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.

 solkan wrote:
You seem to be confused about the difference between grammar and logic, and appear to be attempting to conflate the two.

Also context to other pertinent rules seems to be left out of this debate.

The problem I have with it is that it's not in fact written that way at all.

It implies the first happens because of the second. That's what's terrible about it.

The first does happen because of the second, but it doesn't give you the second if you don't already have it.

Hollismason wrote:
The problem I have with it is that it's not in fact written that way at all.

It implies the first happens because of the second. That's what's terrible about it.

Why is that terrible?

Because in order for the first to be true the second has to be true which is why I say as it is written it gives the rule.

So why does the first have to be true? Can't it simply be false since the second is not true?

Because of Uriens rule stating it affects all friendly units.

Hollismason wrote:
Because of Uriens rule stating it affects all friendly units.

That doesn't change the fact that it can be false if the second statement isn't true. Both have to be true (a friendly unit and have the Power from Pain rule), not just one of them.

Hollismason wrote:
Because of Uriens rule stating it affects all friendly units.

But what effects the units? Master of Pain. Sure an Eldar now has Master of Pain. But does it do anything for them?

Master of Pain: The model and his unit treat the current turn as being one higher than it actually is when determining what special rules they benefit from as the result of the Power from Pain special rule.

Since they don't have Power from Pain, they can't "treat the current turn as being one higher than it actually is when determining what special rules they benefit from". Sure they have the rule 'Master of Pain' but it does nothing for them.

Hollismason wrote:
Because of Uriens rule stating it affects all friendly units.

They treat the turn one higher for a rule they dont have. Meaning the benefit is useless to them.

Grammatically you arent correct in this.

Hollismason, let's say I have a model with the following special rule:

Super-fast: The model and his unit treat the dice roll as 1 higher when determining how far they Run.

Uber-fast: Bob's Super-fast special rule affects all friendly units within 12" of him, not just his unit.

Would you argue that this allows Bike models and vehicles to Run?

No, because there's a rule that specifically disallows that, also that is not a very good analogy. It's also kind of a strawman argument.

I mean my logic is fairly consistent on this because of the rules own internal logic it grants the unit the special rule regardless of whatever external rule logic you want to place on it.

Just think of the sentence as a circle that cannot be broken because of the way it's been written.

Everyone would be 100% correct if it said " Models with the Power from the Pain rule , treat the turn as if it is one turn higher" or something to that effect.

It doesn't that's the problem.

It's also why I say its a semantic and grammatical argument because they wrote it in such a way that would apply to a unit that doesn't have the Power from the Pain rule, to gain the rule in order for them to get the rule of the first part of the sentence.

Eldar treat the turn 1 turn higher because of the Power from the Pain special rule, that in turn gives them the Power from the pain rule. That's what as a result of means. It states why something happens previously because of what follows.

If you want to hash it out grammatically with me look at these statements independently.

The model and his unit treat the current turn as being one higher than it actually is when determining what special rules they benefit from as the result of the Power from Pain special rule.

Now you can actually rewrite this if you want.

Because of the power from the pain special rule the model and his unit treat the current turn as being one higher than it actually is when determining what rules they benefit from .

as the result of the Power from Pain special rule - A type of prepositional Phrase, please argue with me that it is not, this modifies the subject or noun of the sentence.


Urien's rule gives this to Eldar units.

The sentence would read.

You can basically remove the first part of that to state.

Uriens Rule [Eldar / Dark Eldar ] treat the current turn as being one higher than it actually is when determining what special rules they benefit from as the result of the Power from Pain special rule

This modifies the noun. Eldar / Dark Eldar / Haemonoculus. As a result of the Power from the Pain special rule [Eldar / Dark Eldar / Haemonoculus] treat....

That's why it's poorly written.

No, the logic is not consistent.

You are granting a rule to the unit on the basis of another rule modifying a condition of the rule, that the unit granted this modification does not posssess.

Absolutely nothing within the rules grants the PfP rule; it merely modifies one of the conditions within it.

My troll meter is going off

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, the logic is not consistent.

You are granting a rule to the unit on the basis of another rule modifying a condition of the rule, that the unit granted this modification does not posssess.

Absolutely nothing within the rules grants the PfP rule; it merely modifies one of the conditions within it.

No, in fact that prepositional phrase modifies the noun or subject with in the sentence. That's what prepositional phrases do. That's their function in grammar.

DaKKaLAnce wrote:
My troll meter is going off

Especially since no-one yet agrees with the OP that this is even ambiguous, much less support his interpretation.

Ad hominem

Hollismason wrote:
Ad hominem

Congratulations, you have pushed people that far.



You have ignored logic, advice and anything that could be constructive, so people turn to you to remind you that you have done so.
You don't have a point, there is not even a discussion, the only conclusion to this thread is that you read it wrong and you're the only one refusing to admit it.

Unlike my very popular WS threads (which do get me quite a reputation for thinking differently), this is not a matter of point of view because the rules are written for both the game and English.
There is therefore one correct answer, it has already been uncovered and logical proof has been given to you a few times already.

You are the center of this thread, and therefore elicit that kind of attention.

Is it against the forum rules ? yes.
Are there any forum rules preventing you from replying to no end with arguments that make no sense to anyone else ? no.

You are within your forum rights to continue this rambling, as other posters are within their rights to stop replying at all.

Anything else is clearly a waste of time.

Grammar... that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Yet no one has refuted my definitions or grammar. It's just been, I say it is this way because...

Argue with me about what I'm actually arguing , not by presenting false analogies and ad hominem arguments.

Also, you seem to take this kind of personal which is really weird.

Hollismason wrote:

Because of the power from the pain special rule the model and his unit treat the current turn as being one higher than it actually is when determining what rules they benefit from .

as the result of the Power from Pain special rule - A type of prepositional Phrase, please argue with me that it is not, this modifies the subject or noun of the sentence.

It is a prepositional phrase, but the object of preposition is not the models but the 'special rules'. See http://www.towson.edu/ows/prepositions.htm .

Thus you can't have rules (the ones being rolled on) without Power from Pain. The models are not required to have the rule in order for the sentence to function.

Zimko wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

Because of the power from the pain special rule the model and his unit treat the current turn as being one higher than it actually is when determining what rules they benefit from .

as the result of the Power from Pain special rule - A type of prepositional Phrase, please argue with me that it is not, this modifies the subject or noun of the sentence.

It is a prepositional phrase, but the object of preposition is not the models but the 'special rules'. See http://www.towson.edu/ows/prepositions.htm .

Thus you can't have rules (the ones being rolled on) without Power from Pain. The models are not required to have the rule in order for the sentence to function.

I wanted to respond with just what but I'll go ahead an restate it again.

http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/prephraseterm.htm

This may also help you.

http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/Postmodifier.htm

The whole point of the phrase is to finish a clause in relation to the first part. It's answering why they treat the turn higher.

It's just poor grammar.






Space Saver.

@hollisman your interpretation is incorrect

"The model and his unit treat the current turn as being one higher than it actually is when determining what special rules they benefit from as the result of the Power from Pain special rule. "

Can be restated as

The model and his unit trat the current turn as being one higher than it actually is when determining what special rules they benefit from due to the power from pain special rule.

So it has 2 parts
1.) The unit treating the turn as 1 turn higher.
2.) Having special rules from power from pain.

Both need to be true for the power to actually do something. It does not mean the unit is unaffected (if a DE character with PfP joins the eldar they are effected.)

It is not answering why they treat the turn as one turn higher, it is answering for what purpose they treat it one turn higher. They treat it one turn higher for determining what special rules they would gain from power from pain. If they don' thave PfP then it is simply a rule that does nothing.

However, by your arugment vehicles gain benefit from the PfP through Urien.

Hollismason wrote:

Zimko wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

Because of the power from the pain special rule the model and his unit treat the current turn as being one higher than it actually is when determining what rules they benefit from .

as the result of the Power from Pain special rule - A type of prepositional Phrase, please argue with me that it is not, this modifies the subject or noun of the sentence.

It is a prepositional phrase, but the object of preposition is not the models but the 'special rules'. See http://www.towson.edu/ows/prepositions.htm .

Thus you can't have rules (the ones being rolled on) without Power from Pain. The models are not required to have the rule in order for the sentence to function.

I wanted to respond with just what but I'll go ahead an restate it again.

http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/prephraseterm.htm

This may also help you.

http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/Postmodifier.htm

The whole point of the phrase is to finish a clause in relation to the first part. It's answering why they treat the turn higher.

It's just poor grammar.






Space Saver.

Well if you want to argue sentence structure then break down the sentence. I tried to get it started for you but I guess you don't want to do the leg work.

Which parts of that sentence make up the preposition, object and modifiers according to your understanding?