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.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Weapon Wiped Out.

The grammar is incorrect in this case. However you could correctly say "The weapon was wiped out".

I'm aware of that. What does the vehicle damage chart say?

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Weapon Wiped Out.

The grammar is incorrect in this case. However you could correctly say "The weapon was wiped out".

I'm aware of that. What does the vehicle damage chart say?

What is your point?

That you can't just swap the words.

Weapon destroyed is gramatically correct.
Weapon wiped out isn't.

But whatever.

rigeld2 wrote:That you can't just swap the words.

Weapon destroyed is gramatically correct.
Weapon wiped out isn't.

But whatever.

I agree, you can't just swap the words and be grammatically correct.

lmao. Humans are funny.

Seriously though, if there is a rules distinction between "destroyed" and "wiped out", I think we would all be interested in hearing it. I completely agree that grammatically and comon-usage-wise, they are not interchangeable without sounding silly. Maybe That's why GW uses two phrases. No silly allowed in a grim dark universe.

Best part is - none of this even matters, because the FAQ entry which covers EL and wiped out still doesnt specify Sweeping Advance, and so still doesnt allow you to rescue the unit.

No, the whole premise is silly and it's very badly written. I'm the senior officer here and I haven't had a funny line yet. So I'm stopping it.

"Weapon Destroyed " isn't really grammatically correct by itself, either.

There's no verb, you see.

Monster Rain wrote:"Weapon Destroyed " isn't really grammatically correct by itself, either.

There's no verb, you see.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/destroy
destroy

Pronunciation: /dɪˈstrɔɪ/
verb

There's the verb right there, you see. Along with the subject (weapon) you see. So your statement is incorrect, you see.

rigeld2 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:"Weapon Destroyed " isn't really grammatically correct by itself, either.

There's no verb, you see.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/destroy
destroy

Pronunciation: /dɪˈstrɔɪ/
verb

There's the verb right there, you see. Along with the subject (weapon) you see. So your statement is incorrect, you see.

If "weapon" is the subject and "destroyed" is the verb, then what is the object? If you're asserting that "weapon destroyed" is grammatically correct as it stands, then the weapon is still fully functional, because that grammatical construct would mean that the weapon destroyed something else.

Though, that's just using standard written English rules as opposed to spoken English rules. (And, no, they're not the same.)

Edit: From you same link, note how the dictionary states that the verb requires an object:

verb
[with object]end the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it:

the room had been destroyed by fire

2nd edit: I can't type.

So, what did the weapon destroy?

Perhaps it wiped out a unit of Immortals?

Happy jew, you might want to alter your sig to match schrodingers theory! In this context the Necrons suffered the sweeping advance and become both alive and dead at the same time


Also, just because the mods lock one thread doesn't mean you have to move it to a new thread. It gives them more work puts people off going to you make da call in the first place.

In fairness, this thread was here before the other thread was locked.

Monster Rain wrote:So, what did the weapon destroy?

Perhaps it wiped out a unit of Immortals?

I'll take that as a "Yes, I was wrong. There is a verb in that sentence. Thank you for the correction. Here is another way of looking at it as grammatically incorrect."

I've conceded that the phrases are similar enough in the rules as to effectively be interchangeable. That doesn't mean you can swap them willy-nilly and have everything work.

rigeld2 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:So, what did the weapon destroy?

Perhaps it wiped out a unit of Immortals?

I'll take that as a "Yes, I was wrong. There is a verb in that sentence. Thank you for the correction. Here is another way of looking at it as grammatically incorrect.".

Yeah, don't read malice into my stuff, mang. I shouldn't get into grammatical debates until after my second cup of coffee.

rigeld2 wrote:I've conceded that the phrases are similar enough in the rules as to effectively be interchangeable. That doesn't mean you can swap them willy-nilly and have everything work.

I think the places where you can't do that are the exception, though, and mainly related to vehicles.

Monster Rain wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:So, what did the weapon destroy?

Perhaps it wiped out a unit of Immortals?

I'll take that as a "Yes, I was wrong. There is a verb in that sentence. Thank you for the correction. Here is another way of looking at it as grammatically incorrect.".

Yeah, don't read malice into my stuff, mang. I shouldn't get into grammatical debates until after my second cup of coffee.

rigeld2 wrote:I've conceded that the phrases are similar enough in the rules as to effectively be interchangeable. That doesn't mean you can swap them willy-nilly and have everything work.

I think the places where you can't do that are the exception, though, and mainly related to vehicles.

Agreed.

Yarrick The Necron wrote:Happy jew, you might want to alter your sig to match schrodingers theory! In this context the Necrons suffered the sweeping advance and become both alive and dead at the same time


Also, just because the mods lock one thread doesn't mean you have to move it to a new thread. It gives them more work puts people off going to you make da call in the first place.

That would make it "Schrödinger's Necrons". Which I think would be a very very interesting army to play...

Monster Rain wrote:In fairness, this thread was here before the other thread was locked.

But the 2 are/were related, and ones now locked. All im saying is share the love, its over now. We can all sit back and realise that arguing on the internet is invalid by sheer annoyance.

This thread makes me want to punch the internet in its face. Warhammer was a lot more fun when my friends and i used common sense or dice rolls to solve rule disputes instead of pretending that the people who wrote the rulebook have a degree in law.

Nate668 wrote:This thread makes me want to punch the internet in its face. Warhammer was a lot more fun when my friends and i used common sense or dice rolls to solve rule disputes instead of pretending that the people who wrote the rulebook have a degree in law.

And comments like this make me want to punch people in their face.
Many people enjoy debating semantics. That's why this forum exists.
You don't have to participate in the discussions - you don't even have to visit this sub-forum.
You should respect other people.
What you posted is the opposite of that and is borderline trolling.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nate668 wrote:This thread makes me want to punch the internet in its face. Warhammer was a lot more fun when my friends and i used common sense or dice rolls to solve rule disputes instead of pretending that the people who wrote the rulebook have a degree in law.

And comments like this make me want to punch people in their face.
Many people enjoy debating semantics. That's why this forum exists.
You don't have to participate in the discussions - you don't even have to visit this sub-forum.
You should respect other people.
What you posted is the opposite of that and is borderline trolling.

True, but arguing semantics purely for the sake of arguing semantics is not what the forum is for either. You're arguing to reach an agreement or to reach an understanding of how something works. If something will work if you simply apply common sense to it, but people refuse to allow it to work because of the RAW, then therein lies an issue and probably what Nate668 was getting at.

I feel the same frustration at times, but I have found that when you translate what is discussed in this forum to the actual tabletop, most of these arguments don't carry over or are even mentioned. In a game-type situation, most people abandon strict RAW for common sense.

Nate668 wrote:This thread makes me want to punch the internet in its face. Warhammer was a lot more fun when my friends and i used common sense or dice rolls to solve rule disputes instead of pretending that the people who wrote the rulebook have a degree in law.

You mistake us debating it for us creating mandates that everyone should follow.

The fact that this is so debatable means that common sense will likely dictate house rules that you and your friends (and my friends and I) will follow, whether we officially recognize them as such or not. I enjoy a civilized rules debate from time to time. Usually when I'm procrastinating on starting this mountain of homework that I should really be doing.

I don't understand what you guys are arguing about.

A unit is wiped out and destroyed means they are dead.

If a unit has some way to resurrect itself from being dead then it still can do that.

Are you trying to say "if the unit is destroyed is can not get back up" and blah blah rules says the unit is "wiped out."

Are you trying to claim that the unit then can get back up?

If you are then your just bending the rules to suit your way of playing.

Both word mean the same thing, I doubt GW thought of this when they made the rules, I think they even expected you to have common sense.

When has GW ever mentioned, anything being destroyed and wiped out differently.

Also recently removed from play has become the same as killed, so a unit of warriors still can get back up.

puma713 wrote:I feel the same frustration at times, but I have found that when you translate what is discussed in this forum to the actual tabletop, most of these arguments don't carry over or are even mentioned. In a game-type situation, most people abandon strict RAW for common sense.

QFT

In fact, people who run events and stores that don't post on any forums will give you bewildered looks when you even mention that there's a controversy.

Marthike wrote:
Also recently removed from play has become the same as killed, so a unit of warriors still can get back up.

No, Removed From Play is not the same as Removed From Play As A Casualty (which is what RP/EL requires)
As it stands there is exactly 1 unit that can return from "Removed From Play" abilities. St Celestine, and that was FAQ'd to allow her that much.

Marthike wrote:Also recently removed from play has become the same as killed, so a unit of warriors still can get back up.

Citation please - the only unit that has the two things combined is St. Celestine.
And warriors can explicitly not come back after the unit is wiped out - because the RP rules tell you to remove all the counters.

Yes, sometimes the debates get silly. It is impossible, however, to rely on common sense, because common sense is anything but common.
"Common sense" is colored by many many things, including "how you've always played".
Doing it one way because that's how it's always been done doesn't make it right.

rigeld2 wrote:

Marthike wrote:Also recently removed from play has become the same as killed, so a unit of warriors still can get back up.

Citation please

He's probably mistakingly quoting the leaked 6th Ed. rules. And hence, we see the effects of rumor upon real-world application.

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Marthike wrote:Also recently removed from play has become the same as killed, so a unit of warriors still can get back up.

Citation please

He's probably mistakingly quoting the leaked 6th Ed. rules. And hence, we see the effects of rumor upon real-world application.

Probably, but I figured I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe there's something that everyone missed.

@Yarrick, I fixed my sig.

Happyjew wrote:@Yarrick, I fixed my sig.

Im lovin' it!