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.

So people that don't have a firm grasp on the nuances of implication when people misuse English grammar are stupid?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So people that don't have a firm grasp on the nuances of implication when people misuse English grammar are stupid?

Pretty much. And it isn't a subtle nuance, it's incredibly obvious from the context. Even the people arguing that RAW is "every model on the table" admit that they know that's not how it's supposed to work. This isn't a case where GW says one thing but maybe means another and nobody can say for sure what the rule is supposed to be, it's nitpicking the exact formal rules of grammar for the sole purpose of having a YMDC argument.

Though, to be clear, I'm not talking about people who don't use English as their primary language and are struggling to translate the book. But I don't think this is the case here.

 Peregrine wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So people that don't have a firm grasp on the nuances of implication when people misuse English grammar are stupid?

Pretty much. And it isn't a subtle nuance, it's incredibly obvious from the context. Even the people arguing that RAW is "every model on the table" admit that they know that's not how it's supposed to work. This isn't a case where GW says one thing but maybe means another and nobody can say for sure what the rule is supposed to be, it's nitpicking the exact formal rules of grammar for the sole purpose of having a YMDC argument.

Though, to be clear, I'm not talking about people who don't use English as their primary language and are struggling to translate the book. But I don't think this is the case here.

That doesnt change the fact that its an oversight and shouldve never been printed that way. Additionally we are either talking RAW or we dont. In this case the RAW is clear. RAI (which is obvious in this case) is too. I dont think that there are a lot of people that would try to pull this in a game and even less that would let them do it. But in the end since you can always stumble into the typical TFG its good to know that this mistake exists.

Missing just a tiny word makes this rule so much better.

I'm sure they meant "for each of its models with D6 inches"

I find it hard to believe someone could write this sentence and only mentally insert the missing pieces and send it off to the printers...

 Mywik wrote:
That doesnt change the fact that its an oversight and shouldve never been printed that way.

Sure, it should be explicit and immune to any possible argument, but this is not even close to one of GW's worst mistakes. The information GW wanted to give you has been given and understood, so the sentence did its job.

Additionally we are either talking RAW or we dont.

RAW does not mean "ignore basic reading comprehension" or "no typo corrections".

 ferret61 wrote:
Not sure if this has been brought up already but there is a typo in one of the pyrovore's rules that if taken seriously is just hilarious. The rule is as follows:

"volatile: If a Pyrovore is slain by a Wound that inflicted Instant Death, every unit suffers a Strength 3 AP- hit for each model (excluding Pyrovores) within D6" of the slain Pyrovore (resolve damge before removing the Pyrovore as a casualty"

Right so here's where the issue is it says that all units take a hit for every model within 6". Not units within 6" but all units So if your playing a casual game or are getting your ass kicked by taudar(or any other competitive army) just use this to troll your opponent, at least until it's FAQ'd

hasn't this been done to death?

 Peregrine wrote:

Additionally we are either talking RAW or we dont.

RAW does not mean "ignore basic reading comprehension" or "no typo corrections".

Oh really? For me it means take the rules how they are written and nothing else in this case its all units get the hits if we follow RAW. We all know that RAW sometimes get silly (this is one of those cases). Doesnt change the fact that its RAW and you argue RAI ... which is perfectly fine in this case.

 Mywik wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So people that don't have a firm grasp on the nuances of implication when people misuse English grammar are stupid?

Pretty much. And it isn't a subtle nuance, it's incredibly obvious from the context. Even the people arguing that RAW is "every model on the table" admit that they know that's not how it's supposed to work. This isn't a case where GW says one thing but maybe means another and nobody can say for sure what the rule is supposed to be, it's nitpicking the exact formal rules of grammar for the sole purpose of having a YMDC argument.

Though, to be clear, I'm not talking about people who don't use English as their primary language and are struggling to translate the book. But I don't think this is the case here.

That doesnt change the fact that its an oversight and shouldve never been printed that way. Additionally we are either talking RAW or we dont. In this case the RAW is clear. RAI (which is obvious in this case) is too. I dont think that there are a lot of people that would try to pull this in a game and even less that would let them do it. But in the end since you can always stumble into the typical TFG its good to know that this mistake exists.

Well, there are two ways to look at RAI in this case. Did they intend the every unit within d6" of the pyrovore to take 1 hit for each model in the unit. Or did they intended that you count the number of models in a unit, that are within 6" of the pyrovore, and the unit takes that many hits (as if they were under a blast marker). I think its most likely the first, but the wording is so bad on the rule you could argue either was RAI.

Too bad they couldn't have removed some of that important feeder organism fluff in order to properly write the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shandara wrote:
Missing just a tiny word makes this rule so much better.

I'm sure they meant "for each of its models with D6 inches"

I find it hard to believe someone could write this sentence and only mentally insert the missing pieces and send it off to the printers...

Well, I bet they did a revision to try to get everything on one page after they had a previous, correctly worded rule. Since the writer, and editor, was already familiar with the rule, and intended effect of the rule, it would be very easy for both people to make that kind of mental mistake.

 Peregrine wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I hope this teacher doesn't track English, they have terrible grammar if the think what they said means that.

It's not terrible grammar at all, it's just assuming that the people you're talking to aren't stupid. Everyone hearing that statement knows that there's an implied "in that class" attached to the end, so in casual conversation it's fine to say the shorter version. This is just a case of nitpicking RAW for the sake of having a YMDC thread.

No, it is terrible grammar. You're making the assumption everyone knows what you mean and are running with that.
Hence the reason that RAI is obvious, but RAW is that everyone is hit. It's not "nitpicking" RAW - it's the actual words on the page.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I hope this teacher doesn't track English, they have terrible grammar if the think what they said means that.

It's not terrible grammar at all, it's just assuming that the people you're talking to aren't stupid. Everyone hearing that statement knows that there's an implied "in that class" attached to the end, so in casual conversation it's fine to say the shorter version. This is just a case of nitpicking RAW for the sake of having a YMDC thread.

No, it is terrible grammar. You're making the assumption everyone knows what you mean and are running with that.
Hence the reason that RAI is obvious, but RAW is that everyone is hit. It's not "nitpicking" RAW - it's the actual words on the page.

It really isn't terrible grammar it is intentional miscomprehension. I doubt they care that RaW can be interpreted in a stupid way. This really is equivalent of someone asking you "can you please tell me the time" and you thinking it us their fault that they get annoyed at the simple response of "yes I can".

Rules As Ireadit are entirely hilarious when explained to people who actually read the text.

editing to add:
I always laugh when I actually understand something I have misread previously.
Reading comprehension does not mean that one agree with the text, simply that one understand it.

... It is their fault. It's terrible grammar, especially when talking about rules for a game. You don't use conversational mannerisms when writing rules for a game.

You're defending poor grammar by saying people get annoyed when others call them out on poor grammar. Tough gak? Use the right words and the world works much better.

Here how a French-Canadian read interpret the rule : every models in every units in d6" are hit. Exemple: pyrovore exploded for 2", two units of 10 SM and only 2 models in each units are in the range of the 2" of the pyrovore blast. 20 models are hit even if only 4 SM are in the 2" blast.

rigeld2 wrote:
Someone, somewhere started it and everyone else said "LOLTHATSDUMB" instead of looking up the rules involved.

Mordheim and Necromunda started it. I haven't played in years, but both those games had rules for "If you fall X inches, take a Strength Y hit." Pretty sure Mordheim was a 1 for 1 ratio.