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.

Saldiven wrote: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.

First of all, perfect present tense is not a little basic english grammar. Its usage may be more clear in other languages, but it can be confusing in English.

Your definition is correct, but you are not giving it enough freedom to include the situation which the OP raised. If the Chaplain has joined three units previously, all of those units were joined in the past. The act of joining also ended prior to the present. By RAW, it is legal.

Unfortunately, grammatically speaking, there is no point of contention here. However, I think an argument can be found in the use of "any." Those who say all squads ever joined by the Chaplain get the benefit of the special rule see "any" as a temporal reference.

I think a better interpretation (one that equally appeals to RAW, but also to what many believe to be RAI, hence increasing its validity) is to view "any" as a term of inclusion/clarification (sorry, I do not remember the classical term).

By using "any" in this situation, I believe the rule is including all types of units the Chaplain is able to join, be they Scouts, Tac Squads, Devestators, etc. Any type of squad can benefit from the rule, not any squad ever joined.

Unless RAI actually means that the Chaplain's inspiring presence lingers on after leaving Unit X and then joining Unit Y...then I'm way off, haha.

Edit 1: Can someone copy the whole rule as it appears in the 5th ed. codex please, or is it exactly like the 4th ed. Space Marince Codex rule (which would be Litanies of Hate)? If so, I think this issue can be very easily resolved. I won't type out the solution unless it is the same though, as it would be a moot point otherwise.

Edit 2: By this interpretation, and assuming the OP typed the rule correctly, allies would also benefit. Which, I believe, is perfectly okay.

Harky,

Who gets the benefit is implicit in when the benefit is derived in this instance. "On a player turn in which he assaults" is a preposition that sets the context of what follows it. It not only establishes when the benefit occurs, but who gets the benefit, since the Chaplain is either 1) assaulting by himself, or 2) assaulting with a unit he "has joined." "Has joined" is only ambiguous if you take it out of context or if you read the comma as a period.

Brice

BBeale wrote:Harky,

Who gets the benefit is implicit in when the benefit is derived in this instance. "On a player turn in which he assaults" is a preposition that sets the context of what follows it. It not only establishes when the benefit occurs, but who gets the benefit, since the Chaplain is either 1) assaulting by himself, or 2) assaulting with a unit he "has joined." "Has joined" is only ambiguous if you take it out of context or if you read the comma as a period.

Brice

No, the preposition is nowhere near as restrictive as you claim. It merely limits the benefit to the turns in which he assaults, not the squad he is assaulting with. You are putting way more in there than exists.

Liturgies of Battle, p.58, Codex: Space Marines wrote:On a player turn in which he assaults, a Chaplain and all members of any squad he has joined can re-roll failed rolls to hit.

Look, if I were to say, "In the morning when I get up to go to work, myself and any woman who has joined me can ride in my car", that doesn't mean that every woman I've ever slept with is getting a ride to work (no jokes about having more than enough room in the car).

Brice

BBeale wrote:Look, if I were to say, "In the morning when I get up to go to work, myself and any woman who has joined me can ride in my car", that doesn't mean that every woman I've ever slept with is getting a ride to work (no jokes about having more than enough room in the car).

Brice

Correct. It wouldn't apply to every woman you've ever slept with. Nor does the Chaplain's abilities extend to those units who he joined the previous five games. But your statement would apply to every woman who joined you that night, you little pimp you.

Nurglitch wrote:

Liturgies of Battle, p.58, Codex: Space Marines wrote:On a player turn in which he assaults, a Chaplain and all members of any squad he has joined can re-roll failed rolls to hit.

Well, my potential bulletproof solution does not work. The original argument applies though. Carry on.

LOL - I'd like to remind everyone that we are not debating how it is to be played, but rather what has joined could be interpretted.

I've stated my very valid point and will not continue stating it. If you are really insistant that there is only one way to read that sentence, then that is your understanding of the english language.

G is correctly dissecting bbeale's analogy. The fact that 'ANY woman you HAS joined'* implies multiple. If the statement said 'THE woman you IS joined' maybe you'd have an argument.

*That is the correct word structure, as it is used in the text.

Assuming they mean 'current', the correct retranslation should read: 'On a player turn in which he assaults, a Chaplain and all members of the squad he is joined can re-roll failed rolls to hit.'