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

I am a bit confused by the syntax of the wording of this relic ?

You can make 1 additional attack for models in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY,BIKER and CAVALRY units that are within 3" of the bearer when they make their attacks in the Fight phase...

Is it saying the models in the unit that is within 3" get 1 additional attack

or

is it saying that MODELS in infantry, biker and calvery units, that are within 3" get an additional attack ?

basically does

that are within 3"

refer to the subject "unit" or the subject of "models in units that are infantry biker or cavalry" ?

 Type40 wrote:
I am a bit confused by the syntax of the wording of this relic ?

You can make 1 additional attack for models in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY,BIKER and CAVALRY units that are within 3" of the bearer when they make their attacks in the Fight phase...

Is it saying the models in the unit that is within 3" get 1 additional attack

or

is it saying that MODELS in infantry, biker and calvery units, that are within 3" get an additional attack ?

basically does

that are within 3"

refer to the subject "unit" or the subject of "models in units that are infantry biker or cavalry" ?

It's the same "issue" as the Cadre Fireblade's "Volley Fire" rule. Only the actual models in range get to benefit because of the wording. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/779334.page

There are others that think the entire unit does though, which ignores the wording of the rule, but each to their own.

After reading the Cadre Fireblade thread.
I can see how it can be parsed both ways..

A; "models in friendly ... units that are within X" of the bearer gain X.
v.s.
B: "models, in friendly ... units, that are within x" of the bearer gain X."

To be honest, without commas in the original ruling, I think I I have to lean towards A. Commas would make it obviously B as the subject would be simply "models" but without commas
the subject is "models in ... units that are within X" " As sentence subjects are not limited to one word. If units were intended to be separated from the subject commas would be necessary.

anyhow, that's my analysis of it for tonight. Not sure what the RAI is though.

This is incredibly poorly worded, but, without punctuation, I do lean towards it affects the entire unit.

Some will parse the sentence to say only the units, but doing so makes the entire "models in X units" meaningless if it only impacts models. The rule could be better written, but I interpret it to mean if the unit is within 3" then all models in the unit gain the additional attack.

As a rule, I interpret rules in a way to avoid them including meaningless text. If the rule refers to units, it must mean units, not models. It also has to refer to models since each model gains an 1 attack, not just 1 attack for the unit.

 alextroy wrote:
Some will parse the sentence to say only the units, but doing so makes the entire "models in X units" meaningless if it only impacts models. The rule could be better written, but I interpret it to mean if the unit is within 3" then all models in the unit gain the additional attack.

As a rule, I interpret rules in a way to avoid them including meaningless text. If the rule refers to units, it must mean units, not models. It also has to refer to models since each model gains an 1 attack, not just 1 attack for the unit.

If that was the case, the rule would use the same wording as (for example) Rites of Battle, that affects all models so long as the unit is in range.

For it to affect all models in the unit it would read: You can make 1 additional attack for models in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY,BIKER and CAVALRY units whilst their unit is within 3" of the bearer when those models make their attacks in the Fight phase.

GW ain't exactly known for consistency, BCB. There's got to be dozens of examples of two rules being written differently but acting similarly in how they work.

My stance is that as long as the unit is in range, it effects all models within that unit. Otherwise, that 3" range means you're getting, at best, two units' worth of models into it. And they have to be, in military parlance, "nut to butt" to fit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Some will parse the sentence to say only the units, but doing so makes the entire "models in X units" meaningless if it only impacts models. The rule could be better written, but I interpret it to mean if the unit is within 3" then all models in the unit gain the additional attack.

As a rule, I interpret rules in a way to avoid them including meaningless text. If the rule refers to units, it must mean units, not models. It also has to refer to models since each model gains an 1 attack, not just 1 attack for the unit.

If that was the case, the rule would use the same wording as (for example) Rites of Battle, that affects all models so long as the unit is in range.

For it to affect all models in the unit it would read: You can make 1 additional attack for models in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY,BIKER and CAVALRY units whilst their unit is within 3" of the bearer when those models make their attacks in the Fight phase.

Agreed. Only models within 3" get the bonus attack. Why write models, when they mean the entire unit ?

 p5freak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Some will parse the sentence to say only the units, but doing so makes the entire "models in X units" meaningless if it only impacts models. The rule could be better written, but I interpret it to mean if the unit is within 3" then all models in the unit gain the additional attack.

As a rule, I interpret rules in a way to avoid them including meaningless text. If the rule refers to units, it must mean units, not models. It also has to refer to models since each model gains an 1 attack, not just 1 attack for the unit.

If that was the case, the rule would use the same wording as (for example) Rites of Battle, that affects all models so long as the unit is in range.

For it to affect all models in the unit it would read: You can make 1 additional attack for models in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY,BIKER and CAVALRY units whilst their unit is within 3" of the bearer when those models make their attacks in the Fight phase.

Agreed. Only models within 3" get the bonus attack. Why write models, when they mean the entire unit ?

By the same token, why write units when they could just say friendly models?

Whatever the intention, they've picked pretty much the worst wording for clarity here!

When there is this kind of ambiguity, I believe the best course is to pick the more conservative reading though. Which would be that it only affects models in range. So I come to the same conclusion as you, just slightly differently.

 Stux wrote:

By the same token, why write units when they could just say friendly models?

Because not every model is supposed to benefit from the wulfen stone. If they wrote friendly models dreadnoughts and vehicles would get an additional attack as well, and thats not what GW wants.

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:

By the same token, why write units when they could just say friendly models?

Because not every model is supposed to benefit from the wulfen stone. If they wrote friendly models dreadnoughts and vehicles would get an additional attack as well, and thats not what GW wants.

Or it could mean that dreadnought and vehicle units do not get the additional attack... its really not as cut and dry as you put it.
Especially without further punctuation it does indicate that it is referring to the entire unit.

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:

By the same token, why write units when they could just say friendly models?

Because not every model is supposed to benefit from the wulfen stone. If they wrote friendly models dreadnoughts and vehicles would get an additional attack as well, and thats not what GW wants.

That is actually a very good point. Models don't have keywords, only units do. So they have to refer to the unit in order to filter by keyword.

Ok, I'm sold. This ability definitely only works on the individual models in range as it stands.

At best it is unclear. Talk with your opponent or TO until there is an FAQ about it.

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:

By the same token, why write units when they could just say friendly models?

Because not every model is supposed to benefit from the wulfen stone. If they wrote friendly models dreadnoughts and vehicles would get an additional attack as well, and thats not what GW wants.

That is actually a very good point. Models don't have keywords, only units do. So they have to refer to the unit in order to filter by keyword.

Ok, I'm sold. This ability definitely only works on the individual models in range as it stands.

Wouldn't models not having keywords, but rather units, prove the opposite ?
really, the fact of the mater is, without further punctuation, the English language would indicate that the RAW ability refers to entire units... even though its not obvious... otherwise they need to errata commas into the sentences appropriately.
What is happening here, is people are mentally adding mental "comma pauses" into natural spots in the sentence where we normally would have commas in similarly written sentences (due to its poor wording). But those commas are NOT there...
This is either a grammar issue or a wording issue. At least when discussing RAW. Otherwise RAI is just up in the air from my interpretation.

It implies models because of the precedent of how similar abilities are worded. If they meant units, the most logical wording wouldn't mention models at all. I posed the counter example that if they meant models they didn't need to mention units - however p5freak rightly pointed out that this wording wouldn't work.

So we have two arguments to work with:

1. Precedent suggests they meant model by model or they could have used a more standard wording.

2. Given an ambiguity it's always best to assume the more conservative reading.

Given both of these align, without further evidence or comment from GW then it's clear which interpretation makes most sense.

 Type40 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:

By the same token, why write units when they could just say friendly models?

Because not every model is supposed to benefit from the wulfen stone. If they wrote friendly models dreadnoughts and vehicles would get an additional attack as well, and thats not what GW wants.

That is actually a very good point. Models don't have keywords, only units do. So they have to refer to the unit in order to filter by keyword.

Ok, I'm sold. This ability definitely only works on the individual models in range as it stands.

Wouldn't models not having keywords, but rather units, prove the opposite ?
really, the fact of the mater is, without further punctuation, the English language would indicate that the RAW ability refers to entire units... even though its not obvious... otherwise they need to errata commas into the sentences appropriately.
What is happening here, is people are mentally adding mental "comma pauses" into natural spots in the sentence where we normally would have commas in similarly written sentences (due to its poor wording). But those commas are NOT there...
This is either a grammar issue or a wording issue. At least when discussing RAW. Otherwise RAI is just up in the air from my interpretation.

Can't fault your logic here.

As I said under the with Cadre Fireblade discussion, so long as the sentence, as written is read correctly, I feel there is both no ambiguity, and that it definitely applies to all model in an applicable unit if any model in that unit is within 3”.

Grammatically in order to make ‘within 3”… ‘ apply to ‘Models’ rather than ‘friendly space wolves Infantry biker or cavalry units’ there would need to be some separation between the 'friendly space wolves Infantry biker or cavalry units' and 'within 3" 'elements of the sentence such as the addition of ‘and’ or ‘ , ‘ (e.g. Models in friendly {applicable} space wolves units, within 3" of the bearer…).

As there is no such separation then the subject of ‘within 3” ‘ must be ‘friendly space wolves Infantry biker or cavalry units’, not the ‘models’.

As Type40 showed in order to make it models that are both a) in friendly space wolves Infantry biker or cavalry units units and b) within 3” of the bearer. Punctuation that is not present needed to be added. In this case by adding such punctuation when you interpret the sentence you are quite literally changing the rule.

I would agree not the clearest sentence.

Cornishman wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:

By the same token, why write units when they could just say friendly models?

Because not every model is supposed to benefit from the wulfen stone. If they wrote friendly models dreadnoughts and vehicles would get an additional attack as well, and thats not what GW wants.

That is actually a very good point. Models don't have keywords, only units do. So they have to refer to the unit in order to filter by keyword.

Ok, I'm sold. This ability definitely only works on the individual models in range as it stands.

Wouldn't models not having keywords, but rather units, prove the opposite ?
really, the fact of the mater is, without further punctuation, the English language would indicate that the RAW ability refers to entire units... even though its not obvious... otherwise they need to errata commas into the sentences appropriately.
What is happening here, is people are mentally adding mental "comma pauses" into natural spots in the sentence where we normally would have commas in similarly written sentences (due to its poor wording). But those commas are NOT there...
This is either a grammar issue or a wording issue. At least when discussing RAW. Otherwise RAI is just up in the air from my interpretation.

Can't fault your logic here.

As I said under the with Cadre Fireblade discussion, so long as the sentence, as written is read correctly, I feel there is both no ambiguity, and that it definitely applies to all model in an applicable unit if any model in that unit is within 3”.

Grammatically in order to make ‘within 3”… ‘ apply to ‘Models’ rather than ‘friendly space wolves Infantry biker or cavalry units’ there would need to be some separation between the 'friendly space wolves Infantry biker or cavalry units' and 'within 3" 'elements of the sentence such as the addition of ‘and’ or ‘ , ‘ (e.g. Models in friendly {applicable} space wolves units, within 3" of the bearer…).

As there is no such separation then the subject of ‘within 3” ‘ must be ‘friendly space wolves Infantry biker or cavalry units’, not the ‘models’.

As Type40 showed in order to make it models that are both a) in friendly space wolves Infantry biker or cavalry units units and b) within 3” of the bearer. Punctuation that is not present needed to be added. In this case by adding such punctuation when you interpret the sentence you are quite literally changing the rule.

I would agree not the clearest sentence.

I wonder how it is worded in other languages ? in the french version of the rule, is the punctuation correct or does the ability specifically reference units/models for the ability.
This is probably the quickest way to figure out what the intention was and if it is just confusion due to bad grammar or if it is intended to be, as correct grammar would suggest, the entire unit. This is clearly a language issue.
Any bilingual people around who can weigh in ?

Translations can have translation errors. Not a good way to check how its meant to be.

 p5freak wrote:
Translations can have translation errors. Not a good way to check how its meant to be.

Fair enough,

Then the RAW is clear.
It affects the entire unit. As grammatically, without commas where we would expect them to be, the sentence clearly stats "models in X units within Y" get Z ability" not "models, in X units, within Y" get Z ability." Therefor the complete subject of the sentence is All models in X units. And thus if the unit is is within Y inches then all models within it gain benefit Z.

That's the grammar, that's the punctuation, so that must be the RAW. I am open to thinking that wasn't the RAI, but the RAW is clear if you want to be a stickler for proper punctuation as no amount of precedent replaces word for word RAW (or in this case punctuation for punctuation RAW XD).

 Type40 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Translations can have translation errors. Not a good way to check how its meant to be.

Fair enough,

Then the RAW is clear.
It affects the entire unit. As grammatically, without commas where we would expect them to be, the sentence clearly stats "models in X units within Y" get Z ability" not "models, in X units, within Y" get Z ability." Therefor the complete subject of the sentence is All models in X type of units. And thus if the unit is is within Y inches then all models within it gain benefit Z.

That's the grammar, that's the punctuation, so that must be the RAW. I am open to thinking that wasn't the RAI, but the RAW is clear if you want to be a stickler for proper punctuation as no amount of precedent replaces word for word RAW (or in this case punctuation for punctuation RAW XD).

The sentence does not clearly state that. Without commas the intention is ambiguous, not clear. But we have other evidence suggesting the opposite interpretation should be the default.

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Translations can have translation errors. Not a good way to check how its meant to be.

Fair enough,

Then the RAW is clear.
It affects the entire unit. As grammatically, without commas where we would expect them to be, the sentence clearly stats "models in X units within Y" get Z ability" not "models, in X units, within Y" get Z ability." Therefor the complete subject of the sentence is All models in X type of units. And thus if the unit is is within Y inches then all models within it gain benefit Z.

That's the grammar, that's the punctuation, so that must be the RAW. I am open to thinking that wasn't the RAI, but the RAW is clear if you want to be a stickler for proper punctuation as no amount of precedent replaces word for word RAW (or in this case punctuation for punctuation RAW XD).

The sentence does not clearly state that. Without commas the intention is ambiguous, not clear. But we have other evidence suggesting the opposite interpretation should be the default.

But it is clear, as that's how English works.

When learning Enlglish grammar you learn to parse sentences.

"models in X units within Y" get Z ability"

Subject = "models in X units"
constituents = "within Y" "
Verb = "get"
adverbial information = " Z ability"

so the entire subject gets the ability. as long as the entire subject is within Y. As per the rules, we know that an aura is passed on to every model in a unit as long as at least one model is within and this rule refers to a unit, because of the punctuation (or lack there of).

Now, if the sentence was

"models, in X units, within Y" get Z ability"
the first step to parsing it would be to take out the part surounded by the commas leaving us with ,

"models within Y get Z ability"
however,
those commas aren't there, so the first parsing stands, the entire subject includes the unit.

again, it is only ambiguous because we are naturally inclined to include "mental commas" in a sentence like this as the subject is so long and complex. Probably because we are so used to reading poor grammar on the internet (like my own XD).

It is not as clear as you say. It is open to interpretation. Your position is an opinion, not a hard grammar rule.

"Purple, monkey, dishwasher" = purple dishwasher for monkeys.
"Purple monkey dishwasher" = purple monkey who washes dishes.

 Type40 wrote:
"Purple, monkey, dishwasher" = purple dishwasher for monkeys.
"Purple monkey dishwasher" = purple monkey who washes dishes.

Again, not a hard rule. Commas help interpretation - they don't always strictly determine it. Both sentences have a degree of ambiguity.

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Translations can have translation errors. Not a good way to check how its meant to be.

Fair enough,

Then the RAW is clear.
It affects the entire unit. As grammatically, without commas where we would expect them to be, the sentence clearly stats "models in X units within Y" get Z ability" not "models, in X units, within Y" get Z ability." Therefor the complete subject of the sentence is All models in X type of units. And thus if the unit is is within Y inches then all models within it gain benefit Z.

That's the grammar, that's the punctuation, so that must be the RAW. I am open to thinking that wasn't the RAI, but the RAW is clear if you want to be a stickler for proper punctuation as no amount of precedent replaces word for word RAW (or in this case punctuation for punctuation RAW XD).

The sentence does not clearly state that. Without commas the intention is ambiguous, not clear. But we have other evidence suggesting the opposite interpretation should be the default.

What other evidence?

As for ambiguous, there is only ambiguity if you are expecting the sentence to read as a list of requirements and you are trying to force the sentence to become a that list be inserting punctuation.

In some instances, it should hopefully fairly obvious that a list is what the intent of a sentence was… for instance

If someone wrote ‘I love cooking cats, dogs and hamsters’ on a dinner party invite, based on the sentence as written I’d be extremely wary of what may be on the menu…
However, and a comma in, and you get ‘I love cooking, cats, dogs and hamsters’ at which point I’d expect their house to be full of pets.

Based on the social norms of where I live. The former would be exceptionally 'unconventional' (not to mention probably raising a whole load of legal questions) whilst the later would be particularly unremarkable.

So going back to the Wulfen Stone/ Fireblade Cadre (and other such instances with sentence as written along these lines) there is a clear, correct meaning to the sentence based on the grammar as included in that sentence: All models in <applicable> units get <bonus> whilst their unit is within <x>” of <source>. Within the context of the rules to me, there is nothing out of the ordinary about this. Yes, the bonus is powerful. However, this bonus doesn’t have anything obviously wrong or suspicious about it.
My observation is that those seeing the rule as ambiguous do not believe that the RAW is the intention of the rule (primarily because they consider this buff to be more powerful than intended), and are thus trying to change the rule to meet their expectations.
Thus this would seem to be becoming more a RAI issue.

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
"Purple, monkey, dishwasher" = purple dishwasher for monkeys.
"Purple monkey dishwasher" = purple monkey who washes dishes.

Again, not a hard rule. Commas help interpretation - they don't always strictly determine it. Both sentences have a degree of ambiguity.

Except it is a hard grammar rule ...
Like, commas exist for a reason.

"Purple, monkey, dishwasher" = purple dishwasher for monkey use.
"Purple monkey dishwasher" = purple monkey who washes dishes.

These are actual hard grammar rules XD. Without the separation the subject is what it is is.
"Models in X units" is a specified subject just like "purple monkey dishwasher"

Where
"models, in X units, ...." is not specified, but clarified using parenthetical element commas.

please see any english grammer text book describing comma rules, parenthetical element commas/ Interrupter commas in particular. Then compare that to any explination on parsing out the subject of sentence....

This really isn't ambiguous grammatically, just confusing linguistically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
p.s.
there is also
"purple, monkey dishwasher"
That would be a purple dishwasher that washes monkeys.

 Type40 wrote:


"models in X units within Y" get Z ability"

Subject = "models in X units"
constituents = "within Y" "
Verb = "get"
adverbial information = " Z ability"

Subject = Models
Adjectivial Phrase = In X Units
Constituents = "within Y"
Verb = Get
Adverbial information = Z Ability.

At it's most basic, the Subject is Models.

Breton wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


"models in X units within Y" get Z ability"

Subject = "models in X units"
constituents = "within Y" "
Verb = "get"
adverbial information = " Z ability"

Subject = Models
Adjectivial Phrase = In X Units
Constituents = "within Y"
Verb = Get
Adverbial information = Z Ability.

At it's most basic, the Subject is Models.

Without the appropriate commas you are 100 % wrong as Adjectivial Phrase adds to the subject. as this is what is considered a Attributive adjective phrase

for example.

"players who are faster than you get more home runs then you"

This means specifically a player and a person who is faster then you.
This doesn't mean ALL players get more home runs then you.
It means players who are faster then you get more home runs then you.

Models IN X units get Y benefit .

 Type40 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


"models in X units within Y" get Z ability"

Subject = "models in X units"
constituents = "within Y" "
Verb = "get"
adverbial information = " Z ability"

Subject = Models
Adjectivial Phrase = In X Units
Constituents = "within Y"
Verb = Get
Adverbial information = Z Ability.

At it's most basic, the Subject is Models.

Without the appropriate commas you are 100 % wrong as Adjectivial Phrase adds to the subject. as this is what is considered a Attributive adjective phrase

Then you also shouldn't have separated out "Within Y" making the subject = Models In X Units within Y.

refers to models in units because "units" don't make attacks, models do. If you are a model in a unit within 3", you benefit. Otherwise, it would read, "models within 3 inches" and not refer to units at all.

DCannon4Life wrote:
refers to models in units because "units" don't make attacks, models do. If you are a model in a unit within 3", you benefit. Otherwise, it would read, "models within 3 inches" and not refer to units at all.

Actually units do make attacks. Look at the wording for the ability on Space Marine Captains and such. If a unit didn't make attacks then the unit wouldn't be making hit rolls.