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.

 jokerkd wrote:
Yeah, i would not call the gc argument a cultural thing. More like wishful thinking and a poor attempt at rules lawyering to get what they want.

Although, i have had more than one argument over how to read english with other players here in oz. Though i believe it to be more of a lack of education which is not directly related to country.

I know poorly educated people in almost every country ive been to lol

No matter what the discussion is, there's always someone on one of the sides insisting the other side is just "rules lawyering to get what they want". I wish people would stop doing that already; is it so hard to believe some people just want to play by the correct rules and have differing opinions on what they are? For instance, I do not play a faction that has GMC and nobody I know has a GMC. Nothing said here affects my play at all. Yet I can read, and I can form opinions, and I have formed an opinion on this topic and will hold to it until someone presents clear evidence of my folly. Which has not happened. Who are you to claim either me or my opponents in debate have ulterior motives?

(Not to mention that 'winning' a debate on a forum is a poor way to 'get what they want' since they don't play against people on this forum, anyway... there's other people IRL they need to convince.)

Again, "its" is possessive. It refers to weapons possessed by that model. It can fire each (all) of them. If I said "Every guest can bring two of their daughters." and then I went up to you and said "Exception for you: You can bring each of your daughters." and you have three, how many are you allowed to bring? Same thing here.

Unahim wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
Yeah, i would not call the gc argument a cultural thing. More like wishful thinking and a poor attempt at rules lawyering to get what they want.

Although, i have had more than one argument over how to read english with other players here in oz. Though i believe it to be more of a lack of education which is not directly related to country.

I know poorly educated people in almost every country ive been to lol

No matter what the discussion is, there's always someone on one of the sides insisting the other side is just "rules lawyering to get what they want". I wish people would stop doing that already; is it so hard to believe some people just want to play by the correct rules and have differing opinions on what they are? For instance, I do not play a faction that has GMC and nobody I know has a GMC. Nothing said here affects my play at all. Yet I can read, and I can form opinions, and I have formed an opinion on this topic and will hold to it until someone presents clear evidence of my folly. Which has not happened. Who are you to claim either me or my opponents in debate have ulterior motives?

(Not to mention that 'winning' a debate on a forum is a poor way to 'get what they want' since they don't play against people on this forum, anyway... there's other people IRL they need to convince.)

Again, "its" is possessive. It refers to weapons possessed by that model. It can fire each (all) of them. If I said "Every guest can bring two of their daughters." and then I went up to you and said "Exception for you: You can bring each of your daughters." and you have three, how many are you allowed to bring? Same thing here.

My apologies for giving my opinion based on personal experience.


Your example fails because you have no reason to suggest the rule is and exception with regards to how many weapons can be fired.
Your example should read....

"You can only bring 2 children and they must arrive at 6pm. Except for persons a+b. Each of your children can arrive whenever they like."

Disingenuous analogy. The rules in the book are spoken first to a larger group and then to a smaller subset of that group which is given new instructions that override and supplement (sometimes one, sometimes the other, as stipulated by "additions and EXCEPTIONS") those of the group at large.

That is exactly how I have represented my analogy.

If it was written like it is in your analogy there would be no problem, but that's not how it is so here we are. It's easy to win every rules debate by shifting sentences from different parts of the book together and leaving out the context, after all.

Book clearly goes:
1) "Here are the general rules: Only two children per parent."
2) Exception just for my childhood friends: "You may bring each of your children to any party."

Which does not 100% for sure keep the two children only limit. And that's how it's written, not your frankensentence. I wish the frankensentence was how it was written since at least then it would be clear.

But it's not clear, so we all have to wear our biases on our sleeves, and in this case I'm biased towards reading it as overwriting the 2 weapon rule because that is how it always was before too, and imo they'd have made it clearer that it was different now if that was the goal.

"Gargantuan Creatures can fire all of their weapons every turn, and they can fire them at different targets if they wish."
They can fire all of their weapons (EACH of their weapons) at different targets. Same rule, slightly different wording.

Unfortunately, it's become much less clear in the rewrite. Ah well.

So far all anyone has done is go "You have to add this sentence from the MC rules entry to this sentence, honest. It doesn't replace that sentence, even though it could replace it since it's an addition OR an exception, not necessarily an addition only. I swear on me mum." which is not proof, it's opinion. So is everything I've said here. I'm taking my leave of this thread; repeat the same subjective bias again or accept my agreement to disagree, do whatever you wish.

If someone finds actual evidence aside from unfounded assurances that they 'know' which of the GMC rules are meant as additions and which as overruling exceptions, feel free to announce your victory to me over PM, I'll be glad to see it.

Until then, adieu.

(Aside note about 'rules lawyering': Your opinion based on 'personal experience' where you just assumed the worst of the opposing side because that's the easy thing to do... right. Bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Believe people are rules lawyering for personal gain, then in the future believe people are doing it 'again' because people in the past were doing it... except all those times in the past it was you making an assumption about people online you don't know, too.)

^tl;dr

Accuse of taking a sentence out of context while taking the sentence out of context.

Accuse of making a false analogy after (and before) making a false analogy

Accuse of arguing for my own gain although i have nothing to gain

I love how an example turned this thread into YMDC.

 agnosto wrote:
I love how an example turned this thread into YMDC.

Well, the first mistake was posting it in YMDC to begin with. The second was using an actual rule as an example instead of a hypothetical situation.

 Ghaz wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
I love how an example turned this thread into YMDC.

Well, the first mistake was posting it in YMDC to begin with. The second was using an actual rule as an example instead of a hypothetical situation.

lol. Valid points, somehow I missed the thread location.

Unahim
"But it's not clear, so we all have to wear our biases on our sleeves, and in this case I'm biased towards reading it as overwriting the 2 weapon rule because that is how it always was before too, and imo they'd have made it clearer that it was different now if that was the goal."

I agree with the fact that it is not clear. My reading is the opposite of yours however, being it is only allowed to fire 2 weapons a turn. I, however, am not overly attached to it, and will play either way depending on my opponents choice/belief of said rule. I do like to point out the Superheavy vehicle rules that say the same thing, yet do include a stipulation allowing them to fire all weapons. Someone pointed out a MC that said something similar, but I don't have the Tyranid Codex to confirm the way it is written, I also don't know if the Tyranid Codex is a 6th or 7th edition codex. Yes the edition it is written in matters, as rules do change from one edition to the next, almost at random. The Eldar Codex is the only one that I am aware of that has a GC in it that was actually written for 7th Edition, and the low cost of the WK leads me to believe that the weapon limit of 2 is what is intended.

 Kriswall wrote:

Rx8Speed wrote:
This is a straight forward scenario and it has nothing to do with language. The GC has the same rules for shooting as an MC except you replace this sentence:

"Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase- they must, of course, fire both at the same target."

with this one:

"When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired."

The two sentences are conflicting so you replace the whole thing. It makes no sense to only replace part of the sentence from the MC section.

And if you do want to turn this into a word game then "may fire each of its weapons" can really only be interpreted one way unless there was something added onto the end of it, which there is not. Thus RAW is clear.

This isn't a thread about GCs and how many weapons they can shoot. This is a thread about cultural (and educational) differences in interpreting the written word. If the rules as written were truly clear, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Here is an example of clearly written rules...

'Gargantuan Creatures follow the rules for Monstrous Creatures with the following exceptions:
1. When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire all of its ranged weapons.
2. When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may select a different target for each weapon fired.'

The above leaves absolutely no ambiguity as to how many weapons may be fired... as many as the GC has equipped. Compare to...

'Gargantuan Creatures follow the rules for Monstrous Creatures with the following exceptions:
1. When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may select a different target for each weapon fired.'

Again, there is absolutely no ambiguity. The GC can fire two weapons when making a shooting attack, per the MC rules. Then, it can select a different target for each weapon fired.

You have to write these rules with an eye towards avoiding ambiguities. Games Workshop simply doesn't do this.

While your writing of the rules is much more clear than GW's your, and other's, opinion that GW's wording clearly states that you may only fire two weapons is false and not actually provable with logic. Either way it is ambiguous but to say that the GC can only fire two weapons means you are picking and choosing to include different parts of a single sentence to support your claim, which imo is just grasping. I believe I have a unique perspective on this from a cultural point of view being that I'm a canadian with 1 british parent, and therefore pretty much in the middle. So for anyone wondering how someone in the middle of these two cultures feels about the issue, I side with the British, god save the queen!


EDIT: and in my area we play that GCs can fire all their weapons and so for the few of you who still think otherwise, good luck battling out the issue everytime the rule comes up in one of your games

Rx8Speed wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Rx8Speed wrote:
This is a straight forward scenario and it has nothing to do with language. The GC has the same rules for shooting as an MC except you replace this sentence:

"Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase- they must, of course, fire both at the same target."

with this one:

"When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired."

The two sentences are conflicting so you replace the whole thing. It makes no sense to only replace part of the sentence from the MC section.

And if you do want to turn this into a word game then "may fire each of its weapons" can really only be interpreted one way unless there was something added onto the end of it, which there is not. Thus RAW is clear.

This isn't a thread about GCs and how many weapons they can shoot. This is a thread about cultural (and educational) differences in interpreting the written word. If the rules as written were truly clear, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Here is an example of clearly written rules...

'Gargantuan Creatures follow the rules for Monstrous Creatures with the following exceptions:
1. When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire all of its ranged weapons.
2. When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may select a different target for each weapon fired.'

The above leaves absolutely no ambiguity as to how many weapons may be fired... as many as the GC has equipped. Compare to...

'Gargantuan Creatures follow the rules for Monstrous Creatures with the following exceptions:
1. When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may select a different target for each weapon fired.'

Again, there is absolutely no ambiguity. The GC can fire two weapons when making a shooting attack, per the MC rules. Then, it can select a different target for each weapon fired.

You have to write these rules with an eye towards avoiding ambiguities. Games Workshop simply doesn't do this.

While your writing of the rules is much more clear than GW's your, and other's, opinion that GW's wording clearly states that you may only fire two weapons is false and not actually provable with logic. Either way it is ambiguous but to say that the GC can only fire two weapons means you are picking and choosing to include different parts of a single sentence to support your claim, which imo is just grasping. I believe I have a unique perspective on this from a cultural point of view being that I'm a canadian with 1 british parent, and therefore pretty much in the middle. So for anyone wondering how someone in the middle of these two cultures feels about the issue, I side with the British, god save the queen!


EDIT: and in my area we play that GCs can fire all their weapons and so for the few of you who still think otherwise, good luck battling out the issue everytime the rule comes up in one of your games

Um....He said only 2 weapons are allowed to fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

itsNot2ndEd wrote:


The rule states you can only fire 2 weapons.

The exception states that each weapon can fire at different targets.

So in this case, 2.

Please no Racism, keep it civil and share the love!

 megatrons2nd wrote:

Um....He said only 2 weapons are allowed to fire.

Rx8Speed wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Rx8Speed wrote:
This is a straight forward scenario and it has nothing to do with language. The GC has the same rules for shooting as an MC except you replace this sentence:

"Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase- they must, of course, fire both at the same target."

with this one:

"When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired."

The two sentences are conflicting so you replace the whole thing. It makes no sense to only replace part of the sentence from the MC section.

And if you do want to turn this into a word game then "may fire each of its weapons" can really only be interpreted one way unless there was something added onto the end of it, which there is not. Thus RAW is clear.

This isn't a thread about GCs and how many weapons they can shoot. This is a thread about cultural (and educational) differences in interpreting the written word. If the rules as written were truly clear, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Here is an example of clearly written rules...

'Gargantuan Creatures follow the rules for Monstrous Creatures with the following exceptions:
1. When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire all of its ranged weapons.
2. When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may select a different target for each weapon fired.'

The above leaves absolutely no ambiguity as to how many weapons may be fired... as many as the GC has equipped. Compare to...

'Gargantuan Creatures follow the rules for Monstrous Creatures with the following exceptions:
1. When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may select a different target for each weapon fired.'

Again, there is absolutely no ambiguity. The GC can fire two weapons when making a shooting attack, per the MC rules. Then, it can select a different target for each weapon fired.

You have to write these rules with an eye towards avoiding ambiguities. Games Workshop simply doesn't do this.

While your writing of the rules is much more clear than GW's your, and other's, opinion that GW's wording clearly states that you may only fire two weapons is false and not actually provable with logic. Either way it is ambiguous but to say that the GC can only fire two weapons means you are picking and choosing to include different parts of a single sentence to support your claim, which imo is just grasping. I believe I have a unique perspective on this from a cultural point of view being that I'm a canadian with 1 british parent, and therefore pretty much in the middle. So for anyone wondering how someone in the middle of these two cultures feels about the issue, I side with the British, god save the queen!


EDIT: and in my area we play that GCs can fire all their weapons and so for the few of you who still think otherwise, good luck battling out the issue everytime the rule comes up in one of your games

1. I don't think the rules are clearly written. I've said over and over that they're poorly written.
2. I'm not picking and choosing different parts of a single sentence. Instead, I'm reading the full GC sentences within the context of the MC rules.
3. Nobody's perspective is truly unique. I'm American, lived in Europe and had mostly British teachers. In essence, I also have a split background. I'm sure many of us do.

The rule should be read like this:


Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase- they must, of course, fire both at the same target,

however,

when a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired.


The word each cannot be limited to two weapons in this sentence. It wouldn't be proper english to communicate that meaning. And btw everyone's perspective is unique, especially yours and mine.

SGTPozy wrote:
GW are a British company therefore our (British) interpretation wins.

Well if it wasn't for American English, the whole rule set would be written in German! (ducks and runs).


-Matt

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:
GW are a British company therefore our (British) interpretation wins.

Well if it wasn't for American English, the whole rule set would be written in German! (ducks and runs).


-Matt

Admittedly, if the rules were written in German, we'd have far less issues with the precise meaning of the text.

SJ