Switch Theme:

Can you move through friendly fliers?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut





anaphoric ambiguity doesn't apply when the grammar isnt ambiguous. You can't just apply anaphoric ambiguity to something because you didn't read it correctly.
anaphoric ambiguity does not = "I was confused about what I read"

This isn't the case with this sentence.
Its not the same as saying "whenever a model makes any kind of move towards an enemy aircraft it can be moved" or something else ambiguous.

there are commas there separating the sentence, and thus, the pronoun they can only be referring to is the subject presented before the commas . It is not ambiguous, its how grammar works.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/05/08 12:34:36


As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Type40 wrote:
just saying, Most of English writing is not as ambiguous as people think it is.

Can you tell me what "I never said I stole her money" means?

It can mean 7 different things depending on how you read it, emphasized bold:

1. I never said I stole her money (someone else said I stole her money)
2. I never said I stole her money (the idea of you saying I said anything of the sort is outrageous!)
3. I never said I stole her money (I merely implied that I had)
4. I never said I stole her money (someone else has stolen her money)
5. I never said I stole her money (I just borrowed it without permission!)
6. I never said I stole her money (I stole someone else's money)
7. I never said I stole her money (I stole something else of hers)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/08 13:35:44


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Remember, the people who gave us the rule being discussed here are the same people who gave us the rules for the Skyshield Landing Pad whose rules only allowed your enemy to move on it.

We have a precedent for the rules writers forgetting to cover how friendly models move in conjunction with a new rule when it's apparent they were focusing on how the enemy moves with the new rule. Most likely they are thinking "of course" friendly models can move that way as well. Talk it over with your opponent, most people will be reasonable about this. In the meantime, since this is just a beta rule right now it doesn't hurt to write GW and tell them that they forgot to include how friendly models move in relation to aircraft and not just the enemy models.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

It’s not a beta, it’s a rule. It’s in the main Rulebook FAQ.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





My mistake. I brainfarted for a moment and was thinking it was in the latest BIG FAQ. They probably should have run it through their Big FAQ process.

Thanks for correcting me on that!
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

No worries - I’m with you on the rest!

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 doctortom wrote:
Remember, the people who gave us the rule being discussed here are the same people who gave us the rules for the Skyshield Landing Pad whose rules only allowed your enemy to move on it.

We have a precedent for the rules writers forgetting to cover how friendly models move in conjunction with a new rule when it's apparent they were focusing on how the enemy moves with the new rule. Most likely they are thinking "of course" friendly models can move that way as well. Talk it over with your opponent, most people will be reasonable about this. In the meantime, since this is just a beta rule right now it doesn't hurt to write GW and tell them that they forgot to include how friendly models move in relation to aircraft and not just the enemy models.


I do not think they forgot anything in this case, unlike with the Skyshield Landing Pad.

In this case you can simply move your flyer first so it is not in the way of your models at all.

I think it is clear that the answer to the OP's question of "Can you move through friendly fliers?" is a solid no.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut





 skchsan wrote:
 Type40 wrote:
just saying, Most of English writing is not as ambiguous as people think it is.

Can you tell me what "I never said I stole her money" means?

It can mean 7 different things depending on how you read it, emphasized bold:

1. I never said I stole her money (someone else said I stole her money)
2. I never said I stole her money (the idea of you saying I said anything of the sort is outrageous!)
3. I never said I stole her money (I merely implied that I had)
4. I never said I stole her money (someone else has stolen her money)
5. I never said I stole her money (I just borrowed it without permission!)
6. I never said I stole her money (I stole someone else's money)
7. I never said I stole her money (I stole something else of hers)


I didn't say the linguistic ambiguity didn't exist, I said MOST of English writing is not as ambiguous as people think it is.
Can you stop trying to deliberately rile me up. We had enough of that in the last thread.

As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut





Spoiler:

Aash wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
Aash wrote:

Big FAQ wrote:Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, page 177 – Movement Phase
Add the following text to the end of the Movement Phase section:
‘Aircraft
If a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword. Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be
moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units. If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’

Interpretation 2:
"and it can be moved across SUCH MODELS", such models refers to the previous sentence, not the previous clause in the same sentence. In this case, it refers to "the Aircraft keyword"

Interpretation 2 means that yes you can move through friendly aircraft.


Interpretation 2 is not correct.

"Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models..." they can only be talking about the "enemy Aircraft" within the same sentence. If "...enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models..." was referring to the first sentence, there would be a period and not a comma after enemy Aircraft.




The grammatical phenomenon here is known as anaphoric ambiguity. There is no hard and fast rule on how to deal with this in English, otherwise the ambiguity would not arise. The fact that there is a possible referent in the previous clause in the same sentence does not preclude the possibility of a referent in a previous sentence. Nor would it preclude a referent in a following clause or sentence (antecedent versus postcedant).
The common practice for interpreting/resolving this sort of ambiguity is to accept the nearest referent as the "best" interpretation. In this case, Interpretation 1, where the nearest referent is "enemy Aircraft".

To say that Interpretaion 2 in incorrect is not quite right though, but it is certainly the less common interpretation. It is not possible to rule out interpretation 2 based on the way the rule is written, otherwise there would be no ambiguity in the first place. By definintion ambiguity means that there are multiple valid and correct interpretations of a given group of words. It could be said that one interpretation is more likely, or "more correct" if you will. Again, in this case, Interpretation 1. To select Interpretation 1 as correct and interpretation 2 as incorrect its to make an assumption - that the "correct" antecedent follows the nearest referent convention, but it is only a convention, not a hard rule and relies on a level of inference on the part of the reader. The act of inference itself is assuming intent on the part of the writer. My understanding is that for the advocates of strict RAW, the assumption of intent is the number one cardinal sin.

I'm merely carrying out a grammatical analysis of the rule, not advocating one interpretation over the other. I'm not a big fan on playing strict RAW myself (largely because the rules are full of ambiguity of various sorts), but if one were to do so, then RAW says that both interpretations must be considered, and as no single interpretation is the only possible correct interpretation, the rule must be resolved by a roll-off.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Type40 wrote:
just saying,
Most of English writing is not as ambiguous as people think it is. I find that there is usually an issue with peoples grasp of grammar and syntax recognition more then anything else when discussing RAW in this game.
For example

"I saw a tiger wearing my pyjamas". Grammatically this statement can mean two different things.


It actually can't mean two different things... this ONLY means a tiger is wearing your pajamas.

It can not mean

"I saw a tiger whilst wearing my pajamas"


or

"while wearing my pajamas I saw a tiger"


Just because you see the words tiger, saw, wearing and pajamas in the same sentence doesn't mean you can interpret it as though those words were presented in any order.

saying that,

I agree with DeathReaper,
I think the wording is clear.





Regarding the ambiguity of the above, I was paraphrasing the famous Groucho Marx quote: "One morning I shot an elephant in my pyjamas. How he got into my pyjamas I'll never know."

Without the second sentence to clarify, there are indeed two interpretations of the initial sentence, either the pyjamas were worn by the elephant (as is the case because the second sentence clarifies), or that the pyjamas are worn by the subject of the sentence, "I". There is nothing in English which specifies whether the subject or the object of the sentence is the referent. The concept of puns, wordplay and many jokes in English rely on the inherent ambiguity in English. Much of this is due to the lack of gendered nouns and that English is a mongrel language - Germanic with heavy Romance influences (among others - notably Brittonic and Goidelic), and like all living languages, grammar, vocabulary and meaning are constantly evolving. My tiger example above follows the same rules, and as it doesn't have a second clause or sentence to provide clarity, remains ambiguous.



[spoiler]

I can see what you are saying,
I can understand the statement can be ambiguous. By manipulating it with a just a bit of punctuation we can make it say something definite.
For example "one morning, I shot an elephant, in my pajamas."
or
"One morning, I shot an elephant in my pajamas"

Your second example quote of "One morning I shot an elephant in my pyjamas" is definitely anaphoric ambiguity but I do not believe the first is "I saw a tiger wearing my pyjamas."
You can not add punctuation to "I saw a tiger wearing my pyjamas" in order to change the subject. I think that is the easiest way to determine whether or not a statement falls into anaphoric ambiguity.
example,
"I saw a tiger, wearing my pyjamas"
It still means the same thing.

But I do understand what you are saying and how it could apply to this conversation.

I still think the rule as it is written is quite clear however, a bit of a stretch to claim ambiguity on it.

Thanks for the clarification on your point though

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/05/09 00:31:53


As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

There isn’t any ambiguity or alternate reading here. It’s an omission at best. As others have said, work through it with your opponent if you believe it should apply to your dudes too, or play by RAW and just move your models in the right order so you don’t banjax yourself. Planning your own move doesn’t need an FAQ...

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




Honest question: Where to you measure to when saying your aircraft charges another model? The base? The nearest edge? So asking because the Orion Dropship Superheavy is MASSIVE, and in a recent game I had to "eyeball" the charge distance, and we agreed the distance was "x" inches to the nearest part of it's hull. Did I mess up?
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

The rules default is if it has a base, measure to the base unless the Datasheet says otherwise.

In friendlies there’s nothing wrong with house ruling ‘big stuff’ to be closest part of the model if it makes more sense to you both.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




Yeah, the Orion extends about 3" past the base. This thing is massive. Like, Thunderhawk looks puny.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






I mean, if you really needed to nitpick on the distance, I'd say wobbly model syndrome it and play with markers (i.e. extra blank base) to indicate its actual position (as the models jut out too much in order for the bases to come into "legal" distance).
   
Made in us
Irked Necron Immortal





Jackson, TN

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honest question: Where to you measure to when saying your aircraft charges another model? The base? The nearest edge? So asking because the Orion Dropship Superheavy is MASSIVE, and in a recent game I had to "eyeball" the charge distance, and we agreed the distance was "x" inches to the nearest part of it's hull. Did I mess up?


As others have said, unless the data sheet says otherwise, the base is all that counts for all measuring.

Necrons' Tesseract Vault is in a similar situation. The model hangs over the edge of the base by quite a bit. And unless the base is sitting perfectly flat, I just remove the Model from the base and go from there.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: