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.

gameandwatch wrote:true, true, but keep in mind, the devastators could simply be resolved first, and if they blow it up, the assault squad shoots and assaults the troops inside anyway...

Exactly... but if a tactical squad also shot their meltagun at the transport before it was destroyed by the devs, they could not choose to assault the squad that just piled out (because a transport is not the same unit as the unit it carries of course). I initially thought some were arguing that it was the unit that destroyed it alone that could assault the troops.

Night Lords wrote:Seriously, this is getting really ridiculous. Why do I have to look something up when Ive just proven a case where the use of "however" falls into my interpretation? How can there possibly be something out there denying my interpretation of word when I just gave an example that does work?

Except your example doesn't work.

Your sentence "I want to go to the washroom [attack your troops]. I may not go in GW [shoot them]. However, I may go next door [assault them]." Linguistically does not allow for the going next door sentence to exist without the previous sentence. I do not go next door unless I am in GW, want to use the loo, and am told that I can't use the one there. That actually supports my interpretation, not yours.

Yes, physically if I was there I could go and use the washroom next door without ever having to go into GW - but that doesn't disprove the way the grammar in the sentences you wrote works. If you take the second sentence alone then you have a functionally illegible sentence that means nothing without the sentence in front of it. Likewise, in the rules, a unit cannot use the incomplete non-functional partial rule of the second sentence without using the sentence in front of it to clarify whether or not it can use the rule.

Conjunctive Adverb To be frank, the sheer fact that I know what a conjunctive adverb is seems to suggest, to me anyway, that maybe you might want to listen to me when I describe how the grammar of a given sentence works. If you can tell me what part of a sentence 'however' is in this situation other then a conjunctive adverb then your arguement might bear some merit.

Ive never ever in my life had a situation where the word "however" somehow completely restricted the following sentence into being solely linked the sentence before it.

I am proud for you? Here, allow me to pop your cherry;

"However, each model entering or moving through difficult terrain, or assaulting an enemy who is standing in difficult terrain or behind a obstacle, must take a dangerous terrain test."

Ah, okay, so difficult terrain generates dangerous terrain tests. This is an exact quote from the rule book (I can provide the page number if you like), and since the 'However' doesn't have any connectivity or requirements to the previous sentence I can read this one alone and apply it. The rule book defines what a model is. So, we're good to go, I know any and all models entering difficult terrain need to make dangerous terrain checks. I mean, this seems strange as then why would they need a difference between difficult and dangerous terrain, but I guess it doesn't matter.

Really, Im done with this "however" issue. If you can't put two and two together, I can't help you man. It's painfully obvious.

Night Lord, you're just using incorrect grammar. That's just fine, though I don't know why you're so loathe to admit it. RAI is fine, but you're just not using the English language correctly when you read and interpret this particular rule.

Okay guys, as somebody who teaches grammar (and writes grammar test-prep books) for a living, I think I can throw some light on the "however" issue.

Here the conjunctive adverb isn't really suggesting any kind of restriction. It's just functioning as a conjunction that shows contrast between what "the unit" can do and what they can't do. So it's purely stylistic and can be omitted completely without changing the meaning of the paragraph. You can't draw any solid conclusion from the language based on the use of "however."

The key to understanding this passage is in the second clause "the unit that shot it may assault..." There are two possible interpretations for this clause:

1. It means "the unit that *destroyed* it may assault..."

2. It means "*any* unit that shot it may assault..."

But the clause doesn't say either one of these things, and what it does say can conceivably be interpreted to mean either one. Based on "context" or "common sense," you can reasonably come to either conclusion.

So neither conclusion can be known to be the "correct" reading, since either one can be correct. The rule is ambiguous as written and either conclusion is a judgment call based on your assumptions about which way to read it.

Thank you, that's exactly what Ive been saying about this however deal ^. Now we can move on

So you submit that the conjunctive adverb has no bearing on the potential interpretation of 'the unit' and whether or not it's included is grammatical functionless?

Because of the sheer nature of what an adverb does and then its use as a conjunction wouldn't the inclusion of the conjunctive adverb by definition connect the two subject units in the two sentences, and by its absence separate and not connect them therefore dramatically changing the form of the sentence?

Since you teach grammar I'd love to have that answer, because if 'however' can be absolutely removed without changing the function of the sentence then I would agree with Night Lord's interpretation. I just don't see how it can be removed without changing the form of the sentence since, after all, its inclusion or exclusion so strongly affects the way I'd read it.

The adverb functions to answer who, what, where, when, style questions and the conjunction connects the two thoughts. I don't see how it can be treated as "just" a conjunction when it is also an adverb.

I'd love some clarification if you could be so bothered.

Regards,
Thor.

From your own link:

A conjunctive adverb is a transitional word that joins two clauses that could be independent sentences, and it provides meaning about the relationship between the two sentences.

The relationship is that they take place one after another, and in a specific way in this situation. No more, no less. However, they could be two completely different sentences. No where does it say the second sentence is completely dependent on the first (aka, the first is a prerequisite). It clearly says they can be independent sentences, meaning they have their own thoughts and ideas unrelated to the other.

There you go, no need to argue over this anymore.

Night Lords wrote:There you go, no need to argue over this anymore.

Because you have been shown up? It has just been shown your constant "I am right" is not correct.

Night Lords wrote:The relationship is that they take place one after another, and in a specific way in this situation. No more, no less. However, they could be two completely different sentences. No where does it say the second sentence is completely dependent on the first (aka, the first is a prerequisite). It clearly says they can be independent sentences, meaning they have their own thoughts and ideas unrelated to the other.

There you go, no need to argue over this anymore.

Yes, they could be separate, but the conjunction is used to show a connection, to ignore the conjunction is incorrect (though perhaps Flavius has something to school me on in that regard). If the sentences have the conjunction 'however' that could be equally written nevertheless, you must have performed/done the previous in order to reach the latter. You can't skip the step unless you're allowed to remove the conjunction.

Gwar! wrote:

Night Lords wrote:There you go, no need to argue over this anymore.

Because you have been shown up? It has just been shown your constant "I am right" is not correct.

No - for the issue at hand, I can't say Im 100% right because I see the other side's point. As flav said, it's not exactly clear, and you can interpret it different ways. Luckily of all the tournaments and games Ive played and watched, no one has ever tried to pull this garbage, and the very nature of it to halt the game and prevent your opponent from doing something on an issue so unclear will get you looked down upon.

As for my post, I was talking about the "however" argument that has become the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen on here. The most common use of the word is my interpretation of it, and it does *not* restrict the previous sentence - but really, Im sick of thinking of this silly issue, so Im not going to go back to it.

However, your post brought nothing to this discussion and was an outright flame. Once again it's an insult with myself on the defensive because you are insecure about the other side feeling theyre right (even though you misinterpreted what I meant) . I think you should take a good look at your own posting antics before commenting on mine.

I'm happy to supply that answer, Thor.

"...a squad cannot take out a transport with its lascannon and then mow down the occupants with their bolters. However, if a transport is destroyed (either result) by a ranged attack, the unit that shot it may assault the now disembarked passengers..."

Adverbs, as you know, modify verbs. In this case, "However" is functioning as a conjunction that shows the relationship between the verb in the first sentence "cannot take out..(and then) mow down" and the verb in the second sentence "may assault." In this instance, "however" shows a contrast between "cannot take out (and) mow" and "may assault." Some entity cannot do action a, however some entity may do action b.

Where your argument takes a wrong turn is that you're trying to use "however" to show something about the *subjects* of the two sentences, rather than the *verbs* of the two sentences. Subjects, as you know, are made up of nouns, and adverbs don't modify nouns, they modify verbs. So the answers to the key questions about whether "a squad" in sentence 1 is the same as "the unit" in sentence two, and about where the "ranged attack" in sentence two comes from are all questions about the relationships between *nouns* which are not modified by the adverb "however."

Does that answer your question?

Thor665 wrote:
Yes, they could be separate, but the conjunction is used to show a connection, to ignore the conjunction is incorrect (though perhaps Flavius has something to school me on in that regard). If the sentences have the conjunction 'however' that could be equally written nevertheless, you must have performed/done the previous in order to reach the latter. You can't skip the step unless you're allowed to remove the conjunction.

The most common usage of the word is one restrictive/negative action followed by a prohibitive/positive action.

"You did poorly on the math test. However, you did fantastic on the English test." - you must do poorly on a math test to do fantastic on an English test? No.

"We are all out of turbo man dolls. However, we have a ton of booster doll you may purchase" - There must not be any turbo man dolls in order to buy boosters? No.

"You may concede this argument. However, due to your stubbornness, you probably will not" - You must concede the argument in order to not to??? No.

How many more examples do you want?? It is not restrictive in any way shape or form. The relationship between the two is that they both happen after a transport is destroyed. That's it

Flav can continue it from here as I now see above.

Night Lords wrote:There you go, no need to argue over this anymore.

LOL

kirsanth wrote:

Night Lords wrote:There you go, no need to argue over this anymore.

LOL

Please don't post if all youre going to do is flame and add nothing to the topic.

For the record, I still think Night Lords is wrong about "the unit that shot it" meaning "any unit that shot it."

My most fundamental position is still that the rule is ambiguous beyond any hope of getting a definite answer when multiple units shoot at a transport and one of them destroys it. The rule should say either "the unit that destroyed it" or "any unit that shot it," not "the unit that shot it."

My best guess based on pure opinion and the proximity of "destroyed" in the same sentence as "the unit that shot it" is that the authors meant for it to say "the unit that destroyed it may assault."

But the rule doesn't actually say that, unfortunately. But neither does it say "any unit that shot."

At the very least we could agree on the fact that it is vague and ambiguous rules question without a definite answer....


....right?

Like I told thor, I can agree to disagree with the issue (just not the "however" part). In my opinion the way you play it will just slow the game, cause arguments, and make for a more awkward game. I've also never seen anyone contest this in all the games Ive played, so I can't say that it's the norm or that your opponent wont be taken back by your attempt to prevent him from doing something (especially when it's not exactly clear). If that's how you play it though, I just hope we don't cross paths

That's just my opinion.

Night Lords wrote:Please don't post if all youre going to do is flame and add nothing to the topic.

Then why have you been posting?

-Zing-

To further add to the grammar Nazism, it is spelt "you're", not "youre".

Honestly now, what's your problem? I'm not talking to you or about you (and putting -zing- doesn't suddenly make it ok). That post was completely unnecessary.

Night Lords wrote:Like I told thor, I can agree to disagree with the issue (just not the "however" part). In my opinion the way you play it will just slow the game, cause arguments, and make for a more awkward game. I've also never seen anyone contest this in all the games Ive played, so I can't say that it's the norm or that your opponent wont be taken back by your attempt to prevent him from doing something (especially when it's not exactly clear). If that's how you play it though, I just hope we don't cross paths

That's just my opinion.

Thank you for somewhat agreeing to disagree, Night Lords.

However, I also want to point out
-the "appeal to dire consequences" fallacy about slowing, causing arguments, and making things awkward or taking your opponent aback. These things won't necessarily happen, and even if they do they aren't evidence that a particular conclusion is more correct.
-the "appeal to popularity" from your experience of seeing it played a particular way. The most popular answer is not necessarily the correct one.
-the "appeal to force" (aka bullying) fallacy in the veiled threat about crossing paths. Smilies and "just my opinion" disclaimers aside, this argument doesn't say anything about the rules. It's just aggression.

Attaching value judgments to a particular reading of the rules doesn't advance anyone's understanding. Please stick to discussion of the rules.

Night Lords wrote:Honestly now, what's your problem? I'm not talking to you or about you (and putting -zing- doesn't suddenly make it ok). That post was completely unnecessary.

Well, considering that the issue has been resolved, I wished to make a commentary about how you did not include an apostrophe when you have been harping on about grammar for the last 5 pages.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Thank you for somewhat agreeing to disagree, Night Lords.

However, I also want to point out
-the "appeal to dire consequences" fallacy about slowing, causing arguments, and making things awkward or taking your opponent aback. These things won't necessarily happen, and even if they do they aren't evidence that a particular conclusion is more correct.
-the "appeal to popularity" from your experience of seeing it played a particular way. The most popular answer is not necessarily the correct one.
-the "appeal to force" (aka bullying) fallacy in the veiled threat about crossing paths. Smilies and "just my opinion" disclaimers aside, this argument doesn't say anything about the rules. It's just aggression.

Attaching value judgments to a particular reading of the rules doesn't advance anyone's understanding. Please stick to discussion of the rules.

Hear Hear! (and putting doesn't suddenly make it ok).

I swear this thread has turned into a 'last clap' contest except instead of claps it's insults and the winner is whoever gets the last insult in before the thread is locked.

Yeah, and I've got the last clap, chumps!!