target model from the prior paragraph, as you claim, the statement must implement a definite article and restate the subject.
col_impact wrote:The rule clearly states that . . .
"we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body."
So we ignore wings, tails and antennae for any and all models.
You keep leaving out, "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly," You also ignore the context which applies to this statement provided by the previous paragraph, but more on that later
Why are you not pointing out those parts as well, especially since, "ornaments" would be practical to the discussion and not so much "wings, tails, and antennae"?
Does it not fit in to your narrative as well?
col_impact wrote:That's what making a general statement means and using an indefinite article means. The rule generally and indefinitely applies.
I'm going to need a rules quote on that one.
col_impact wrote:The rule applies to all cases of "a model". That includes models on the moon, models on a boat, models that are viewing models, models with 3 shoes, models that like bacon, models that are target models, and models that are intervening models.
All cases of "a model".
The rule makes a general statement that is binding for all cases of "a model".
It does not matter whether 'intervening' is even mentioned in the whole section we are discussing. It only needs to be asserted that an intervening model is "a model". Which it obviously is.
Incorrect. The subject matter of the paragraph is establishing visibility to a model, which is in the part you have consistently left out for the last three or four posts.
I have asked this before and will ask again, what is the rules-defined purpose of establishing visibility to (or even from) an intervening model? That is the only context in which intervening models can be included as "a model" for this sentence.
col_impact wrote:It's a new paragraph. If the writers meant "target model" they would have written "target model". Instead they wrote "a model". This is because the statement they are making in this new paragraph applies to the visibility of models generally. That's how reference in English works.
Just because it is a new paragraph, does not mean we get to ignore the context of the previous one. Indeed it is common practice to start a new paragraph when the subject sufficiently changes.
In this case:
Paragraph 2: Establishes the base requirement and rule for a model to have Line of Sight to another via the body.
Paragraph 3: Defines what cannot be used as part of the body to determine Line of Sight visibility.
The key terms are "visible", "In these cases", and "Similarly", which you are consistently ignoring both for context and in quotes after your original post in this thread.
col_impact wrote:The best you could argue is that GW is showing bad writing/bad referencing here and even though they wrote "a model" they really meant "target model". However, that is making a RAI argument that begins with the premise (that is impossible to prove) that GW made a mistake in their writing.
If you take the rule as RAW, the paragraph is making a general statement of visibility in models that is not specific to target models.
As bad as GW writing is, and how much it can be improved, it gets far worse when you disassociate phrases from the rest of its paragraph and from preceeding ones to ignore the context in which those phrases are presented.
Again, answer these questions, from the second and third paragraphs of Line of Sight:
Whose bodies are being considered for Line of Sight?
Where does it state that only intervening models' bodies are to be considered for interfering with Line of Sight?
Why is visibility to an intervening model important, if at all?
Where are intervening models of any kind mentioned at all in these two paragraphs?
Proper rules quotes now,please.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: The paragraph makes perfect sense reading it as the BRB has written it.
Indeed it does. When will you start using the entire paragraph, though? The sentence you keep quoting is not an independent statement.
The actual sentence you quote would also work as its own paragraph, but it is not its own paragraph, and is tied in to other sentences by the use of "Similarly" to start its sentence, and "Sometimes" to start the paragraph.
col_impact wrote: In order for the statement to apply specifically to the target model from the prior paragraph, as you claim, the statement must implement a definite article and restate the subject.
No, it does not. A proper context can be provided which narrows the purview of the statement, i.e. "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model", tied in with, "Similarly".
It is only by ignoring these two parts does the partial quote you provide become a universal statement, and not a refined one.
Visibility to an intervening model is not in question or a requirement. This paragraph does not apply to anything in which visibility (to or from) is required, nor the previous one.
Unless you can properly demonstrate that line you keep quoting is completely independent from other statements, you are incredibly wrong or deliberately lying.
The paragraph makes no sense at points reading it as you say. Ignoring the previous paragraph and the point of what they're writing makes no sense at all. You might think the best I can argue is BW having bad writing/bad referencing, but what I am seeing is blinkered reading comprehension on your part, to be honest. The parts of the statements that don't make sense reading it as RAW indicate that you aren't applying the context they have it written in, and that context must be applied. That's also part of RAW, making sure you've looked at all of the rules in the section you're quoting from and not selectively editing it down to twist something by taking it out of context.
The paragraph makes perfect sense reading it as the BRB has written it.
Only when don't think about what they're saying. Saying a model is not visible if all you can see is a weapon, banner or orther ornament and thinking they're talking about intervening models and not just the target model is using a completely different definition of "sense" than is used by most people.
col_impact wrote: The use of the indefinite article means that the rule statements applies generally to models. And there really is no problem with this. The rule in fact makes perfect sense.
That depends on what your definition of "perfect sense" is. The use of the indefinite article means that it applies to models in the subject being discussed, which - as is highlighted by the previous paragraph - is drawing line of sight between the shooter and the target. If isn't discussing intervening models in this case.
col_impact wrote: In order for the statement to apply specifically to the target model from the prior paragraph, as you claim, the statement must implement a definite article and restate the subject.
No, not in the slightest. It just requires reading everything there including what come before and after, comprehending the context (which is highlighted by making sure there isn't anything that doesn't make sense when reading it one way - which is where your interpretation fails)
col_impact wrote:The rule clearly states that . . .
"we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body."
So we ignore wings, tails and antennae for any and all models.
You keep leaving out, "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly," You also ignore the context which applies to this statement provided by the previous paragraph, but more on that later
Why are you not pointing out those parts as well, especially since, "ornaments" would be practical to the discussion and not so much "wings, tails, and antennae"?
col_impact wrote:The rule clearly states that . . .
"we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body."
So we ignore wings, tails and antennae for any and all models.
You keep leaving out, "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly," You also ignore the context which applies to this statement provided by the previous paragraph, but more on that later
Why are you not pointing out those parts as well, especially since, "ornaments" would be practical to the discussion and not so much "wings, tails, and antennae"?
Just a problem with understanding that there's there is dysfunction with your interpretation of the "entiretly" of the rule (which, given the paragraph before, isn't actually the entirety), with parts of the statement actually not making sense. This gets back to your not realizing the "entirety" of the rules being discussed in that section of the book.
col_impact wrote:That's what making a general statement means and using an indefinite article means. The rule generally and indefinitely applies.
I'm going to need a rules quote on that one.
The rules are bound by grammar and logic.
The definite article is used when the noun is known by the reader and/or has been priorly specified. The indefinite article is used when the noun is being discussed generally, is not specified, and/or is new information.
In fact, it is a grammatical error to use the indefinite article to refer to a noun that has been specified.
By choosing to use the indefinite article, GW has intentionally broken "a model" from the prior context and signalled that "a model" is new information.
Feel free to google up the use of Indefinite vs Definite Articles if you want to discuss this further. Otherwise I will just assume you needed me to just jostle your memory on this 6th grade grammar topic and the matter settled.
col_impact wrote:The rule applies to all cases of "a model". That includes models on the moon, models on a boat, models that are viewing models, models with 3 shoes, models that like bacon, models that are target models, and models that are intervening models.
All cases of "a model".
The rule makes a general statement that is binding for all cases of "a model".
It does not matter whether 'intervening' is even mentioned in the whole section we are discussing. It only needs to be asserted that an intervening model is "a model". Which it obviously is.
Incorrect. The subject matter of the paragraph is establishing visibility to a model, which is in the part you have consistently left out for the last three or four posts.
I have asked this before and will ask again, what is the rules-defined purpose of establishing visibility to (or even from) an intervening model? That is the only context in which intervening models can be included as "a model" for this sentence.
I agree that "the subject matter of the paragraph is establishing visibility to a model [emphasis mine]". Importantly, I should point out that since GW did not use the definite article, we are not talking about "the target model" from the prior statement.
If a model or part of a model (intervening or otherwise) is invisible or ignored or treated as if not there then it does not block line of sight.
Note the first part of the rule section
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
Note the last part of the rule section.
Spoiler:
Own Unit
There is one important exception to the rules for line of sight. Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit just as if they were not there. This assumes that the models shift their stances to open firing lanes in order to
maximise their own unit’s firepower.
The rules for line of sight have very much to do with drawing line of sight through models and knowing what counts as visible or not visible for models generally.
col_impact wrote: The paragraph makes perfect sense reading it as the BRB has written it.
Indeed it does. When will you start using the entire paragraph, though? The sentence you keep quoting is not an independent statement.
The actual sentence you quote would also work as its own paragraph, but it is not its own paragraph, and is tied in to other sentences by the use of "Similarly" to start its sentence, and "Sometimes" to start the paragraph.
col_impact wrote: In order for the statement to apply specifically to the target model from the prior paragraph, as you claim, the statement must implement a definite article and restate the subject.
No, it does not. A proper context can be provided which narrows the purview of the statement, i.e. "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model", tied in with, "Similarly".
It is only by ignoring these two parts does the partial quote you provide become a universal statement, and not a refined one.
Visibility to an intervening model is not in question or a requirement. This paragraph does not apply to anything in which visibility (to or from) is required, nor the previous one.
Unless you can properly demonstrate that line you keep quoting is completely independent from other statements, you are incredibly wrong or deliberately lying.
Try to keep up. We have been discussing the entire section of the rule. Make sure not to skip the first paragraph. Also take note of the use of any indefinite articles. If you do not know the difference between indefinite and definite articles then you have no business commenting on this thread since you are wholly unable to parse the grammar of the rules in question.
So in light of the entirety of the rule what does "a model" refer to . . .
Spoiler:
LINE OF SIGHT
Line of sight determines what a model can ‘see’. Many situations call for you to determine whether or not a model has line of sight. A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, whether with power sword, gun or psychic power. Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Naturally, you can’t ask your models what they can see – they’re plastic and resin, which is always a barrier to effective communication – therefore, you’ll have to work it out on their behalf. In many cases, this will be obvious – if there’s a hill, building or monster in the way, the enemy might be blatantly out of sight. In other cases, two units will be clearly in view of each other as there is nothing at all in the way. On those other occasions, where it’s not entirely obvious whether or not one unit can see another, the
player will have to stoop over the battlefield and look from behind the model’s head for a ‘model’s eye view’. This means getting down to the level of your warriors and taking in the battlefield from their perspective to ‘see what they can see’. You will find that you can spot lurking enemies through the windows of ruined buildings, catch a glimpse of a model’s legs under tree branches and see that high vantage points become very useful for the increased line of sight that they offer.
Own Unit
There is one important exception to the rules for line of sight. Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit just as if they were not there. This assumes that the models shift their stances to open firing lanes in order to maximise their own unit’s firepower.
To repeat, in the passage above, what does "a model" refer to?
The answer can be nothing but models generally unless you want to claim that GW is committing a couple of grammatical mistakes (improper use of indefinite article, failure to restate the specified "target model" for a new paragraph).
If you read the rule as it is written, then you have to accept my interpretation as correct. Otherwise, you need to prove that GW made a grammatical/logical mistake and did not intend what they actually wrote. The improper use of an indefinite article changes the logic of the surrounding statement completely.
col_impact wrote:The rule clearly states that . . .
"we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body."
So we ignore wings, tails and antennae for any and all models.
You keep leaving out, "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly," You also ignore the context which applies to this statement provided by the previous paragraph, but more on that later
Why are you not pointing out those parts as well, especially since, "ornaments" would be practical to the discussion and not so much "wings, tails, and antennae"?
In fact, one could point out your reluctance to discuss paragraph one. Does that not fit into your narrative?
Then why do you insist on quoting only part of a sentence for the last three or four times? Why do you consistently disconnect the sentence adverb of "Similarly" the last three or four times? Why do you not bother to represent the other items which are ignored?
Even when you quoted those sections, you completely ignored the portions which defined the context we insist you keep missing, namely regarding visibility and what it is all about.
I do not have a reluctance to discuss the first paragraph. It is an introduction. The second paragraph starts getting specific as to what it is addressing, being bolded for emphasis. The third paragraph starts with "Sometimes" to link it with the previous paragraph. This paragraph then defines what cannot be used on the body to establish visibility. The third sentence is linked to first by the term, "Similarly".
Considering you keep avoiding them like the plague and not addressing the questions that come up regarding them indicates that you are deliberately blinding yourself or lying regarding your assessment.
I also note that you still cannot address a single post at once, but must do so piece meal. Get organized, please.
col_impact wrote:That's what making a general statement means and using an indefinite article means. The rule generally and indefinitely applies.
I'm going to need a rules quote on that one.
Feel free to google up the use of Indefinite vs Definite Articles if you want to discuss this further. Otherwise I will just assume you needed me to just jostle your memory on this 6th grade grammar topic and the matter settled.
Provide the link yourself. This is YOUR case, not mine. Tenet #1: Don't make a statement without backing it up. Remember you must demonstrate that an indefinite article allows you to ignore all other context of a paragraph to be pertinent. Be careful not to spam your assertion alone again as proof.
col_impact wrote:I agree that "the subject matter of the paragraph is establishing visibility to a model [emphasis mine]". Importantly, I should point out that since GW did not use the definite article, we are not talking about "the target model" from the prior statement.
And you ignore context again. It is about establishing visibility TO a model. Why are you ignoring the subject matter of the sentence? Why is it important to have visibility TO an intervening model when you are establishing Line of Sight to another model?
col_impact wrote:If a model or part of a model (intervening or otherwise) is invisible or ignored or treated as if not there then it does not block line of sight.
Note the first part of the rule section
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
Yes, it talks about "through, under or over" other models, not "to" other models. The term "to" is not synonymous with "through". In this statement, you are trying to conflate the two terms. Therefore, any concept of including "intervening models" with "a model" in the next two paragraphs is wholly within your imagination or strange ill-defined use of English grammar.
col_impact wrote:Note the last part of the rule section.
Spoiler:
Own Unit
There is one important exception to the rules for line of sight. Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit just as if they were not there. This assumes that the models shift their stances to open firing lanes in order to
maximise their own unit’s firepower.
The rules for line of sight have very much to do with drawing line of sight through models and knowing what counts as visible or not visible for models generally.
Yes, they DO have to do with drawing Line of Sight THROUGH models, but not much is addressed and only really in the case of "Own unit". However, the statements that are for drawing Line of Sight TO models are the ones you are using to justify the situation. Remember to not conflate "through" and "to".
col_impact wrote:Try to keep up. We have been discussing the entire section of the rule. Make sure not to skip the first paragraph. Also take note of the use of any indefinite articles. If you do not know the difference between indefinite and definite articles then you have no business commenting on this thread since you are wholly unable to parse the grammar of the rules in question.
That is ironic. For three or four posts, you have only quoted one portion of one sentence and you tell ME to keep up? Stop projecting your own failures as others, please.
col_impact wrote:To repeat, in the passage above, what does "a model" refer to?
There are many cases of "a model" in that section, and often refer to different things as we go on. Let's review:
Line of sight determines what a model can ‘see’.
This is general. It is not being associated with any other statement or concept.
Many situations call for you to determine whether or not a model has line of sight.
Pretty general, but getting more specific. It is looking for "a model" that has need of Line of Sight. Any other model is ignored for the purposes of this statement.
A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, whether with power sword, gun or psychic power.
This is definitely specific as defining "a model" as to one that is attacking.
The next paragraph never states, "a model", but is about one model trying to gain Line of Sight to another model.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.
"Sometimes" links its sentence to the previous thoughts being used. We are then looking for the visibility of "a model". The question then is, do we need visibility of anything besides a target model? The answer being no, we then associate "a model" with anything that is being targeted.
Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
A sentence adverb of "Similarly" now links this sentence to the previous concept and idea, which is "In these cases, the model is not visible". "The model" in this case is the one we are trying to establish Line of Sight/visibility to.
Should we go on?
col_impact wrote:The answer can be nothing but models generally unless you want to claim that GW is committing a couple of grammatical mistakes (improper use of indefinite article, failure to restate the specified "target model" for a new paragraph).
No, the only person here committing grammatical mistakes is you. It is proper use of indefinite articles when a definite and limiting form of the article is already established.
col_impact wrote:If you read the rule as it is written, then you have to accept my interpretation as correct. Otherwise, you need to prove that GW made a grammatical/logical mistake and did not intend what they actually wrote. The improper use of an indefinite article changes the logic of the surrounding statement completely.
No, I do not have to accept your interpretation because you have yet to prove that any use of an indefinite article removes the following noun from any and all context of the sentence and/or paragraph. You have only asserted this through your own authority of the English language, which has been found spotty before and is found spotty now as you continue to ignore numerous terms and phrases in the rules.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.
"Sometimes" links its sentence to the previous thoughts being used. We are then looking for the visibility of "a model". The question then is, do we need visibility of anything besides a target model? The answer being no, we then associate "a model" with anything that is being targeted.
Incorrect.
We can trace line of sight through models the rules consider invisible, ignored, or not there for line of sight purposes.
The answer then is yes we are concerned about visibility for models that are not the target model.
Since you are being willfully obtuse with regards to indefinite vs definite articles allow me to school you on your presumably less than 6th grade command of the English language. Again, you have no business commenting on rule interactions if you cannot grammatically/logically parse them. The information on the use of definite vs indefinite articles is freely available on the the internet and is not esoteric and is knowledge that a speaker of English is assumed to have.
So failure on your part to handle the differences between definite and indefinite articles invalidates your argument.
Definite Article - The definite article (the) is used before a noun to indicate that the identity of the noun is known to the reader. A "definite" article is used to give specific reference to a noun and to refer to something known to both the writer/speaker and the reader/listener.
Indefinite Article - The indefinite article (a, an) is used before a noun that is general or when its identity is not known. The indefinite article is used when the noun that we wish to refer to is unknown to our listener/reader or is not part of the common ground that we share. It is most often used to introduce new information.
By using the indefinite article, GW is making a general statement about visibility and models and not a statement about visibility as it pertains to specifically the target model.
Therefore, all models "ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body".
If you think otherwise, you need to prove your argument using proper grammar/logic. An improper use of indefinite vs definite article instantly invalidates your argument.
No, I do not have to accept your interpretation because you have yet to prove that any use of an indefinite article removes the following noun from any and all context of the sentence and/or paragraph. You have only asserted this through your own authority of the English language, which has been found spotty before and is found spotty now as you continue to ignore numerous terms and phrases in the rules.
The difference between indefinite and definite articles is not esoteric. It is incumbent upon you to show that you have a passable knowledge on the subject or else you are simply parsing the sentence wrong. Feel free to quickly refresh your understanding of the matter via google search or whatever and come back to the thread when you have an informed opinion on the matter.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.
"Sometimes" links its sentence to the previous thoughts being used. We are then looking for the visibility of "a model". The question then is, do we need visibility of anything besides a target model? The answer being no, we then associate "a model" with anything that is being targeted.
Incorrect.
We can trace line of sight through models the rules consider invisible, ignored, or not there for line of sight purposes.
The answer then is yes we are concerned about visibility for models that are not the target model.
And you did not answer the question. The question is "what do we need to consider visible", but rather, "do we need to visibility of something besides the target model"?
You went off on visibility THROUGH a model (not really addressed in Line of Sight as a factor until "Own Unit"), not TO or OF a model. Do not conflate the terms.
col_impact wrote: Since you are being willfully obtuse with regards to indefinite vs definite articles allow me to school you on your presumably less than 6th grade command of the English language. Again, you have no business commenting on rule interactions if you cannot grammatically/logically parse them. The information on the use of definite vs indefinite articles is freely available on the the internet and is not esoteric and is knowledge that a speaker of English is assumed to have.
Wow, insults to go. My English comprehension was tested higher than college sophomores when I was a high school sophomore. Just because I do not bother to keep such otherwise unnecessary terms in my head does not mean I have a low command of it, I just do not specialize in it. And considering your batting average with some of these terms, I don't imagine it is much of your specialty, either.
And this just sounds like an excuse to not properly cite, reference, and link to a proper answer.
col_impact wrote: So failure on your part to handle the differences between definite and indefinite articles invalidates your argument.
Definite Article - The definite article (the) is used before a noun to indicate that the identity of the noun is known to the reader. A "definite" article is used to give specific reference to a noun and to refer to something known to both the writer/speaker and the reader/listener.
Indefinite Article - The indefinite article (a, an) is used before a noun that is general or when its identity is not known. The indefinite article is used when the noun that we wish to refer to is unknown to our listener/reader or is not part of the common ground that we share. It is most often used to introduce new information.
No reference or link means that you could be making this up.
Nor does it state we are to ignore all context in the sentence/paragraph in which the indefinite article is used.
col_impact wrote: By using the indefinite article, GW is making a general statement about visibility and models and not a statement about visibility as it pertains to specifically the target model.
Therefore, all models "ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body".
If you think otherwise, you need to prove your argument using proper grammar/logic. An improper use of indefinite vs definite article instantly invalidates your argument.
And you do not bother to address the reason and purpose behind using "Sometimes," and "Similarly" that being the sentences these indefinite articles show up. If the statement was as stand alone as you have quoted most often in this thread, you would be correct. It is not, though, and I cannot ignore the connections the words used to start these sentences.
Charistoph wrote: No, I do not have to accept your interpretation because you have yet to prove that any use of an indefinite article removes the following noun from any and all context of the sentence and/or paragraph. You have only asserted this through your own authority of the English language, which has been found spotty before and is found spotty now as you continue to ignore numerous terms and phrases in the rules.
The difference between indefinite and definite articles is not esoteric. It is incumbent upon you to show that you have a passable knowledge on the subject or else you are simply parsing the sentence wrong. Feel free to quickly refresh your understanding of the matter via google search or whatever and come back to the thread when you have an informed opinion on the matter.
And yet, you are the only person who has responded to this thread who believes this. So, either this definition and application of the definite and indefinite article is so properly esoteric and foreign only you are aware of it and cannot properly reference it, or you're making crap up and applying it to situations in which it does not apply.
I'm REALLY going to need EVERYONE to follow RULE #1 here, IMMEDIATELY and CONTINUOUSLY going forward, or certain users will find their ability to post on Dakka Dakka severely curtailed for a while.
And yet, you are the only person who has responded to this thread who believes this. So, either this definition and application of the definite and indefinite article is so properly esoteric and foreign only you are aware of it and cannot properly reference it, or you're making crap up and applying it to situations in which it does not apply.
You heard it here folks. Charistoph thinks the usage of definite versus indefinite articles is esoteric stuff. Wowza. This is basic grammar stuff.
This statement is only justified by ignoring the highlighted phrase. I was speaking of this definition and application of the definite and indefinite article that you are using. Nothing you have "quoted" regarding it nor referenced allows one to ignore all context of the sentence or paragraph it is found.
col_impact wrote: Here you continue with lazy obtuseness. So I will continue on with schooling you about stuff that you are fully capable of researching yourself.
And reported for attacking the poster.
col_impact wrote: The information on the usage of definite versus indefinite articles is not esoteric and is readily available to anyone who can google.
But again, it is not my case to prove, so why should I be expected to do your work?
col_impact wrote: You have so far been unable to discriminate between the two. Therefore you are parsing the rule wrong at a fundamental level. Come back to this thread when you feel you have come up to speed on basic grammar and then we can proceed from there.
A and AN are called indefinite articles. "Indefinite" means "not specific". Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
THE is called a definite article. "Definite" means "specific". Use THE when talking about something which is already known to the listener or which has been previously mentioned, introduced, or discussed.
And nothing about ignoring the context of the sentence and paragraph in which it is used. Just because "a" is being used does not mean we get to ignore "Sometimes", "visible", and "Similarly". It is common to use an indefinite article when the following noun is not a specific type, but still tied in to the context of the statement.
Such as the example in your link:
"Is there a dictionary in your backpack? Asking about the existence of the dictionary"
Are we talking about all or any dictionaries, or just the one that may be in the backpack? The answer is "the one that may be in the backpack". The context of the question is not lost because we are looking for "a" dictionary. The statement does not care about Mister Roger's dictionary on his bookshelf. The statement does not care if the dictionary is a Merriam-Webster Student dictionary or the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary.
That is why I asked you why visibility is important or necessary for any intervening models. The paragraph is talking about what cannot be used to determine proper Line of Sight Visibility, so why is establishing visibility needed for intervening models?
col_impact wrote: Literally you can go to countless websites and they will all tell you that you have been parsing 'a' vs. 'the' wrong.
col_impact wrote: So what does "a model" refer to in the rules quote below?
Spoiler:
LINE OF SIGHT
Line of sight determines what a model can ‘see’. Many situations call for you to determine whether or not a model has line of sight. A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, whether with power sword, gun or psychic power. Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Naturally, you can’t ask your models what they can see – they’re plastic and resin, which is always a barrier to effective communication – therefore, you’ll have to work it out on their behalf. In many cases, this will be obvious – if there’s a hill, building or monster in the way, the enemy might be blatantly out of sight. In other cases, two units will be clearly in view of each other as there is nothing at all in the way. On those other occasions, where it’s not entirely obvious whether or not one unit can see another, the
player will have to stoop over the battlefield and look from behind the model’s head for a ‘model’s eye view’. This means getting down to the level of your warriors and taking in the battlefield from their perspective to ‘see what they can see’. You will find that you can spot lurking enemies through the windows of ruined buildings, catch a glimpse of a model’s legs under tree branches and see that high vantage points become very useful for the increased line of sight that they offer.
Own Unit
There is one important exception to the rules for line of sight. Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit just as if they were not there. This assumes that the models shift their stances to open firing lanes in order to maximise their own unit’s firepower.
To repeat, in the passage above, what does "a model" refer to?
As stated before, the highlighted "a model" being referred to is one we are trying to establish a visible Line of Sight to. We are informed of this by the use of "Sometimes" and "be visible of" preceding it. The third sentence is also linked to this by the use of "Similarly". It doesn't always have to be a target model we are trying to get Line of Sight to. Many Special Rules in the past have required that a model have Line of Sight to the model with the Special Rule in order to take advantage of it. This is not a "target model", so such specifics would declassify a "model with this special rule". That is why an indefinite article is used. It is covering all possible uses of Line of Sight.
To rewrite up the two paragraphs in context.
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body. If all that will be seen of a model is a weapon, banner, wings, tails, antennae, or other ornament he is carrying, the model is not visible. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
The reason the third sentence is separated from the first is that the first deals with things that are not of the body, while the third sentence deals with the body. We do not ignore these details unless we are trying to establish a visible Line of Sight to the model in question. The reason for an indefinite article is that there are different reasons why Line of Sight may be obtained, and so nailing it down to one or the other is pointless. It could also include the observer in this, too, but nothing else is indicated as being included in this concept.
Using an indefinite article does not remove the noun from the context of the situation in play. Just as we only consider dictionaries in the person's backpack and not outside of the backpack in the quoted example from the link, we only consider models we are trying to establish Line of Sight between or the visibility of, nothing else. Intervening models by definition do not fit in either category. Yes, other rules can remove them from Visibility, such as Own Unit or their own Special Rules, but neither are in play here or in the Drop Pod question.
And nothing about ignoring the context of the sentence and paragraph in which it is used. Just because "a" is being used does not mean we get to ignore "Sometimes", "visible", and "Similarly". It is common to use an indefinite article when the following noun is not a specific type, but still tied in to the context of the statement.
Such as the example in your link:
"Is there a dictionary in your backpack? Asking about the existence of the dictionary"
Are we talking about all or any dictionaries, or just the one that may be in the backpack? The answer is "the one that may be in the backpack". The context of the question is not lost because we are looking for "a" dictionary. The statement does not care about Mister Roger's dictionary on his bookshelf. The statement does not care if the dictionary is a Merriam-Webster Student dictionary or the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary.
The counter example you bring up of the dictionary is actually the use of the indefinite article according to what I mark in red below.
From the website - Use A(AN) when talking about a thing which is new, unknown, or introduced to a listener for the first time. Also use A(AN) when you are asking about the existence of something.
The indefinite article is a polite/indirect way of inquiring about whether something exists. "Is that a joint in your pocket?"
I think it's pretty safe to assume that GW is not indirectly asking about the existence of a model in this sentence --> "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying."
Rather, the indefinite article is obviously being used for this reason . . .
From the website - Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
The BRB chose not to use the definite article since it is no longer talking specifically about the prior mentioned target model but models in general.
That is why I asked you why visibility is important or necessary for any intervening models. The paragraph is talking about what cannot be used to determine proper Line of Sight Visibility, so why is establishing visibility needed for intervening models?
Let's look at the paragraph. The paragraph is about visibility and makes no mention of drawing line of sight.
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Of course visibility is relevant to drawing line of sight discussed in the prior paragraphs, ie you can only draw line of sight to things that are visible and you can only draw line of sight through things that are invisible/ignored or count as not being there. But the third paragraph itself is concerned about advancing its own points about determining visibility in models generally. Each paragraph is a distinct section of writing and each makes a distinct point.
OED - Paragraph: A distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering.
The 3rd paragraph is not tied to the situation of the 2nd paragraph - it's a separate paragraph altogether and is free to advance its own distinct points. The only connection required between paragraphs is relevance. What the 3rd paragraph asserts about general model visibility will be relevant for drawing lines of sight not only to models but also through models since general model visibility is of course relevant to both those things.
As has already been proven, since the indefinite article was used in the 3rd paragraph, we know that wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items are ignored on models generally for the purpose of visibility.
Therefore ---> If my firing model is trying shoot at a target model that is blocked by the wings of a model in between the two, he can do so as if the wings were not there, since wings are ignored on models generally. [except in the case of wings on a vehicle due to a more advanced rule overriding the rules discussed]
Of course all this fits into the larger point --> As per the Draft FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
col_impact wrote: The counter example you bring up of the dictionary is actually the use of the indefinite article according to what I mark in red below.
From the website - Use A(AN) when talking about a thing which is new, unknown, or introduced to a listener for the first time. Also use A(AN) when you are asking about the existence of something.
The indefinite article is a polite/indirect way of inquiring about whether something exists. "Is that a joint in your pocket?"
I think it's pretty safe to assume that GW is not indirectly asking about the existence of a model in this sentence --> "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying."
Rather, the indefinite article is obviously being used for this reason . . .
From the website - Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
The BRB chose not to use the definite article since it is no longer talking specifically about the prior mentioned target model but models in general.
All this says to me is that you do not recognize the similarity between the example I quoted and the sentences in question. I do not know if this is deliberate or not, but you always seem to be very picky as to when rules apply to you, and so you just wave them away.
If these sentences which describe articles we do not use to see if a model is visible to Line of Sight were alone and did not start with terms specifically used to link the current sentence with previous once for context, you would be correct. But they do, and you ignore them.
How about this for a counter from here:
The indefinite article is used to refer to something for the first time or to refer to a particular member of a group or class.
Use a to refer to an example of something.
Use a meaning 'one', referring to a single object or person, or a single unit of measure. In these sentences using "one" instead of the indefinite article is grammatically correct. It will add emphasis to the number, and contrast with other numbers.
And no where on this page does it state that we get to ignore the context of everything around the indefinite article.
And then we look at OED for the word "a" here:
1) Used when mentioning someone or something for the first time in a text or conversation.
2) Used to indicate membership of a class of people or things.
3) In, to, or for each; per (used when expressing rates or ratios)
For myself, I see it being used as definition 2, and the class of models are defined in the previous paragraph, i.e. the models we are trying to connect a Line of Sight between.
And this is one of the reasons why quoting an internet source has problems and Tenet #6 of this forum is not to use dictionary terms. Interpretations run the gambit, and the internet lies or is misinformed. And that doesn't even bother with taking sometime completely out of context and giving it authority the document itself does not provide.
col_impact wrote: Let's look at the paragraph. The paragraph is about visibility and makes no mention of drawing line of sight.
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Of course visibility is relevant to drawing line of sight discussed in the prior paragraphs, ie you can only draw line of sight to things that are visible and you can only draw line of sight through things that are invisible/ignored or count as not being there. But the third paragraph itself is concerned about advancing its own points about determining visibility in models generally. Each paragraph is a distinct section of writing and each makes a distinct point.
Incorrect on a couple points. You ignore the conjunctive nature of starting off with "Sometimes", again. The third paragraph is tied in to the second paragraph by this. And the pertinence and relevance of determing how visible something is, aka "how well it can be seen". Why do we care about how well we can see an intervening model? The answer is, we do not. We care about establishing a straight unblocked line from one model to another. It is to this standard it is addressing.
OED - Paragraph: A distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering.
The 3rd paragraph is not tied to the situation of the 2nd paragraph - it's a separate paragraph altogether and is free to advance its own distinct points. The only connection required between paragraphs is relevance. What the 3rd paragraph asserts about general model visibility will be relevant for drawing lines of sight not only to models but also through models since general model visibility is of course relevant to both those things.
Then the purpose of "sometimes" and "similarly" are?
What would the penalty be to an intervening model if it has an impressive banner, weapon, or so on?
Your judgment lacks continuity with the ideas being presented in the paragraph.
You quote the definition of paragraph, but are misapplying it. Paragraphs are for distinct sections of writing, but that does not make them alone, especially in a set of instructions. Paragraph 2 distinctly states the base line of the rule. Paragraph 3 states the distinct limits what cannot be used for Paragraph 2. Paragraph 4 is about how to help you make this determination, with a little humor tied in.
If it was for all models, it would be written as follows:
For the purposes of drawing Line of Sight, ignore any weapon, banner or other ornament a model is
carrying, even if it is an intervening model. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae, even though they are part of a model's body. These rules are intended to ensure that models do not get penalized or take advantage of having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
However, the current paragraph is only considering how well we can see a model, and we don't care if we are seeing other models, just the one we need Line of Sight ot.
And this is one of the reasons why quoting an internet source has problems and Tenet #6 of this forum is not to use dictionary terms. Interpretations run the gambit, and the internet lies or is misinformed. And that doesn't even bother with taking sometime completely out of context and giving it authority the document itself does not provide.
I have not been quoting dictionaries with regards to definite versus indefinite articles. I have been referring you to resources on Basic Grammar. If you do not have a passable understanding of grammar when grammar is relevant (as it is here) then you cannot provide a valid argument. I.E., if your argument rests on an invalid understanding of indefinite articles then it is wholly invalid as it cannot represent a correct reading of the rule.
So having discarded your dictionary example in your post above, you are now claiming that "a model" is being "used to indicate membership of a class of people or things" . . .
And then we look at OED for the word "a" here:
1) Used when mentioning someone or something for the first time in a text or conversation.
2) Used to indicate membership of a class of people or things.
3) In, to, or for each; per (used when expressing rates or ratios)
For myself, I see it being used as definition 2, and the class of models are defined in the previous paragraph, i.e. the models we are trying to connect a Line of Sight between.
Your understanding of definition 2 is backwards. In definition 2, the class comes after the indefinite article.
Here are examples of the use of the indefinite article according to definition 2 . ..
‘he is a lawyer’
‘this car is a BMW’
Basically you have a pairing of a noun with a class and the class being preceded by the indefinite article
So according to this usage 'model' would be the class. However, there is no noun present in the sentence that is being assigned to that class. You would need the sentence to read thusly . . .
"A Drop Pod is a model and sometimes all that will be visible is a weapon, banner or other ornament." ['Drop Pod' is member of class 'model']
So basically Definition 2 doesn't fit.
So let's revisit the paragraph . . .
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
What does fit is the most common usage of an indefinite article --> "Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing."
This usage fits perfectly with the sentence.
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying." <-- model here refers to models in general and not any specific model or models.
Since the indefinite article was used in the 3rd paragraph and we have identified how the indefinite article is being used, we know that wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items are ignored on models generally for the purpose of visibility.
Therefore, if I am trying to draw line of sight from a viewing model to a target model through some blocking models, I can ignore wings, tails, antennae, decorative items, etc. on the blocking models.
Once again, this all fits into the larger point -- As per the Draft FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
col_impact wrote: I have not been quoting dictionaries with regards to definite versus indefinite articles. I have been referring you to resources on Basic Grammar. If you do not have a passable understanding of grammar when grammar is relevant (as it is here) then you cannot provide a valid argument. I.E., if your argument rests on an invalid understanding of indefinite articles then it is wholly invalid as it cannot represent a correct reading of the rule.
My position does not involve an invalid understanding of indefinite articles. It just doesn't recognize giving it more weight than it has. I can also explain my position without using terms only English Majors, Teachers, and Professors are required to know, and are then looked up and misjudged in importance by others trying to sound like they are a genius.
You have not properly explained why we need visibility of or to a model that we are not concerned with. You have addressed the visibility through the models we are not concerned with, but that is not the point of this paragraph that limits what can be used to establish visibility.
And you still have not bothered to address why they used "Sometimes" and "Similarly"...
col_impact wrote: I have not been quoting dictionaries with regards to definite versus indefinite articles. I have been referring you to resources on Basic Grammar. If you do not have a passable understanding of grammar when grammar is relevant (as it is here) then you cannot provide a valid argument. I.E., if your argument rests on an invalid understanding of indefinite articles then it is wholly invalid as it cannot represent a correct reading of the rule.
My position does not involve an invalid understanding of indefinite articles. It just doesn't recognize giving it more weight than it has. I can also explain my position without using terms only English Majors, Teachers, and Professors are required to know, and are then looked up and misjudged in importance by others trying to sound like they are a genius.
You have not properly explained why we need visibility of or to a model that we are not concerned with. You have addressed the visibility through the models we are not concerned with, but that is not the point of this paragraph that limits what can be used to establish visibility.
And you still have not bothered to address why they used "Sometimes" and "Similarly"...
If the difference between definite and indefinite article has no weight, then why are you fighting against basic grammatical knowledge with regards to the use of "a, an" versus "the"?
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
So then do you agree that in above paragraph that "a model" is referring to a model in a general and non-specified sense, in accordance with the most common usage of indefinite articles (i.e. Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) ??
We really need to come to agreement on this point or your argument is easily dismissed as a misread of the rule in question at a basic grammatical/logical level.
You know, I have played with a house rule such that the user of the DP and his/her opponent can generally agree upon as fair. When it is time to deepstrike the DP, the controlling player chooses ONE of the two options, and this cannot be changed later:
1) Roll for scatter with the DP doors open, which will count as part of the hull, which means that the doors landing over the board edge/impassable terrain/enemy models, etc. is a mishap. However, if it lands without mishap, the unit inside can use the doors as the hull with the Open Topped rule for extra deployment range, if desired.
2) Roll for scatter with the DP doors closed, which will remain closed for the entirety of the game. This decreases the footprint, reducing the chance of mishaps at the expense of deployment range being reduced.
I've only played against DPs once or twice, but we generally opt for the second option as most of my opponents and I agree that the "toe in cover" is a BS exploit, and generally makes one appear like a WAAC player. Especially when said "cover" (in this case the lowered doors) hardly even covers the base of the model, let alone much, if any, of the body.
Now YMMV, but that's how opponents and I have done it for a gaming experience more enjoyable for both parties (i.e. fewer delays due to rules arguments).
KommissarKiln wrote: You know, I have played with a house rule such that the user of the DP and his/her opponent can generally agree upon as fair. When it is time to deepstrike the DP, the controlling player chooses ONE of the two options, and this cannot be changed later:
1) Roll for scatter with the DP doors open, which will count as part of the hull, which means that the doors landing over the board edge/impassable terrain/enemy models, etc. is a mishap. However, if it lands without mishap, the unit inside can use the doors as the hull with the Open Topped rule for extra deployment range, if desired.
2) Roll for scatter with the DP doors closed, which will remain closed for the entirety of the game. This decreases the footprint, reducing the chance of mishaps at the expense of deployment range being reduced.
I've only played against DPs once or twice, but we generally opt for the second option as most of my opponents and I agree that the "toe in cover" is a BS exploit, and generally makes one appear like a WAAC player. Especially when said "cover" (in this case the lowered doors) hardly even covers the base of the model, let alone much, if any, of the body.
Now YMMV, but that's how opponents and I have done it for a gaming experience more enjoyable for both parties (i.e. fewer delays due to rules arguments).
On addenum I'd make to your rule 2-It comes down with the doors closed, but you then open them once it lands. They're purely decorative, but it looks nicer with the doors open.
KommissarKiln wrote: You know, I have played with a house rule such that the user of the DP and his/her opponent can generally agree upon as fair. When it is time to deepstrike the DP, the controlling player chooses ONE of the two options, and this cannot be changed later:
1) Roll for scatter with the DP doors open, which will count as part of the hull, which means that the doors landing over the board edge/impassable terrain/enemy models, etc. is a mishap. However, if it lands without mishap, the unit inside can use the doors as the hull with the Open Topped rule for extra deployment range, if desired.
2) Roll for scatter with the DP doors closed, which will remain closed for the entirety of the game. This decreases the footprint, reducing the chance of mishaps at the expense of deployment range being reduced.
I've only played against DPs once or twice, but we generally opt for the second option as most of my opponents and I agree that the "toe in cover" is a BS exploit, and generally makes one appear like a WAAC player. Especially when said "cover" (in this case the lowered doors) hardly even covers the base of the model, let alone much, if any, of the body.
Now YMMV, but that's how opponents and I have done it for a gaming experience more enjoyable for both parties (i.e. fewer delays due to rules arguments).
This sounds like a good solution to the problem of the rules not providing well for models with significant moving parts e.g. drop pod doors. Either DS with the doors open to treat them as hull and be able to disembark all your marines from the tip of the door, or DS with them closed to reduce the chance of mishap at the cost of disembarkation range.
putting the GW Draft FAQ to the side for a moment I fail to understand the issue here.
The BrBs only mention of doors is in what an access point is. Nothing suggests that they are defined as Hull.
In the case of an opened topped vehicle the entire model (ignoring decorative elements) is an access point.
-Hull blocks LoS , gives cover.
- Doors only provide a location for access in and out of a vehicle.
- Opened topped vehicles (regardless of the doors that "might" be modeled on them) are completely an access point.
- Pods open up to allow us to view the structure inside the pod which very closely defines its hull area. Opened or closed the Pods footprint is pretty well defined...I will concede that when the doors are closed it makes defining that footprint all that much easier.
- It is pretty clear that the doors on a drop pod should have no bearing to the game whatsoever unless a special rule is given to them such as the case in the Lucius Pod.
col_impact wrote: I have not been quoting dictionaries with regards to definite versus indefinite articles. I have been referring you to resources on Basic Grammar. If you do not have a passable understanding of grammar when grammar is relevant (as it is here) then you cannot provide a valid argument. I.E., if your argument rests on an invalid understanding of indefinite articles then it is wholly invalid as it cannot represent a correct reading of the rule.
My position does not involve an invalid understanding of indefinite articles. It just doesn't recognize giving it more weight than it has. I can also explain my position without using terms only English Majors, Teachers, and Professors are required to know, and are then looked up and misjudged in importance by others trying to sound like they are a genius.
You have not properly explained why we need visibility of or to a model that we are not concerned with. You have addressed the visibility through the models we are not concerned with, but that is not the point of this paragraph that limits what can be used to establish visibility.
And you still have not bothered to address why they used "Sometimes" and "Similarly"...
If the difference between definite and indefinite article has no weight, then why are you fighting against basic grammatical knowledge with regards to the use of "a, an" versus "the"?
You need to recognize the difference between "no weight" and "less weight" in order to understand.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
So then do you agree that in above paragraph that "a model" is referring to a model in a general and non-specified sense, in accordance with the most common usage of indefinite articles (i.e. Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) ??
We really need to come to agreement on this point or your argument is easily dismissed as a misread of the rule in question at a basic grammatical/logical level.
We won't come to an agreement because, as usual, you take one tiny part and give it more authority than it deserves while ignoring the rest for your convenience.
I also note that you have changed which sentence you keep highlighting the indefinite article is not the one you were partially quoting. Was there a problem with that sentence?
And no, I do not agree that it is referring to every model (which is how you are translating it), but only ones we are trying to see are visible, per the adjective right before, which establishes the context of the situation as being connected to the previous paragraph along with "Sometimes".
For example, what would be the difference if the paragraph was written, thusly?
Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
And I do not mean the literal difference I underlined, I mean how you view the importance of this indefinite article.
Here is another concept that didn't seem to register as a possibility to either of us. The word "a" is also used as a quantitative aspect, in other words, another way of saying "one"
Sometimes, all that will be visible of one model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
What difference in your reading does that make if read in this manner?
zedsdead wrote: putting the GW Draft FAQ to the side for a moment I fail to understand the issue here.
The BrBs only mention of doors is in what an access point is. Nothing suggests that they are defined as Hull.
In the case of an opened topped vehicle the entire model (ignoring decorative elements) is an access point.
-Hull blocks LoS , gives cover.
- Doors only provide a location for access in and out of a vehicle.
- Opened topped vehicles (regardless of the doors that "might" be modeled on them) are completely an access point.
- Pods open up to allow us to view the structure inside the pod which very closely defines its hull area. Opened or closed the Pods footprint is pretty well defined...I will concede that when the doors are closed it makes defining that footprint all that much easier.
- It is pretty clear that the doors on a drop pod should have no bearing to the game whatsoever unless a special rule is given to them such as the case in the Lucius Pod.
To make a slight distinction, it's not the physical door that provides a location for access, but it's the hole that the door hides that provides the access. Picayune detailm but possibly important for saying whether the door is the hull. I do agree with your statements here, though.
And, I do want to thank you and the others who just jumped in on the discussion here.
I really fail to see why a door shouldn't be part of the hull. It's an essential part of the hulls integrity in the case of the Drop Pod, and it provides a decent change to many models. If i leave the side doors of a Rhino open you can shoot through it. Same with the Drop Pod.
Doors are part of a structure and part of a vehicle. They can change the model significantly (see: Drop Pod) and are nowhere classified as "not part of the hull". Isn't the "decorative stuff" list a list of stuff that isn't part of the hull? Therefore, all things not listed and not mentioned elsewhere in that context must be part of the hull.
I think there's simply the issue of there not being a rule for changing how your model looks - specifically "am I even allowed to open or close doors?". AFAIK there is no rule that allows you to change your models. theres a rule for turrets and weapons, but that's it. so whichever way you want to build your model - you have to use a fixed state when playing. Doors are up or down, and they never change. it's not modelling for advantage as - at least in the case of the Drop Pod - it's exactly what the Games assembly instructions tell you to do.
Just don't change your models setup during the game. There is no rule for it, therefore it is not allowed.
and before someone feels threatened by that or something: I've never played it like that nor will I ever as I use the probably most common house rule of "just ignore the doors, they're like a terrain feature or something."
We won't come to an agreement because, as usual, you take one tiny part and give it more authority than it deserves while ignoring the rest for your convenience.
Grammar is not a tiny part. Grammar is fundamental to the correct logical parsing of a statement. If your grammar is flawed then your argument is flawed and we can simply ignore it until you correct your grammatical understanding.
I also note that you have changed which sentence you keep highlighting the indefinite article is not the one you were partially quoting. Was there a problem with that sentence?
To keep the argument focused I have settled on the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph as a key case in point. But we can discuss any portion of the rule since grammar/logic applies to the whole rule.
Let's look at the whole rule . . .
Spoiler:
LINE OF SIGHT
Line of sight determines what a model can ‘see’. Many situations call for you to determine whether or not a model has line of sight. A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, whether with power sword, gun or psychic power. Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Naturally, you can’t ask your models what they can see – they’re plastic and resin, which is always a barrier to effective communication – therefore, you’ll have to work it out on their behalf. In many cases, this will be obvious – if there’s a hill, building or monster in the way, the enemy might be blatantly out of sight. In other cases, two units will be clearly in view of each other as there is nothing at all in the way. On those other occasions, where it’s not entirely obvious whether or not one unit can see another, the player will have to stoop over the battlefield and look from behind the model’s head for a ‘model’s eye view’. This means getting down to the level of your warriors and taking in the battlefield from their perspective to ‘see what they can see’. You will find that you can spot lurking enemies through the windows of ruined buildings, catch a glimpse of a model’s legs under tree branches and see that high vantage points become very useful for the increased line of sight that they offer.
Own Unit
There is one important exception to the rules for line of sight. Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit just as if they were not there. This assumes that the models shift their stances to open firing lanes in order to maximise their own unit’s firepower.
In red I have marked the indefinite articles (a, an) and in yellow I have marked the definite article. In all cases the indefinite article is being used in the most common way (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing). If you feel there is a better place for us to focus our discussion then feel free to point it out.
And no, I do not agree that it is referring to every model (which is how you are translating it), but only ones we are trying to see are visible, per the adjective right before, which establishes the context of the situation as being connected to the previous paragraph along with "Sometimes".
Then you are disagreeing with grammar/logic as I have shown and not me personally. The BRB does not continue to specify 'the target model' from the 2nd paragraph in the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph, which it would have to do in order for the sentence to read in the way you wish it to. The BRB chooses to generally and non-specifically refer to 'a model' and so we ignore wings, antennae, tails, and decorative items on models generally for the purpose of visibility. If a wing is considered ignored for line of sight then it cannot block line of sight and this will "sometimes" be the case.
For example, what would be the difference if the paragraph was written, thusly?
Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
And I do not mean the literal difference I underlined, I mean how you view the importance of this indefinite article.
The underlined portion does not fit. The sentence reads non-sensically. Also, you are trying to transpose 'line of sight' with 'visible' and the two are obviously not equivalent. Further, the indefinite article would still refer to models generally and not specifically.
The 3rd paragraph distinctly advances a point about models and visibility generally and what can be ignored on models, which is a point that is sometimes relevant.
Here is another concept that didn't seem to register as a possibility to either of us. The word "a" is also used as a quantitative aspect, in other words, another way of saying "one"
Sometimes, all that will be visible of one model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
What difference in your reading does that make if read in this manner?
That would add odd quantitative contrast to something ("a single X" ) while that something is still not specified and still spoken of generally ('still just one of the general 'model' category') so this really does nothing for your argument. I think it's fairly safe to say at any rate that the BRB here is not saying "exactly one model" or "one model and not any other" since the "sometimes" clause can easily apply to more than one model on the battlefield.
I suggest you simply accept how the indefinite article is obviously being used here (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing) and accept the fact that the BRB did not specify "the target model".
All of this ties into the subject of the thread . . .
Spoiler:
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying." <-- model here refers to models in general and not any specific model or models.
Since the indefinite article was used in the 3rd paragraph and we have identified how the indefinite article is being used, we know that wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items are ignored on models generally for the purpose of visibility.
Therefore, if I am trying to draw line of sight from a viewing model to a target model through some blocking models, I can ignore wings, tails, antennae, decorative items, etc. on the blocking models.
Once again, this all fits into the larger point -- As per the Draft FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
col_impact wrote: Once again, this all fits into the larger point -- As per the Draft FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
Land raiders block line of sight too - does that make the doors land raiders because they block line of sight? Just because they block LoS doesn't mean they aren't decorative - except in your highly parsed reading. You still haven't satisfactorily addressed the issue of "sometimes" clearly linking it to the previous paragraph where it is about drawing line of sight to a target.,or why they would talk about an intervening model being invisible if all you can see is the banner, wings, etc. It makes sense if you are talking about a target model, it doesn't make sense to be saying that if talking about an intervening model. If you go with the following statement about wings, etc not counting, we don't care if an intervening model is invisible, and it doesn't make sense to discuss invisible models if they aren't the target model.
col_impact wrote: Once again, this all fits into the larger point -- As per the Draft FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
Land raiders block line of sight too - does that make the doors land raiders because they block line of sight? Just because they block LoS doesn't mean they aren't decorative - except in your highly parsed reading.
It means that Land Raiders are not decorative and the antennae on the Land Raider are decorative.
doctortom wrote: You still haven't satisfactorily addressed the issue of "sometimes" clearly linking it to the previous paragraph where it is about drawing line of sight to a target.,or why they would talk about an intervening model being invisible if all you can see is the banner, wings, etc. It makes sense if you are talking about a target model, it doesn't make sense to be saying that if talking about an intervening model. If you go with the following statement about wings, etc not counting, we don't care if an intervening model is invisible, and it doesn't make sense to discuss invisible models if they aren't the target model.
What the 3rd paragraph asserts about general model visibility is sometimes relevant for drawing lines of sight not only to models but also through models since general model visibility is of course relevant to both those things. You can only draw line of sight to things that are visible and you can only draw line of sight through things that are invisible/ignored or count as not being there.
As has already been proven, since the indefinite article was used in the 3rd paragraph, we know that wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items are ignored on models generally for the purpose of visibility.
What the 3rd paragraph asserts about general model visibility is sometimes relevant for drawing lines of sight not only to models but also through models since general model visibility is of course relevant to both those things. You can only draw line of sight to things that are visible and you can only draw line of sight through things that are invisible/ignored or count as not being there./quote]
That's a poor rationalization - saying they don't count means you don't need to talk about the intervening model being invisible if that's all you see. It's highly relevant to it meaning the target is invisible. And still, you want to ignore that the "sometimes" is linking us back to the previous paragraph.
col_impact wrote: As has already been proven, since the indefinite article was used in the 3rd paragraph, we know that wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items are ignored on models generally for the purpose of visibility.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. It's ignored on models when drawing a line of sight to them, as shown by the entire section and the links between the paragraphs.
What the 3rd paragraph asserts about general model visibility is sometimes relevant for drawing lines of sight not only to models but also through models since general model visibility is of course relevant to both those things. You can only draw line of sight to things that are visible and you can only draw line of sight through things that are invisible/ignored or count as not being there.
That's a poor rationalization - saying they don't count means you don't need to talk about the intervening model being invisible if that's all you see. It's highly relevant to it meaning the target is invisible. And still, you want to ignore that the "sometimes" is linking us back to the previous paragraph.
col_impact wrote: As has already been proven, since the indefinite article was used in the 3rd paragraph, we know that wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items are ignored on models generally for the purpose of visibility.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. It's ignored on models when drawing a line of sight to them, as shown by the entire section and the links between the paragraphs.
That's not what the paragraph says.
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
The paragraph advances general points about models and invisibility that are sometimes relevant to the task of drawing line of sight through models to a target model.
It simply does not say "sometimes, all that will be visible of the target model is a weapon".
Until you accept what the rules actually say, your argument will remain invalid.
nekooni wrote:I really fail to see why a door shouldn't be part of the hull. It's an essential part of the hulls integrity in the case of the Drop Pod, and it provides a decent change to many models. If i leave the side doors of a Rhino open you can shoot through it. Same with the Drop Pod.
Doors are part of a structure and part of a vehicle. They can change the model significantly (see: Drop Pod) and are nowhere classified as "not part of the hull". Isn't the "decorative stuff" list a list of stuff that isn't part of the hull? Therefore, all things not listed and not mentioned elsewhere in that context must be part of the hull.
If it is vital to the integrity of the of the Drop Pod, then they would have to be modeled up and could not be opened. During the Drop when it is theoretically needed (again, only theory, Space Marine armor is pretty tough and designed to handle most of the environment they would be exposed to on the Drop) is insufficient, as that is only fluff.
If they are Hull, then that means it creates a HUGE amount of square inchage which cannot be approached by an enemy model (or non-Battle Brother Allies) without Charging.
If they are Hull, then they are an Entry Point all the way to the end.
If they are Hull, then even though all I can establish Line of Sight to a sliver of the door, it is in full visibility as if I can establish Line of Sight to its central base.
If they are Hull, where is a door defined as such? Nosferatu still has not provided a quote to support, "if it isn't listed as not hull, it is hull".
We won't come to an agreement because, as usual, you take one tiny part and give it more authority than it deserves while ignoring the rest for your convenience.
Grammar is not a tiny part. Grammar is fundamental to the correct logical parsing of a statement. If your grammar is flawed then your argument is flawed and we can simply ignore it until you correct your grammatical understanding.
Your response is unrelated to what you quoted. I never have stated that grammar is a tiny part. I have stated, and still stating, that the importance you levy to this aspect of grammar is beyond the scope which grammar actually applies to it. There is a significant difference. And I do not appreciate the slander your misrepresentations of my statements engender. Do you deliberately seek to lie and misrepresent others who disagree with you?
Grammar is a complex concept made up of big things and little things. It allows the weight of things to be determined by the reader via context. Using an indefinite article does not allow one to ignore context provided by other parts of the sentence or that the sentence may bring in to it via conjunctive words. You have quoted nothing which allows the word "a" to ignore the context of the situation being described. Indeed, many of the examples used in what you did link indicate quite the opposite.
I also note that you have changed which sentence you keep highlighting the indefinite article is not the one you were partially quoting. Was there a problem with that sentence?
To keep the argument focused I have settled on the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph as a key case in point. But we can discuss any portion of the rule since grammar/logic applies to the whole rule.
So, you change mid-stream without justifying it till after you are called out on it? Interesting, and par for your argumentative "technique".
col_impact wrote:In red I have marked the indefinite articles (a, an) and in yellow I have marked the definite article. In all cases the indefinite article is being used in the most common way (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing). If you feel there is a better place for us to focus our discussion then feel free to point it out.
And the words used around it provide context you have chosen to ignore.
For example, "Light of sight determines what a model can 'see'." While the article is trying to approach a general concept, the rest of the sentence is establishing a definition of what it can see. When do we need or care about what any model can see? Only when we need to establish Line of Sight from any model. This is the context you are ignoring by granting a "general thing" use of indefinite article greater weight then the rest of the sentence.
To repeat, the use of an indefinite article does not automatically allow one to ignore the context of the sentence, paragraph, or section of the instructions. The only grammar expert who would agree with you is one who expects compensation greater then their professional integrity will allow them to ignore.
col_impact wrote:Then you are disagreeing with grammar/logic as I have shown and not me personally. The BRB does not continue to specify 'the target model' from the 2nd paragraph in the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph, which it would have to do in order for the sentence to read in the way you wish it to. The BRB chooses to generally and non-specifically refer to 'a model' and so we ignore wings, antennae, tails, and decorative items on models generally for the purpose of visibility. If a wing is considered ignored for line of sight then it cannot block line of sight and this will "sometimes" be the case.
No, I am not disagreeing with the grammar and logic of the paragraph, just your assertion. The BRB does not need to continue to specify because of the context of the situation and the objectives of the statements.
This is why I keep asking you what is the relevance and context of identifying why we need to establish the visibility TO an intervening model. The only reason to establish visibility to any model is because we are trying to establish a Line of Sight.
Keep in mind also, that Line of Sight is not just needed for checking to see "target models", but it can be, and has been, used for for checking to see if a model can see a model with a certain Special Rule. And no, the indefinite article at the end of that sentence is not to separate "model" from "with a certain Special Rule". It is also used in using the Infiltrate Special Rule where no targeting is being done.
Spoiler:
Infiltrators can be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any enemy unit, as long as no deployed enemy unit can draw line of sight to them. This includes in a building, as long as the building is more than 12" from any enemy unit. Alternatively, they can be set up anywhere on the table more than 18" from any enemy unit, even in plain sight.
For example, what would be the difference if the paragraph was written, thusly?
Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
And I do not mean the literal difference I underlined, I mean how you view the importance of this indefinite article.
The underlined portion does not fit. The sentence reads non-sensically. Also, you are trying to transpose 'line of sight' with 'visible' and the two are obviously not equivalent. Further, the indefinite article would still refer to models generally and not specifically.
The 3rd paragraph distinctly advances a point about models and visibility generally and what can be ignored on models, which is a point that is sometimes relevant.
It does read sensically, and is a properly written sentence. I deliberately did the transposition to emphasize the context of which I have been referring to and to demonstrate just how much you are giving a priority to the indefinite article over the context the rest of the sentence is providing and referring to.
Does that paragraph allow you to ignore the items in question if it is an intervening model?
Here is another concept that didn't seem to register as a possibility to either of us. The word "a" is also used as a quantitative aspect, in other words, another way of saying "one"
Sometimes, all that will be visible of one model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
What difference in your reading does that make if read in this manner?
That would add odd quantitative contrast to something ("a single X" ) while that something is still not specified and still spoken of generally ('still just one of the general 'model' category') so this really does nothing for your argument. I think it's fairly safe to say at any rate that the BRB here is not saying "exactly one model" or "one model and not any other" since the "sometimes" clause can easily apply to more than one model on the battlefield.
In order for it to be applying to more than one model on the battlefield, relevance needs to be established. Why would you need to be trying to see multiple models at the same time? Name one time that this is necessary. Note, that seeing past or through models does not apply to this situation. We are looking for an end result, as that is all the BRB is looking for.
col_impact wrote:I suggest you simply accept how the indefinite article is obviously being used here (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing) and accept the fact that the BRB did not specify "the target model".
Again, it is not the use of the indefinite article being used that I have a problem with. It is the unproven, irrelevant, and undemonstrated priority you are giving it to allow it to override any and all context and relevance in the sentence and the context of the section in question, that I have a problem with.
Grammar is not a tiny part. Grammar is fundamental to the correct logical parsing of a statement. If your grammar is flawed then your argument is flawed and we can simply ignore it until you correct your grammatical understanding.
Your response is unrelated to what you quoted. I never have stated that grammar is a tiny part. I have stated, and still stating, that the importance you levy to this aspect of grammar is beyond the scope which grammar actually applies to it. There is a significant difference. And I do not appreciate the slander your misrepresentations of my statements engender. Do you deliberately seek to lie and misrepresent others who disagree with you?
Grammar is a complex concept made up of big things and little things. It allows the weight of things to be determined by the reader via context. Using an indefinite article does not allow one to ignore context provided by other parts of the sentence or that the sentence may bring in to it via conjunctive words. You have quoted nothing which allows the word "a" to ignore the context of the situation being described. Indeed, many of the examples used in what you did link indicate quite the opposite.
The BRB chose to use an indefinite article as opposed to a definite article. This is because the BRB deliberately wanted to speak about models in a general, non-specific way. The prior sentence spoke directly about "the target model". In order for that specific reference to be maintained, the writing cannot switch to an indefinite article. By switching back to an indefinite article, the BRB intends to make general statements about models and visibility.
In other words, for your argument to be plausible at all, you have to argue that the writers of the BRB made a grammatical error by using the indefinite article when they should have used the definite article. However, that cannot be proven, obviously. And I will choose to stick with the rules as they are written.
I also note that you have changed which sentence you keep highlighting the indefinite article is not the one you were partially quoting. Was there a problem with that sentence?
To keep the argument focused I have settled on the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph as a key case in point. But we can discuss any portion of the rule since grammar/logic applies to the whole rule.
So, you change mid-stream without justifying it till after you are called out on it? Interesting, and par for your argumentative "technique".
Not sure why you are being combative here. If you want to focus on some other portion of the rule now is the time to come forward and make your preference known. My argument is built around a solid foundation of grammar and logic so it doesn't matter where in the rule you want to focus, although I think our current place of focus is the best.
col_impact wrote:In red I have marked the indefinite articles (a, an) and in yellow I have marked the definite article. In all cases the indefinite article is being used in the most common way (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing). If you feel there is a better place for us to focus our discussion then feel free to point it out.
And the words used around it provide context you have chosen to ignore.
For example, "Light of sight determines what a model can 'see'." While the article is trying to approach a general concept, the rest of the sentence is establishing a definition of what it can see. When do we need or care about what any model can see? Only when we need to establish Line of Sight from any model. This is the context you are ignoring by granting a "general thing" use of indefinite article greater weight then the rest of the sentence.
To repeat, the use of an indefinite article does not automatically allow one to ignore the context of the sentence, paragraph, or section of the instructions. The only grammar expert who would agree with you is one who expects compensation greater then their professional integrity will allow them to ignore.
No context is being ignored on my part. You are deliberately ignoring the use of an indefinite article where the use of a definite article would be required for you interpretation to make sense. You want to claim the BRB is speaking specifically of "the target model" when the BRB is intentionally saying "a model". The 3rd paragraph advances its distinct points about visibility and models generally and what parts of a model are generally ignored when dealing with what a model can see. These points are relevant to the prior discussion of line of sight drawn through models to a target model. Line of sight cannot be blocked by what is ignored by the viewing model.
col_impact wrote:Then you are disagreeing with grammar/logic as I have shown and not me personally. The BRB does not continue to specify 'the target model' from the 2nd paragraph in the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph, which it would have to do in order for the sentence to read in the way you wish it to. The BRB chooses to generally and non-specifically refer to 'a model' and so we ignore wings, antennae, tails, and decorative items on models generally for the purpose of visibility. If a wing is considered ignored for line of sight then it cannot block line of sight and this will "sometimes" be the case.
No, I am not disagreeing with the grammar and logic of the paragraph, just your assertion. The BRB does not need to continue to specify because of the context of the situation and the objectives of the statements.
Basic grammar disagrees with you. Trying to continue the reference from a specified, known "the target model" to generally "a model" is grammatically incorrect.
As already noted --> Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing. So the BRB makes an intentional switch from talking specifically about "the target model" to talking generally and nonspecifically about "a model".
Again, feel free to argue that the BRB has made a grammatical mistake. I will take the rules as they are written.
This is why I keep asking you what is the relevance and context of identifying why we need to establish the visibility TO an intervening model. The only reason to establish visibility to any model is because we are trying to establish a Line of Sight.
Keep in mind also, that Line of Sight is not just needed for checking to see "target models", but it can be, and has been, used for for checking to see if a model can see a model with a certain Special Rule. And no, the indefinite article at the end of that sentence is not to separate "model" from "with a certain Special Rule". It is also used in using the Infiltrate Special Rule where no targeting is being done.
Spoiler:
Infiltrators can be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any enemy unit, as long as no deployed enemy unit can draw line of sight to them. This includes in a building, as long as the building is more than 12" from any enemy unit. Alternatively, they can be set up anywhere on the table more than 18" from any enemy unit, even in plain sight.
The 3rd paragraph deals with what constitutes "visible" and what is ignored on models generally for the purposes of visibility.
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
That's it. The 3rd paragraph discusses what is visible on models in general. As stated before, when you are drawing line of sight to a target model that line will not be blocked by the parts the rules tell us to ignore on models.
For example, what would be the difference if the paragraph was written, thusly?
Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
And I do not mean the literal difference I underlined, I mean how you view the importance of this indefinite article.
The underlined portion does not fit. The sentence reads non-sensically. Also, you are trying to transpose 'line of sight' with 'visible' and the two are obviously not equivalent. Further, the indefinite article would still refer to models generally and not specifically.
The 3rd paragraph distinctly advances a point about models and visibility generally and what can be ignored on models, which is a point that is sometimes relevant.
It does read sensically, and is a properly written sentence. I deliberately did the transposition to emphasize the context of which I have been referring to and to demonstrate just how much you are giving a priority to the indefinite article over the context the rest of the sentence is providing and referring to.
Does that paragraph allow you to ignore the items in question if it is an intervening model?
Try again. It's non-sensical.
"Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to a model is a weapon, ..."
"unblocked line to a model is a weapon" is gibberish
Do you mean "Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to is a weapon, ..."? Or do you mean "Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to is a model ..."?
You cannot transpose "you can trace a straight, unblocked line to" onto "will be visible of".
This just underscores a key thing that you keep missing. The 3rd paragraph is dealing with visibility generally and the BRB has intentionally made that shift by talking about "visibility" and "a model".
Here is another concept that didn't seem to register as a possibility to either of us. The word "a" is also used as a quantitative aspect, in other words, another way of saying "one"
Sometimes, all that will be visible of one model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
What difference in your reading does that make if read in this manner?
That would add odd quantitative contrast to something ("a single X" ) while that something is still not specified and still spoken of generally ('still just one of the general 'model' category') so this really does nothing for your argument. I think it's fairly safe to say at any rate that the BRB here is not saying "exactly one model" or "one model and not any other" since the "sometimes" clause can easily apply to more than one model on the battlefield.
In order for it to be applying to more than one model on the battlefield, relevance needs to be established. Why would you need to be trying to see multiple models at the same time? Name one time that this is necessary. Note, that seeing past or through models does not apply to this situation. We are looking for an end result, as that is all the BRB is looking for.
That's exactly the point and why I mention that using the indefinite article for quantitative contrast would make no sense. There is no quantitative measure being undertaken in the paragraph so it's obvious that the most common use of the indefinite article is being called upon here instead --> Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
col_impact wrote:I suggest you simply accept how the indefinite article is obviously being used here (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing) and accept the fact that the BRB did not specify "the target model".
Again, it is not the use of the indefinite article being used that I have a problem with. It is the unproven, irrelevant, and undemonstrated priority you are giving it to allow it to override any and all context and relevance in the sentence and the context of the section in question, that I have a problem with.
Grammar is fundamental to the reading of the rules. I have shown that you are reading indefinite articles wrong. If you get that wrong then we can't really proceed any further.
Spoiler:
LINE OF SIGHT
Line of sight determines what a model can ‘see’. Many situations call for you to determine whether or not a model has line of sight. A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, whether with power sword, gun or psychic power. Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Naturally, you can’t ask your models what they can see – they’re plastic and resin, which is always a barrier to effective communication – therefore, you’ll have to work it out on their behalf. In many cases, this will be obvious – if there’s a hill, building or monster in the way, the enemy might be blatantly out of sight. In other cases, two units will be clearly in view of each other as there is nothing at all in the way. On those other occasions, where it’s not entirely obvious whether or not one unit can see another, the
player will have to stoop over the battlefield and look from behind the model’s head for a ‘model’s eye view’. This means getting down to the level of your warriors and taking in the battlefield from their perspective to ‘see what they can see’. You will find that you can spot lurking enemies through the windows of ruined buildings, catch a glimpse of a model’s legs under tree branches and see that high vantage points become very useful for the increased line of sight that they offer.
Own Unit
There is one important exception to the rules for line of sight. Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit just as if they were not there. This assumes that the models shift their stances to open firing lanes in order to maximise their own unit’s firepower.
So are you willing to accept that "a model" in the 3rd paragraph is being used in this way (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing)? If you cannot, then you are not adhering to English grammar and your argument is invalid.
col_impact wrote: The BRB chose to use an indefinite article as opposed to a definite article. This is because the BRB deliberately wanted to speak about models in a general, non-specific way. The prior sentence spoke directly about "the target model". In order for that specific reference to be maintained, the writing cannot switch to an indefinite article. By switching back to an indefinite article, the BRB intends to make general statements about models and visibility.
In other words, for your argument to be plausible at all, you have to argue that the writers of the BRB made a grammatical error by using the indefinite article when they should have used the definite article. However, that cannot be proven, obviously. And I will choose to stick with the rules as they are written.
Not at all. There are many ways that are much, much better and clearer to make it so that this applies to all models in general, and I provided at least one version of it a while back. They deliberately used words which provide connections to previous statements and provide context to what "a model" is. The use of an indefinite article does not and cannot override this.
col_impact wrote: Not sure why you are being combative here. If you want to focus on some other portion of the rule now is the time to come forward and make your preference known. My argument is built around a solid foundation of grammar and logic so it doesn't matter where in the rule you want to focus, although I think our current place of focus is the best.
I was pointing out that when your argument is demonstrated to be flat, you change course as if nothing was addressed at all, not acknowledging you changed course, nor a reason for changing course. Sometimes you bring it up as if it was your own idea after someone mentions it. It is a poor way to have an intelligent rules debate.
col_impact wrote: No context is being ignored on my part. You are deliberately ignoring the use of an indefinite article where the use of a definite article would be required for you interpretation to make sense. You want to claim the BRB is speaking specifically of "the target model" when the BRB is intentionally saying "a model". The 3rd paragraph advances its distinct points about visibility and models generally and what parts of a model are generally ignored when dealing with what a model can see. These points are relevant to the prior discussion of line of sight drawn through models to a target model. Line of sight cannot be blocked by what is ignored by the viewing model.
I am not and have not ignored the use of the indefinite article. I repeat, I do not give it the same weight that you do. I do not agree, nor have you demonstrated, that the indefinite article allows you to ignore the "Sometimes" that starts the sentence and joins this paragraph to the preceding in concept, nor the relevance of determining how well you can actually see a model that is not needing attention.
col_impact wrote: Basic grammar disagrees with you. Trying to continue the reference from a specified, known "the target model" to generally "a model" is grammatically incorrect.
As already noted --> Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing. So the BRB makes an intentional switch from talking specifically about "the target model" to talking generally and nonspecifically about "a model".
Again, feel free to argue that the BRB has made a grammatical mistake. I will take the rules as they are written.
Again, quit misrepresenting what I am saying. I have not stated anything about a "target model". "Target models" are not the only thing we need to establish Line of Sight with. This is a fabricated construct you use to generate a strawman. The indefinite article does not allow you to ignore the context surrounding the word. It is used because there are different types of models one needs to establish visibility with. Yes, "target models" are one, and the most common, but not the only one as demonstrated by the reference to Line of Sight in Infiltrate (among other rarer codex rules).
The BRB is not making a grammatical mistake. You are by taking one tiny portion of a phrase and granting it more power and authority than it has and more than you can prove.
col_impact wrote: The 3rd paragraph deals with what constitutes "visible" and what is ignored on models generally for the purposes of visibility.
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
That's it. The 3rd paragraph discusses what is visible on models in general. As stated before, when you are drawing line of sight to a target model that line will not be blocked by the parts the rules tell us to ignore on models.
Again, you ignore the point of the question. Why should we care if all that is visible of an intervening model we are not attempting to address is a wing, weapon, or a tail? Relevance, please?
For example, what would be the difference if the paragraph was written, thusly?
Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
And I do not mean the literal difference I underlined, I mean how you view the importance of this indefinite article.
The underlined portion does not fit. The sentence reads non-sensically. Also, you are trying to transpose 'line of sight' with 'visible' and the two are obviously not equivalent. Further, the indefinite article would still refer to models generally and not specifically.
The 3rd paragraph distinctly advances a point about models and visibility generally and what can be ignored on models, which is a point that is sometimes relevant.
It does read sensically, and is a properly written sentence. I deliberately did the transposition to emphasize the context of which I have been referring to and to demonstrate just how much you are giving a priority to the indefinite article over the context the rest of the sentence is providing and referring to.
Does that paragraph allow you to ignore the items in question if it is an intervening model?
Try again. It's non-sensical.
"Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to a model is a weapon, ..."
"unblocked line to a model is a weapon" is gibberish
Do you mean "Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to is a weapon, ..."? Or do you mean "Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to is a model ..."?
You cannot transpose "you can trace a straight, unblocked line to" onto "will be visible of".
This just underscores a key thing that you keep missing. The 3rd paragraph is dealing with visibility generally and the BRB has intentionally made that shift by talking about "visibility" and "a model".
I may have missed a word or two in there for those whose reading comprehension stalls in complex concepts.
Sometimes, the only point you can trace a straight, unblocked line to on a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Is that better and easier for you to understand the concept?
And yes, I can transpose the concept of tracing a straight, unblocked line with visibility, since that is the whole point of "Line of Sight".
col_impact wrote: That's exactly the point and why I mention that using the indefinite article for quantitative contrast would make no sense. There is no quantitative measure being undertaken in the paragraph so it's obvious that the most common use of the indefinite article is being called upon here instead --> Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
But we are talking about a specific thing. We are talking about a model we are trying to see. "Sometimes, all that is visible of a model is...". Why do you think we are trying to see multiple models in this sentence? Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?
col_impact wrote:I suggest you simply accept how the indefinite article is obviously being used here (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing) and accept the fact that the BRB did not specify "the target model".
Again, it is not the use of the indefinite article being used that I have a problem with. It is the unproven, irrelevant, and undemonstrated priority you are giving it to allow it to override any and all context and relevance in the sentence and the context of the section in question, that I have a problem with.
Grammar is fundamental to the reading of the rules. I have shown that you are reading indefinite articles wrong. If you get that wrong then we can't really proceed any further.
Despite your insults of insinuations and misrepresentations, I do agree grammar is fundamental to reading the rules. What you do not seem to comprehend, after many statements to the contrary, is not that I have a poor grasp or lack of desire to recognize grammar, it is that I do not and cannot accept your assertions regarding them as they fly in the face of every other recognized author's use of it that I have read and it would be something I would be taken to task for by every English teacher I've had since 2nd Grade. Even more so when you quote one thing and claim it states another.
Line of sight determines what a model can ‘see’. Many situations call for you to determine whether or not a model has line of sight. A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, whether with power sword, gun or psychic power. Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Naturally, you can’t ask your models what they can see – they’re plastic and resin, which is always a barrier to effective communication – therefore, you’ll have to work it out on their behalf. In many cases, this will be obvious – if there’s a hill, building or monster in the way, the enemy might be blatantly out of sight. In other cases, two units will be clearly in view of each other as there is nothing at all in the way. On those other occasions, where it’s not entirely obvious whether or not one unit can see another, the
player will have to stoop over the battlefield and look from behind the model’s head for a ‘model’s eye view’. This means getting down to the level of your warriors and taking in the battlefield from their perspective to ‘see what they can see’. You will find that you can spot lurking enemies through the windows of ruined buildings, catch a glimpse of a model’s legs under tree branches and see that high vantage points become very useful for the increased line of sight that they offer.
Own Unit
There is one important exception to the rules for line of sight. Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit just as if they were not there. This assumes that the models shift their stances to open firing lanes in order to maximise their own unit’s firepower.
And you are back to spamming again. Repeating the same quote over and over again as if it would change anything.
col_impact wrote: So are you willing to accept that "a model" in the 3rd paragraph is being used in this way (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing)? If you cannot, then you are not adhering to English grammar and your argument is invalid.
Yes, and no. It is a general thing, in that it is not restricted to one type of a thing ("a model" versus "target model"), but it IS a specific thing as it is something we are trying to see ("all that is visible of a model is..." versus "any/all model(s) on the table"). Context and relevance are the key things you are ignoring for the sake of making this a generalized rule. Two things grammar will not allow me to ignore.
nekooni wrote:I really fail to see why a door shouldn't be part of the hull. It's an essential part of the hulls integrity in the case of the Drop Pod, and it provides a decent change to many models. If i leave the side doors of a Rhino open you can shoot through it. Same with the Drop Pod.
Doors are part of a structure and part of a vehicle. They can change the model significantly (see: Drop Pod) and are nowhere classified as "not part of the hull". Isn't the "decorative stuff" list a list of stuff that isn't part of the hull? Therefore, all things not listed and not mentioned elsewhere in that context must be part of the hull.
If it is vital to the integrity of the of the Drop Pod, then they would have to be modeled up and could not be opened. During the Drop when it is theoretically needed (again, only theory, Space Marine armor is pretty tough and designed to handle most of the environment they would be exposed to on the Drop) is insufficient, as that is only fluff.
If they are Hull, then that means it creates a HUGE amount of square inchage which cannot be approached by an enemy model (or non-Battle Brother Allies) without Charging.
If they are Hull, then they are an Entry Point all the way to the end.
If they are Hull, then even though all I can establish Line of Sight to a sliver of the door, it is in full visibility as if I can establish Line of Sight to its central base.
All of these are logical (rules-wise) consequences, yes. It's why I use a houserule instead.
If they are Hull, where is a door defined as such? Nosferatu still has not provided a quote to support, "if it isn't listed as not hull, it is hull".
Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements. When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle’s gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.) If a Walker does not have a base (like the Defiler), measure to and from its hull (including any legs or other limbs), as normal for vehicles. Each vehicle capable of carrying passengers will have a number of Access Points defined in its entry. These are the doors, ramps and hatches that passengers use to get in and out of the vehicle (see below for more details). Open-topped vehicles do not have specific Access Points. Instead, all of the vehicle is considered to be an Access Point (regardless of any base they may have). These rules are pretty much all there is in the BRB that might help us.
What was the exact wording of the FAQ on the doors? they're part of the model(=vehicle) ? So any counter-arguments to them being an Access Point and allowing Marines to disembark from the tip of the door?
And regarding LoS - the hull is never properly defined anywhere. The best we can come up with is that it's the entire model minus " ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements".
I think decorative elements are stuff that you'd consider decorative in real life - skulls, sticky bits of your enemy, spikes, your Chapter Icon, foxtails, KONY2012 stickers and so on. Doors aren't decorative, they're a functional part of whatever they're build into. In 40k they usually represent Access Points, so even 40k doesn't treat them as decorative. Sure, Open Topped makes them redundant mostly and they're not listed as "door" as that isn't a thing in the rulebook, but the basic concept still holds true.
And what about the Rhino - do you allow folks to shoot through the doors? There's no other part of the model in the way, you could just shoot through the Rhino.
What the 3rd paragraph asserts about general model visibility is sometimes relevant for drawing lines of sight not only to models but also through models since general model visibility is of course relevant to both those things. You can only draw line of sight to things that are visible and you can only draw line of sight through things that are invisible/ignored or count as not being there.
That's a poor rationalization - saying they don't count means you don't need to talk about the intervening model being invisible if that's all you see. It's highly relevant to it meaning the target is invisible. And still, you want to ignore that the "sometimes" is linking us back to the previous paragraph.
col_impact wrote: As has already been proven, since the indefinite article was used in the 3rd paragraph, we know that wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items are ignored on models generally for the purpose of visibility.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. It's ignored on models when drawing a line of sight to them, as shown by the entire section and the links between the paragraphs.
That's not what the paragraph says.
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
The paragraph advances general points about models and invisibility that are sometimes relevant to the task of drawing line of sight through models to a target model.
It simply does not say "sometimes, all that will be visible of the target model is a weapon".
Until you accept what the rules actually say, your argument will remain invalid.
Perhaps you should look at the rest of the section to see that it's still discussing drawing line of sight to a target so that you can understand you're ignoring the context entirely. Then perhaps you might understand what the rules actually say. I'm not going to bet that you'd accept it, though.
Charistoph wrote: If they are Hull, where is a door defined as such? Nosferatu still has not provided a quote to support, "if it isn't listed as not hull, it is hull".
Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements. When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle’s gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.) If a Walker does not have a base (like the Defiler), measure to and from its hull (including any legs or other limbs), as normal for vehicles. Each vehicle capable of carrying passengers will have a number of Access Points defined in its entry. These are the doors, ramps and hatches that passengers use to get in and out of the vehicle (see below for more details). Open-topped vehicles do not have specific Access Points. Instead, all of the vehicle is considered to be an Access Point (regardless of any base they may have). These rules are pretty much all there is in the BRB that might help us.
Exactly. There is nothing to say they are Hull and nothing to say they aren't. Aside from defining Access Points, doors do not really serve a purpose. And even then, the door itself will not needed for this, as the doorway does the job just fine in defining it. When open, it really is only decoration, in my estimation.
nekooni wrote: What was the exact wording of the FAQ on the doors? they're part of the model(=vehicle) ? So any counter-arguments to them being an Access Point and allowing Marines to disembark from the tip of the door?
It is very very ambiguous and not really explanatory.
Q. Are Drop Pod Doors ignored for game purposes once deployed?
A. No - they are still part of the model.
Neither question or answer really define which or all game purposes they are not ignored for.
nekooni wrote: And regarding LoS - the hull is never properly defined anywhere. The best we can come up with is that it's the entire model minus " ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements".
Yeah, it pretty much matches the same thing as "body" for non-Vehicle models (and interestingly enough, one of the dictionary definitions of "hull").
nekooni wrote: I think decorative elements are stuff that you'd consider decorative in real life - skulls, sticky bits of your enemy, spikes, your Chapter Icon, foxtails, KONY2012 stickers and so on. Doors aren't decorative, they're a functional part of whatever they're build into. In 40k they usually represent Access Points, so even 40k doesn't treat them as decorative. Sure, Open Topped makes them redundant mostly and they're not listed as "door" as that isn't a thing in the rulebook, but the basic concept still holds true.
It considers "gun barrels, dozer blades, [and] antennas" in the same grouping, and I am pretty sure that the engineers and crew of a "real life" Vehicle would not count them as "decorative" but either "rather useful" or "downright necessary" just like they would a door.
nekooni wrote: And what about the Rhino - do you allow folks to shoot through the doors? There's no other part of the model in the way, you could just shoot through the Rhino.
So long as the side doors are open, it IS possible, just as if all Drop Pod doors are down and you have the right angle. If they are closed, you really are not drawing a straight, unblocked line through it, are you?
I may have missed a word or two in there for those whose reading comprehension stalls in complex concepts.
Sometimes, the only point you can trace a straight, unblocked line to on a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Is that better and easier for you to understand the concept?
And yes, I can transpose the concept of tracing a straight, unblocked line with visibility, since that is the whole point of "Line of Sight".
Again, this just underscores a key thing that you keep missing. The 3rd paragraph is dealing with "the visibility of a model" generally and not specifically and the BRB has intentionally made that shift by talking about "visibility" and "a model" and no longer drawing a line of sight to a target model. We are dealing with what a model can "see" and per the language of the 3rd paragraph this involves anything that counts as "a model". For a model to be in the way of some other model it must be visibly blocking the view to that model and not some other way such as a top-down 2d projection for example. Because the 3rd paragraph advances general points about visibility and anything that counts as "a model" to the effect that we ignore wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items, those parts of any model do not factor in to visibility.
col_impact wrote: That's exactly the point and why I mention that using the indefinite article for quantitative contrast would make no sense. There is no quantitative measure being undertaken in the paragraph so it's obvious that the most common use of the indefinite article is being called upon here instead --> Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
But we are talking about a specific thing. We are talking about a model we are trying to see. "Sometimes, all that is visible of a model is...". Why do you think we are trying to see multiple models in this sentence? Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?
We aren't talking about a specific model. If we were, the BRB would use the definite article. As proven, we are talking about the visibility of a non-specific model - anything that fits into the general category of "a model" - per the usage of the indefinite article (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) So the points of the 3rd paragraph affect anything that counts as a model from the perspective of viewing model. On anything that counts as "a model" we ignore wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items.
Despite your insults of insinuations and misrepresentations, I do agree grammar is fundamental to reading the rules. What you do not seem to comprehend, after many statements to the contrary, is not that I have a poor grasp or lack of desire to recognize grammar, it is that I do not and cannot accept your assertions regarding them as they fly in the face of every other recognized author's use of it that I have read and it would be something I would be taken to task for by every English teacher I've had since 2nd Grade. Even more so when you quote one thing and claim it states another.
If you agree that grammar is fundamental to reading the rules then start adhering to the correct usage of indefinite articles. Until you do that, your argument is dismissed as invalid.
col_impact wrote: So are you willing to accept that "a model" in the 3rd paragraph is being used in this way (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing)? If you cannot, then you are not adhering to English grammar and your argument is invalid.
Yes, and no. It is a general thing, in that it is not restricted to one type of a thing ("a model" versus "target model"), but it IS a specific thing as it is something we are trying to see ("all that is visible of a model is..." versus "any/all model(s) on the table"). Context and relevance are the key things you are ignoring for the sake of making this a generalized rule. Two things grammar will not allow me to ignore.
Actually the difference you are failing to attend to is the difference between "a model" and "the model we are trying to see". The 3rd paragraph uses the former and you are using the latter. It goes without saying that you are not allowed to read into the rules. I will stick to what the BRB actually says because doing otherwise would render my argument invalid.
col_impact wrote: Again, this just underscores a key thing that you keep missing. The 3rd paragraph is dealing with "the visibility of a model" generally and not specifically and the BRB has intentionally made that shift by talking about "visibility" and "a model" and no longer drawing a line of sight to a target model. We are dealing with what a model can "see" and per the language of the 3rd paragraph this involves anything that counts as "a model". For a model to be in the way of some other model it must be visibly blocking the view to that model and not some other way such as a top-down 2d projection for example. Because the 3rd paragraph advances general points about visibility and anything that counts as "a model" to the effect that we ignore wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items, those parts of any model do not factor in to visibility.
And here we go again. Your unfounded and unsupported belief that an article has more relevance and strength than all the other words in a sentence, sufficient to ignore everything else. Still waiting on support for it. Your quotes didn't have it. Your link did not have it. It didn't work before, repeating it the same way will not convince me, even after the tenth time you've done it. You are stuck on articles when the rest of us are looking at the WHOLE picture shaped by context and relevance.
Nothing in the third paragraph states or represents "anything that counts as 'a model'". If that was the intent, GW has used better ways of doing it and would have used them here. The third paragraph is not dealing with just what a model can see, but what a model is trying to see, i.e. focusing on, i.e. trying to establish a straight, unblockable line to, i.e. the whole point of Line of Sight. Nothing in the third paragraph indicates any of the subsequent nouns getting in the way. It is saying that, "(s)ometimes, all that can be seen OF a model is (this)...". Then it says these cannot be used to see the model by these things. When it comes to seeing a model, intervening models are only relevant if they are in the way, but you still are not concerned with your ability to see something in the way.
Charistoph wrote: But we are talking about a specific thing. We are talking about a model we are trying to see. "Sometimes, all that is visible of a model is...". Why do you think we are trying to see multiple models in this sentence? Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?
We aren't talking about a specific model. If we were, the BRB would use the definite article. As proven, we are talking about the visibility of a non-specific model - anything that fits into the general category of "a model" - per the usage of the indefinite article (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) So the points of the 3rd paragraph affect anything that counts as a model from the perspective of viewing model. On anything that counts as "a model" we ignore wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items.
And you ignored the question. Is it because of you have the reading comprehension of a politician or that you are scared to actually address it?
Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?
Notice how I used an indefinite article there, but the sentence was still talking about something rather specific? It is because the rest of the sentence establishes a context of specificity that is not needed for the noun that "a" is attached to. Yet, you are translating it as, "Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
Here they are side by side, what is the difference and how does it affect the sentence?
"Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
"Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
Context, it is a thing, and you are ignoring it. Get out of your tightly focused hole and look around at the entire sentence. Look at how "Sometimes" is being used. Ever think that the reason they use "a" instead of "the" is because:
* it is a new paragraph and it is a new thing to the paragraph
* it is only considering one singular noun, not all of them
* the situations Line of Sight is being used involve many different types of models, not just one type
* and all the above apply
col_impact wrote: So are you willing to accept that "a model" in the 3rd paragraph is being used in this way (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing)? If you cannot, then you are not adhering to English grammar and your argument is invalid.
Yes, and no. It is a general thing, in that it is not restricted to one type of a thing ("a model" versus "target model"), but it IS a specific thing as it is something we are trying to see ("all that is visible of a model is..." versus "any/all model(s) on the table"). Context and relevance are the key things you are ignoring for the sake of making this a generalized rule. Two things grammar will not allow me to ignore.
Actually the difference you are failing to attend to is the difference between "a model" and "the model we are trying to see". The 3rd paragraph uses the former and you are using the latter. It goes without saying that you are not allowed to read into the rules. I will stick to what the BRB actually says because doing otherwise would render my argument invalid.
Incorrect. Your reading comprehension continues to fail you. It is the difference between "a model" and "a model we are trying to see". The third paragraph uses the latter, not the former. The phrase "a model" is not alone in the sentence, but is preceded by "all that is visible of..." or "Similarly". No matter how much you would wish otherwise, other people cannot disassociate the preceding phrase without ignoring proper grammar.
col_impact wrote: Again, this just underscores a key thing that you keep missing. The 3rd paragraph is dealing with "the visibility of a model" generally and not specifically and the BRB has intentionally made that shift by talking about "visibility" and "a model" and no longer drawing a line of sight to a target model. We are dealing with what a model can "see" and per the language of the 3rd paragraph this involves anything that counts as "a model". For a model to be in the way of some other model it must be visibly blocking the view to that model and not some other way such as a top-down 2d projection for example. Because the 3rd paragraph advances general points about visibility and anything that counts as "a model" to the effect that we ignore wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items, those parts of any model do not factor in to visibility.
And here we go again. Your unfounded and unsupported belief that an article has more relevance and strength than all the other words in a sentence, sufficient to ignore everything else. Still waiting on support for it. Your quotes didn't have it. Your link did not have it. It didn't work before, repeating it the same way will not convince me, even after the tenth time you've done it. You are stuck on articles when the rest of us are looking at the WHOLE picture shaped by context and relevance.
Nothing in the third paragraph states or represents "anything that counts as 'a model'". If that was the intent, GW has used better ways of doing it and would have used them here. The third paragraph is not dealing with just what a model can see, but what a model is trying to see, i.e. focusing on, i.e. trying to establish a straight, unblockable line to, i.e. the whole point of Line of Sight. Nothing in the third paragraph indicates any of the subsequent nouns getting in the way. It is saying that, "(s)ometimes, all that can be seen OF a model is (this)...". Then it says these cannot be used to see the model by these things. When it comes to seeing a model, intervening models are only relevant if they are in the way, but you still are not concerned with your ability to see something in the way.
If you don't apply grammar correctly then your argument is invalid. When the 3rd paragraph talks about "a model" it is talking about a model in general, NOT a specific model. Your interpretation has to adhere to the grammatical usage of indefinite articles or it is wrong.
The 3rd paragraph advances points about visibility and anything that counts as "a model". No mention is made in the 3rd paragraph of anything beyond that. Anything you add beyond that is your reading into the paragraph. You are not allowed to do that.
The 3rd paragraph narrows what counts as visible for anything that counts as "a model" to not include wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items.
Since we are dealing with visibility and anything that counts as "a model", what the 3rd paragraph advances applies equally to a model in the way as any other model, and so drawing a line of sight will not be blocked by what is considered invisible/ignored on a model in the way.
In fact, it seems like your argument is more with GW and not me. They choose to have the 3rd paragraph's points about visibility apply generally to anything that counts as "a model", not me. Feel free to fire them an e-mail if you want to take issue with their use of the indefinite article. Me, I will just accept the rule as it is written.
Charistoph wrote: But we are talking about a specific thing. We are talking about a model we are trying to see. "Sometimes, all that is visible of a model is...". Why do you think we are trying to see multiple models in this sentence? Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?
We aren't talking about a specific model. If we were, the BRB would use the definite article. As proven, we are talking about the visibility of a non-specific model - anything that fits into the general category of "a model" - per the usage of the indefinite article (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) So the points of the 3rd paragraph affect anything that counts as a model from the perspective of viewing model. On anything that counts as "a model" we ignore wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items.
And you ignored the question. Is it because of you have the reading comprehension of a politician or that you are scared to actually address it?
Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?
Notice how I used an indefinite article there, but the sentence was still talking about something rather specific? It is because the rest of the sentence establishes a context of specificity that is not needed for the noun that "a" is attached to. Yet, you are translating it as, "Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
Here they are side by side, what is the difference and how does it affect the sentence?
"Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
"Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
The 3rd paragraph advances points GW deems pertinent about the visibility of anything that counts as "a model". Since "a model" refers to a model in the way just it does any other model, we ignore wings, etc on a model in the way. So when you go to trace line of sight to a target model not only do you consider what is ignored on a model in the way you also consider what is ignored on a target model. We care because that's what the rule tells us. Following what the rules actually say is something I care about.
That's how the grammar/logic works. If GW wanted to specify "the target model" then GW would have. You seem to be having trouble accepting their intentional logical choice to be non-specific.
Context, it is a thing, and you are ignoring it. Get out of your tightly focused hole and look around at the entire sentence. Look at how "Sometimes" is being used. Ever think that the reason they use "a" instead of "the" is because:
* it is a new paragraph and it is a new thing to the paragraph
* it is only considering one singular noun, not all of them
* the situations Line of Sight is being used involve many different types of models, not just one type
* and all the above apply
Your grammatical understanding is lacking.
Spoiler:
* it is a new paragraph and it is a new thing to the paragraph
Incorrect. You use it if its new to the reader/listener. Paragraphs have nothing to do with it. ("Use A(AN) when talking about a thing which is new, unknown, or introduced to a listener for the first time." http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm)
Spoiler:
* it is only considering one singular noun, not all of them
Incorrect. "A = one" is a very specialized use of the indefinite article for when you are quantifying something explicitly (recipe, measure, shopping list, etc.).
Spoiler:
* the situations Line of Sight is being used involve many different types of models, not just one type
Incorrect. Model is already a category inclusive of it's types and that does not change by switching to "the". The use of "a" in the 3rd paragraph is instead according to the most common usage of indefinite articles (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm
col_impact wrote: So are you willing to accept that "a model" in the 3rd paragraph is being used in this way (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing)? If you cannot, then you are not adhering to English grammar and your argument is invalid.
Yes, and no. It is a general thing, in that it is not restricted to one type of a thing ("a model" versus "target model"), but it IS a specific thing as it is something we are trying to see ("all that is visible of a model is..." versus "any/all model(s) on the table"). Context and relevance are the key things you are ignoring for the sake of making this a generalized rule. Two things grammar will not allow me to ignore.
Actually the difference you are failing to attend to is the difference between "a model" and "the model we are trying to see". The 3rd paragraph uses the former and you are using the latter. It goes without saying that you are not allowed to read into the rules. I will stick to what the BRB actually says because doing otherwise would render my argument invalid.
Incorrect. Your reading comprehension continues to fail you. It is the difference between "a model" and "a model we are trying to see". The third paragraph uses the latter, not the former. The phrase "a model" is not alone in the sentence, but is preceded by "all that is visible of..." or "Similarly". No matter how much you would wish otherwise, other people cannot disassociate the preceding phrase without ignoring proper grammar.
I have noted in red a major disconnect on your part. Nowhere in that 3rd paragraph is there the phrase "a model we are trying to see".
I suggest you stick to the actual words and the actual grammar.
col_impact wrote: The 3rd paragraph advances points about visibility and anything that counts as "a model". No mention is made in the 3rd paragraph of anything beyond that. Anything you add beyond that is your reading into the paragraph. You are not allowed to do that.
No, it does not. It is not "anything that counts as a model", it is just "a model we are trying to see".
And you ignored the question. Is it because of you have the reading comprehension of a politician or that you are scared to actually address it?
Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?
Notice how I used an indefinite article there, but the sentence was still talking about something rather specific? It is because the rest of the sentence establishes a context of specificity that is not needed for the noun that "a" is attached to. Yet, you are translating it as, "Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
Here they are side by side, what is the difference and how does it affect the sentence?
"Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
"Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
The 3rd paragraph advances points GW deems pertinent about the visibility of anything that counts as "a model". Since "a model" refers to a model in the way just it does any other model, we ignore wings, etc on a model in the way. So when you go to trace line of sight to a target model not only do you consider what is ignored on a model in the way you also consider what is ignored on a target model. We care because that's what the rule tells us. Following what the rules actually say is something I care about.
That's how the grammar/logic works. If GW wanted to specify "the target model" then GW would have. You seem to be having trouble accepting their intentional logical choice to be non-specific.
You have demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension. You answered a question you were not asked, by repeating the same irrelevant nonsense you have consistently repeated and presents nothing to properly answer the question.
It says nothing about blocking sight with some of these articles in question, it is talking about using these things to actually see a model. Do you understand the difference between "block" and "visible"?
What is the differences between the context of these sentences?
"Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
"Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
* it is a new paragraph and it is a new thing to the paragraph
Incorrect. You use it if its new to the reader/listener. Paragraphs have nothing to do with it. ("Use A(AN) when talking about a thing which is new, unknown, or introduced to a listener for the first time." http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm)
And that is the first time in that the reader sees it in this paragraph, correct? Remember your quote on the definition of paragraph? Did you forget it already?
* it is only considering one singular noun, not all of them
Incorrect. "A = one" is a very specialized use of the indefinite article for when you are quantifying something explicitly (recipe, measure, shopping list, etc.).
And only one model is being referenced here, not multiples, and not all. "All" is quite the multiple term, after all. Its use as a quantitative article is actually not as specialized as you think. Furthermore, the use of the singular "he" later on in the exact same sentence (as opposed to the generic multiple "they") also indicates that the singular use is well within grammar and logic considerations. The following still makes grammatical and logical sense: "Sometimes, all that will be visible of one model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying." So, you are very much indeed incorrect on this point..
* the situations Line of Sight is being used involve many different types of models, not just one type
Incorrect. Model is already a category inclusive of it's types and that does not change by switching to "the". The use of "a" in the 3rd paragraph is instead according to the most common usage of indefinite articles (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm
And here you do not listen. Your insistence on misattributing my case to being "the target model" shows. Line of Sight is needed when drawing it to a target model for Shooting. It is also used in Infiltrate as the minimum distance between models with this Special Rule and enemy models changes if the enemy models have Line of Sight to the Infiltrators. No targeting involved here. So, in this case "a model" is appropriate to globally include "a target model" and "a model with a Special Rule" without excluding the other.
The interesting thing about English grammar is that it has so many rules, and it is not always air tight on just one aspect of it. It is quite possible, and quite common I might add, that multiple uses of a grammatical concept can be in play at the same time.
"A model" is a generic use of the article, but when we add other words to it, the scope and relevance changes. "Sometimes, all that you can see of a model is a weapon. In this case, the model is not visible." We are not caring about any model or all models at this point, all we care about is what you are trying to see. The definite article used in the second sentence is still referring to a model we can only see the weapon of. And it is that definite article which establishes the invisibility of the weapon.
Charistoph wrote: Yes, and no. It is a general thing, in that it is not restricted to one type of a thing ("a model" versus "target model"), but it IS a specific thing as it is something we are trying to see ("all that is visible of a model is..." versus "any/all model(s) on the table"). Context and relevance are the key things you are ignoring for the sake of making this a generalized rule. Two things grammar will not allow me to ignore.
Actually the difference you are failing to attend to is the difference between "a model" and "the model we are trying to see". The 3rd paragraph uses the former and you are using the latter. It goes without saying that you are not allowed to read into the rules. I will stick to what the BRB actually says because doing otherwise would render my argument invalid.
Incorrect. Your reading comprehension continues to fail you. It is the difference between "a model" and "a model we are trying to see". The third paragraph uses the latter, not the former. The phrase "a model" is not alone in the sentence, but is preceded by "all that is visible of..." or "Similarly". No matter how much you would wish otherwise, other people cannot disassociate the preceding phrase without ignoring proper grammar.
I have noted in red a major disconnect on your part. Nowhere in that 3rd paragraph is there the phrase "a model we are trying to see".
Then look up the term "visible" and its use, master misgrammarizer who mocks other for not doing "proper" google searches he doesn't bother to do first.
It is called "rewording for context". It is a tactic used in literature to get a point across, especially when the original text would not make grammatical sense in its sentence structure. It is actually a common practice, and you use it yourself on occasion. If you bothered to read past the part you highlighted, I provided the context of it. But as usual, you stop when you get what you want and ignore the rest.
nekooni wrote: What was the exact wording of the FAQ on the doors? they're part of the model(=vehicle) ? So any counter-arguments to them being an Access Point and allowing Marines to disembark from the tip of the door?
It is very very ambiguous and not really explanatory.
Q. Are Drop Pod Doors ignored for game purposes once deployed?
A. No - they are still part of the model.
Neither question or answer really define which or all game purposes they are not ignored for.
At least when it comes to Open-Topped and Access Points it couldn't be clearer. The entire model (the word hull is not used in that rule!) is an access point, doors are part of the model.
nekooni wrote: And what about the Rhino - do you allow folks to shoot through the doors? There's no other part of the model in the way, you could just shoot through the Rhino.
So long as the side doors are open, it IS possible, just as if all Drop Pod doors are down and you have the right angle. If they are closed, you really are not drawing a straight, unblocked line through it, are you?
So to sum it up:
Drop Pod doors
* are an access point
* block line of sight to other models
* are not part of the hull when it comes to targeting the Drop Pod
But can you move within 1 inch of the doors of an opposing pod without charging it? Can you move on top of the doors of any pod?
col_impact wrote: The 3rd paragraph advances points about visibility and anything that counts as "a model". No mention is made in the 3rd paragraph of anything beyond that. Anything you add beyond that is your reading into the paragraph. You are not allowed to do that.
No, it does not. It is not "anything that counts as a model", it is just "a model we are trying to see".
The BRB uses the indefinite article. "A model" refers to a non-specific model per rules of English already cited.
No where in the 3rd paragraph does it mention "model we are trying to see".
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
The 3rd paragraph concerns itself with the visibility of what counts as "a model". 'Visible' means "able to be seen", not "we are trying to see". Anything you add beyond "able to be seen" is your reading into the paragraph. You are not allowed to do that. Reading into the paragraph makes your argument invalid.
And you ignored the question. Is it because of you have the reading comprehension of a politician or that you are scared to actually address it?
Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?
Notice how I used an indefinite article there, but the sentence was still talking about something rather specific? It is because the rest of the sentence establishes a context of specificity that is not needed for the noun that "a" is attached to. Yet, you are translating it as, "Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
Here they are side by side, what is the difference and how does it affect the sentence?
"Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
"Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
The 3rd paragraph advances points GW deems pertinent about the visibility of anything that counts as "a model". Since "a model" refers to a model in the way just it does any other model, we ignore wings, etc on a model in the way. So when you go to trace line of sight to a target model not only do you consider what is ignored on a model in the way you also consider what is ignored on a target model. We care because that's what the rule tells us. Following what the rules actually say is something I care about.
That's how the grammar/logic works. If GW wanted to specify "the target model" then GW would have. You seem to be having trouble accepting their intentional logical choice to be non-specific.
You have demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension. You answered a question you were not asked, by repeating the same irrelevant nonsense you have consistently repeated and presents nothing to properly answer the question.
It says nothing about blocking sight with some of these articles in question, it is talking about using these things to actually see a model. Do you understand the difference between "block" and "visible"?
The 3rd paragraph makes it very clear what counts as visible on a model. Since we ignore wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items on a model, the 3rd paragraph changes what blocks lines of sight on a model in the way. If the antennae is ignored, it cannot block line of sight.
What is the differences between the context of these sentences?
"Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
"Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
The 3rd paragraph discusses what is 'able to be seen' of "a model" and addresses a non-specific model generally, per the choice to use an indefinite article (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm. What is 'able to be seen of a model' affects what the viewing model can 'see'. The viewing model can't have its line of sight obstructed by parts the BRB has deemed ignored or invisible on a model. An invisible or ignored part of a model is something you can see right through after all.
* it is a new paragraph and it is a new thing to the paragraph
Incorrect. You use it if its new to the reader/listener. Paragraphs have nothing to do with it. ("Use A(AN) when talking about a thing which is new, unknown, or introduced to a listener for the first time." http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm)
And that is the first time in that the reader sees it in this paragraph, correct? Remember your quote on the definition of paragraph? Did you forget it already?
It needs to be new to the reader/listener. "Use A(AN) when talking about a thing which is new, unknown, or introduced to a listener for the first time."
If it's been introduced to the reader before and just new to the paragraph then that does not count. "Use A(AN) when talking about a thing which is new, unknown, or introduced to a listener for the first time."
* it is only considering one singular noun, not all of them
Incorrect. "A = one" is a very specialized use of the indefinite article for when you are quantifying something explicitly (recipe, measure, shopping list, etc.).
And only one model is being referenced here, not multiples, and not all. "All" is quite the multiple term, after all. Its use as a quantitative article is actually not as specialized as you think. Furthermore, the use of the singular "he" later on in the exact same sentence (as opposed to the generic multiple "they" also indicates that the singular use is well within grammar and logic considerations. The following still makes grammatical and logical sense: "Sometimes, all that will be visible of one model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying." So, you are very much indeed incorrect on this point..
Incorrect. Nothing is being quantified in the 3rd paragraph so there is no justification for your interpreting the indefinite article that way. The use of "he" is just agreement with the choice already made to use the singular form of the indefinite article (Do I need to point you to grammatical resources on agreement?). The last part of the paragraph switches up to use plural "models" which is an instance of the so-called "zero" article. So the BRB is simply just talking about a model or models non-specifically.
The use of the indefinite article has already been identified. (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) Why are you struggling against what is obvious?
Also, it should be pointed out, this is a rulebook. If it means "one" the BRB will say "one".
* the situations Line of Sight is being used involve many different types of models, not just one type
Incorrect. Model is already a category inclusive of it's types and that does not change by switching to "the". The use of "a" in the 3rd paragraph is instead according to the most common usage of indefinite articles (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm
And here you do not listen. Your insistence on misattributing my case to being "the target model" shows. Line of Sight is needed when drawing it to a target model for Shooting. It is also used in Infiltrate as the minimum distance between models with this Special Rule and enemy models changes if the enemy models have Line of Sight to the Infiltrators. No targeting involved here. So, in this case "a model" is appropriate to globally include "a target model" and "a model with a Special Rule" without excluding the other.
In the case of Infiltrate you resolve it by checking to see if you could target the unit with any of your units in the same way that you can check line of sight to multiple enemy units before deciding which one to shoot at and declaring it to your opponent in the shooting phase.
Nice try but you can't use Infiltrate as a problem that the 3rd paragraphs choice to use "a model" rather than "a target model" has to solve. You have literally made-up the Infiltrate issue.
The 3rd paragraph chooses to use "a model" because it wants to advance statements about is able to be seen on "a model".
The interesting thing about English grammar is that it has so many rules, and it is not always air tight on just one aspect of it. It is quite possible, and quite common I might add, that multiple uses of a grammatical concept can be in play at the same time.
"A model" is a generic use of the article, but when we add other words to it, the scope and relevance changes. "Sometimes, all that you can see of a model is a weapon. In this case, the model is not visible." We are not caring about any model or all models at this point, all we care about is what you are trying to see. The definite article used in the second sentence is still referring to a model we can only see the weapon of. And it is that definite article which establishes the invisibility of the weapon.
In red I have marked where you are adding to the paragraph. The 3rd paragraph makes no mention of "trying to see".
The 3rd paragraph is concerned with the visibility of a model, ie what is able to be seen of a model. We are determining what a model can ‘see’.
Charistoph wrote: Yes, and no. It is a general thing, in that it is not restricted to one type of a thing ("a model" versus "target model", but it IS a specific thing as it is something we are trying to see ("all that is visible of a model is..." versus "any/all model(s) on the table". Context and relevance are the key things you are ignoring for the sake of making this a generalized rule. Two things grammar will not allow me to ignore.
Actually the difference you are failing to attend to is the difference between "a model" and "the model we are trying to see". The 3rd paragraph uses the former and you are using the latter. It goes without saying that you are not allowed to read into the rules. I will stick to what the BRB actually says because doing otherwise would render my argument invalid.
Incorrect. Your reading comprehension continues to fail you. It is the difference between "a model" and "a model we are trying to see". The third paragraph uses the latter, not the former. The phrase "a model" is not alone in the sentence, but is preceded by "all that is visible of..." or "Similarly". No matter how much you would wish otherwise, other people cannot disassociate the preceding phrase without ignoring proper grammar.
I have noted in red a major disconnect on your part. Nowhere in that 3rd paragraph is there the phrase "a model we are trying to see".
Then look up the term "visible" and its use, master misgrammarizer who mocks other for not doing "proper" google searches he doesn't bother to do first.
It is called "rewording for context". It is a tactic used in literature to get a point across, especially when the original text would not make grammatical sense in its sentence structure. It is actually a common practice, and you use it yourself on occasion. If you bothered to read past the part you highlighted, I provided the context of it. But as usual, you stop when you get what you want and ignore the rest.
Visible means "able to be seen" and not "something we are trying to see"
"All that is visible of a model" does not mean "a model we are trying to see"
Moreover, these two statements are not equivalent . ..
1) All that is visible of a model
2) All that is visible of a model that we are trying to see
In the first statement we are talking about the visibility of a model whether we are trying to see it or not
The second statement is what you are proposing, but that statement isn't in the BRB. The first statement is. You are reading into the rules. Therefore your argument is invalid.
nosferatu1001 wrote: If theyre part of the model, you cannot move on top of them, as yo uhave no rule allowuing you to do so.
Yeah, I was thinking in the context of "decorative items" and the like - do you ignore those when trying to get into base/hull contact? How do you get into base contact if decorative crap is in the way and you are not allowed to ignore it for movement purposes?
nosferatu1001 wrote: If theyre part of the model, you cannot move on top of them, as yo uhave no rule allowuing you to do so.
Yeah, I was thinking in the context of "decorative items" and the like - do you ignore those when trying to get into base/hull contact? How do you get into base contact if decorative crap is in the way and you are not allowed to ignore it for movement purposes?
We usually invoke a variation of "Wobbly Model Syndrome" and say "This model is actually here". I keep a few empty bases on hand just in case we need to measure exactly how far something would be if it was actually in the space.
col_impact wrote: I will stick to what I think the BRB actually says because doing otherwise would render my argument invalid.
Fixed that for you.
You might want to review Tenet 1 and 1a of YMDC since this post is in violation.
It's not just what I think. All you need to do is read the BRB.
Which statement is actually in the BRB?
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying."
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of the model we are trying to see is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying."
Actually, I have followed Tenet 1 and 1a of YMDC. This was pointing out an opinion of yours, and making it clear it was an opinion and not fact as you are stating it. I have backed it up in all the discussions by pointing out the context of the paragraph, with the links to the previous paragraph and that the subsequent paragraph is still discussing line of sight to a target model. As Charistoph says, the context for this is line of sight to a model, not just whether a model, intervening or not, is invisible. You still haven't given a satisfactory answer on why they would try to address an intervening model being invisible when all you see is the banner, etc. Making a point of the model being invisible makes perfect sense when it is a target model, there's absolutely no need to bring that up for an intervening model. I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Charistoph that it is your reading comprehension skills that are at issue here, and that has clouded your arguments. Refusing to read the rules in context can end up twisting a rule beyond where it should be applied. Charistoph's point about the rules paragraph you cite saying you can't see the model but saying nothing about blocking or not blocking line of sight is a valid point that should help you realize that your interpretation is not correct. But, since you are not reading the section that it in and want to focus on the one statement while ignoring that there are references back to paragraphs that in context mean something other than what you believe, I doubt you'll realize it.
But, there is one side question I have to ask you - since you say the banners don't block line of sight, are you ignoring the decorative items when it comes time to determine if something has 25% cover from the intervening model as well? If you're going to play it wrong, I would hope that you are at least playing it consistently.
nekooni wrote: What was the exact wording of the FAQ on the doors? they're part of the model(=vehicle) ? So any counter-arguments to them being an Access Point and allowing Marines to disembark from the tip of the door?
It is very very ambiguous and not really explanatory.
Q. Are Drop Pod Doors ignored for game purposes once deployed?
A. No - they are still part of the model.
Neither question or answer really define which or all game purposes they are not ignored for.
At least when it comes to Open-Topped and Access Points it couldn't be clearer. The entire model (the word hull is not used in that rule!) is an access point, doors are part of the model.
Good point. I misremembered that point.
col_impact wrote:The BRB uses the indefinite article. "A model" refers to a non-specific model per rules of English already cited.
No where in the 3rd paragraph does it mention "model we are trying to see".
The first and third sentence only talks about how much of one model can be seen. Visibility or invisibility of only these specific portions of the model are not ever stated. It is the second sentence with the definite article which removes visibility, and that of the model as a whole.
At best, the only way this paragraph would apply to an intervening model is if only the wings, weapons, tails, decorative items, etc., is visible.
Or in other words, if a Bloodthirster's wing was between my shooter and his target, I only get to ignore the Bloodthirster if all the shooter can see of the Bloodthirster is his wing/weapon/tail, etc.
Carrying that along, the only time I get to ignore the Drop Pod door for Line of Sight is if the only thing I can see of the Drop Pod is said door or its Storm Bolter.
And that is only if one can justify why we are bothering to focus any attention on seeing an intervening model. Context and relevance cannot be ignored. When we are trying to see one model (per the "a" in "a model"), no other model is being referenced. We are only looking to see if one model is visible, not any or all. And it is only that model's bits were are referenced to address, no one else's.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One other point. There is no order of operations stated or insinuated with Paragraph 3 of Line of Sight. We are not told to consider visibility in any order (consider visibility of intervening models, first, at the same time, etc). In addition, as soon as we are done considering the visibility of one model, we are not told to consider its visibility when being applied to other models.
The context for that operation comes from the previous paragraph which is about making a straight, unblocked line from one model's body to another and the third paragraph starting with, "Sometimes".
So, by considering the visibility of one model when trying to consider another model, you are adding conditions and considerations to the rules of Line of Sight which are not written.
Previously included in Post: I have attached two files to help explain the difference. Yes, the artistry sucks (speed and a dying mouse do not help things) but that is not the point. The situation is where we are trying to shoot at a banner carrier.
Example 1: is the situation where we would ignore the wing if other model's decorative items mattered to "a model". The one model we are trying to see is blocked by another model's bits whose main body is also hidden.
Example 2: is the situation where it does not matter what "a model" is applying to, the Banner holder is blocked and the only one showing only bits, and we can fully see the main body of the Bloodthirster.
Incorrect. The extent of the view is the view of the enemy model.
So if all that is visible of a model is a weapon, banner, wings, etc then the model is invisible/ignored and the model drawing line of sight can see right through it.
Below are images illustrating how this works.
In the image representing the line of sight situation, the extent of the viewing models view is the space marine body outlined.
So the viewing model sees a wing.
However, if all that is viewed of a model is a wing then the model is invisible/ignored.
Line of sight is established to the space marine as per the second image - the line of sight result.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. The extent of the view is the view of the enemy model.
So if all that is visible of a model is a weapon, banner, wings, etc then the model is invisible/ignored and the model drawing line of sight can see right through it.
That is adding to what it is saying. Other models' visibility is never addressed in the third paragraph. You are only to consider one model's visibility, as denoted by the singular "a model".
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. The extent of the view is the view of the enemy model.
So if all that is visible of a model is a weapon, banner, wings, etc then the model is invisible/ignored and the model drawing line of sight can see right through it.
That is adding to what it is saying. Other models' visibility is never addressed in the third paragraph. You are only to consider one model's visibility, as denoted by the singular "a model".
You are the one reading into the 3rd paragraph. There is no mention of "one model". The paragraph explicitly uses "a model" and we "use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing." See --> http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm
So the 3rd paragraph applies to things that are considered "a model" which of course includes the Bloodthirster.
In the image representing the line of sight situation, the extent of the viewing models view is the space marine body outlined.
So the viewing model sees a wing.
However, if all that is viewed of a model is a wing then the model is invisible/ignored.
Where does it state to consider the actual visibility of other models in the third paragraph? In any of Line of Sight?
In the 3rd paragraph itself.
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
"A model" is not restricted to "a target model" or "an enemy model" or any other restriction.
col_impact wrote: You are the one reading into the 3rd paragraph. There is no mention of "one model". The paragraph explicitly uses "a model" and we "use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing." See --> http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm
So the 3rd paragraph applies to things that are considered "a model" which of course includes the Bloodthirster.
Lack of reading comprehension will not save your argument. The "a model" is indicating non-specific noun, but it also indicating a numerical as well as indicated by the later, singular "he" in the same sentence. No multiple form of a noun is used in this sentence which are used as would be the case for a truly general, global statement. This is further indicated by the use of single definite use of "the model" in the following paragraph.
Do not forget that in grammar, one is not always required to be limited to one aspect of a concept. Multiple aspects can (and often are) in play. Does your fancy googling tell you that you can only use one aspect of "a" at a time?
The concept that "a model" is including all models at the same time is deeply flawed by the lack of other terms in use in the same sentence to support it.
You are using your end desires to justify what grammatical concepts can be used. That is used when you are writing, not when reading.
Charistoph wrote: Where does it state to consider the actual visibility of other models in the third paragraph? In any of Line of Sight?
In the 3rd paragraph itself.
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
"A model" is not restricted to "a target model" or "an enemy model" or any other restriction.
And yet, it is still used in the singular form which denies your presumption. We are only considering one model at a time when this judgement is being made, not any model nor all models. No other models are mentioned at all when we are considering what we cannot use to see a model.
col_impact wrote: You are the one reading into the 3rd paragraph. There is no mention of "one model". The paragraph explicitly uses "a model" and we "use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing." See --> http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm
So the 3rd paragraph applies to things that are considered "a model" which of course includes the Bloodthirster.
Lack of reading comprehension will not save your argument. The "a model" is indicating non-specific noun, but it also indicating a numerical as well as indicated by the later, singular "he" in the same sentence. No multiple form of a noun is used in this sentence which are used as would be the case for a truly general, global statement. This is further indicated by the use of single definite use of "the model" in the following paragraph.
Do not forget that in grammar, one is not always required to be limited to one aspect of a concept. Multiple aspects can (and often are) in play. Does your fancy googling tell you that you can only use one aspect of "a" at a time?
The concept that "a model" is including all models at the same time is deeply flawed by the lack of other terms in use in the same sentence to support it.
Charistoph wrote: Where does it state to consider the actual visibility of other models in the third paragraph? In any of Line of Sight?
In the 3rd paragraph itself.
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
"A model" is not restricted to "a target model" or "an enemy model" or any other restriction.
And yet, it is still used in the singular form which denies your presumption. We are only considering one model at a time when this judgement is being made, not any model. No other models are mentioned at all when we are considering what we cannot use to see a model.
No quantitative measure is being made at all in the paragraph so your insistence on transposing "a" with "one" is incorrect and does not follow English grammar. If the BRB meant "one" they would have stated "one". They did not state "one model" so we use "a model". You have read into the rule. Therefore your argument is invalid.
col_impact wrote: No quantitative measure is being made at all in the paragraph so your insistence on transposing "a" with "one" is incorrect and does not follow English grammar. If the BRB meant "one" they would have stated "one". They did not state "one model" so we use "a model". You have read into the rule. Therefore your argument is invalid.
Prove it. Your link does not state this. You have a belief that only this one aspect of using the word "a" can only be referring to this. That is because that is all you want it to be. You then reject out of hand every other aspect of it.
Latter terminology in the sentence and the following sentence afterwards indicate the singular use is being used. How many does "he" refer to? How many does "the model is not visible" refer to?
To quote the page you linked on its fourth point of Use 9:
REMEMBER: You cannot use A(AN) with plural nouns because A(AN) means "one" or "a single".
It does not indicate this as an exclusive aspect. Indeed, none of them are stated as exclusive from the rest.
For proper reading comprehension to work, read beyond the moment of what you want and confirm with things around it.
col_impact wrote: No quantitative measure is being made at all in the paragraph so your insistence on transposing "a" with "one" is incorrect and does not follow English grammar. If the BRB meant "one" they would have stated "one". They did not state "one model" so we use "a model". You have read into the rule. Therefore your argument is invalid.
Prove it. Your link does not state this. You have a belief that only this one aspect of using the word "a" can only be referring to this. That is because that is all you want it to be. You then reject out of hand every other aspect of it.
Latter terminology in the sentence and the following sentence afterwards indicate the singular use is being used. How many does "he" refer to? How many does "the model is not visible" refer to?
To quote the page you linked on its fourth point of Use 9:
REMEMBER: You cannot use A(AN) with plural nouns because A(AN) means "one" or "a single".
It does not indicate this as an exclusive aspect. Indeed, none of them are stated as exclusive from the rest.
For proper reading comprehension to work, read beyond the moment of what you want and confirm with things around it.
I don't have to prove anything. I have been adhering to by far the most common use of the indefinite article and there is absolutely no quantitative measure being made at all in the paragraph so we are really only dealing with points being advanced about "a model" in a general and non-specific way which can be relevant to a model in the way or a target model or to the situation multiple times (in other words "sometimes").
In fact we could be dealing with the possibility of cases where the only thing on a model that is visible are 2 banners and 3 weapons which would break your rigid paradigm. Does having 2 weapons as the only thing visible on a model suddenly make the whole model visible where just one weapon visible would have rendered the whole model invisible? Obviously "a weapon" is not being quantitatively restricted.
The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.
col_impact wrote: I don't have to prove anything. I have been adhering to by far the most common use of the indefinite article and there is absolutely no quantitative measure being made at all in the paragraph so we are really only dealing with points being advanced about "a model" in a general and non-specific way which can be relevant to a model in the way or a target model or to the situation multiple times (in other words "sometimes").
In fact we could be dealing with the possibility of cases where the only thing on a model that is visible are 2 banners and 3 weapons which would break your rigid paradigm. Does having 2 weapons as the only thing visible on a model suddenly make the whole model visible where just one weapon visible would have rendered the whole model invisible? Obviously "a weapon" is not being quantitatively restricted.
The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.
I am not the one with a rigid paradigm, here. You are the one taking only one aspect of the page they reference and only adhering to that while ignoring all other aspects of the page they referenced. You are the one who are only looking at a two word phrase and ignoring everything else in the sentence, paragraph, and section. You are the one who are confusing "a model" with "any model" and/or "all models". You are the one ignoring that "a model" is referred later on in the sentence and paragraph as the singular uses of "he" and "the model".
I am not ignoring the aspect that "a model" is referencing a non-specific aspect, and I have also addressed that several times, and to which you have not properly countered at all (Models are not targeted when they are trying to Infiltrate). The difference is that I am not locked in to only using that use of "a".
As for the Weapons and banners question, apparently so. It is only when all that can be seen is "a weapon, banner, or other ornament", not "any weapon, banner, or other ornament". Also remember, that this is the base rules, and a majority of models on the table will only have 1 Weapon or 1 Banner on the model anyway. The base rules are always written for consideration of the most common model on the table. The later sentence does state that , "wings, tails, and antennae" are also ignored for these purposes, which indicate a plurality, and could be classed as precedence to allow for multiple weapons, banners, etc, to be ignored, but that aspect is not locked in print.
The first time the plurality of models is addressed is in the final sentence which gives a reason for this ruling, "to ensure that models don't get penalized for having impressive...". Now for a relevance question: if the "a model" is referring to "any model" or "all models", how does an intervening model get penalized if it is visible only by its banner, weapon, wing, etc?
Remember, modelling for advantage is a house/tournament rule and not a rule in the rulebook any more. The only time any model would get penalized for visibility of an impressive banner/weapon/etc, is if we were trying to actually see it for some purpose (targetting, possessing special rule, etc), not go around/through it.
I know this is YMDC and all, but why not just agree that the RAW are vague and may not even match the RAI. If a rules argument is going on back and forth this long, it's clearly not a well written rule, and at this point, if I saw you two in a game, I'd ask you to just D6 it or to agree on a house rule (e.g. my previous proposal, or similar). It's getting rather drawn out and certainly too heated.
KommissarKiln wrote: I know this is YMDC and all, but why not just agree that the RAW are vague and may not even match the RAI. If a rules argument is going on back and forth this long, it's clearly not a well written rule, and at this point, if I saw you two in a game, I'd ask you to just D6 it or to agree on a house rule (e.g. my previous proposal, or similar). It's getting rather drawn out and certainly too heated.
He will not agree. He thinks that it is perfectly clear in his narrow interpretation, as he has stated numerous times already.
I will not agree, because I need to see the in-game relevance of including something not in context. In that respect, I believe that it is clear that it is only speaking of a model we are trying to see, not one we are not addressing.
It is doubtful that he and I will ever have a game, for many reasons. But also remember the Tenets, "7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates."
col_impact wrote: I don't have to prove anything. I have been adhering to by far the most common use of the indefinite article and there is absolutely no quantitative measure being made at all in the paragraph so we are really only dealing with points being advanced about "a model" in a general and non-specific way which can be relevant to a model in the way or a target model or to the situation multiple times (in other words "sometimes").
In fact we could be dealing with the possibility of cases where the only thing on a model that is visible are 2 banners and 3 weapons which would break your rigid paradigm. Does having 2 weapons as the only thing visible on a model suddenly make the whole model visible where just one weapon visible would have rendered the whole model invisible? Obviously "a weapon" is not being quantitatively restricted.
The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.
I am not the one with a rigid paradigm, here. You are the one taking only one aspect of the page they reference and only adhering to that while ignoring all other aspects of the page they referenced. You are the one who are only looking at a two word phrase and ignoring everything else in the sentence, paragraph, and section. You are the one who are confusing "a model" with "any model" and/or "all models". You are the one ignoring that "a model" is referred later on in the sentence and paragraph as the singular uses of "he" and "the model".
I am not ignoring the aspect that "a model" is referencing a non-specific aspect, and I have also addressed that several times, and to which you have not properly countered at all (Models are not targeted when they are trying to Infiltrate). The difference is that I am not locked in to only using that use of "a".
As for the Weapons and banners question, apparently so. It is only when all that can be seen is "a weapon, banner, or other ornament", not "any weapon, banner, or other ornament". Also remember, that this is the base rules, and a majority of models on the table will only have 1 Weapon or 1 Banner on the model anyway. The base rules are always written for consideration of the most common model on the table. The later sentence does state that , "wings, tails, and antennae" are also ignored for these purposes, which indicate a plurality, and could be classed as precedence to allow for multiple weapons, banners, etc, to be ignored, but that aspect is not locked in print.
The first time the plurality of models is addressed is in the final sentence which gives a reason for this ruling, "to ensure that models don't get penalized for having impressive...". Now for a relevance question: if the "a model" is referring to "any model" or "all models", how does an intervening model get penalized if it is visible only by its banner, weapon, wing, etc?
Remember, modelling for advantage is a house/tournament rule and not a rule in the rulebook any more. The only time any model would get penalized for visibility of an impressive banner/weapon/etc, is if we were trying to actually see it for some purpose (targetting, possessing special rule, etc), not go around/through it.
Incorrect. The rule of the 3rd paragraph applies itself for each instance of "a model" or "a weapon" and this is patently obvious.
For example,
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal."
now does that mean the same as . . .
"During one soccer match, one player is allowed to score one goal"
or to put it even more clearly according to your argument . . .
"During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal"
I guess you don't allow the scoring of goals in any soccer match after the first one of the season, or any player to score any goal after the first player scores the only goal that can be scored for that critical first game of the season. This underscores that you are really transposing "a" with "only one" which as my example clearly shows is specialized usage.
So to recap, your argument is . . .
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal." = "During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal"
whereas actually . . .
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal." = "During soccer matches, players are allowed to score goals." (the sentences are identical in meaning and differ only stylistically - the writer chose to express the idea with the plural instead of the singular in the second sentence)
I hope this shows to you that the burden of proof is squarely on you to show a quantitative measure or restriction is being explicitly required by the rule.
I know at this point anyone reading this thread knows the burden of proof is on you on this point. You have literally dug your yourself into a hole with your latest posts.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. The rule of the 3rd paragraph applies itself for each instance of "a model" or "a weapon" and this is patently obvious.
For example,
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal."
now does that mean the same as . . .
"During one soccer match, one player is allowed to score one goal"
or to put it even more clearly according to your argument . . .
"During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal"
I guess you don't allow the scoring of goals in any soccer match after the first one of the season, or any player to score any goal after the first player scores the only goal that can be scored for that critical first game of the season. This underscores that you are really transposing "a" with "only one" which as my example clearly shows is specialized usage.
So to recap, your argument is . . .
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal." = "During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal"
whereas actually . . .
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal." = "During soccer matches, players are allowed to score goals." (the sentences are identical in meaning and differ only stylistically - the writer chose to express the idea with the plural instead of the singular in the second sentence)
I hope this shows to you that the burden of proof is squarely on you to show a quantitative measure or restriction is being explicitly required by the rule.
I know at this point anyone reading this thread knows the burden of proof is on you on this point. You have literally dug your yourself into a hole with your latest posts.
And you ignore my points, again, and then make assumptions as to what others are thinking. Awesome. Only a lack of reading comprehension supports your statements, as well as ignoring the reminders of your own source.
You did not address the context provided by the rest of the paragraph, but continued to focus on the one phrase to the exclusion of all else. Quantitative measure is applied by the applying the context of "he" and "the model". This leads you to present strawmen which do not properly relate to the situation as described in the related section.
Your example is also interesting, since, only one player can actually score one goal at a time. It is difficult for two players to kick the ball at the same time, after all. In addition, how would you propose that a player be able to score multiple goals at the same time? Context and relevance are still being applied in these situations here. I'm sure that you've also removed all other context from the soccer rules that actually state these things just as you continue to ignore and "remove" the everything from the Line of Sight rules which provides the context and relevance to your assumptions.
You did not address the lack of timing or lack of stated inclusion of intervening models. You want it to be that way, so you only look at grammatical rules which support your statements and ignore all others. Where does it state in the rules that we consider the visibility of intervening models? Not IF they are visible, but that we are to actually apply it?
And you ignore my points, again, and then make assumptions as to what others are thinking. Awesome. Only a lack of reading comprehension supports your statements, as well as ignoring the reminders of your own source.
You did not address the context provided by the rest of the paragraph, but continued to focus on the one phrase to the exclusion of all else. Quantitative measure is applied by the applying the context of "he" and "the model". This leads you to present strawmen which do not properly relate to the situation as described in the related section.
Your example is also interesting, since, only one player can actually score one goal at a time. It is difficult for two players to kick the ball at the same time, after all. In addition, how would you propose that a player be able to score multiple goals at the same time? Context and relevance are still being applied in these situations here. I'm sure that you've also removed all other context from the soccer rules that actually state these things just as you continue to ignore and "remove" the everything from the Line of Sight rules which provides the context and relevance to your assumptions.
Sigh.
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal" reads fine as is and is equivalent in meaning to "during soccer matches, players are allowed to score goals" as I have already shown.
"During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal" has had its sense all butchered up. Are we talking about only one soccer match on this day or in the season? Are we talking about only one player being allowed to score? Do other players get to score at all or are they unrestricted and able to score more than one goal? Are we talking about only the ability to score over the entire game or are we going to add to the sentence "at a time" to try make sense of it. Transposing "a" for "only one" introduces all sorts of ambiguity and logical problems. If you have to start adding things to the sentence to untangle the mess you have made of it by transposing then obviously you changed the meaning.
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal" reads clearly and requires no such untangling. All you have to do is not transpose "a" for "only one".
I proved you wrong on your use of the indefinite article. Still need more proof?
1) "A man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."
2) "Only one man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."
These two sets of sentences obviously mean two very different things. In fact, the second set of sentences is logically impossible.
1) "A girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"
2) "Only one girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"
These two sets of sentences obviously mean two very different things. In fact, the second set of sentences is logically impossible.
"A" only transposes to "only one" in specialized uses of the indefinite article.
You are failing to accept the obvious.. This is fine by me. It only broadcasts loudly to the thread how problematic your line of reasoning is.
You did not address the lack of timing or lack of stated inclusion of intervening models. You want it to be that way, so you only look at grammatical rules which support your statements and ignore all others. Where does it state in the rules that we consider the visibility of intervening models? Not IF they are visible, but that we are to actually apply it?
"Sometimes all that will be visible of a model will be. . ."
"Sometimes" is the timing of the rule which can happen any number of times obviously.
Also the 3rd paragraph discusses "a model" which obviously would include a model in the way as well as a target model. The rule is not being specific.
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal" reads fine as is and is equivalent in meaning to "during soccer matches, players are allowed to score goals" as I have already shown.
"During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal" has had its sense all butchered up. Are we talking about only one soccer match on this day or in the season? Are we talking about only one player being allowed to score? Do other players get to score at all or are they unrestricted and able to score more than one goal? Are we talking about only the ability to score over the entire game or are we going to add to the sentence "at a time" to try make sense of it. Transposing "a" for "only one" introduces all sorts of ambiguity and logical problems. If you have to start adding things to the sentence to untangle the mess you have made of it by transposing then obviously you changed the meaning.
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal" reads clearly and requires no such untangling. All you have to do is not transpose "a" for "only one".
I proved you wrong on your use of the indefinite article. Still need more proof?
1) "A man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."
2) "Only one man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."
These two sets of sentences obviously mean two very different things. In fact, the second set of sentences is logically impossible.
1) "A girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"
2) "Only one girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"
These two sets of sentences obviously mean two very different things. In fact, the second set of sentences is logically impossible.
"A" only transposes to "only one" in specialized uses of the indefinite article.
You are failing to accept the obvious.. This is fine by me. It only broadcasts loudly to the thread how problematic your line of reasoning is.
Ah, so your reading incomprehension kicks in and causes you to misrepresent things again.
Who stated "a" means "only one"? That's only been you just now as a strawman. I stated that "since, only one player can actually score one goal at a time. It is difficult for two players to kick the ball at the same time, after all. In addition, how would propose that a player be able to score multiple goals at the same time?" You took what I stated out of context, thinking I was doing a rewrite (I wasn't), just like you have taken this "a model" out of context.
Did you forget the reference in the source you linked, again?
REMEMBER: You cannot use A(AN) with plural nouns because A(AN) means "one" or "a single"
I do not recall ever stating, transposing, or referencing "a" as being "only one", that is an addition you fabricated. To properly write your counter-examples:
1) "A man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."
2) "One man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."
1) "A girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"
2) "One girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"
Those number 2's are reading far more sensibly now, aren't they?
Not to mention, the rules in the third paragraph are providing a standard of determination, not a base line of rules. So, "During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal.", would be in the introduction. The portion we're talking about is about the player's eligibility to score a goal in the first place, such as from out of bounds, such as "Sometimes, a player that is out of bounds will kick the ball in to a goal. In these instances, this is not a scoring goal".
So, again, the quantitative aspect is still in use, not just because of "a", but also because of "he" and "the". The concept of "a" being interpreted as "any" or "all" is just a creation in your mind, and counter to what is actually written via the grammar of the entire paragraph.
col_impact wrote: "Sometimes all that will be visible of a model will be. . ."
"Sometimes" is the timing of the rule which can happen any number of times obviously.
Also the 3rd paragraph discusses "a model" which obviously would include a model in the way as well as a target model. The rule is not being specific.
Why? Where is the rule that we would we consider an intervening model first or at the same time for this determination? Where does it state to not consider models invisible by this standard for other models?
This is the timing I am speaking of, when to be considering any other model besides the one we are trying to see.
For context and relevance, the timing of this paragraph is right after the section of drawing a straight, unblocked line from the body of one model to another. The next paragraph does not remove this context from the instructions. Admittedly, it does not specifically address it, either. The concept of relevance comes in to play to bring it all together, though, if you believe in that kind of thing.
I do not recall ever stating, transposing, or referencing "a" as being "only one", that is an addition you fabricated. To properly write your counter-examples:
1) "A man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."
2) "One man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."
1) "A girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"
2) "One girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"
Those number 2's are reading far more sensibly now, aren't they?
Not to mention, the rules in the third paragraph are providing a standard of determination, not a base line of rules. So, "During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal.", would be in the introduction. The portion we're talking about is about the player's eligibility to score a goal in the first place, such as from out of bounds, such as "Sometimes, a player that is out of bounds will kick the ball in to a goal. In these instances, this is not a scoring goal".
So, again, the quantitative aspect is still in use, not just because of "a", but also because of "he" and "the". The concept of "a" being interpreted as "any" or "all" is just a creation in your mind, and counter to what is actually written via the grammar of the entire paragraph.
Cool, so you admit there is no quantitative restriction (i.e. no sense of "only one"), so we are simply referring to however many instances of "a model" there are at the bar so to speak, and we are speaking of "a model" non-specifically in a general way as I have been saying all along. You have basically flip-flopped since your argument got backed into a hole, but I will go ahead and take that as the closest thing you will give me as a concession on the point.
So we resolve the 3rd paragraph dealing with each instance of "a model" and each instance of "a weapon".
col_impact wrote: "Sometimes all that will be visible of a model will be. . ."
"Sometimes" is the timing of the rule which can happen any number of times obviously.
Also the 3rd paragraph discusses "a model" which obviously would include a model in the way as well as a target model. The rule is not being specific.
Why? Where is the rule that we would we consider an intervening model first or at the same time for this determination? Where does it state to not consider models invisible by this standard for other models?
This is the timing I am speaking of, when to be considering any other model besides the one we are trying to see.
For context and relevance, the timing of this paragraph is right after the section of drawing a straight, unblocked line from the body of one model to another. The next paragraph does not remove this context from the instructions. Admittedly, it does not specifically address it, either. The concept of relevance comes in to play to bring it all together, though, if you believe in that kind of thing.
As you admit, the 3rd paragraph is completely non-specific as to what "a model" is, therefore it applies generally, unless you are claiming there is a grammatical or logical flaw on GWs part (possible but not provable and you would then be arguing RAI)
So you check line of sight. The extent of that view is the extent of the enemy model. The line of sight will see "a model". Whether its a target model or a model in the way the 3rd paragraph adjusts what is visible or ignored just the same.
That is literally what the rule tells us to do. I don't know if following the rules as they are written is your kind of thing, but it is definitely my kind of thing.
Charistoph wrote: So, again, the quantitative aspect is still in use, not just because of "a", but also because of "he" and "the". The concept of "a" being interpreted as "any" or "all" is just a creation in your mind, and counter to what is actually written via the grammar of the entire paragraph.
Cool, so you admit there is no quantitative restriction (i.e. no sense of "only one"), so we are simply referring to however many instances of "a model" there are at the bar so to speak, and we are speaking of "a model" non-specifically in a general way as I have been saying all along. You have basically flip-flopped since your argument got backed into a hole, but I will go ahead and take that as the closest thing you will give me as a concession on the point.
So we resolve the 3rd paragraph dealing with each instance of "a model" and each instance of "a weapon".
Your failure at reading comprehension continues or you have deliberately ignored what I have said, which leads your lies to continue. I did not flip-flop. I corrected.
The quantitative aspect has never been referred to as "only one". The problem is that by using quantitative indicators in the paragraph does not tell us to consider beyond the one. We are not told to consider this standard for other models while doing it for one. We are not told to consider all models when we are considering this standard for one.
col_impact wrote: As you admit, the 3rd paragraph is completely non-specific as to what "a model" is, therefore it applies generally, unless you are claiming there is a grammatical or logical flaw on GWs part (possible but not provable and you would then be arguing RAI)
Taking what I said out of context does not prove you correct. Taking only a portion of what I said as all I said does not prove you correct. All it demonstrates either your lack of reading comprehension or your deliberate decision to only consider what what you want and ignore the rest.
Nothing in "a model" is to be considered as "any and all models". If it is to be considered "any model", "any model" would be used. If it is to be considered "all models", then the singular aspect of "a", "he", and "the" would not have been used and "all models" would have been used.
All we are to consider is one model, and this after having been instructed to create a straight, unblocked line between one model and another.
col_impact wrote: So you check line of sight. The extent of that view is the extent of the enemy model. The line of sight will see "a model". Whether its a target model or a model in the way the 3rd paragraph adjusts what is visible or ignored just the same.
That is literally what the rule tells us to do. I don't know if following the rules as they are written is your kind of thing, but it is definitely my kind of thing.
Why? Where is the rule that we would we consider an intervening model first or at the same time for this determination? Where does it state to not consider models invisible by this standard for other models?
You have quoted nothing, but have only used your own limited interpretation of grammar of two words while ignoring everything else. This is supposed to be a permissive ruleset. You need rules to enact these steps. These rules are not as you have suggested. The third paragraph is only concerned with one model's visibility, not any, and not all.
Charistoph wrote: So, again, the quantitative aspect is still in use, not just because of "a", but also because of "he" and "the". The concept of "a" being interpreted as "any" or "all" is just a creation in your mind, and counter to what is actually written via the grammar of the entire paragraph.
Cool, so you admit there is no quantitative restriction (i.e. no sense of "only one"), so we are simply referring to however many instances of "a model" there are at the bar so to speak, and we are speaking of "a model" non-specifically in a general way as I have been saying all along. You have basically flip-flopped since your argument got backed into a hole, but I will go ahead and take that as the closest thing you will give me as a concession on the point.
So we resolve the 3rd paragraph dealing with each instance of "a model" and each instance of "a weapon".
Your failure at reading comprehension continues or you have deliberately ignored what I have said, which leads your lies to continue. I did not flip-flop. I corrected.
The quantitative aspect has never been referred to as "only one". The problem is that by using quantitative indicators in the paragraph does not tell us to consider beyond the one. We are not told to consider this standard for other models while doing it for one. We are not told to consider all models when we are considering this standard for one.
My bad. You really didn't flip-flop. You just never stopped with the "only one" meaning of "a" even though you led on that you did. If you are 'not considering beyond the one' then you are considering "only one" or "just one" or "exactly one" which are all quantitative restrictions.
Are you adding a restriction (ie "only one" or "not considering beyond the one") or not? The BRB is required to explicitly state a restriction or else there is no restriction. And you are not allowed to read in a restriction where there is none.
Remember, it has already been proven that the 3rd paragraph is dealing with "a model" generally and not specifically.
Spoiler:
A and AN are called indefinite articles. "Indefinite" means "not specific". Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
Examples:
I need a phone. Not a specific phone, any phone
Mark wants a bicycle. Not a particular bicycle, a bicycle in general
Do you have a driver's license? In general
When someone asks you . . . "Do you have a gun on your person, yes or no?" . . . the answer is "yes" if you have 3 guns. That's because the question is being asked generally and you have 3 instances of "a gun" on your person.
col_impact wrote: As you admit, the 3rd paragraph is completely non-specific as to what "a model" is, therefore it applies generally, unless you are claiming there is a grammatical or logical flaw on GWs part (possible but not provable and you would then be arguing RAI)
Taking what I said out of context does not prove you correct. Taking only a portion of what I said as all I said does not prove you correct. All it demonstrates either your lack of reading comprehension or your deliberate decision to only consider what what you want and ignore the rest.
Nothing in "a model" is to be considered as "any and all models". If it is to be considered "any model", "any model" would be used. If it is to be considered "all models", then the singular aspect of "a", "he", and "the" would not have been used and "all models" would have been used.
All we are to consider is one model, and this after having been instructed to create a straight, unblocked line between one model and another.
The 3rd paragraph uses "a model" in a general and non-specific way so the use of "a model" applies to any instance of "a model" as has already been shown. You have to show that the 3rd paragraph is specifically talking about a particular model already mentioned. However you won't be able to show that since what can be shown is the opposite. The BRB deliberately switches from "the target's body" to "a model" since the BRB explicitly wants to advance points that apply non-specifically to any instance of "a model"
col_impact wrote: So you check line of sight. The extent of that view is the extent of the enemy model. The line of sight will see "a model". Whether its a target model or a model in the way the 3rd paragraph adjusts what is visible or ignored just the same.
That is literally what the rule tells us to do. I don't know if following the rules as they are written is your kind of thing, but it is definitely my kind of thing.
Why? Where is the rule that we would we consider an intervening model first or at the same time for this determination? Where does it state to not consider models invisible by this standard for other models?
You have quoted nothing, but have only used your own limited interpretation of grammar of two words while ignoring everything else. This is supposed to be a permissive ruleset. You need rules to enact these steps. These rules are not as you have suggested. The third paragraph is only concerned with one model's visibility, not any, and not all.
The rule in the 3rd paragraph deals with "a model" non-specifically and generally and so gives permission to each instance of "a model" generally. You are the one who has no permission to implement the rule in a more specific way than that. The 3rd paragraph makes no mention of any quantitative restriction on "a model" or anything more specific than "a model".
col_impact wrote: My bad. You really didn't flip-flop. You just never stopped with the "only one" meaning of "a" even though you led on that you did. If you are 'not considering beyond the one' then you are considering "only one" or "just one" or "exactly one" which are all quantitative restrictions.
Incorrect. I never added "only" for this paragraph, that was purely your invention. I am referring to where are we told to consider beyond "one" at a time in this paragraph. Update your reading comprehension.
col_impact wrote: Are you adding a restriction (ie "only one" or "not considering beyond the one") or not? The BRB is required to explicitly state a restriction or else there is no restriction. And you are not allowed to read in a restriction where there is none.
I am not adding a restriction. I am asking where we are informed to extend this beyond one at a time. Remember, under a permissive ruleset, lack of permission is as much a restriction as being told you cannot do something. I have stated this numerous times now. Do you understand this?
A and AN are called indefinite articles. "Indefinite" means "not specific". Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
Spamming the same thing over and over again that I did not accept as sufficient before does nothing to convince me. It hasn't before, it will not do so now.
col_impact wrote: The 3rd paragraph uses "a model" in a general and non-specific way so the use of "a model" applies to any instance of "a model" as has already been shown. You have to show that the 3rd paragraph is specifically talking about a particular model already mentioned. However you won't be able to show that since what can be shown is the opposite. The BRB deliberately switches from "the target's body" to "a model" since the BRB explicitly wants to advance points that apply non-specifically to any instance of "a model"
It is only your assumption that it is this and only this. You have ignored everything else from your own source.
Context is provided by the previous paragraph (as is standard in instruction sets), but if you don't look beyond the only phrase you are looking at, you wouldn't know that. Relevance and additional instructions are needed in order to apply this to all models at the same time. You do not have them.
col_impact wrote: The rule in the 3rd paragraph deals with "a model" non-specifically and generally and so gives permission to each instance of "a model" generally. You are the one who has no permission to implement the rule in a more specific way than that. The 3rd paragraph makes no mention of any quantitative restriction on "a model" or anything more specific than "a model".
Yes, "a model", which is still singular, as in only the model we are considering. It also refers to "the model", which is still singular. In this, we still are not told to consider OTHER models' visibility in this context. Lack of instruction means lack of permission, which means it is restricted.
These questions do not have a quotable answer:
Where is the rule that we would we consider an intervening model first or at the same time for this determination?
Where does it state to not consider models invisible by this standard for other models?
Remember, at the point of this set of instructions, we were just told to consider a straight, unbroken line between one model and another. The instructions at this point then tells you what to consider as visible. The instructions following it tell you to consider things from the model's PoV if needed.
Instructions are usually a little different from normal English. You go from one step to another, and they are often new paragraphs for each new step or concept being introduced associated with the previous set of instructions. This is prevalent throughout the rulebook. If you notice, the rulebook does not follow approved paragraph format of several sentences.
At the point we are told to consider the visibility of "a model" it is right after making an attempt at making a connection between two models. This is the context of which we are to consider visibility. No other model is mentioned in considering this visibility, and it is just one at a time.
[quote=col_impact 703020 8935715 null
No quantitative measure is being made at all in the paragraph so your insistence on transposing "a" with "one" is incorrect and does not follow English grammar. If the BRB meant "one" they would have stated "one". They did not state "one model" so we use "a model". You have read into the rule. Therefore your argument is invalid.
col_impact, if somebody offers you "a" pineapple, they are offering you one pineapple, not multiple pineapples. This makes your assertion of following Englsh grammar suspect.
It is perfectly clear that the sentence saying "a" model is referring to one model, since the sentence directly after, still discussing that model, says THE model. It does not use models plural. With the use of "the" model in conjunction with "a" model, you should know from context that "a" model is referring to one model. Missing that context, as well as the context of them discussing seeing to a model and not through a model can lead to an erroneous interpretation of the rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KommissarKiln wrote: I know this is YMDC and all, but why not just agree that the RAW are vague and may not even match the RAI. If a rules argument is going on back and forth this long, it's clearly not a well written rule, and at this point, if I saw you two in a game, I'd ask you to just D6 it or to agree on a house rule (e.g. my previous proposal, or similar). It's getting rather drawn out and certainly too heated.
I agree on RAW being vague about the drop pod doors, in fact I pointed out several pages ago neither side would be able to prove RAW.
Right now, though, the specific argument going on isn't about the drop pod in general, but about whether ornamental items (banners, etc) block line of sight to models behind them. Col_impact says no, Charistoph and I say they do. And, I don't thik that it means that it's not a well written rule, just that someone isn't reading it correctly. That can happen even with rules that aren't well written, due to inherent biases of some people.
col_impact wrote: My bad. You really didn't flip-flop. You just never stopped with the "only one" meaning of "a" even though you led on that you did. If you are 'not considering beyond the one' then you are considering "only one" or "just one" or "exactly one" which are all quantitative restrictions.
Incorrect. I never added "only" for this paragraph, that was purely your invention. I am referring to where are we told to consider beyond "one" at a time in this paragraph. Update your reading comprehension.
col_impact wrote: Are you adding a restriction (ie "only one" or "not considering beyond the one") or not? The BRB is required to explicitly state a restriction or else there is no restriction. And you are not allowed to read in a restriction where there is none.
I am not adding a restriction. I am asking where we are informed to extend this beyond one at a time. Remember, under a permissive ruleset, lack of permission is as much a restriction as being told you cannot do something. I have stated this numerous times now. Do you understand this?
The 3rd paragraph says "a model" which is not restricted. You are reading a restriction into the 3rd paragraph. You are saying that using "a" means "not extending beyond one" or "not more than one" or really "only one". This is a specialized use of "a" and not the common use and you have failed to prove that the 3rd paragraph is using the specialized use.
1) "A man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."
2) "Not more than one man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."
Those sentences obviously mean different things. In fact the second sentence is logically impossible. If you add a restriction to "a" you have deviated from the common use of "a" and are using a specialized case of "a"
Similarly,
1) "A girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"
2) "Not more than one girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"
Those sentences obviously mean different things. In fact the second sentence is logically impossible. If you add a restriction to "a" you have deviated from the common use of "a" and are using a specialized case of "a"
Consider:
You have 3 weapons on your person.
A computer terminal asks you "do you have a weapon on your person? select yes or no".
The answer is yes. There are 3 instances of "a model" on your person.
The answer is not no since the computer terminal did not refer to "only one weapon" just "a weapon"
There are any number of instances of "a model" for a line of sight check. The BRB has intentionally told us that "a model" is to be generally and non-specifically understood, so "all that will be visible of a model" could refer to a model in the way or a target model.
As I have already proven, the use of "a" does not restrict the number of instances of "a model" the rule can affect. Each instance of "a model" in the situation is considered.
Not sure why you are reading "at a time" into the rule when the rule actually reads "sometimes" which can be any number of times and "these cases" rather than "this case". In fact the use of "these cases" debunks your "a=restricted to one" read entirely since your read would only produce a single case and not multiple cases.
Stop reading restrictions where there are none and stop adding stuff to the rules that is not there. Until your stop doing that, your argument is invalid.
col_impact wrote: The 3rd paragraph uses "a model" in a general and non-specific way so the use of "a model" applies to any instance of "a model" as has already been shown. You have to show that the 3rd paragraph is specifically talking about a particular model already mentioned. However you won't be able to show that since what can be shown is the opposite. The BRB deliberately switches from "the target's body" to "a model" since the BRB explicitly wants to advance points that apply non-specifically to any instance of "a model"
It is only your assumption that it is this and only this. You have ignored everything else from your own source.
Context is provided by the previous paragraph (as is standard in instruction sets), but if you don't look beyond the only phrase you are looking at, you wouldn't know that. Relevance and additional instructions are needed in order to apply this to all models at the same time. You do not have them.
I don't have a problem with context. The context is drawing a line of sight from a viewing model through any number of models in the way to a target model. In the 3rd paragraph, the BRB deliberately chooses to advance points about the visibility of "a model" and not "a target model". The only model we can exclude at that point is the viewing model and that is by virtue of the logic of the situation and not grammar.
col_impact wrote: The rule in the 3rd paragraph deals with "a model" non-specifically and generally and so gives permission to each instance of "a model" generally. You are the one who has no permission to implement the rule in a more specific way than that. The 3rd paragraph makes no mention of any quantitative restriction on "a model" or anything more specific than "a model".
Yes, "a model", which is still singular, as in only the model we are considering. It also refers to "the model", which is still singular. In this, we still are not told to consider OTHER models' visibility in this context. Lack of instruction means lack of permission, which means it is restricted.
Incorrect.
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.
Visibility is discussed in the 3rd paragraph. It refers to "a model" and so can refer to any model pertinent to the situation. A model in the way is a model that is visibly in the way. Similarly, proximity or direction alone does not allow a model to block line of sight, a model must visibly block line of sight.
These questions do not have a quotable answer:
Where is the rule that we would we consider an intervening model first or at the same time for this determination?
The 3rd paragraph says "a model" so no distinction between a model in the way or a target model. Do you see a distinction being made in the 3rd paragraph? Why do you keep insisting on adding your own words to the sentences in the BRB? As long as you keep adding your own words to the rules your argument will be invalid.
Where does it state to not consider models invisible by this standard for other models?
The extent of the view is the view of the enemy of model. The rule is only concerned sorting out the visibility of models that are along that view. And in fact, any models not along that view might as well be considered invisible for the line of sight check since they are simply not relevant.
Remember, at the point of this set of instructions, we were just told to consider a straight, unbroken line between one model and another. The instructions at this point then tells you what to consider as visible. The instructions following it tell you to consider things from the model's PoV if needed.
Instructions are usually a little different from normal English. You go from one step to another, and they are often new paragraphs for each new step or concept being introduced associated with the previous set of instructions. This is prevalent throughout the rulebook. If you notice, the rulebook does not follow approved paragraph format of several sentences.
At the point we are told to consider the visibility of "a model" it is right after making an attempt at making a connection between two models. This is the context of which we are to consider visibility. No other model is mentioned in considering this visibility, and it is just one at a time.
Incorrect.
There is no mention of "at a time". The rule actually says "sometimes" and "these cases" so there can be any number of times and any number of cases.
Also . . .
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.
There is quite obviously more than two models in the situation. And the BRB deliberately chose to use "a model" rather than "the target model".
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.
Visibility is discussed in the 3rd paragraph. It refers to "a model" and so can refer to any model pertinent to the situation. A model in the way is a model that is visibly in the way. Similarly, proximity or direction alone does not allow a model to block line of sight, a model must visibly block line of sight.
If it was "any model", it would say, "any model". If it was every model, it would say, "every model". It is only "a model", singular, though, so this interpretation that we are to consider any and all models at the same time puts a lie to the singular use.
Other models in this situation are classed in the same group as battlefield terrain. We are not told to consider those other models' visibility at the time of the 3rd Paragraph. Other models need to be considered, but only the same way as battlefield terrain, as indicated by the "and" preceding "other models". Again, you focus on two words when there is so much more to be considered in all of this.
These questions do not have a quotable answer:
Where is the rule that we would we consider an intervening model first or at the same time for this determination?
The 3rd paragraph says "a model" so no distinction between a model in the way or a target model. Do you see a distinction being made in the 3rd paragraph? Why do you keep insisting on adding your own words to the sentences in the BRB? As long as you keep adding your own words to the rules your argument will be invalid.
I am not adding words in this, I am asking where words are that would support your statement. This is an exercise in considering context and relevance of the words surrounding the question. You are the on asking us to consider multiple models at the same time when we are only told to consider "a model".
"A model" does not always mean "any model", context must still be considered. "A model" definitely does not mean "all models" or "every model". We are told to consider one model at the time. So, where does it state to consider other models in this? It does not.
Where does it state to not consider models invisible by this standard for other models?
The extent of the view is the view of the enemy of model. The rule is only concerned sorting out the visibility of models that are along that view. And in fact, any models not along that view might as well be considered invisible for the line of sight check since they are simply not relevant.
"Enemy model" is not stated. One is not always looking for a view of an "enemy model". As stated before, we could be looking at a possessor of a Special Rule which affects all models who can draw Line of Sight to it. In these cases, a significant portion of them are actually friendly models.
If the rule was "only concerned (with) sorting out the visibility of models that are along that view", then, as stated before, words like "any" and "all" would have been used rather than "a". The third paragraph is only considering one model at a time. The inclusion of other models in this is beyond its constructed paradigm.
Remember, at the point of this set of instructions, we were just told to consider a straight, unbroken line between one model and another. The instructions at this point then tells you what to consider as visible. The instructions following it tell you to consider things from the model's PoV if needed.
Instructions are usually a little different from normal English. You go from one step to another, and they are often new paragraphs for each new step or concept being introduced associated with the previous set of instructions. This is prevalent throughout the rulebook. If you notice, the rulebook does not follow approved paragraph format of several sentences.
At the point we are told to consider the visibility of "a model" it is right after making an attempt at making a connection between two models. This is the context of which we are to consider visibility. No other model is mentioned in considering this visibility, and it is just one at a time.
Incorrect.
There is no mention of "at a time". The rule actually says "sometimes" and "these cases" so there can be any number of times and any number of cases.
Only if one chooses to ignore the context presented earlier in the section. We are only told to be considering "a model" at this point in the writing of the rules, not "all models", nor "any models".
Sometimes is including the differences between "Hey, you're out in the open" and "Hey, all I can see is your gun!". Remember, context and and relevance. I know these are advanced concepts for some, and it is just easier to focus on one or two words to make a judgement on it, but it actually flows better when all such things are brought together instead of piecemeal or just picking and choosing what you will pay attention to.
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.
Visibility is discussed in the 3rd paragraph. It refers to "a model" and so can refer to any model pertinent to the situation. A model in the way is a model that is visibly in the way. Similarly, proximity or direction alone does not allow a model to block line of sight, a model must visibly block line of sight.
If it was "any model", it would say, "any model". If it was every model, it would say, "every model". It is only "a model", singular, though, so this interpretation that we are to consider any and all models at the same time puts a lie to the singular use.
If it were "only one model" the BRB would say "only one model". If it were "not more than one model" it would say not more than one model. If it were "a target model" the BRB would say "a target model."
I have already proven that the the BRB is referring to "a model" in a nonspecific general way. When the indefinite articles is used in that way, it can apply to any instance of "a model" in the situation.
For example
You have 3 weapons on your person.
A computer terminal asks you "do you have a weapon on your person? select yes or no".
The answer is yes. There are 3 instances of "a model" on your person.
The answer is not no since the computer terminal did not refer to "only one weapon" just "a weapon"
An indefinite article indicates that its noun is not a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It may be something that the speaker is mentioning for the first time, or its precise identity may be irrelevant or hypothetical, or the speaker may be making a general statement about any such thing. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar)#Definite_article )
Other models in this situation are classed in the same group as battlefield terrain. We are not told to consider those other models' visibility at the time of the 3rd Paragraph. Other models need to be considered, but only the same way as battlefield terrain, as indicated by the "and" preceding "other models". Again, you focus on two words when there is so much more to be considered in all of this.
The BRB chooses to say "all that will be visible of a model" in a situation where more than one model could be at play. Obviously "a model" would include a model in the way just as easily as "a target model"
"A model" does not always mean "any model", context must still be considered. "A model" definitely does not mean "all models" or "every model". We are told to consider one model at the time. So, where does it state to consider other models in this? It does not.
The indefinite article is being used in a non-specific general way in a situation where there are any number of things that might mean "a model". Any instance of "a model" is to be considered
Do you have rules quote on this? You are literally making this up. The rule uses "sometimes" and "these cases" so we are actually talking about any number of times.
Where does it state to not consider models invisible by this standard for other models?
The extent of the view is the view of the enemy of model. The rule is only concerned sorting out the visibility of models that are along that view. And in fact, any models not along that view might as well be considered invisible for the line of sight check since they are simply not relevant.
"Enemy model" is not stated. One is not always looking for a view of an "enemy model". As stated before, we could be looking at a possessor of a Special Rule which affects all models who can draw Line of Sight to it. In these cases, a significant portion of them are actually friendly models.
Incorrect.
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy
Infiltrate also refers only to enemy
Spoiler:
Infiltrators can be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any enemy unit, as long as no deployed enemy unit can draw line of sight to them.
If the rule was "only concerned (with) sorting out the visibility of models that are along that view", then, as stated before, words like "any" and "all" would have been used rather than "a". The third paragraph is only considering one model at a time. The inclusion of other models in this is beyond its constructed paradigm.
Still waiting for the rules quote on "at a time". No where in the entire rule on Line of Sight is "at a time" mentioned. If the BRB meant "at a time" like it does for Wound Allocation then it would say "at a time". Your argument is invalid so long as you insist on adding words that are simply not there.
There is no mention of "at a time". The rule actually says "sometimes" and "these cases" so there can be any number of times and any number of cases.
Only if one chooses to ignore the context presented earlier in the section. We are only told to be considering "a model" at this point in the writing of the rules, not "all models", nor "any models".
Sometimes is including the differences between "Hey, you're out in the open" and "Hey, all I can see is your gun!". Remember, context and and relevance. I know these are advanced concepts for some, and it is just easier to focus on one or two words to make a judgement on it, but it actually flows better when all such things are brought together instead of piecemeal or just picking and choosing what you will pay attention to.
No where in the whole rule is "at a time" mentioned so you are the one ignoring context. If you make up something that is not in the context such as adding "at a time" to the context then your argument is invalid. If you want to take a look at a rule that uses "at a time" look at Wound Allocation.
"Sometimes" can occur any number of times. If you are going to ignore the straightforward meaning of words then your argument is invalid.
col_impact wrote: If it were "only one model" the BRB would say "only one model". If it were "not more than one model" it would say not more than one model. If it were "a target model" the BRB would say "a target model."
I have already proven that the the BRB is referring to "a model" in a nonspecific general way. When the indefinite articles is used in that way, it can apply to any instance of "a model" in the situation.
For example
You have 3 weapons on your person.
A computer terminal asks you "do you have a weapon on your person? select yes or no".
The answer is yes. There are 3 instances of "a model" on your person.
The answer is not no since the computer terminal did not refer to "only one weapon" just "a weapon"
An indefinite article indicates that its noun is not a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It may be something that the speaker is mentioning for the first time, or its precise identity may be irrelevant or hypothetical, or the speaker may be making a general statement about any such thing. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar)#Definite_article )
Nevertheless, and you are reminded of this farther down your grammar page, it is still, just one. Not many, not all, not any, just one. You are instructed on doing this for one model, partially by the use of "a model", but later by the use of "he" and "the model".
You have brought this up before and it was not accepted as relevant on its own. Why do you keep insisting on using it?
Other models in this situation are classed in the same group as battlefield terrain. We are not told to consider those other models' visibility at the time of the 3rd Paragraph. Other models need to be considered, but only the same way as battlefield terrain, as indicated by the "and" preceding "other models". Again, you focus on two words when there is so much more to be considered in all of this.
The BRB chooses to say "all that will be visible of a model" in a situation where more than one model could be at play. Obviously "a model" would include a model in the way just as easily as "a target model"
And then it says, "he" and "the model" later on, which are still specifically singular in their use.
Now, where does it tell us in which order we are to be considering the visibility of other models before considering the one we WANT to see? This is, what, the fifth time I've asked and you haven't properly answered?
"A model" does not always mean "any model", context must still be considered. "A model" definitely does not mean "all models" or "every model". We are told to consider one model at the time. So, where does it state to consider other models in this? It does not.
The indefinite article is being used in a non-specific general way in a situation where there are any number of things that might mean "a model". Any instance of "a model" is to be considered
An assumption based on consideration of only two words. No consideration made for other words being used or the context in place. The use of an indefinite doesn't restrict us to one specific model, but it still does restrict it to one model for the context of the sentence in question. Other words are needed to expand this "a model" to be beyond the one being considered by this sentence.
Context and relevance, they are things in the rulebook not to be casually dismissed. Quit picking and choosing what you will adhere to.
Do you have rules quote on this? You are literally making this up. The rule uses "sometimes" and "these cases" so we are actually talking about any number of times.
I've explained this. By the use of the singular terms, "a model", "he", and "the model". Nothing else allows me to consider these instructions beyond an individual model's basis. Therefore, one model at a time.
Where does it state to not consider models invisible by this standard for other models?
The extent of the view is the view of the enemy of model. The rule is only concerned sorting out the visibility of models that are along that view. And in fact, any models not along that view might as well be considered invisible for the line of sight check since they are simply not relevant.
"Enemy model" is not stated. One is not always looking for a view of an "enemy model". As stated before, we could be looking at a possessor of a Special Rule which affects all models who can draw Line of Sight to it. In these cases, a significant portion of them are actually friendly models.
Incorrect.
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy
Infiltrate also refers only to enemy
Spoiler:
Infiltrators can be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any enemy unit, as long as no deployed enemy unit can draw line of sight to them.
Upgrade your reading comprehension and remember things like context. You were referencing the Line of Sight rules when you brought up "enemy models", I highlighted it in red to help you find it. I was referencing the Line of Sight rules when stating "'Enemy model' is not stated".
Remember the point of an indefinite article. It is not just limited to being used on an enemy model. "Enemy model" is not used in the second and third paragraphs of Line of Sight. If there is a special rule that allows friendly models to benefit that are within 6" of it and can draw Line of Sight to it, we would still be considering if the only thing on that model that could be seen was his weapon, banner, etc. And yes, there are several of those rules out there. And it is to those rules which I was referencing, "In these cases, a significant portion of them are actually friendly models."
Charistoph wrote: If the rule was "only concerned (with) sorting out the visibility of models that are along that view", then, as stated before, words like "any" and "all" would have been used rather than "a". The third paragraph is only considering one model at a time. The inclusion of other models in this is beyond its constructed paradigm.
Still waiting for the rules quote on "at a time". No where in the entire rule on Line of Sight is "at a time" mentioned. If the BRB meant "at a time" like it does for Wound Allocation then it would say "at a time". Your argument is invalid so long as you insist on adding words that are simply not there.
It is in the context of the instructions up to this point. It is in the use of the singular uses of nouns and the indefinite article. I've mentioned this before, actually, and not just in this post.
There is no mention of "at a time". The rule actually says "sometimes" and "these cases" so there can be any number of times and any number of cases.
Only if one chooses to ignore the context presented earlier in the section. We are only told to be considering "a model" at this point in the writing of the rules, not "all models", nor "any models".
Sometimes is including the differences between "Hey, you're out in the open" and "Hey, all I can see is your gun!". Remember, context and and relevance. I know these are advanced concepts for some, and it is just easier to focus on one or two words to make a judgement on it, but it actually flows better when all such things are brought together instead of piecemeal or just picking and choosing what you will pay attention to.
No where in the whole rule is "at a time" mentioned so you are the one ignoring context. If you make up something that is not in the context such as adding "at a time" to the context then your argument is invalid. If you want to take a look at a rule that uses "at a time" look at Wound Allocation.
"Sometimes" can occur any number of times. If you are going to ignore the straightforward meaning of words then your argument is invalid.
Yes, it can occur any number of times. But it does not mean we allow this to be repeated all at once, either, which is what you are proposing. "Sometimes" is being used to join the context of this sentence with the one before it.
Remember the context being provided as an instruction set.
We are told that to establish line of sight from one model to another, we draw a straight, unblocked line between the two bodies. Sometimes, certain parts of a model are all that can be seen. The model is not considered seen by only seeing these parts. This is so a model with certain impressive bits are not unduly penalized.
Tell me, where in that paragraph above are we to be considering all models under this judgement of visibility, even though we only are seeking one?
col_impact wrote: If it were "only one model" the BRB would say "only one model". If it were "not more than one model" it would say not more than one model. If it were "a target model" the BRB would say "a target model."
I have already proven that the the BRB is referring to "a model" in a nonspecific general way. When the indefinite articles is used in that way, it can apply to any instance of "a model" in the situation.
For example
You have 3 weapons on your person.
A computer terminal asks you "do you have a weapon on your person? select yes or no".
The answer is yes. There are 3 instances of "a model" on your person.
The answer is not no since the computer terminal did not refer to "only one weapon" just "a weapon"
An indefinite article indicates that its noun is not a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It may be something that the speaker is mentioning for the first time, or its precise identity may be irrelevant or hypothetical, or the speaker may be making a general statement about any such thing. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar)#Definite_article )
Nevertheless, and you are reminded of this farther down your grammar page, it is still, just one. Not many, not all, not any, just one. You are instructed on doing this for one model, partially by the use of "a model", but later by the use of "he" and "the model".
You have brought this up before and it was not accepted as relevant on its own. Why do you keep insisting on using it?
We are not limited on the number of instances on "a model".
Other models in this situation are classed in the same group as battlefield terrain. We are not told to consider those other models' visibility at the time of the 3rd Paragraph. Other models need to be considered, but only the same way as battlefield terrain, as indicated by the "and" preceding "other models". Again, you focus on two words when there is so much more to be considered in all of this.
The BRB chooses to say "all that will be visible of a model" in a situation where more than one model could be at play. Obviously "a model" would include a model in the way just as easily as "a target model"
And then it says, "he" and "the model" later on, which are still specifically singular in their use.
Now, where does it tell us in which order we are to be considering the visibility of other models before considering the one we WANT to see? This is, what, the fifth time I've asked and you haven't properly answered?
By using "a model" the BRB intentionally makes no distinction between a model in the way and a target and there is similarly no order specified.
If you think there is some order specified in the rule please show it.
This is the fifth time you have ignored my completely supported answer to the question. How many times do I have to tell you the answer to 3+4 is 7? Repeating your question does not make my correct answer incorrect.
"A model" does not always mean "any model", context must still be considered. "A model" definitely does not mean "all models" or "every model". We are told to consider one model at the time. So, where does it state to consider other models in this? It does not.
The indefinite article is being used in a non-specific general way in a situation where there are any number of things that might mean "a model". Any instance of "a model" is to be considered
An assumption based on consideration of only two words. No consideration made for other words being used or the context in place. The use of an indefinite doesn't restrict us to one specific model, but it still does restrict it to one model for the context of the sentence in question. Other words are needed to expand this "a model" to be beyond the one being considered by this sentence.
Context and relevance, they are things in the rulebook not to be casually dismissed. Quit picking and choosing what you will adhere to.
You keep trying to sneak in an unwarranted restriction, a sense of "only one", into the sentence. You are not allowed to unless you can prove that it must be read that way.
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal." does not mean the same thing as "During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal."
In fact, "During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal." means the same thing as "During soccer matches, players are allowed to score goals."
As long as you keep reading "a" as "only one" then your argument is invalid.
Do you have rules quote on this? You are literally making this up. The rule uses "sometimes" and "these cases" so we are actually talking about any number of times.
I've explained this. By the use of the singular terms, "a model", "he", and "the model". Nothing else allows me to consider these instructions beyond an individual model's basis. Therefore, one model at a time.
The use of "a" does not carry with it "at a time". You are literally making that up. Feel free to research up some grammar documentation to prove otherwise. Until you stick with the words in the BRB your argument is invalid.
Upgrade your reading comprehension and remember things like context. You were referencing the Line of Sight rules when you brought up "enemy models", I highlighted it in red to help you find it. I was referencing the Line of Sight rules when stating "'Enemy model' is not stated".
Remember the point of an indefinite article. It is not just limited to being used on an enemy model. "Enemy model" is not used in the second and third paragraphs of Line of Sight. If there is a special rule that allows friendly models to benefit that are within 6" of it and can draw Line of Sight to it, we would still be considering if the only thing on that model that could be seen was his weapon, banner, etc. And yes, there are several of those rules out there. And it is to those rules which I was referencing, "In these cases, a significant portion of them are actually friendly models."
Incorrect.
"Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy"
If there are several rules out there which represent your warriors' view the friendly, please point them out. To my knowledge, there are none.
This would appear to be another instance where you just make stuff up when the words on the page don't suit your needs.
No where in the whole rule is "at a time" mentioned so you are the one ignoring context. If you make up something that is not in the context such as adding "at a time" to the context then your argument is invalid. If you want to take a look at a rule that uses "at a time" look at Wound Allocation.
"Sometimes" can occur any number of times. If you are going to ignore the straightforward meaning of words then your argument is invalid.
Yes, it can occur any number of times. But it does not mean we allow this to be repeated all at once, either, which is what you are proposing. "Sometimes" is being used to join the context of this sentence with the one before it.
Remember the context being provided as an instruction set.
We are told that to establish line of sight from one model to another, we draw a straight, unblocked line between the two bodies. Sometimes, certain parts of a model are all that can be seen. The model is not considered seen by only seeing these parts. This is so a model with certain impressive bits are not unduly penalized.
Tell me, where in that paragraph above are we to be considering all models under this judgement of visibility, even though we only are seeking one?
I am proposing that you deal with each and all instances of "a model".
The BRB explicitly tells us to generally deal with the visibility of anything that is "a model". So if you think the BRB is specifying beyond that then you will need to prove it. The BRB tells us to care about the visibility of anything counting as "a model" in this line of sight check since it generally refers to "a model".
For a model to be in the way it must be visibly in the way and not in the way by some other measure.
For a model to be blocking it must be visibly blocking and not by some other manner of blocking.
If a model in the way is deemed partially or wholly invisible by the BRB then that affects whether it is in the way for the purposes of line of sight.
col_impact wrote: We are not limited on the number of instances on "a model".
Nor are we instructed to look beyond "a model" before another determination of Line of Sight is engaged, hence "at a time".
col_impact wrote: By using "a model" the BRB intentionally makes no distinction between a model in the way and a target and there is similarly no order specified.
If you think there is some order specified in the rule please show it.
This is the fifth time you have ignored my completely supported answer to the question. How many times do I have to tell you the answer to 3+4 is 7? Repeating your question does not make my correct answer incorrect.
I have been asking you for an order of operations because that would support your statement and assertion. I explained the reasoning behind the question quite clearly and in context. You have provided nothing but your assertions that this is so while ignoring everything else connected to what you bring up. You have focused on only one thing while ignoring all around it.
You are to consider one model at a time, this is supported by the use of singular terms throughout the paragraph. Why should I or must I consider any other models before the one I am trying to draw Line of Sight to it? The use of an indefinite article does not impose any requirements of such.
col_impact wrote: You keep trying to sneak in an unwarranted restriction, a sense of "only one", into the sentence. You are not allowed to unless you can prove that it must be read that way.
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal." does not mean the same thing as "During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal."
In fact, "During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal." means the same thing as "During soccer matches, players are allowed to score goals."
As long as you keep reading "a" as "only one" then your argument is invalid.
Your lies become you. My insistence is "one at a time" because we are not instructed to make this consideration for more than "a model". I have never been reading it as "only one". That is purely a fabrication of yours. The only time I sated "only one" is not in a rules reference, but a reference in practical application. Note the difference.
With your insistence that "a" means "any", "all", "more than one", your argument falls flat on its face.
Charistoph wrote: I've explained this. By the use of the singular terms, "a model", "he", and "the model". Nothing else allows me to consider these instructions beyond an individual model's basis. Therefore, one model at a time.
The use of "a" does not carry with it "at a time". You are literally making that up. Feel free to research up some grammar documentation to prove otherwise. Until you stick with the words in the BRB your argument is invalid.
And your lack of desire to apply reading comprehension causes you to fail again. You didn't bother to note I didn't keep it to just "a model". And I used words from the paragraph in question. Would you like me to highlight them for you?
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
See, all words from the paragraph in question. All singular when being discussed.
"Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy"
If there are several rules out there which represent your warriors' view the friendly, please point them out. To my knowledge, there are none.
This would appear to be another instance where you just make stuff up when the words on the page don't suit your needs.
Not making it up, just remembering old rules. They weren't very common. A difference.
Not to mention, weren't you the one talking about it not being about "target models"?
Not to mention, the portion that states "enemy models" is not in the instruction set we are looking at in the third paragraph. You really have an issue with applying things in context.
Now, a reminder, will you address it, or go politician again and answer the question with your own unrelated answer?
Remember the context being provided as an instruction set.
We are told that to establish line of sight from one model to another, we draw a straight, unblocked line between the two bodies. Sometimes, certain parts of a model are all that can be seen. The model is not considered seen by only seeing these parts. This is so a model with certain impressive bits are not unduly penalized.
Tell me, where in that paragraph above are we to be considering all models under this judgement of visibility, even though we only are seeking one?
col_impact wrote: I am proposing that you deal with each and all instances of "a model".
The BRB explicitly tells us to generally deal with the visibility of anything that is "a model". So if you think the BRB is specifying beyond that then you will need to prove it. The BRB tells us to care about the visibility of anything counting as "a model" in this line of sight check since it generally refers to "a model".
No, it does not. "Anything" is not a term used in the third paragraph. This is just more of your only looking at one thing and ignoring all else. We are only told to consider the visibility of "a model" right after we are told to be drawing a line from one model to another. Not "all models", not "any models", just "a model".
col_impact wrote: For a model to be in the way it must be visibly in the way and not in the way by some other measure.
Where are we told to consider the visibility of other models under this standard?
col_impact wrote: For a model to be blocking it must be visibly blocking and not by some other manner of blocking.
Quote, please.
col_impact wrote: If a model in the way is deemed partially or wholly invisible by the BRB then that affects whether it is in the way for the purposes of line of sight.
True, by where are we told to make that differentiation here in the third paragraph of Line of Sight?
col_impact wrote: We are not limited on the number of instances on "a model".
Nor are we instructed to look beyond "a model" before another determination of Line of Sight is engaged, hence "at a time".
Incorrect. There is no "at a time" anywhere in the rule. Insisting upon the presence of words that simply aren't there shows that your argument is invalid. Stick to the rules as given.
col_impact wrote: By using "a model" the BRB intentionally makes no distinction between a model in the way and a target and there is similarly no order specified.
If you think there is some order specified in the rule please show it.
This is the fifth time you have ignored my completely supported answer to the question. How many times do I have to tell you the answer to 3+4 is 7? Repeating your question does not make my correct answer incorrect.
I have been asking you for an order of operations because that would support your statement and assertion. I explained the reasoning behind the question quite clearly and in context. You have provided nothing but your assertions that this is so while ignoring everything else connected to what you bring up. You have focused on only one thing while ignoring all around it.
You are to consider one model at a time, this is supported by the use of singular terms throughout the paragraph. Why should I or must I consider any other models before the one I am trying to draw Line of Sight to it? The use of an indefinite article does not impose any requirements of such.
The rules specify no order of operations nor do they mention "at a time". Your insistence on processes which simply aren't present in the rules makes your argument.
The 3rd paragraph make no specification about what "a model" is. Therefore you are not allowed to. Therefore you resolve the "sometimes" of a rule for each instance of "a model". This might involve a target model or a model in the way or a model in the way and a target model.
col_impact wrote: You keep trying to sneak in an unwarranted restriction, a sense of "only one", into the sentence. You are not allowed to unless you can prove that it must be read that way.
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal." does not mean the same thing as "During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal."
In fact, "During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal." means the same thing as "During soccer matches, players are allowed to score goals."
As long as you keep reading "a" as "only one" then your argument is invalid.
Your lies become you. My insistence is "one at a time" because we are not instructed to make this consideration for more than "a model".
There is no "one at a time" at all in the rule. If you feel otherwise, prove it with a rules quote or grammatical reference.
I have never been reading it as "only one". That is purely a fabrication of yours. The only time I sated "only one" is not in a rules reference, but a reference in practical application. Note the difference.
With your insistence that "a" means "any", "all", "more than one", your argument falls flat on its face.
Cool. Then "a" does not mean "only one" and there is no quantitative restriction. The 3rd paragraph can refer to each instance of "a model" in the scenario.
Charistoph wrote: I've explained this. By the use of the singular terms, "a model", "he", and "the model". Nothing else allows me to consider these instructions beyond an individual model's basis. Therefore, one model at a time.
The use of "a" does not carry with it "at a time". You are literally making that up. Feel free to research up some grammar documentation to prove otherwise. Until you stick with the words in the BRB your argument is invalid.
And your lack of desire to apply reading comprehension causes you to fail again. You didn't bother to note I didn't keep it to just "a model". And I used words from the paragraph in question. Would you like me to highlight them for you?
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
See, all words from the paragraph in question. All singular when being discussed.
Cool. You have just pointed out the grammatical property known as Agreement. The 3rd paragraph starts talking about "a model" that could be a model in the way or a target model. Later references cannot repeat the indefinite article and must agree in case. You have discovered Agreement!
You really need to polish up on your grammar because you are seeing castles where there are windmills.
Not to mention, weren't you the one talking about it not being about "target models"?
Not to mention, the portion that states "enemy models" is not in the instruction set we are looking at in the third paragraph. You really have an issue with applying things in context.
Now, a reminder, will you address it, or go politician again and answer the question with your own unrelated answer?
Remember the context being provided as an instruction set.
We are told that to establish line of sight from one model to another, we draw a straight, unblocked line between the two bodies. Sometimes, certain parts of a model are all that can be seen. The model is not considered seen by only seeing these parts. This is so a model with certain impressive bits are not unduly penalized.
Tell me, where in that paragraph above are we to be considering all models under this judgement of visibility, even though we only are seeking one?
Line of sight represents the warriors view of the enemy. That is the extent of the view and the viewing model is not looking outside that extent.
When the viewing model traces line of sight according to the extent of that view, it will see models. Whether its a model in the way or a target model, the 3rd paragraph might affect what counts as visible or ignored on the model.
col_impact wrote: I am proposing that you deal with each and all instances of "a model".
The BRB explicitly tells us to generally deal with the visibility of anything that is "a model". So if you think the BRB is specifying beyond that then you will need to prove it. The BRB tells us to care about the visibility of anything counting as "a model" in this line of sight check since it generally refers to "a model".
No, it does not. "Anything" is not a term used in the third paragraph. This is just more of your only looking at one thing and ignoring all else. We are only told to consider the visibility of "a model" right after we are told to be drawing a line from one model to another. Not "all models", not "any models", just "a model".
Incorrect. The 3rd paragraph uses "sometimes" and "these cases" to indicate that we can deal with each instance of "a model" that the rule instructs us to deal with.
col_impact wrote: For a model to be in the way it must be visibly in the way and not in the way by some other measure.
Where are we told to consider the visibility of other models under this standard?
col_impact wrote: For a model to be blocking it must be visibly blocking and not by some other manner of blocking.
Quote, please.
The BRB uses line of sight and therefore relies on the visibility of models in the way to determine line of sight. If the models in the way are not visibly blocking line of sight then they are not blocking line of sight. Models that are considered invisible do not block line of sight. These are all simple truisms.
If you don't think it's a truism then feel free to treat all models in the way as invisible and see what happens.
col_impact wrote: If a model in the way is deemed partially or wholly invisible by the BRB then that affects whether it is in the way for the purposes of line of sight.
True, by where are we told to make that differentiation here in the third paragraph of Line of Sight?
The 3rd paragraph instructs about cases that affect the visibility of a model, whether its a target model or a model in the way.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. There is no "at a time" anywhere in the rule. Insisting upon the presence of words that simply aren't there shows that your argument is invalid. Stick to the rules as given.
Failure at reading comprehension does not help this statement. I never stated it actually said, "at a time". I am saying that due to the context of the information at hand, and the lack of direction to consider more than one model in these instructions, we are to do it one at a time.
col_impact wrote: The rules specify no order of operations nor do they mention "at a time". Your insistence on processes which simply aren't present in the rules makes your argument.
The 3rd paragraph make no specification about what "a model" is. Therefore you are not allowed to. Therefore you resolve the "sometimes" of a rule for each instance of "a model". This might involve a target model or a model in the way or a model in the way and a target model.
Failure at consistent reading comprehension does not help this statement. The instructions are to consider "a model", as in "one model". Not "any models", not "all models", just one.
In order for us to consider more than "a model", there needs to be an order of operations, or the direction has to be for "all models" or "any models. You cannot present them, as they do not exist. Therefore, with a lack of direction to do so, I am only required to consider one model's visibility per Line of Sight check, and that will be whatever I'm trying to establish Line of Sight to.
Remember, a lack of instructions does not equate to a permission to do so.
col_impact wrote: There is no "one at a time" at all in the rule. If you feel otherwise, prove it with a rules quote or grammatical reference.
Failure at reading comprehension is no excuse. I have given it before. Look it up.
col_impact wrote: Cool. Then "a" does not mean "only one" and there is no quantitative restriction. The 3rd paragraph can refer to each instance of "a model" in the scenario.
Failure at reading comprehension cannot help your case. "A model" cannot mean more than one at a time considering the context in which the section is written.
col_impact wrote: Cool. You have just pointed out the grammatical property known as Agreement. The 3rd paragraph starts talking about "a model" that could be a model in the way or a target model. Later references cannot repeat the indefinite article and must agree in case. You have discovered Agreement!
You really need to polish up on your grammar because you are seeing castles where there are windmills.
Incorrect. "A" does not equal "all" or "any", as you continue to profess. It means even less when considered in context from the previous sentence where it is being considered going from one model to another.
Quit pursuing your sandcastles in the sand.
col_impact wrote: Can you point to one? Your foggy memory isn't an official rules resource.
Out of a hundred codices worth of material, most of which I do not have any more in any format? You jest.
Not to mention, weren't you the one talking about it not being about "target models"?
Not to mention, the portion that states "enemy models" is not in the instruction set we are looking at in the third paragraph. You really have an issue with applying things in context.
Now, a reminder, will you address it, or go politician again and answer the question with your own unrelated answer?
Remember the context being provided as an instruction set.
We are told that to establish line of sight from one model to another, we draw a straight, unblocked line between the two bodies. Sometimes, certain parts of a model are all that can be seen. The model is not considered seen by only seeing these parts. This is so a model with certain impressive bits are not unduly penalized.
Tell me, where in that paragraph above are we to be considering all models under this judgement of visibility, even though we only are seeking one?
Line of sight represents the warriors view of the enemy. That is the extent of the view and the viewing model is not looking outside that extent.
When the viewing model traces line of sight according to the extent of that view, it will see models. Whether its a model in the way or a target model, the 3rd paragraph might affect what counts as visible or ignored on the model.
So, the Politician's Answer it is. The question wasn't about the 3rd paragraph, it was about the restate mentioned above. This one here:
Spoiler:
We are told that to establish line of sight from one model to another, we draw a straight, unblocked line between the two bodies. Sometimes, certain parts of a model are all that can be seen. The model is not considered seen by only seeing these parts. This is so a model with certain impressive bits are not unduly penalized.
Tell me, where in that paragraph in that spoiler are we to be considering all models under this judgement of visibility, even though we only are seeking one?
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. The 3rd paragraph uses "sometimes" and "these cases" to indicate that we can deal with each instance of "a model" that the rule instructs us to deal with.
That does not perfectly jell when combined with the preceding sentence. "Sometimes" is referring to a portion of the times the preceding sentence engender, due to its conjunctive nature. It is not carte blanche to ignore the singularity of the nouns being used or to treat all these times at the same time.
col_impact wrote: For a model to be in the way it must be visibly in the way and not in the way by some other measure.
Where are we told to consider the visibility of other models under this standard?
col_impact wrote: For a model to be blocking it must be visibly blocking and not by some other manner of blocking.
Quote, please.
The BRB uses line of sight and therefore relies on the visibility of models in the way to determine line of sight. If the models in the way are not visibly blocking line of sight then they are not blocking line of sight. Models that are considered invisible do not block line of sight. These are all simple truisms.
If you don't think it's a truism then feel free to treat all models in the way as invisible and see what happens.
So, no quote, just an assertion. The 3rd paragraph does not consider the visibility of other models when determining the visibility of a model. It is only considering the visibility of one model. It does not literally state to consider other models who are only showing non-body bits in this assertion. Other rules can insert themselves here, of course, as in "Own Unit", but this 3rd paragraph is not trying to make a determination of any models a focus is not upon. Only a model you do have a focus on.
col_impact wrote: If a model in the way is deemed partially or wholly invisible by the BRB then that affects whether it is in the way for the purposes of line of sight.
True, by where are we told to make that differentiation here in the third paragraph of Line of Sight?[
The 3rd paragraph instructs about cases that affect the visibility of a model, whether its a target model or a model in the way.
But it does not actually state this for a model in the way. It is stating this consideration after making a point of establishing visibility from one body to another. This rule is to not penalize a model for having grand bits. Why would an intervening model be penalized for having epic bits if this rule was not in place?
Why put it in such a general way, when there are other ways far more clear for "any model" or "all models" in view? Why just use statements which indicate one model is being addressed?
This is because the context of the previous sentence is still in play. The "Sometimes" is in place because it is distinguishing between "hey, I'm in the open" and "hey, I'm behind a wall". "A model" is in place because Line of Sight is not always used against a targeted model. "A model" is used because not every case of trying to draw Line of Sight will result in this situation. Could it have been more specific, yes.
Was it intended to be this way? I cannot say. I do honestly think that when they write these rules they rarely think of the weird situations, and their writing shows as only being directed at the here and now with no concept of fitting things together. They allow future writings to intrude on the present, with no care as to how that may coordinate with other future writings.
If it was "any model", it would say, "any model". If it was every model, it would say, "every model". It is only "a model", singular, though, so this interpretation that we are to consider any and all models at the same time puts a lie to the singular use.
If it were "only one model" the BRB would say "only one model". If it were "not more than one model" it would say not more than one model. If it were "a target model" the BRB would say "a target model."
I have already proven that the the BRB is referring to "a model" in a nonspecific general way. When the indefinite articles is used in that way, it can apply to any instance of "a model" in the situation
The very next sentence after using "a model", referring back to that model it says "the model". Model singular, not models plural. Are you going to say "the model" is nospecific also? This disproves that the BRB is referring to "a model" in a nonspecific way. I brought this up before and Charistoph has brought it up several times. "The model" is referring to the same model that was mentioned in "a model". You choose to ignore this so that you can say that you have proven that "a model" is nonspecific. At this point it starts to feel like intellectual dishonesty on your part to just keep going back to "a model" and ignore what is said about "the model".
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. There is no "at a time" anywhere in the rule. Insisting upon the presence of words that simply aren't there shows that your argument is invalid. Stick to the rules as given.
Failure at reading comprehension does not help this statement. I never stated it actually said, "at a time". I am saying that due to the context of the information at hand, and the lack of direction to consider more than one model in these instructions, we are to do it one at a time.
You can say whatever you want but you are not a rules resource. You can choose to play it "one at a time" but that is your house rule. The BRB makes no mention of "at a time" therefore no such procedure is being required.
The 3rd paragraph uses "sometimes" and "these cases" and "a model" refers to a non-specific, general model. The rule applies to each instance of "a model" bases on the words the BRB actually uses.
col_impact wrote: The rules specify no order of operations nor do they mention "at a time". Your insistence on processes which simply aren't present in the rules makes your argument.
The 3rd paragraph make no specification about what "a model" is. Therefore you are not allowed to. Therefore you resolve the "sometimes" of a rule for each instance of "a model". This might involve a target model or a model in the way or a model in the way and a target model.
Failure at consistent reading comprehension does not help this statement. The instructions are to consider "a model", as in "one model". Not "any models", not "all models", just one.
In order for us to consider more than "a model", there needs to be an order of operations, or the direction has to be for "all models" or "any models. You cannot present them, as they do not exist. Therefore, with a lack of direction to do so, I am only required to consider one model's visibility per Line of Sight check, and that will be whatever I'm trying to establish Line of Sight to.
Remember, a lack of instructions does not equate to a permission to do so.
The 3rd paragraph does not specify "only one model" so we are not restricted to one.
There is no order of operations so we are free to consider the visibility of "a model" in whatever order or all at once to our hearts desire.
The 3rd paragraph states "sometimes" and "these cases" which allows for any number of times and specifies that multiple cases can result from application of the rule.
col_impact wrote: Cool. Then "a" does not mean "only one" and there is no quantitative restriction. The 3rd paragraph can refer to each instance of "a model" in the scenario.
Failure at reading comprehension cannot help your case. "A model" cannot mean more than one at a time considering the context in which the section is written.
The Line of Sight rules make no mention of "one at a time". Therefore "one at a time" is not the context in which the section is written.
You are not permitted to add your context to the rules without labeling it a house rule. I will stick with the rules as they are actually written.
col_impact wrote: Cool. You have just pointed out the grammatical property known as Agreement. The 3rd paragraph starts talking about "a model" that could be a model in the way or a target model. Later references cannot repeat the indefinite article and must agree in case. You have discovered Agreement!
You really need to polish up on your grammar because you are seeing castles where there are windmills.
Incorrect. "A" does not equal "all" or "any", as you continue to profess. It means even less when considered in context from the previous sentence where it is being considered going from one model to another.
Quit pursuing your sandcastles in the sand.
If the indefinite article is being used generally to non-specifically refer to something, then it does mean"any"
Spoiler:
A and AN are called indefinite articles. "Indefinite" means "not specific". Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
Examples:
I need a phone. Not a specific phone, any phone
Mark wants a bicycle. Not a particular bicycle, a bicycle in general
Do you have a driver's license? In general
So, the Politician's Answer it is. The question wasn't about the 3rd paragraph, it was about the restate mentioned above. This one here:
Spoiler:
We are told that to establish line of sight from one model to another, we draw a straight, unblocked line between the two bodies. Sometimes, certain parts of a model are all that can be seen. The model is not considered seen by only seeing these parts. This is so a model with certain impressive bits are not unduly penalized.
Tell me, where in that paragraph in that spoiler are we to be considering all models under this judgement of visibility, even though we only are seeking one?
Your spoiler isn't in the BRB. However this bit of text is in the BRB.
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. The 3rd paragraph uses "sometimes" and "these cases" to indicate that we can deal with each instance of "a model" that the rule instructs us to deal with.
That does not perfectly jell when combined with the preceding sentence. "Sometimes" is referring to a portion of the times the preceding sentence engender, due to its conjunctive nature. It is not carte blanche to ignore the singularity of the nouns being used or to treat all these times at the same time.
"Sometimes" can occur any number of times and "these cases" indicates the rule can produce multiple cases. My argument is proven, the rule allows for any instances of "a model".
col_impact wrote: For a model to be in the way it must be visibly in the way and not in the way by some other measure.
Where are we told to consider the visibility of other models under this standard?
col_impact wrote: For a model to be blocking it must be visibly blocking and not by some other manner of blocking.
Quote, please.
The BRB uses line of sight and therefore relies on the visibility of models in the way to determine line of sight. If the models in the way are not visibly blocking line of sight then they are not blocking line of sight. Models that are considered invisible do not block line of sight. These are all simple truisms.
If you don't think it's a truism then feel free to treat all models in the way as invisible and see what happens.
So, no quote, just an assertion. The 3rd paragraph does not consider the visibility of other models when determining the visibility of a model. It is only considering the visibility of one model. It does not literally state to consider other models who are only showing non-body bits in this assertion. Other rules can insert themselves here, of course, as in "Own Unit", but this 3rd paragraph is not trying to make a determination of any models a focus is not upon. Only a model you do have a focus on.
A truism means that it is true by use of the terms involved and in this case the terms involved are those of a Line of sight system. A model in the way cannot be blocking unless it is visibly blocking. If you feel that it is not a truism then point to a case in a Line of Sight system where a model can be considered blocking without it being visibly blocking.
col_impact wrote: If a model in the way is deemed partially or wholly invisible by the BRB then that affects whether it is in the way for the purposes of line of sight.
True, by where are we told to make that differentiation here in the third paragraph of Line of Sight?[
The 3rd paragraph instructs about cases that affect the visibility of a model, whether its a target model or a model in the way.
But it does not actually state this for a model in the way. It is stating this consideration after making a point of establishing visibility from one body to another.
Incorrect. There is no mention of establishing visibility in the prior sentence.
Spoiler:
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
What counts as "visible of a model" is entirely the concern of the 3rd paragraph.
This rule is to not penalize a model for having grand bits. Why would an intervening model be penalized for having epic bits if this rule was not in place?
The 3rd paragraph provides a reason. The BRB does not need to provide an exhaustive set of reasons that covers even the corner cases. The BRB is simply providing info here and no actual rule and the info provided does a good job at covering the non-corner cases.
Further, a model with a gargantuan banner would get in trouble for Modeling for Advantage shenanigans. Even though Modeling for Advantage is not a rule in the BRB, a player that presents a model with a gargantuan banner gets in trouble with his opponent and now they must sort out a way to resolve the issue. Having the portion of the banner that exceeds the size of a normal banner provides a way to incorporate a model with a giant banner that would otherwise have to be excluded.
Why put it in such a general way, when there are other ways far more clear for "any model" or "all models" in view? Why just use statements which indicate one model is being addressed?
"A" does not mean "only one".
"Sometimes" means there can be any number of times. "These cases" allows for multiple cases.
The 3rd paragraph allows for multiple instances of "a model".
This is because the context of the previous sentence is still in play. The "Sometimes" is in place because it is distinguishing between "hey, I'm in the open" and "hey, I'm behind a wall".
That's not what "Sometimes" means. "Sometimes" means "at times" and can occur any number of times which debunks your interpretation.
If you don't adhere to what words actually mean then your argument is invalid.
I do honestly think that when they write these rules they rarely think of the weird situations, and their writing shows as only being directed at the here and now with no concept of fitting things together. They allow future writings to intrude on the present, with no care as to how that may coordinate with other future writings.
I think you just need to accept the rules as they are written. My line of reasoning adheres exactly to the rules as they are written and it provides a bullet-proof way for dealing with Line of Sight where many longstanding problems simply vanish.
Perhaps those longstanding issues come from people reading into the rule and not reading what the rules actually say.
I think you just need to accept the rules as they are written. My line of reasoning adheres exactly to the rules as they are written and it provides a bullet-proof way for dealing with Line of Sight where many longstanding problems simply vanish.
Perhaps those longstanding issues come from people reading into the rule and not reading what the rules actually say.
Maybe you should try not reading into the rules.
No, your line of reasoning does not adhere exactly to the rules, not as long as you ignore that the model referred to as "a model" is also referred to as "the model" in the next sentence, indicating that they are referring to one model. You haven't presented a bullet proof way for dealing with Line of Sight, merely the bullet-ridden corpse of the actual rules.
Third time I've asked you to address it. Also ignored and not adequately addressed by you when Charistoph has brought it up numerous times. Think you can get around to addressing the point, or are you just going to post the same points that this refutes?
I think you just need to accept the rules as they are written. My line of reasoning adheres exactly to the rules as they are written and it provides a bullet-proof way for dealing with Line of Sight where many longstanding problems simply vanish.
Perhaps those longstanding issues come from people reading into the rule and not reading what the rules actually say.
Maybe you should try not reading into the rules.
No, your line of reasoning does not adhere exactly to the rules, not as long as you ignore that the model referred to as "a model" is also referred to as "the model" in the next sentence, indicating that they are referring to one model. You haven't presented a bullet proof way for dealing with Line of Sight, merely the bullet-ridden corpse of the actual rules.
Third time I've asked you to address it. Also ignored and not adequately addressed by you when Charistoph has brought it up numerous times. Think you can get around to addressing the point, or are you just going to post the same points that this refutes?
You haven't been reading my posts.
From above . . .
The 3rd paragraph does not specify "only one model" so we are not restricted to one.
There is no order of operations so we are free to consider the visibility of "a model" in whatever order or all at once to our hearts desire.
The 3rd paragraph states "sometimes" and "these cases" which allows for any number of times and specifies that multiple cases can result from application of the rule.
I think you just need to accept the rules as they are written. My line of reasoning adheres exactly to the rules as they are written and it provides a bullet-proof way for dealing with Line of Sight where many longstanding problems simply vanish.
Perhaps those longstanding issues come from people reading into the rule and not reading what the rules actually say.
Maybe you should try not reading into the rules.
No, your line of reasoning does not adhere exactly to the rules, not as long as you ignore that the model referred to as "a model" is also referred to as "the model" in the next sentence, indicating that they are referring to one model. You haven't presented a bullet proof way for dealing with Line of Sight, merely the bullet-ridden corpse of the actual rules.
Third time I've asked you to address it. Also ignored and not adequately addressed by you when Charistoph has brought it up numerous times. Think you can get around to addressing the point, or are you just going to post the same points that this refutes?
You haven't been reading my posts.
From above . . .
The 3rd paragraph does not specify "only one model" so we are not restricted to one.
There is no order of operations so we are free to consider the visibility of "a model" in whatever order or all at once to our hearts desire.
The 3rd paragraph states "sometimes" and "these cases" which allows for any number of times and specifies that multiple cases can result from application of the rule.
The words in the BRB simply do not support you.
Okay, let's help you out - the first two sentences of the third paragraph:
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible."
From this, "these cases" means "the model" in that sentence is referring to "a model" in the sentence before. It does not extend beyond that. It does allow for any number of times and mean "the model" becomes "the models" plural at that time, or they would have said "the model(s)" Cases plural does not mean plural all at once when dealing with the singular version there. Obviiously it's referring to at different times in the game, not different models at the same time.
Okay, let's help you out - the first two sentences of the third paragraph:
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible."
From this, "these cases" means "the model" in that sentence is referring to "a model" in the sentence before. It does not extend beyond that. It does allow for any number of times and mean "the model" becomes "the models" plural at that time, or they would have said "the model(s)" Cases plural does not mean plural all at once when dealing with the singular version there. Obviiously it's referring to at different times in the game, not different models at the same time.
The English language does not support you.
Incorrect.
There is no difference in meaning between . . .
"During a soccer match a player is allowed to score a goal" and "During soccer matches players are allowed to score goals".
Each of those sentences speaks generally (e.g., of "a player" or of "players") and so they mean the same thing. They differ only stylistically.
As has been proven numerous times in this thread "a model" does not mean "only one model". Why do you keep on insisting that it does?
Since the 3rd paragraph is referring to "a model" non-specifically and generally and there is absolutely no quantitative restriction in the sentence and "sometimes" and "these cases" allow for multiple instances of "a model", the English language fully supports me and disproves your argument.
col_impact wrote: You can say whatever you want but you are not a rules resource. You can choose to play it "one at a time" but that is your house rule. The BRB makes no mention of "at a time" therefore no such procedure is being required.
The 3rd paragraph uses "sometimes" and "these cases" and "a model" refers to a non-specific, general model. The rule applies to each instance of "a model" bases on the words the BRB actually uses.
You are presenting a double standard here. You expect us to believe "a model" actually means "all models" when everything else indicates otherwise.
I never actually tried quoting the rule as "at any time" or suggested it actually stated it, but the nature of the rules combined with the context of the situation are what makes it "at a time". I have said this several times now. Try to pay attention to what other people say. At this point, I think all you do is use me as an excuse to spam the same thing over and over again hoping that people will agree with you or give up because you won't shut up about it.
col_impact wrote: The 3rd paragraph does not specify "only one model" so we are not restricted to one.
Then demonstrate how a singular term can mean many. A generic non-specific does not mean "all at one time", it just means that it doesn't have to be a "target model" or "enemy model" or a model of any specific type.
col_impact wrote: There is no order of operations so we are free to consider the visibility of "a model" in whatever order or all at once to our hearts desire.
Incorrect. As soon as you consider more than one model, you are considering "models" and not "a model". This is a very basic English concept here. Therefore, an order of operations would be required in order to make this "a model" consideration extend beyond the singular term.
col_impact wrote: The 3rd paragraph states "sometimes" and "these cases" which allows for any number of times and specifies that multiple cases can result from application of the rule.
The words in the BRB simply do not support you.
Because it is not only happening once in a game. It can happen any number of times you try to determine Line of Sight. "Sometimes" does not convert "a model" to "any model" or "many models". It does not translate to doing it many times during a consideration. The consideration itself happens sometimes.
col_impact wrote: There is no "one at a time" at all in the rule. If you feel otherwise, prove it with a rules quote or grammatical reference.
Failure at reading comprehension is no excuse. I have given it before. Look it up.
So no rules quote and no grammatical reference. Got it.
If you are unable to support what you say with rules quotes and references, your argument is invalid.
I have no desire to spam like you. Look it up.
col_impact wrote: The Line of Sight rules make no mention of "one at a time". Therefore "one at a time" is not the context in which the section is written.
You are not permitted to add your context to the rules without labeling it a house rule. I will stick with the rules as they are actually written.
Says the one who ignores what others say and considers "a model" to mean "any model" and "all models".
col_impact wrote: If the indefinite article is being used generally to non-specifically refer to something, then it does mean"any"
Spoiler:
A and AN are called indefinite articles. "Indefinite" means "not specific". Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
Examples:
I need a phone. Not a specific phone, any phone
Mark wants a bicycle. Not a particular bicycle, a bicycle in general
Do you have a driver's license? In general
Not exactly. The use of "any" I am referring to you using is "used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or man". The actual use of the indefinite "any" in this sentence would be properly "whichever of a specified class might be chosen". Bascially, you are translating "a model" to be "any model I can see" which can be just as easily be translated as "every model". This concept separates the sentence's use of singular nouns, though, so we cannot be looking at more than one for the assessment of this paragraph when it is called.
So, the Politician's Answer it is. The question wasn't about the 3rd paragraph, it was about the restate mentioned above. This one here:
Spoiler:
We are told that to establish line of sight from one model to another, we draw a straight, unblocked line between the two bodies. Sometimes, certain parts of a model are all that can be seen. The model is not considered seen by only seeing these parts. This is so a model with certain impressive bits are not unduly penalized.
Tell me, where in that paragraph in that spoiler are we to be considering all models under this judgement of visibility, even though we only are seeking one?
Your spoiler isn't in the BRB. However this bit of text is in the BRB.
Still a Politician's Answer. I didn't say what was in the spoiler was in the BRB. This was an exercise in understanding context.
I will be ignoring the rest. You tend to spam when it gets long.
col_impact wrote: I think you just need to accept the rules as they are written. My line of reasoning adheres exactly to the rules as they are written and it provides a bullet-proof way for dealing with Line of Sight where many longstanding problems simply vanish.
Perhaps those longstanding issues come from people reading into the rule and not reading what the rules actually say.
Maybe you should try not reading into the rules.
That is a laugh considering everything you've written. I think you need to accept that your interpretation is not gospel to everyone. Very few people seem to see grammar the way you do. Very few people seem to accept your hyper-focus of one thing and ignoring the same context almost everyone else associated with things.
"During a soccer match a player is allowed to score a goal" and "During soccer matches players are allowed to score goals".
Each of those sentences speaks generally (e.g., of "a player" or of "players") and so they mean the same thing. They differ only stylistically.
As has been proven numerous times in this thread "a model" does not mean "only one model". Why do you keep on insisting that it does?
Since the 3rd paragraph is referring to "a model" non-specifically and generally and there is absolutely no quantitative restriction in the sentence and "sometimes" and "these cases" allow for multiple instances of "a model", the English language fully supports me and disproves your argument.
Ah, the soccer match example. The problem is though that it doesn't match up with what it stated in the rules. It's not "during a soccer match a player is allowed to score the goal".
You respond, yet once again "THE" model doesn't matter at all to you, "A" model has not been proven at all to not mean "only one model" in this thread when the next sentence refers to that as "THE model". The 3rd paragraph is referring to "THE model as well as "A model". Quit ignoring "THE model, as you did once again. Fourth time I bring this up. Are you going to deflect back to "a model" without adequately explaining "the model", which has been shown in this thread to mean a singular model?
col_impact wrote: You can say whatever you want but you are not a rules resource. You can choose to play it "one at a time" but that is your house rule. The BRB makes no mention of "at a time" therefore no such procedure is being required.
The 3rd paragraph uses "sometimes" and "these cases" and "a model" refers to a non-specific, general model. The rule applies to each instance of "a model" bases on the words the BRB actually uses.
You are presenting a double standard here. You expect us to believe "a model" actually means "all models" when everything else indicates otherwise.
"A model" refers to each instance of "a model" that can occur "sometimes" (which can occur any number of times) to produce "these cases" (which allows for multiple instances.
I never actually tried quoting the rule as "at any time" or suggested it actually stated it, but the nature of the rules combined with the context of the situation are what makes it "at a time". I have said this several times now. Try to pay attention to what other people say. At this point, I think all you do is use me as an excuse to spam the same thing over and over again hoping that people will agree with you or give up because you won't shut up about it.
There is nothing in the rules that say or suggest "at a time". No matter how many times you say this will not change that fact. Until you can prove that the rule says "at a time" I suggest you stay quiet on the issue. Reading into the rule makes your argument invalid.
col_impact wrote: The 3rd paragraph does not specify "only one model" so we are not restricted to one.
Then demonstrate how a singular term can mean many. A generic non-specific does not mean "all at one time", it just means that it doesn't have to be a "target model" or "enemy model" or a model of any specific type.
When the indefinite article is used non-specifically and generally, a singular term can mean each instance of the singular term in the situation.
You have 3 weapons on your person.
A computer terminal asks you "Do you have a weapon on your person? select yes or no"
The answer is "yes" since you have multiple instances of "a weapon" on your person.
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal" means the same thing as "During soccer matches players are allowed to score goals"
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal" does not mean "During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal"
Quit trying to sneak in a quantitative restriction where there is none. "Sometimes", "these cases", and the indefinite article used non-specifically allow for multiple instances.
col_impact wrote: There is no order of operations so we are free to consider the visibility of "a model" in whatever order or all at once to our hearts desire.
Incorrect. As soon as you consider more than one model, you are considering "models" and not "a model". This is a very basic English concept here. Therefore, an order of operations would be required in order to make this "a model" consideration extend beyond the singular term.
"Sometimes", "these cases", and the indefinite article used non-specifically allow for multiple instances. No order of operations required.
col_impact wrote: The 3rd paragraph states "sometimes" and "these cases" which allows for any number of times and specifies that multiple cases can result from application of the rule.
The words in the BRB simply do not support you.
Because it is not only happening once in a game. It can happen any number of times you try to determine Line of Sight. "Sometimes" does not convert "a model" to "any model" or "many models". It does not translate to doing it many times during a consideration. The consideration itself happens sometimes.
The context according to your standards would be a single line of sight determination between "one model to . . . another" or are you suddenly not going to adhere to your own standards?
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body."
Without a doubt the context is determining line of sight from "one model to . . . another" which is a singular occurence.
Sounds like you are being hypocritical. If you are hypocritical and inconsistent with your standards then your argument is invalid.
Of course if you actually understand grammar and its uses then an indefinite article can be used non-specifically and generally to refer to each instance.
col_impact wrote: There is no "one at a time" at all in the rule. If you feel otherwise, prove it with a rules quote or grammatical reference.
Failure at reading comprehension is no excuse. I have given it before. Look it up.
So no rules quote and no grammatical reference. Got it.
If you are unable to support what you say with rules quotes and references, your argument is invalid.
I have no desire to spam like you. Look it up.
It's not spamming when I request you to back up what you say.
What you are doing is called 'dodging' which shows there is nothing but smokes and mirrors to your argument.
So back up what you say with a rules quote or a grammatical reference.
If you are unable to support what you say with rules quotes and references, your argument is invalid.
col_impact wrote: The Line of Sight rules make no mention of "one at a time". Therefore "one at a time" is not the context in which the section is written.
You are not permitted to add your context to the rules without labeling it a house rule. I will stick with the rules as they are actually written.
Says the one who ignores what others say and considers "a model" to mean "any model" and "all models".
col_impact wrote: If the indefinite article is being used generally to non-specifically refer to something, then it does mean"any"
Spoiler:
A and AN are called indefinite articles. "Indefinite" means "not specific". Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
Examples:
I need a phone. Not a specific phone, any phone
Mark wants a bicycle. Not a particular bicycle, a bicycle in general
Do you have a driver's license? In general
Not exactly. The use of "any" I am referring to you using is "used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or man". The actual use of the indefinite "any" in this sentence would be properly "whichever of a specified class might be chosen". Bascially, you are translating "a model" to be "any model I can see" which can be just as easily be translated as "every model". This concept separates the sentence's use of singular nouns, though, so we cannot be looking at more than one for the assessment of this paragraph when it is called.
Incorrect. I am translating "a model" to be 'any instance of a model' which is appropriate to the use of the indefinite article to refer to something in a non-specific, general way.
You have 3 weapons on your person.
Do you have a weapon on your person, yes or no?
The answer is yes.
There are multiple instances of "a weapon" on your person. Until you no longer have an instance of a weapon on your person the answer will be yes.
That is a laugh considering everything you've written. I think you need to accept that your interpretation is not gospel to everyone. Very few people seem to see grammar the way you do. Very few people seem to accept your hyper-focus of one thing and ignoring the same context almost everyone else associated with things.
It seems like only you and doctortom take issue.
Anyone is welcome to read through this thread and form their own opinion after witnessing how much my argument shreds yours to pieces.
"During a soccer match a player is allowed to score a goal" and "During soccer matches players are allowed to score goals".
Each of those sentences speaks generally (e.g., of "a player" or of "players") and so they mean the same thing. They differ only stylistically.
As has been proven numerous times in this thread "a model" does not mean "only one model". Why do you keep on insisting that it does?
Since the 3rd paragraph is referring to "a model" non-specifically and generally and there is absolutely no quantitative restriction in the sentence and "sometimes" and "these cases" allow for multiple instances of "a model", the English language fully supports me and disproves your argument.
Ah, the soccer match example. The problem is though that it doesn't match up with what it stated in the rules. It's not "during a soccer match a player is allowed to score the goal".
You respond, yet once again "THE" model doesn't matter at all to you, "A" model has not been proven at all to not mean "only one model" in this thread when the next sentence refers to that as "THE model". The 3rd paragraph is referring to "THE model as well as "A model". Quit ignoring "THE model, as you did once again. Fourth time I bring this up. Are you going to deflect back to "a model" without adequately explaining "the model", which has been shown in this thread to mean a singular model?
As you might recall from basic grammar class, "he" and "the" are simply instances of Agreement with "a model". You have to use "he" or "the model" since you are still referring to "a model". "The model" refers to "a model" (the instance of "a model" we are talking about).
Shall I point you to articles on grammar and agreement?
col_impact wrote: There is nothing in the rules that say or suggest "at a time". No matter how many times you say this will not change that fact. Until you can prove that the rule says "at a time" I suggest you stay quiet on the issue. Reading into the rule makes your argument invalid.
That just indicates you know nothing of the grammar of instructions or how to derive context. More hilariously, you point out why later on.
col_impact wrote: When the indefinite article is used non-specifically and generally, a singular term can mean each instance of the singular term in the situation.
You have 3 weapons on your person.
A computer terminal asks you "Do you have a weapon on your person? select yes or no"
The answer is "yes" since you have multiple instances of "a weapon" on your person.
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal" means the same thing as "During soccer matches players are allowed to score goals"
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal" does not mean "During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal"
Quit trying to sneak in a quantitative restriction where there is none. "Sometimes", "these cases", and the indefinite article used non-specifically allow for multiple instances.
And none of your examples allows one to be considering more than one of the "a (noun)" to be happening at the same time. More importantly, if it is at the same time, you are ignoring the singular context of the statement and removing the "a" in favor of "every" or "all", and making it plural. This instruction is only about "a model", as in one. The case of "non-specific" does not get to override the quantitative nature of the words being used. It is not about many models, or any other models around when making this consideration. As soon as you start considering anything but one model, you have violated the statements of the paragraph.
But I've said that before, and even your link has said that, and you still ignore it in favor of your paradigm that is focused on the one tiny portion of a sentence. From your link:
REMEMBER: You cannot use A(AN) with plural nouns because A(AN) means "one" or "a single".
Examples:
I saw a bears in Yellowstone National Park. Not Correct I saw bears in Yellowstone National Park. Correct
The statement indicates one model when you are making this consideration, not any around not everyone in sight, and most definitely not all. This consideration happens occasionally, so "sometimes".
But I've said it before and you've rejected it without warrant.
col_impact wrote: "Sometimes", "these cases", and the indefinite article used non-specifically allow for multiple instances. No order of operations required.
But not at the same time. Non-specific does not translate to "any number", just "any type of, not detailed or exact". You can do it again when it comes time to consider another model for Line of Sight.
col_impact wrote: The 3rd paragraph states "sometimes" and "these cases" which allows for any number of times and specifies that multiple cases can result from application of the rule.
The words in the BRB simply do not support you.
Because it is not only happening once in a game. It can happen any number of times you try to determine Line of Sight. "Sometimes" does not convert "a model" to "any model" or "many models". It does not translate to doing it many times during a consideration. The consideration itself happens sometimes.
The context according to your standards would be a single line of sight determination between "one model to . . . another" or are you suddenly not going to adhere to your own standards?
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body."
Without a doubt the context is determining line of sight from "one model to . . . another" which is a singular occurence.
Sounds like you are being hypocritical. If you are hypocritical and inconsistent with your standards then your argument is invalid.
Of course if you actually understand grammar and its uses then an indefinite article can be used non-specifically and generally to refer to each instance.
Your lack of reading comprehension or bizarre sense of grammar is why you think this is hypocritical. Care to actually explain what I am being hypocritical about?
If I understand what you are implying, I am saying Line of Sight checks happen numerous times during a game. During some of these checks, but not all, the only part of a model that can be seen is a bit on the list. During these times, the model cannot be considered as seeable. It is only during these Line of Sight checks that we can make this consideration, and only for one model.
It's not spamming when I request you to back up what you say.
What you are doing is called 'dodging' which shows there is nothing but smokes and mirrors to your argument.
So back up what you say with a rules quote or a grammatical reference.
If you are unable to support what you say with rules quotes and references, your argument is invalid.
As I said, I have. You want it so badly, go look it up again. You seem to think such searches are easy and anyone can do it, so do it yourself. I am not your secretary.
Charistoph wrote: Not exactly. The use of "any" I am referring to you using is "used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or man". The actual use of the indefinite "any" in this sentence would be properly "whichever of a specified class might be chosen". Bascially, you are translating "a model" to be "any model I can see" which can be just as easily be translated as "every model". This concept separates the sentence's use of singular nouns, though, so we cannot be looking at more than one for the assessment of this paragraph when it is called.
Incorrect. I am translating "a model" to be 'any instance of a model' which is appropriate to the use of the indefinite article to refer to something in a non-specific, general way.
You have 3 weapons on your person.
Do you have a weapon on your person, yes or no?
The answer is yes.
There are multiple instances of "a weapon" on your person. Until you no longer have an instance of a weapon on your person the answer will be yes.
Actually, that IS what I said you were saying. When you put "a model" in to action, you are taking the "any" as "used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or many". This puts a lie to the reminder at the bottom of your page, though, regarding quantities. The "any" in this case is "whichever of a specified class might be chosen", which is the only way to interpret it while maintaining the singular tense of the words used.
And should I bother to mention that if you have three of something, you still have one of it, but if you have one of something, you don't have three?
Anyone is welcome to read through this thread and form their own opinion after witnessing how much my argument shreds yours to pieces.
Actually, I've talked over some of these grammar discussions with my wife whose Masters degree is about getting people to speak properly. And she does not agree with your assessments. But you have only my word on that. And you probably couldn't understand much of what I say, anyway, because my grammatical usage does not match yours. You certainly have misrepresented my statements enough to demonstrate this.
More importantly, the only person who ever actually seems to support your bizarre concepts of grammar is you.
col_impact wrote: As you might recall from basic grammar class, "he" and "the" are simply instances of Agreement with "a model". You have to use "he" or "the model" since you are still referring to "a model". "The model" refers to "a model" (the instance of "a model" we are talking about).
Shall I point you to articles on grammar and agreement?
Articles of agreement do not allow a change in quantity measured, though. Some nouns can be used both singularly and pluralistically, such as "you" and "they", depending on the situation, and the conjugation of the verb usually indicates which is being used.
And DrT was spot on that your soccer example does not mesh with the words being used in the paragraph in question. Your soccer example is a general statement used to introduce a concept. The paragraph question is getting in to particulars and specific cases, such as the consideration of a goal attempt by a player who is out of bounds.
col_impact wrote: There is nothing in the rules that say or suggest "at a time". No matter how many times you say this will not change that fact. Until you can prove that the rule says "at a time" I suggest you stay quiet on the issue. Reading into the rule makes your argument invalid.
That just indicates you know nothing of the grammar of instructions or how to derive context. More hilariously, you point out why later on.
By declining to comment on the fact that there is nothing in the rules that say or suggest "at a time" then you concede the point.
col_impact wrote: When the indefinite article is used non-specifically and generally, a singular term can mean each instance of the singular term in the situation.
You have 3 weapons on your person.
A computer terminal asks you "Do you have a weapon on your person? select yes or no"
The answer is "yes" since you have multiple instances of "a weapon" on your person.
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal" means the same thing as "During soccer matches players are allowed to score goals"
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal" does not mean "During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal"
Quit trying to sneak in a quantitative restriction where there is none. "Sometimes", "these cases", and the indefinite article used non-specifically allow for multiple instances.
And none of your examples allows one to be considering more than one of the "a (noun)" to be happening at the same time. More importantly, if it is at the same time, you are ignoring the singular context of the statement and removing the "a" in favor of "every" or "all", and making it plural. This instruction is only about "a model", as in one. The case of "non-specific" does not get to override the quantitative nature of the words being used. It is not about many models, or any other models around when making this consideration. As soon as you start considering anything but one model, you have violated the statements of the paragraph.
Incorrect. The case of the non-specific use of the indefinite article does actually override the quantitative nature of the words being used.
Spoiler:
You have 3 weapons on your person.
A computer terminal asks you "Do you have a weapon on your person? select yes or no"
The answer is "yes" since you have multiple instances of "a weapon" on your person
You have 3 instances of "a weapon" on your person all at the same time.
Spoiler:
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal"
The above statement affects each instance of a soccer match and each instance of a player on the team all at the same time.
Whenever there is no explicit quantitative restriction and the indefinite article is used non-specifically and generally then "a" can refer to a single instance or multiple occurrences of a single instance.
But I've said that before, and even your link has said that, and you still ignore it in favor of your paradigm that is focused on the one tiny portion of a sentence. From your link:
REMEMBER: You cannot use A(AN) with plural nouns because A(AN) means "one" or "a single".
Examples:
I saw a bears in Yellowstone National Park. Not Correct I saw bears in Yellowstone National Park. Correct
The statement indicates one model when you are making this consideration, not any around not everyone in sight, and most definitely not all. This consideration happens occasionally, so "sometimes".
But I've said it before and you've rejected it without warrant.
You are confused. "A bear" is not being used in a non-specific, general way in your example above. No wonder you are struggling with the grammar since you can't keep the different uses of the indefinite article straight. The indefinite article is being used because the bear is being mentioned for the first time to the listener but it is a specific one (one that the speaker saw).
Now if the sentence read "a bear is a mammal" does that sentence only speak about one bear or bears generally? "A bear is a mammal" means the exact same thing as "Bears are mammals".
Are you beginning to see the difference? I feel that I should start charging you for the grammar lessons.
col_impact wrote: "Sometimes", "these cases", and the indefinite article used non-specifically allow for multiple instances. No order of operations required.
But not at the same time. Non-specific does not translate to "any number", just "any type of, not detailed or exact". You can do it again when it comes time to consider another model for Line of Sight.
Incorrect. The non-specific use of the indefinite allows for multiple instances. "A bear is a mammal" does not mean that there is only one bear that is a mammal.
And since "sometimes" and "these cases" allow for multiple times and these cases, it looks like the writing on the page simply does not support your argument.
col_impact wrote: The 3rd paragraph states "sometimes" and "these cases" which allows for any number of times and specifies that multiple cases can result from application of the rule.
The words in the BRB simply do not support you.
Because it is not only happening once in a game. It can happen any number of times you try to determine Line of Sight. "Sometimes" does not convert "a model" to "any model" or "many models". It does not translate to doing it many times during a consideration. The consideration itself happens sometimes.
The context according to your standards would be a single line of sight determination between "one model to . . . another" or are you suddenly not going to adhere to your own standards?
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body."
Without a doubt the context is determining line of sight from "one model to . . . another" which is a singular occurence.
Sounds like you are being hypocritical. If you are hypocritical and inconsistent with your standards then your argument is invalid.
Of course if you actually understand grammar and its uses then an indefinite article can be used non-specifically and generally to refer to each instance.
Your lack of reading comprehension or bizarre sense of grammar is why you think this is hypocritical. Care to actually explain what I am being hypocritical about?
If I understand what you are implying, I am saying Line of Sight checks happen numerous times during a game. During some of these checks, but not all, the only part of a model that can be seen is a bit on the list. During these times, the model cannot be considered as seeable. It is only during these Line of Sight checks that we can make this consideration, and only for one model.
How many straight unblocked lines are being traced in this sentence? Are we dealing with a singular line or plural lines?
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body."
Since you have decided to treat "trace a straight, unblocked line" as "trace straight, unblocked lines", you are being hypocritical and cannot even keep to your own standards.
It's not spamming when I request you to back up what you say.
What you are doing is called 'dodging' which shows there is nothing but smokes and mirrors to your argument.
So back up what you say with a rules quote or a grammatical reference.
If you are unable to support what you say with rules quotes and references, your argument is invalid.
As I said, I have. You want it so badly, go look it up again. You seem to think such searches are easy and anyone can do it, so do it yourself. I am not your secretary.
I called you out and you cannot deliver. Nothing but smoke and mirrors to your argument. I always support what I say with rules quotes and references. That's what makes my argument valid.
Charistoph wrote: Not exactly. The use of "any" I am referring to you using is "used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or man". The actual use of the indefinite "any" in this sentence would be properly "whichever of a specified class might be chosen". Bascially, you are translating "a model" to be "any model I can see" which can be just as easily be translated as "every model". This concept separates the sentence's use of singular nouns, though, so we cannot be looking at more than one for the assessment of this paragraph when it is called.
Incorrect. I am translating "a model" to be 'any instance of a model' which is appropriate to the use of the indefinite article to refer to something in a non-specific, general way.
You have 3 weapons on your person.
Do you have a weapon on your person, yes or no?
The answer is yes.
There are multiple instances of "a weapon" on your person. Until you no longer have an instance of a weapon on your person the answer will be yes.
Actually, that IS what I said you were saying. When you put "a model" in to action, you are taking the "any" as "used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or many". This puts a lie to the reminder at the bottom of your page, though, regarding quantities. The "any" in this case is "whichever of a specified class might be chosen", which is the only way to interpret it while maintaining the singular tense of the words used.
And should I bother to mention that if you have three of something, you still have one of it, but if you have one of something, you don't have three?
And if you have three models that are only showing wings, then you still have multiple instances of "a model" that is only showing wings. The rule allows you handle "these cases" and not just "this case" any number of times ("sometimes").
Anyone is welcome to read through this thread and form their own opinion after witnessing how much my argument shreds yours to pieces.
Actually, I've talked over some of these grammar discussions with my wife whose Masters degree is about getting people to speak properly. And she does not agree with your assessments. But you have only my word on that. And you probably couldn't understand much of what I say, anyway, because my grammatical usage does not match yours. You certainly have misrepresented my statements enough to demonstrate this.
More importantly, the only person who ever actually seems to support your bizarre concepts of grammar is you.
If your wife has something to say on the matter then by all means have her open up an account on DakkaDakka so she can school me on grammar. (Although her Masters degree in "getting people to speak properly" probably refers to speech pathology so I am not sure how her expertise on stuttering, autism, etc. will help the discussion).
Otherwise, any statements about her or hearsay attributed to her do nothing for your argument. She could be a complete fabrication on your part, and given your track record with the truth, she likely is a complete fabrication.
But hey, have her join in on the thread. After all, you have already discussed it with her, so she should be ready to chime in. She can speak for herself. Just make sure she is ready. My education on these matters exceeds hers.
col_impact wrote: As you might recall from basic grammar class, "he" and "the" are simply instances of Agreement with "a model". You have to use "he" or "the model" since you are still referring to "a model". "The model" refers to "a model" (the instance of "a model" we are talking about).
Shall I point you to articles on grammar and agreement?
Articles of agreement do not allow a change in quantity measured, though. Some nouns can be used both singularly and pluralistically, such as "you" and "they", depending on the situation, and the conjugation of the verb usually indicates which is being used.
And DrT was spot on that your soccer example does not mesh with the words being used in the paragraph in question. Your soccer example is a general statement used to introduce a concept. The paragraph question is getting in to particulars and specific cases, such as the consideration of a goal attempt by a player who is out of bounds.
You have a completely confused sense of basic grammar. Let's sort out a simple example.
"A bear is a mammal."
So, following from that statement, how many bears are mammals? Just one bear on the planet? Each instance of a bear on the planet? Any and all bears on the planet?
It came about because someone made the point that door block line of sight to things behind them even if they are decorative (part of an earlier argument about whether the doors count as part of the hull or are included in the "ornamental" clause - something that neither side would be able to prove). col_impact then insisted that the doors wouldn't block line of sight to something behind them if they were ornamental because of his interpretaion of line of sight rules. And his condescension about anybody disagreeing with him not knowing basic grammar. (The most amusing thing being he's assuming that GW rules writers are using his rules of grammar, which....to be charitable, don't seem to match up with normal rules of grammar.) The regular drop pod thing has been ignored for quite a while, since it comes down to "you have to decide for your own games how to handle them"
By declining to comment on the fact that there is nothing in the rules that say or suggest "at a time" then you concede the point.
I have commented. Look it up.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. The case of the non-specific use of the indefinite article does actually override the quantitative nature of the words being used.
Spoiler:
You have 3 weapons on your person.
A computer terminal asks you "Do you have a weapon on your person? select yes or no"
The answer is "yes" since you have multiple instances of "a weapon" on your person
You have 3 instances of "a weapon" on your person all at the same time.
Spoiler:
"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal"
The above statement affects each instance of a soccer match and each instance of a player on the team all at the same time.
Whenever there is no explicit quantitative restriction and the indefinite article is used non-specifically and generally then "a" can refer to a single instance or multiple occurrences of a single instance.
And you fail at math and use of numbers used in grammar. If you have three, do you not have one? Your interpretation fails here because you are taking my statement of "one" to be "only one".
In addition, your example does not completely follow the exact same use as the paragraph in question.
col_impact wrote: You are confused. "A bear" is not being used in a non-specific, general way in your example above. No wonder you are struggling with the grammar since you can't keep the different uses of the indefinite article straight. The indefinite article is being used because the bear is being mentioned for the first time to the listener but it is a specific one (one that the speaker saw).
Now if the sentence read "a bear is a mammal" does that sentence only speak about one bear or bears generally? "A bear is a mammal" means the exact same thing as "Bears are mammals".
Are you beginning to see the difference? I feel that I should start charging you for the grammar lessons.
And your reading comprehension fails. You fail to acknowledge the reminder which comes from the same source as you are using for your assertion because the examples are not specific. As bad as these examples are, they are as relevant as the ones you insist on using.
Your bad grammar lessons which ignore HUGE things about writing and English wouldn't be worth my daughter's allowance. In order to be a teacher, your lessons must be accepted.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. The non-specific use of the indefinite allows for multiple instances. "A bear is a mammal" does not mean that there is only one bear that is a mammal.
And since "sometimes" and "these cases" allow for multiple times and these cases, it looks like the writing on the page simply does not support your argument.
But not at the same time. As soon as you consider more than one model, it is no longer "a model", but "models". The multiple instances come later. You have multiple opportunities to perform Line of Sight Checks. For each of these checks, this consideration is for one model, and only one model.
col_impact wrote: How many straight unblocked lines are being traced in this sentence? Are we dealing with a singular line or plural lines?
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body."
Since you have decided to treat "trace a straight, unblocked line" as "trace straight, unblocked lines", you are being hypocritical and cannot even keep to your own standards.
Ah, I see now. You cannot read, that's the problem.
You took the, "It can happen any number of times you try to determine Line of Sight", to mean that I was trying to draw multiple lines during the same check. This is not true. You are confusing an attempt at the process with the key step of the process. In programming terms, I am speaking of the number of times you use the Function, not the number of times a line is showing in a Function. Do you understand the difference?
And the third paragraph is an instruction line in that Function, and it is only looking at one model when it does its check.
col_impact wrote: I called you out and you cannot deliver. Nothing but smoke and mirrors to your argument. I always support what I say with rules quotes and references. That's what makes my argument valid.
Do not confuse "cannot" with "will not". And considering that half of what you do is spam the same thing over and over again, even when it is not accepted, is what I am trying to avoid.
col_impact wrote: And if you have three models that are only showing wings, then you still have multiple instances of "a model" that is only showing wings. The rule allows you handle "these cases" and not just "this case" any number of times ("sometimes").
At which point you fail at grammatical math without supporting instructions in game relevance. You are using a real world instance to support something that is not mentioned in game. But I've said that before, haven't I?
Charistoph wrote: And DrT was spot on that your soccer example does not mesh with the words being used in the paragraph in question. Your soccer example is a general statement used to introduce a concept. The paragraph question is getting in to particulars and specific cases, such as the consideration of a goal attempt by a player who is out of bounds.
You have a completely confused sense of basic grammar. Let's sort out a simple example.
"A bear is a mammal."
So, following from that statement, how many bears are mammals? Just one bear on the planet? Each instance of a bear on the planet? Any and all bears on the planet?
And you ignored what was said to repeat the same thing again. You have stated the examples regarding quantitative syntax do not apply, but neither does your soccer or bear example above.
So, following from that statement, how many bears are mammals? Just one bear on the planet? Each instance of a bear on the planet? Any and all bears on the planet?
Oh and doctortom feel free to let us know your thoughts as well on the matter.
So, following from that statement, how many bears are mammals? Just one bear on the planet? Each instance of a bear on the planet? Any and all bears on the planet?
Oh and doctortom feel free to let us know your thoughts as well on the matter.
Is the statement "A bear is a mammal" followed by the statement "The bear may try to steal my picnic basket"? Because if not, this is entirely irrelevant as you are ignoring something to indicate that it is singular. Quit being ridiculous with useless analogies, please.
It's an insult to Merica. Obviously this ties back to the right to bear arms, and how Americans want drop pod doors to blow off and not be part of the hull as if they were an armament because Americans ha e the right to blow things up. However GW is British and their use of blow off in the fluff which is RAI and the new CEO direction for the RAW in 40k is more of another type of blow reference in regards to quality of find a spot to DS onto the table with a huge footprint from the deployed doors counting as hull which is really just the brits calling out the yanks for not knowing the queens English.
It's an insult to Merica. Obviously this ties back to the right to bear arms, and how Americans want drop pod doors to blow off and not be part of the hull as if they were an armament because Americans ha e the right to blow things up. However GW is British and their use of blow off in the fluff which is RAI and the new CEO direction for the RAW in 40k is more of another type of blow reference in regards to quality of find a spot to DS onto the table with a huge footprint from the deployed doors counting as hull which is really just the brits calling out the yanks for not knowing the queens English.
So yes, bears.
Actually, with col_impact's ananalogies, I don't think it's so much the right to bear arms as it is the right to arm bears. Mabye ursoids are going to be a new army released for 40k (possibly even cyber-bears) and he's trying to subtly warn us about it in the rules forum.
So, following from that statement, how many bears are mammals? Just one bear on the planet? Each instance of a bear on the planet? Any and all bears on the planet?
Oh and doctortom feel free to let us know your thoughts as well on the matter.
Is the statement "A bear is a mammal" followed by the statement "The bear may try to steal my picnic basket"? Because if not, this is entirely irrelevant as you are ignoring something to indicate that it is singular. Quit being ridiculous with useless analogies, please.
So you refuse to answer a simple question. Your argument is invalid then.
"A bear is a mammal" applies generally to each instance of a bear on the planet since "a bear" is being used in a non-specific, general way (and that is true in any context). Similarly, as already proven, the 3rd paragraph uses the indefinite article in "a model" in a non-specific general way. When something applies generally, it applies to each case. That is literally what 'generally' means.
So, following from that statement, how many bears are mammals? Just one bear on the planet? Each instance of a bear on the planet? Any and all bears on the planet?
You ignored the point of what you quoted to repeat the same error while doing so? Awesome. You should run for public office. Nobody understands half of what they write anyway.
"One bear is one mammal". Adds up to me.
Your confusion lies in you conflating the "one" use of "a" with "only one". You keep adding "only" to it in your counter-assertion, even if unstated, when none of us have been actually applying it anywhere.
In addition, this is not used in the same context as the paragraph in question. For example, "I have shot a gun". Have I shot all guns available? Nope, that would be taking the comment out of context. Any number of guns? Possibly, but no way to tell without additional information. All that can be confirmed is that one gun is was shot. The type of gun is not specified, but that doesn't mean I shot all the same ordinance used by both invaders and defenders on Omaha Beach just because I was at Omaha Beach once.
Moving along with the same example, from the Shooting Phase:
First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. The selected weapon cannot be one that the unit has shot with during this phase. All models in the unit that are equipped with the selected weapon can now shoot at the target unit with that weapon.
By using your assertion regarding "a model" in Line of Sight's third paragraph, I can use any number of weapons the model is equipped with in this instruction because I am to select non-specified weapon.
So, following from that statement, how many bears are mammals? Just one bear on the planet? Each instance of a bear on the planet? Any and all bears on the planet?
You ignored the point of what you quoted to repeat the same error while doing so? Awesome. You should run for public office. Nobody understands half of what they write anyway.
"One bear is one mammal". Adds up to me.
"A bear is a mammal" does not mean the same thing as "one bear is one mammal". Saying "one bear is one mammal" would require you to be counting the number of mammals for some odd reason (maybe for an audit for a mammal exhibit?) You are required to produce sentences exactly the same in meaning.
In fact, "a bear is a mammal" means exactly the same as "Bears are mammals". Both sentences speak generally about bears.
Your confusion lies in you conflating the "one" use of "a" with "only one". You keep adding "only" to it in your counter-assertion, even if unstated, when none of us have been actually applying it anywhere.
Nope. You keep adding a restriction to the use of the indefinite article where there is none. The indefinite article in the 3rd paragraph is being used to refer to something in a non-specific general way. Generally means it applies to each case of "a model" in the situation.
In addition, this is not used in the same context as the paragraph in question. For example, "I have shot a gun". Have I shot all guns available? Nope, that would be taking the comment out of context. Any number of guns? Possibly, but no way to tell without additional information. All that can be confirmed is that one gun is was shot. The type of gun is not specified, but that doesn't mean I shot all the same ordinance used by both invaders and defenders on Omaha Beach just because I was at Omaha Beach once.
Your example underscores that the case of more than one gun still satisfies "a gun". If I have shot 3 guns I have shot a gun. If I have 3 guns on my person I have a gun on my person.
However, shooting a gun is not really the general case of the indefinite article.
But lets bring it closer to the situation in the 3rd paragraph which is the general case of the indefinite article.
Consider:
'Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case it cannot fire'
If you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria all 3 will not be able to fire. "A gun" will generally refer to any that match the criteria since it refers to each case of a gun on your person.
By your read, if you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria only one gun will not be able to fire and the other 2 will be able to fire even though only their holsters are visible.
In order to actually say that the rule would have to read . . .
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case, choose one gun on your person that only has its holster visible. That gun cannot fire."
Moving along with the same example, from the Shooting Phase:
First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. The selected weapon cannot be one that the unit has shot with during this phase. All models in the unit that are equipped with the selected weapon can now shoot at the target unit with that weapon.
By using your assertion regarding "a model" in Line of Sight's third paragraph, I can use any number of weapons the model is equipped with in this instruction because I am to select non-specified weapon.
Incorrect. Select means to choose out of a group so that is a quantitative case of the indefinite article (e.g. pick a tool, choose a color, buy a loaf, kick a toad). We are not dealing with the general use of the indefinite article but simply a different use ("to refer to one of a group").
col_impact wrote: "A bear is a mammal" does not mean the same thing as "one bear is one mammal". You are required to produce sentences exactly the same in meaning.
In fact, "a bear is a mammal" means exactly the same as "Bears are mammals". Both sentences speak generally about bears.
Oh, I thought we were supposed to be answering the questions we wanted to answer here. After all, that's what you've been doing for some time now.
col_impact wrote: Nope. You keep adding a restriction to the use of the indefinite article where there is none. The indefinite article in the 3rd paragraph is being used to refer to something in a non-specific general way. Generally means it applies to each case of "a model" in the situation.
Incorrect. I am using all of the aspects as they apply appropriately.
col_impact wrote: Your example underscores that the case of more than one gun still satisfies "a gun". If I have shot 3 guns I have shot a gun. If I have 3 guns on my person I have a gun on my person.
But without further context to make it more than one, such as mentioning having 3 guns available, I have no reasonable expectation to extend it past one. And that is the point you keep missing.
Moving along with the same example, from the Shooting Phase:
First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. The selected weapon cannot be one that the unit has shot with during this phase. All models in the unit that are equipped with the selected weapon can now shoot at the target unit with that weapon.
By using your assertion regarding "a model" in Line of Sight's third paragraph, I can use any number of weapons the model is equipped with in this instruction because I am to select non-specified weapon.
Incorrect. Select means to choose out of a group so that is a quantitative case of the indefinite article (e.g. pick a tool, choose a color, buy a loaf, kick a toad). We are not dealing with the general use of the indefinite article but simply a different use ("to refer to one of a group").
It is still a generic, non-specific weapon we are addressing. Your assertion is that "generic non-specic" use allows for any and all to do this during the same event.
col_impact wrote: Your example underscores that the case of more than one gun still satisfies "a gun". If I have shot 3 guns I have shot a gun. If I have 3 guns on my person I have a gun on my person.
But without further context to make it more than one, such as mentioning having 3 guns available, I have no reasonable expectation to extend it past one. And that is the point you keep missing.
The situation of the 3rd paragraph will often involve more than one model as I have shown. In fact, without models in the way you have nothing that could be visibly blocking line of sight and therewith no need to actually check line of sight. What would block line of sight in the case of only a target model? The table? At any rate, it's pretty clear that the situation will often involve more than a target model and that is all that matters to our discussion.
Moving along with the same example, from the Shooting Phase:
First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. The selected weapon cannot be one that the unit has shot with during this phase. All models in the unit that are equipped with the selected weapon can now shoot at the target unit with that weapon.
By using your assertion regarding "a model" in Line of Sight's third paragraph, I can use any number of weapons the model is equipped with in this instruction because I am to select non-specified weapon.
Incorrect. Select means to choose out of a group so that is a quantitative case of the indefinite article (e.g. pick a tool, choose a color, buy a loaf, kick a toad). We are not dealing with the general use of the indefinite article but simply a different use ("to refer to one of a group").
It is still a generic, non-specific weapon we are addressing. Your assertion is that "generic non-specic" use allows for any and all to do this during the same event.
Ah, you are confusing "generic" with "general". No wonder your understanding is all out of whack.
"Generic" means non-specific so it's redundant to say along with non-specific.
"General" means "applying to each case" or "applying to all cases".
Ah, so that's it! Your understanding of the meaning of the words involved is a little off. Cool, so once you adjust your understanding to "general" and not "generic" you should be right on track.
Also, you didn't really comment on this.
col_impact wrote:
But lets bring it closer to the situation in the 3rd paragraph which is the general case of the indefinite article.
Consider:
'Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case it cannot fire'
If you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria all 3 will not be able to fire. "A gun" will generally refer to any that match the criteria since it refers to each case of a gun on your person.
By your read, if you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria only one gun will not be able to fire and the other 2 will be able to fire even though only their holsters are visible.
In order to actually say that the rule would have to read . . .
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case, choose one gun on your person that only has its holster visible. That gun cannot fire."
So, following from that statement, how many bears are mammals? Just one bear on the planet? Each instance of a bear on the planet? Any and all bears on the planet?
Oh and doctortom feel free to let us know your thoughts as well on the matter.
Is the statement "A bear is a mammal" followed by the statement "The bear may try to steal my picnic basket"? Because if not, this is entirely irrelevant as you are ignoring something to indicate that it is singular. Quit being ridiculous with useless analogies, please.
So you refuse to answer a simple question. Your argument is invalid then.
"A bear is a mammal" applies generally to each instance of a bear on the planet since "a bear" is being used in a non-specific, general way (and that is true in any context). Similarly, as already proven, the 3rd paragraph uses the indefinite article in "a model" in a non-specific general way. When something applies generally, it applies to each case. That is literally what 'generally' means.
So, you manage to completely misread something yet again. I complied with your request; I did answer your question. It's just not an answer you liked. As I pointed out, since your "A bear is a mammal" is not immediately followed by a statement saying "the bear", the analogy you are trying to make is completely invalidated. If you really didn't want to hear that answer so much, don't bother asking the question in the first place.
So, following from that statement, how many bears are mammals? Just one bear on the planet? Each instance of a bear on the planet? Any and all bears on the planet?
Oh and doctortom feel free to let us know your thoughts as well on the matter.
Is the statement "A bear is a mammal" followed by the statement "The bear may try to steal my picnic basket"? Because if not, this is entirely irrelevant as you are ignoring something to indicate that it is singular. Quit being ridiculous with useless analogies, please.
So you refuse to answer a simple question. Your argument is invalid then.
"A bear is a mammal" applies generally to each instance of a bear on the planet since "a bear" is being used in a non-specific, general way (and that is true in any context). Similarly, as already proven, the 3rd paragraph uses the indefinite article in "a model" in a non-specific general way. When something applies generally, it applies to each case. That is literally what 'generally' means.
So, you manage to completely misread something yet again. I complied with your request; I did answer your question. It's just not an answer you liked. As I pointed out, since your "A bear is a mammal" is not immediately followed by a statement saying "the bear", the analogy you are trying to make is completely invalidated. If you really didn't want to hear that answer so much, don't bother asking the question in the first place.
Since you are having trouble connecting the dots I will make it easier and re-point you to an example from my last 2 posts, which I guess you missed.
Lets bring it closer to the situation in the 3rd paragraph which is the general case of the indefinite article.
Consider:
'Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case it cannot fire'
If you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria all 3 will not be able to fire. "A gun" will generally refer to any that match the criteria since it refers to each case of a gun on your person.
By your read, if you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria only one gun will not be able to fire and the other 2 will be able to fire even though only their holsters are visible.
In order to actually say that the rule would have to read . . .
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case, choose one gun on your person that only has its holster visible. That gun cannot fire."
You have 3 guns on your person, all of which have only the holster visible? Sincerely doubtful, especially since that would be 3 holsters. You'd have one holster visible, so therefore that would be the "it" referred to.
Also, the thing implicit here is that you are talking about visibility to and from a model, not through a model. It cannot fire, but nobody cares if the holster is all that's visible of an intervening model between the shooting model and the model being shot. Therefore, the sentence would not apply to intervening models, much like the sentences you are trying to apply to intervening models. Thanks for stumbling into something refuting your own argument!
col_impact wrote: Your example underscores that the case of more than one gun still satisfies "a gun". If I have shot 3 guns I have shot a gun. If I have 3 guns on my person I have a gun on my person.
But without further context to make it more than one, such as mentioning having 3 guns available, I have no reasonable expectation to extend it past one. And that is the point you keep missing.
The situation of the 3rd paragraph will often involve more than one model as I have shown. In fact, without models in the way you have nothing that could be visibly blocking line of sight and therewith no need to actually check line of sight. What would block line of sight in the case of only a target model? The table? At any rate, it's pretty clear that the situation will often involve more than a target model and that is all that matters to our discussion.
Context provided by the instructions, not the situation. You are expected to check the visibility of "a model" right after drawing a line to "the target's body". Aside from the 'viewing' model, no other model is represented at this point in the instructions. I will repeat, at this point, you are not instructed to be concerned with the visibility of any other model. By including any other models in this consideration, you are adding to the rules.
Moving along with the same example, from the Shooting Phase:
First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. The selected weapon cannot be one that the unit has shot with during this phase. All models in the unit that are equipped with the selected weapon can now shoot at the target unit with that weapon.
By using your assertion regarding "a model" in Line of Sight's third paragraph, I can use any number of weapons the model is equipped with in this instruction because I am to select non-specified weapon.
Incorrect. Select means to choose out of a group so that is a quantitative case of the indefinite article (e.g. pick a tool, choose a color, buy a loaf, kick a toad). We are not dealing with the general use of the indefinite article but simply a different use ("to refer to one of a group").
It is still a generic, non-specific weapon we are addressing. Your assertion is that "generic non-specic" use allows for any and all to do this during the same event.
Ah, you are confusing "generic" with "general". No wonder your understanding is all out of whack.
"Generic" means non-specific so it's redundant to say along with non-specific.
"General" means "applying to each case" or "applying to all cases".
Ah, so that's it! Your understanding of the meaning of the words involved is a little off. Cool, so once you adjust your understanding to "general" and not "generic" you should be right on track.
The source you have been using states "not specific", as in "non-specific". So, if I can't use a term synonymous with the interpretation you've been using, then that means you are proving your own interpretation as crap.
col_impact wrote:
But lets bring it closer to the situation in the 3rd paragraph which is the general case of the indefinite article.
Consider:
'Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case it cannot fire'
If you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria all 3 will not be able to fire. "A gun" will generally refer to any that match the criteria since it refers to each case of a gun on your person.
By your read, if you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria only one gun will not be able to fire and the other 2 will be able to fire even though only their holsters are visible.
In order to actually say that the rule would have to read . . .
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case, choose one gun on your person that only has its holster visible. That gun cannot fire."
I would like your thoughts on the above.
You haven't been bothered to properly address half the restates I have asked you to. Why should I do the same?
col_impact wrote: Your example underscores that the case of more than one gun still satisfies "a gun". If I have shot 3 guns I have shot a gun. If I have 3 guns on my person I have a gun on my person.
But without further context to make it more than one, such as mentioning having 3 guns available, I have no reasonable expectation to extend it past one. And that is the point you keep missing.
The situation of the 3rd paragraph will often involve more than one model as I have shown. In fact, without models in the way you have nothing that could be visibly blocking line of sight and therewith no need to actually check line of sight. What would block line of sight in the case of only a target model? The table? At any rate, it's pretty clear that the situation will often involve more than a target model and that is all that matters to our discussion.
Context provided by the instructions, not the situation. You are expected to check the visibility of "a model" right after drawing a line to "the target's body". Aside from the 'viewing' model, no other model is represented at this point in the instructions. I will repeat, at this point, you are not instructed to be concerned with the visibility of any other model. By including any other models in this consideration, you are adding to the rules.
Cool, so no other models are part of the equation. The viewing model can shoot directly through walls and models in the way since they are not part of the equation.
Oh, but the context does talk about other models!
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Oh, and visibility is only mentioned in the 3rd paragraph, not before.
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.
And since the indefinite article is being used to refer to model in a non-specific and general way, "a model" can refer to each model in the situation whether its a target model or a model in the way or a terrain model.
It's all laid out here and this is entirely consistent with the context and what the rules actually say (and not what you have been reading into them)
Moving along with the same example, from the Shooting Phase:
First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. The selected weapon cannot be one that the unit has shot with during this phase. All models in the unit that are equipped with the selected weapon can now shoot at the target unit with that weapon.
By using your assertion regarding "a model" in Line of Sight's third paragraph, I can use any number of weapons the model is equipped with in this instruction because I am to select non-specified weapon.
Incorrect. Select means to choose out of a group so that is a quantitative case of the indefinite article (e.g. pick a tool, choose a color, buy a loaf, kick a toad). We are not dealing with the general use of the indefinite article but simply a different use ("to refer to one of a group").
It is still a generic, non-specific weapon we are addressing. Your assertion is that "generic non-specic" use allows for any and all to do this during the same event.
Ah, you are confusing "generic" with "general". No wonder your understanding is all out of whack.
"Generic" means non-specific so it's redundant to say along with non-specific.
"General" means "applying to each case" or "applying to all cases".
Ah, so that's it! Your understanding of the meaning of the words involved is a little off. Cool, so once you adjust your understanding to "general" and not "generic" you should be right on track.
The source you have been using states "not specific", as in "non-specific". So, if I can't use a term synonymous with the interpretation you've been using, then that means you are proving your own interpretation as crap.
Make up your mind.
The source says 'general, non-specific'. You are saying 'generic, not-specific'. I pointed out you are confusing 'generic' with 'general'. 'Generic' does not mean the same thing as 'general'.
"General" means "applying to each case" or "applying to all cases", and you have been refusing to acknowledge the capacity of an indefinite article to apply in a general way.
In fact, the definition of 'general' defeats your argument.
If you can't use words correctly, your argument is invalid.
col_impact wrote:
But lets bring it closer to the situation in the 3rd paragraph which is the general case of the indefinite article.
Consider:
'Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case it cannot fire'
If you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria all 3 will not be able to fire. "A gun" will generally refer to any that match the criteria since it refers to each case of a gun on your person.
By your read, if you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria only one gun will not be able to fire and the other 2 will be able to fire even though only their holsters are visible.
In order to actually say that the rule would have to read . . .
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case, choose one gun on your person that only has its holster visible. That gun cannot fire."
I would like your thoughts on the above.
You haven't been bothered to properly address half the restates I have asked you to. Why should I do the same?
Straight up dodge. Unless you address the situation, you straight up admit defeat to this forum. We all know you won't openly admit to defeat. But the thread knows the example above debunks your argument and your unwillingness to address it is as close to a concession as you will ever give.
So I will ask it again . . .
col_impact wrote:Lets bring it closer to the situation in the 3rd paragraph which is the general case of the indefinite article.
Consider:
'Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case it cannot fire'
If you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria all 3 will not be able to fire. "A gun" will generally refer to any that match the criteria since it refers to each case of a gun on your person.
By your read, if you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria only one gun will not be able to fire and the other 2 will be able to fire even though only their holsters are visible.
In order to actually say that the rule would have to read . . .
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case, choose one gun on your person that only has its holster visible. That gun cannot fire."
I would like your thoughts on the above.
Looks like this utterly debunks your argument. Your thoughts?
" Unless you address the situation, you straight up admit defeat to this forum"
Applying the same criteria to you on several of his questions, and things I've pointed out on occasion, you would fall afoul of the same judgment. And this is ignoring that your debunking has often been debunked in return, perhaps you shouldn't be quite so dogmatic sounding.
doctortom wrote: " Unless you address the situation, you straight up admit defeat to this forum"
Applying the same criteria to you on several of his questions, and things I've pointed out on occasion, you would fall afoul of the same judgment. And this is ignoring that your debunking has often been debunked in return, perhaps you shouldn't be quite so dogmatic sounding.
Incorrect. I have answered all questions posed and have dodged none. If you feel there is a question that I have dodged, feel free to re-post it.
I posed the same case to you as well. It looks like you are similarly dodging the case posed.
So I shall pose it to your again.
col_impact wrote:Lets bring it closer to the situation in the 3rd paragraph which is the general case of the indefinite article.
Consider:
'Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case it cannot fire'
If you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria all 3 will not be able to fire. "A gun" will generally refer to any that match the criteria since it refers to each case of a gun on your person.
By your read, if you have 3 guns on your person that match that criteria only one gun will not be able to fire and the other 2 will be able to fire even though only their holsters are visible.
In order to actually say that the rule would have to read . . .
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a gun on your person is its holster. If this is the case, choose one gun on your person that only has its holster visible. That gun cannot fire."
Are you going to do the same thing as Charistoph and refuse to comment on the case posed that debunks your argument?
If you refuse to answer, it doesn't look good for your argument. It means I win.
Well, you haven't addressed my next to last post at all (the one before I pointed out you were the pot calling the kettle black) certainly as one thing. In fact, that was the one where I addresses the very thing you reposted here. It does seem a pattern to you, skipping over a lot of my posts without responding to them (only an occasional response).
So, go away with the condescending "If you refuse to answer, it doesn't look good for your argument. It means I win." crap (similar to the the statement you made to Charistoph), grow up and try to address this civilly. If I stop answering you, it's certainly not because you "won", it will be because I decided you weren't worth talking to any more. At this point, we've certainly reached diminishing returns and your responses have merely been regurgitation of your points while ignoring ours.
doctortom wrote: You have 3 guns on your person, all of which have only the holster visible? Sincerely doubtful, especially since that would be 3 holsters. You'd have one holster visible, so therefore that would be the "it" referred to.
Also, the thing implicit here is that you are talking about visibility to and from a model, not through a model. It cannot fire, but nobody cares if the holster is all that's visible of an intervening model between the shooting model and the model being shot. Therefore, the sentence would not apply to intervening models, much like the sentences you are trying to apply to intervening models. Thanks for stumbling into something refuting your own argument!
The answer you provide is obviously a silly one. Please provide a serious answer. It is well within the realm of logical possibility that someone could have 3 guns on their person with only their respective holsters visible.
The case posed is a logical case, not related to 40k, in order for me to show you how indefinite articles apply non-specifically and generally. Follow the logic of the sentences and either agree with my read or the read that your argument would give. But of course its already self-evident that my read is the correct one and your argument leads to an incorrect read, and the thread knows it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doctortom wrote: Well, you haven't addressed my next to last post at all (the one before I pointed out you were the pot calling the kettle black) certainly as one thing. In fact, that was the one where I addresses the very thing you reposted here. It does seem a pattern to you, skipping over a lot of my posts without responding to them (only an occasional response).
So, go away with the condescending "If you refuse to answer, it doesn't look good for your argument. It means I win." crap (similar to the the statement you made to Charistoph), grow up and try to address this civilly. If I stop answering you, it's certainly not because you "won", it will be because I decided you weren't worth talking to any more. At this point, we've certainly reached diminishing returns and your responses have merely been regurgitation of your points while ignoring ours.
Feel free to stop posting. My case has stumped you and your refusal to seriously address it is tantamount to a concession and the thread knows it.
col_impact wrote: Cool, so no other models are part of the equation. The viewing model can shoot directly through walls and models in the way since they are not part of the equation.
Oh, but the context does talk about other models!
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Oh, and visibility is only mentioned in the 3rd paragraph, not before.
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.
And since the indefinite article is being used to refer to model in a non-specific and general way, "a model" can refer to each model in the situation whether its a target model or a model in the way or a terrain model.
It's all laid out here and this is entirely consistent with the context and what the rules actually say (and not what you have been reading into them)
That's right, you cannot tell the difference between an introduction setting the stage and a set of instructions.
We are not told to consider other models' visibility in this capacity without stepping out of the instruction line.
col_impact wrote: The source says 'general, non-specific'. You are saying 'generic, not-specific'. I pointed out you are confusing 'generic' with 'general'. 'Generic' does not mean the same thing as 'general'.
"General" means "applying to each case" or "applying to all cases", and you have been refusing to acknowledge the capacity of an indefinite article to apply in a general way.
In fact, the definition of 'general' defeats your argument.
If you can't use words correctly, your argument is invalid.
Refusal to recognize your own hypocrisy does not support your argument. If you can't use words correctly, your argument is invalid. You may want to review "general" in your spare time.
Remember we at this point in the instructions, we have not changed from one model attempting to view another. Consideration of other models' visibility in this manner is neither stated or suggested.
col_impact wrote: Straight up dodge. Unless you address the situation, you straight up admit defeat to this forum. We all know you won't openly admit to defeat. But the thread knows the example above debunks your argument and your unwillingness to address it is as close to a concession as you will ever give.
So I will ask it again . . .
Go ahead, I will give the same answer. Properly answer the other considerations I have presented, first. By refusing to do so, you are setting a hypocritical standard. I've called you out on several different points. In one case, you waved it off saying that it isn't necessary while ignoring how instructional context works. In another, you answered like a politician twice, repeating your core assertion without actually answering the statement under consideration.
In other words, you have been doing dodges left and right throughout this thread. By your own standards, you have been admitting defeat left and right. So, that's good to know, you admit you're wrong. Have a nice life, and good luck convincing people of your magic grammar classes which ignore huge amounts of words which provide context and relevance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: So col and only col arguing a point , using a bizarre concept of grammar where you ignore the context of the rule - again?
Call it quits. You cannot possibly alter cols argument as that is not how they have ever behaved to my knowledge. It's a dialogue of the deaf.
Pretty much. I am putting him on ignore now due to his toxic ability to piss me off because of it.
nosferatu1001 wrote: So col and only col arguing a point , using a bizarre concept of grammar where you ignore the context of the rule - again?
Call it quits. You cannot possibly alter cols argument as that is not how they have ever behaved to my knowledge. It's a dialogue of the deaf.
Using an indefinite article to refer to something in a non-specific and general way is hardly what I would call "a bizarre concept of grammar".
Also, context must be accurately understood. It must stick to the actual words of the rule or what those words directly infer. You are not allowed to read in whatever you want and call it context. That's fabricating context that is not actually in the rules.
I have not only presented an argument based soundly on grammar and context, but I have presented an argument that refrains from reading into the rule. The counter-arguments have run afoul of grammar and have read into the rules, producing a fictional context that is not the actual context.
col_impact wrote: Cool, so no other models are part of the equation. The viewing model can shoot directly through walls and models in the way since they are not part of the equation.
Oh, but the context does talk about other models!
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Oh, and visibility is only mentioned in the 3rd paragraph, not before.
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.
And since the indefinite article is being used to refer to model in a non-specific and general way, "a model" can refer to each model in the situation whether its a target model or a model in the way or a terrain model.
It's all laid out here and this is entirely consistent with the context and what the rules actually say (and not what you have been reading into them)
That's right, you cannot tell the difference between an introduction setting the stage and a set of instructions.
We are not told to consider other models' visibility in this capacity without stepping out of the instruction line.
What is visible is not a concern until the 3rd paragraph. And as stated, the line of sight situation will almost always involve more than one model. So "a model" in "sometimes, all that will be visible of a model" can refer to a model in the way or a target model. "A model" is simply not specified and there will almost always be more than one model in the situation.
col_impact wrote: The source says 'general, non-specific'. You are saying 'generic, not-specific'. I pointed out you are confusing 'generic' with 'general'. 'Generic' does not mean the same thing as 'general'.
"General" means "applying to each case" or "applying to all cases", and you have been refusing to acknowledge the capacity of an indefinite article to apply in a general way.
In fact, the definition of 'general' defeats your argument.
If you can't use words correctly, your argument is invalid.
Refusal to recognize your own hypocrisy does not support your argument. If you can't use words correctly, your argument is invalid. You may want to review "general" in your spare time.
Remember we at this point in the instructions, we have not changed from one model attempting to view another. Consideration of other models' visibility in this manner is neither stated or suggested.
"General" means "applying to each case" as already stated.
The 3rd paragraph is the first time visibility is mentioned at all and the line of sight situation can involve any number of models. You can't have it both ways. Either the models in the way are there to be able to visibly block line of sight or they are not there and unable to provide any blocking of line of sight. Per the first paragraph we know that the context of the situation can involve any number of models and the 2nd paragraph follows from that context. Context applies across the board from the first paragraph to the last in the section of the rule. We just need to remember not to read into the context, as you are wont to do.
col_impact wrote: Straight up dodge. Unless you address the situation, you straight up admit defeat to this forum. We all know you won't openly admit to defeat. But the thread knows the example above debunks your argument and your unwillingness to address it is as close to a concession as you will ever give.
So I will ask it again . . .
Go ahead, I will give the same answer. Properly answer the other considerations I have presented, first. By refusing to do so, you are setting a hypocritical standard. I've called you out on several different points. In one case, you waved it off saying that it isn't necessary while ignoring how instructional context works. In another, you answered like a politician twice, repeating your core assertion without actually answering the statement under consideration.
In other words, you have been doing dodges left and right throughout this thread. By your own standards, you have been admitting defeat left and right. So, that's good to know, you admit you're wrong. Have a nice life, and good luck convincing people of your magic grammar classes which ignore huge amounts of words which provide context and relevance.
I have dodged nothing. If you legitimately feel that I have dodged something then kindly restate your question or concern and I will address it. Unlike you I am interested in getting at the truth of an issue and not just winning the argument. So feel free to bring up your concerns.
But here you just seem to be at a point where you should be admitting defeat but cannot.
Col - you can claim it, yet frankly nooone here sees it. THat should be a clue that maybe your argument isnt as strong as you claim. Every. Single. Time.
The context of the rule concerns the target model. We know this, and I suspect you do as well, and are arguing p[urely to generate an argument with Charistoph.
doctortom wrote: You have 3 guns on your person, all of which have only the holster visible? Sincerely doubtful, especially since that would be 3 holsters. You'd have one holster visible, so therefore that would be the "it" referred to.
Also, the thing implicit here is that you are talking about visibility to and from a model, not through a model. It cannot fire, but nobody cares if the holster is all that's visible of an intervening model between the shooting model and the model being shot. Therefore, the sentence would not apply to intervening models, much like the sentences you are trying to apply to intervening models. Thanks for stumbling into something refuting your own argument!
The answer you provide is obviously a silly one. Please provide a serious answer. It is well within the realm of logical possibility that someone could have 3 guns on their person with only their respective holsters visible.
The case posed is a logical case, not related to 40k, in order for me to show you how indefinite articles apply non-specifically and generally. Follow the logic of the sentences and either agree with my read or the read that your argument would give. But of course its already self-evident that my read is the correct one and your argument leads to an incorrect read, and the thread knows it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doctortom wrote: Well, you haven't addressed my next to last post at all (the one before I pointed out you were the pot calling the kettle black) certainly as one thing. In fact, that was the one where I addresses the very thing you reposted here. It does seem a pattern to you, skipping over a lot of my posts without responding to them (only an occasional response).
So, go away with the condescending "If you refuse to answer, it doesn't look good for your argument. It means I win." crap (similar to the the statement you made to Charistoph), grow up and try to address this civilly. If I stop answering you, it's certainly not because you "won", it will be because I decided you weren't worth talking to any more. At this point, we've certainly reached diminishing returns and your responses have merely been regurgitation of your points while ignoring ours.
Feel free to stop posting. My case has stumped you and your refusal to seriously address it is tantamount to a concession and the thread knows it.
Actually it wasn't a silly answer - it was an answer pointing out your analogy might be silly. It addressed the issue and pointed out where things differed from the actual example in the book we're trying to compare. Also, it helped shoot down your theory, so I guess that's why you just want to brush it off as silly. So, instead of brushing off my answer (which you seem to try to do EVERY SINGLE TIME someone gives you an "inconvenient" answer), maybe you should address MY points and show how your points are "self-evident", since they're only self-evident to you. Take Nosferatu1001's last post to heart.
Your case hasn't stumped me, just your blind ignorance of the use of context and the proper use of grammar - not what you are purporting to be the proper use of grammar. I might take Nosferatu1001's advice and sign off on this after all. If you want to be childish and treat is as a concession, feel free; I'm going to treat it as the equivalent of whacking the mule in the head with a 2 x 4 many times and the mule still not wanting to pay attention, or to repeatedly bringing the horse to the trough but him refusing to drink. Being too blinkered to see you're wrong doesn't mean that you're right just because people throw up their hands because you don't want to see sense.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col - you can claim it, yet frankly nooone here sees it. THat should be a clue that maybe your argument isnt as strong as you claim. Every. Single. Time.
The context of the rule concerns the target model. We know this, and I suspect you do as well, and are arguing p[urely to generate an argument with Charistoph.
The context will most often include more models than just a target model.
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
The 3rd paragraph intentionally uses "a model" to refer to "model" in a non-specific and general way so "a model" can refer to a model in the way just as easily as it can refer to a target model.
Grammar does not support you. Context does not support you.
I have no desire to spam like you. Look it up.
