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.

Fairly new to SM and was parusing the new Dex.

Space Marines Codex, 5th Edition, Page 58, Column 2 wrote: Liturgies of Battle: On a player turn in which he assaults, a Chaplain and all members of any Squad he has joined can re-roll rolls to hit.

Does this mean if it is turn 3 and the chaplain has joined/left 3 squads, THEY ALL get to re-roll to hit rolls? Or just the unit he is currently joined with?

Only the unit he is currently joined with.

The Chaplain will only ever be a member of one unit when that unit charges in the assault phase. That unit can re-roll rolls to hit.

Thats fine - it was the 'has joined' part of the phrase that caused confusion.

has joined = has joined in that assault phase
has joined < joined ever in the 'current game'

Why would it cause confusion?

Since he can only join one unit, and joins it in the movement phase (or when he's deployed), and cannot leave the unit or join another one in the shooting or assault phases, then the context is quite clear that "any Squad he has joined" refers to the squad he has joined for the assault.

again, the rule says 'any Squad he has joined'

When I first read it, I took it to mean 'ANY squad he has joined' - In a battle an IC can join (and subsequently leave) ANY number of Squads.

So it could seem logical that the rule means any number of squads, and not just the squad he is currently in or (as you put it) 'refers to the squad he has joined for the assault'.

In either case - its still flipping cool

No, it wouldn't be logical for the rule to mean any number of squads and not just the squad that the Chaplain has joined.

It would be illogical because such a reading ignores how that the rules for independent characters joining squads work; if a character has joined a unit then he is part of that unit, and if a character leaves a unit then he is no longer part of that unit. Therefore, if a character leaves a unit, he is no longer joined with it.

Apparently there is going to be a debate about this.

1) 'has joined' is not the same as 'currently part of' or 'is joined to'

2) 'has joined' encompasses both 'joined in the past (the word 'has')' and 'currently joined with'.

3) The fact that an IC leaves a unit doesn't mean that he didn't join a previous unit in the past, and

C) therefore the term 'and ANY squad he has joined' can be interpretted to mean ANY squad he has ever joined.

So as I see it.

Side A: any squad he has ever joined
Side B: any squad he has joined that turn

Both sides are adding words to clarify.

For there to be a debate, you would actually need a position that holds water.

I'm simply telling you what you're missing.

Go read the rules for Independent Character. Then read the rule for Liturgies of Battle.

GW is not well known for the clear cut and grammatically correct rules, but Nurglitch is correct in this manner. Only the squad/unit that he is currently in will get this benefit.

The idea that GW is not well known for clear cut and grammatically well-formed rules is true.

The problem is that most of what are considered ambiguous and grammatically difficult rules are usually just the result of players with less-than-perfect reading comprehension skills blaming the material rather than their own deficiencies.

This is especially true of the 5th edition, which is rather well written compared to the 4th edition, and so far I've only found one real error that held up under the inspection I'd give to the writing in a professional journal (Power Fists and bonus attacks for having two close combat weapons). In fact, something that pleases me about the 5th edition is that most of the problems I identified about the 4th edition have miraculously been corrected.

Unfortunately people still persist in the line of reasoning that because GW is not well known for writing clear cut and grammatically correct rules, that anything not immediately clear and exceedingly well-written is automatically "OH NOES!!111!! L00PH013!11!!!".

If you go in expecting a badly written piece, then you're going to find errors where none exist. Recently that seems to be all this forum is about, aside from all the questions where someone simply hasn't bothered to read a copy of the rules.

/rant

Its apparent that people only win these forum debates by flaming other posters, instead of using the premise/conclusion method (which I have done above)...

In either case, I never stated that I disagreed how this was to be played, but rather pointed out that some could conclude otherwise.

Nurglitch feels that there is no way to conclude other than how he has, and that is his own stance. But, he has only said 'read the rules on IC' - which I have thoroughly done (that isn't even why this post was created).

I will bow down to Nurglitch's self proclaimed super literacy skills, as its apparent anyone who see's other than him are fools.

With Nurglitch on this one, but I can perhaps explain where I see it differently than you. The phrase is related directly to the Chaplain himself and in the context of his immediate actions "On a player turn in which he assaults, a Chaplain..." - due to this preface directing the phrase to the Chaplain and his current status, the remainder of this sentence will implicitly relate only to the current activities of the Chaplain unless clearly stated otherwise.

By pulling out an individual segment of the sentence you can create any interpretation you want.

To try it out by example:
"When leaving the electronics store, the Customer and any items he has purchased will be checked at the door."

Any items he has EVER purchased?
Or within the context, any items currently on his person that he purchased at this electronics store.

Look Nurglitch the guy HAS a stance, and it's that in the English language that particular verb conjugation is used both to describe recent activity and past experience.

They meant for it to mean recent activity - ie. he's just joined a squad, and gives it this ability.

However with no change in wording it could also mean any squad he has joined. Hell if you got really crazy with it, it could be any squad he's joined in previous games, the last codex, 5 years ago, anytime since you've owned the model.

Which is of course silly, and the rule is definitely intended to mean that the squad you're currently attached to gets the bonus. But because of how English works, the OP has a VERY valid question. It's silly to think he'd be THAT broken and give everyone he's ever joined, ever, that ability but it's still a valid question and you shouldn't call peoples' points of views baseless just because you disagree.

Harkainos wrote:

Space Marines Codex, 5th Edition, Page 58, Column 2 wrote: Liturgies of Battle: On a player turn in which he assaults, a Chaplain and all members of any Squad he has joined can re-roll rolls to hit.

Does this mean if it is turn 3 and the chaplain has joined/left 3 squads, THEY ALL get to re-roll to hit rolls? Or just the unit he is currently joined with?

Rules As Written, yes, that's exactly what this means. I can hardly see anything commensurate in his points cost to warrant such a powerful ability, which makes me suspect it's invalid, but yeah, strictly Rules As Written, it's every member of every squad he has joined.

sourclams wrote:
Rules As Written, yes, that's exactly what this means. I can hardly see anything commensurate in his points cost to warrant such a powerful ability, which makes me suspect it's invalid, but yeah, strictly Rules As Written, it's every member of every squad he has joined.

So is it every squad the chaplain has joined since the assault started, since the turn started, since the game started, since the tournament started, or since you bought the chaplain? Which is it? Where does it say?

Seriously guys. It's a RAW standpoint in that it is written in the codex, but it is only interpretable that way if you #1) Ignore the context of the first half of the sentence, and #2) start making up a lot of rules about what to do with it then.

That is what I was pointing out. Granted I would think it overpowered and ludricrous to play ANY/EVER, but it could be interpretted that way.

@ Moz - That isn't ignoring the first part of the statement. The first part is saying when the benefit is applicable, not who it is applicable to. Your relational statement isn't valid in the fact that a Chaplain, through the course of one game, can join multiple squads. If you really wanted it to relate it would read

When leaving the mall, a Chaplain and anything he has purchased will be checked at the door.

In which case, yes it is ANYTHING HE PURCHASED WHILE IN THE MALL....


I stated earlier that I don't intend to play him that way, but I could see why people would - by the reading of the rule.

When leaving the mall, a Chaplain and anything he has purchased will be checked at the door.

In which case, yes it is ANYTHING HE PURCHASED WHILE IN THE MALL....

You're providing more evidence for my argument without realizing perhaps? By connecting the 'When leaving the mall' statement to 'Anything he purchased while in the mall', you are taking the example in it's context and applying the correct reasoning to it. Taken out of context: 'a Chaplain and anything he has purchased' you would assume that as the Chaplain is leaving the mall, everything he has ever purchased will be checked at the door.

So we can reiterate your example, in context, using the rules as written:

On a player turn in which he assaults, a Chaplain and all members of any Squad he has joined can re-roll rolls to hit.
In which case, yes it is ANYTHING HE JOINED ON A PLAYER TURN IN WHICH HE ASSAULTS....

now you are simply adding words to the sentence. I have done no such thing.

What you are saying is this. (Using the illustration) When a person leaves the mall, they are only checked with the items they purchased at one of the stores they were in.... which is your reasoning for the chaplain.

So my last sentence in the my last post is stating that he can leave with everything, in any store that he purchased at the mall... multiple stores, multiple squads....

Apparently there are two different language comprehensions here. I don't think that either are wrong, as we've already discussed how it is to be played (regardless of the different understandings of this one sentence.) To say that it can only be interpretted your way is simply wrong, no matter how many illustrations/diagrams you come up with.

**you meaning anyone and everyone posting, not simply moz

How am I adding words to the sentence?

Ignore the stores thing, that confuses the issue. My point is that without the preposition "When leaving the mall," you wouldn't have any context to restrict the second phrase "what he has purchased". So you cannot disconnect those items and try to make a broad point out of it without distorting the meaning of the sentence.

Likewise you have to take the full sentence into account with the Chaplain's rule, and the preposition there clearly gives context to the phrase.

And I'll browbeat it again, if you take the phrase apart it doesn't even work without interjecting some entirely new assumptions into the mix. You still haven't addressed how we determine that it's any unit the Chaplain has joined 'this game'.

I'm beginning to liken this to one of those situations where if you just stare at a word or phrase too long it starts to twist in your head. I've done my best to avoid Nurglitch's path of just dismissing you here, but this really is just coming down to reading comprehension. Either you've got it or you don't.

You're allowing reason to cloud your simple reading comprehension. Strange assertion, I know.

Based on the phrasing of the rule, it's every squad since the game started. Including things like tournaments, all games ever played, etc. etc. are completely beyond the scope of the rules. This is where you're adding meaning that isn't there. The rules spell out the criteria for one game. The chaplain benefit applies to every squad the chaplain has joined for that game, rules as written.

Yours is an easily defended position because it's the most reasonable and "right" assumption, based on how we know the games are played.

But, going by the entry, it is not the most "correct" assumption. That is the sole point that the original poster is attempting to make.

"Has joined" is present tense and so only refers to the unit it is joined to at the time.

If you wanted to say any unit that it joined in the game, you would have to use the word "had" rather than "has."

"has joined" sounds more like past tense to me?

The present tense would be:

"The Chaplain and any unit he is joined to..."

Alternatively, a more awkward but perhaps more technically correct version would be:

"The Chaplain and any unit to which he is joined"

That said, it seems to be clear to everyone what the intended usage is, so I don't think this really constitutes a mistake or unclear writing.

@ cheexsta - 'had joined' would not include the squad he is currently with. 'has join' (which is what is written) does in fact mean past and current.

I agree with hakainos, because of the verb thing.

The first part of the sentence cannot be ignored-it is temporal and conditional. It is a prepositional phrase set off by a comma that establishes the context of the second part of the sentence. You can't take that second part of the sentence out of context or you get absurd results, like every unit the chaplain has ever joined getting the benefit. In that context, "has joined" can only apply to units joined "On a player turn in which he assaults"

Brice

Without reading the whole thread, I just want to point out a little basic English grammar.

The construction, "has joined," is an example of the Present Perfect Tense. This indicates a situation that started at some indefinite point in the past and has continued into the present. The Past Perfect Tense, such as "had joined," would indicate something that occurred at some indefinite point in the past and has ended prior to the present.

For the phrasing to accurately depict the OP's original point of confusion, the construction would need some sort of adverbial modification to explain that. For example, it could say "any unit the Chaplain has joined at any point during the battle," or "...ever," or some similar construct.

There are a few other uses of the Present Perfect, but they don't really have much use in rules writing. Here's some resources:

http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/tenses.html#perfect

http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/330/grammar/upperf.htm

http://www.eclecticenglish.com/grammar/PresentPerfect1A.html

Nurglitch wrote:Why would it cause confusion?

...because "has joined" is not the same as "is joined with/to" or "is currently a part of."
I can see where someone with little or no SM experience might come up with that question, based on the ruling.

Nurglitch wrote:Since he can only join one unit, and joins it in the movement phase (or when he's deployed), and cannot leave the unit or join another one in the shooting or assault phases, then the context is quite clear that "any Squad he has joined" refers to the squad he has joined for the assault.

He can join more than one unit. He can join, potentially, 7 units. he just can't join them at the same TIME. The rule doesn't specify that. The context may be clear, but the wording is not. RAW means that you take it AS WRITTEN and not how it seems clear to you.



Eric

MagickalMemories:

I refer you to the links provided by Saldiven.

Saldiven - yes, yes there would need to be a 'starting' point for that sentence - hence the confusion and the question.

Now, lets consider that all rules have a basic starting point (the beginning of the game) and end point (the end of the game). W/out a 'starting point' for this sentance it could (loosely) be assumed that it was at the beginning...

In either regards, I was simply trying to point out that it was slightly confusing and that one view isn't the only view.

I am sure they meant 'that player turn'

@ Nurglitch - Saldiven has proven that the sentence needs a listed starting point. Please read it again.

BBeale wrote:The first part of the sentence cannot be ignored-it is temporal and conditional. It is a prepositional phrase set off by a comma that establishes the context of the second part of the sentence. You can't take that second part of the sentence out of context or you get absurd results, like every unit the chaplain has ever joined getting the benefit. In that context, "has joined" can only apply to units joined "On a player turn in which he assaults"

Brice

If you want to rearrange the sentence, to suit your own stance, that is fine. But as it is in the book, the first half of the sentence states WHEN the unit(s) get the benefit, not WHO gets the benefit.

Please remember, this isn't a debate as to how it is played (I've agreed on the intent) but rather a slight ambiguity in the sentence. If you want to say the first part satisfies both the who and when, that is your choice. It doesn't to me, which is why I posted.