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.
2019/08/26 13:06:37
Subject: Re:Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
Subject = "models in X units"
constituents = "within Y" "
Verb = "get"
adverbial information = " Z ability"
Subject = Models
Adjectivial Phrase = In X Units
Constituents = "within Y"
Verb = Get
Adverbial information = Z Ability.
At it's most basic, the Subject is Models.
Without the appropriate commas you are 100 % wrong as Adjectivial Phrase adds to the subject. as this is what is considered a Attributive adjective phrase
Then you also shouldn't have separated out "Within Y" making the subject = Models In X Units within Y.
yes technically within Y is also an attributive adjective phrase and a constituent.
in X units is an attributive adjective phrase and constituent of model and within Y is the same for units.
adjective phrases refer to the last stated subject.
So yes, you are right, but it only goes to show the grammar is referring to the entire unit.
"I ate a hot dog with relish from a sack"
The hot dog had relish. the relish was from a sack.
v.s.
"I ate a hot dog, with relish, from a sack"
in this second example the hot dog is from the sack.
Do you guys really not see the difference XD ?
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.
2019/08/26 13:10:59
Subject: Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
Stux wrote: I see the difference. I see that commas remove ambiguity, but without the commas it is ambiguous.
No,
The commas make it mean something completely different.
There are rules in grammar for how to interpret something if there are commas and how to interpret something if there aren't commas.
You are trying to tell me right now, unless you use commas to make it say what you want it to say, then it is ambiguous XD.
It is not. We have clearly defined rules in our language XD. Commas change the meaning.
but let's say I do entertain the idea that ONLY from the use of commas can we parse out the statement.
How do you add commas to
"I ate a hot dog with relish from a sack"
in order to make it say I ate a hot dog. It had relish from a sack.
You can't. It already means what it means. By adding further punctuation you are changing that.
Because as far as the rules for grammar go, adding commas can ONLY change the meaning of that sentence to something different. The rules for how to interpret the grammar exist and are clear, go take a look at any grammar text book or just google parsing a sentence.
Just because you don't like what it says and would prefer punctuation that makes it say what you want it to (and flow linguistically better), doesn't make it ambiguous XD.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/08/26 13:21:04
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.
2019/08/26 13:27:47
Subject: Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
You just seem to have an agenda about what interpretation you want to be right. You are failing to persuade me I'm afraid. You seem convinced in your answer regardless of what anyone else says though, so there's not much point carrying on with this.
2019/08/26 13:28:16
Subject: Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
These sentences mean different things, neither are ambiguous
“Let’s eat, grandpa” versus “Let’s eat grandpa”.
and
“We’re going to learn to cut and paste kids!” versus “We’re going to learn to cut and paste, kids!”
This is normal use of punctuation and lack of it to convey meaning. Just because a sentence doesn't have commas doesn't make it ambiguous, it makes it mean one thing v.s. meaning another. XD.
I know you don't like that it doesn't say what you want it to, but that doesn't make it ambiguous.
seriously, the argument of "its ambiguous until you change it to mean what I want" is just silly.
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.
2019/08/26 13:30:10
Subject: Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
The fact it is an ambiguous wording is what makes it ambiguous. Your examples are irrelevant, because they are in situations where the intent is obvious.
2019/08/26 13:51:03
Subject: Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
Stux wrote: You just seem to have an agenda about what interpretation you want to be right. You are failing to persuade me I'm afraid. You seem convinced in your answer regardless of what anyone else says though, so there's not much point carrying on with this.
Yet you ignore basic grammar rules because it doesn't say what you think it should...
There are plenty of people who have posted agreeing with my STRICT READING OF RAW.
And as I have said before, interpretation and RAI can be debated. the RAW can't, it says what it says. And without those two commas it does not say what you want it to. Even though the idea of it saying anything else makes it "ambiguous to you"
I might as well say this is ambiguous
this move can be in any direction so long as the model ends the move closer to the nearest enemy model.
I think that unless you add commas for it to look like this
"this move can be in any direction, so long as the model ends the move, closer to the nearest enemy model."
Then its ambiguous.
Because I think when you pile in, it should mean you have to move in a direction that is closer to an enemy model. So clearly you have to move in a direct path towards the nearest enemy model... as long as you end your move at some point of course. You see, this sentence has no commas so its ambiguous otherwise.
(I am being facetious of course, but this applies, just because you don't like what is written doesn't mean you can call it ambiguous unless you change the sentence to mean what you want it to mean, we can literally do that with 60 % of the rule book if wanted to )
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are rules to grammar, I am just advocating we follow them when talking about RAW instead of pretending they don't exist to claim ambiguity.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Something being linguistically confusing is not the same thing as something being grammatically ambiguous.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/26 13:54:56
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.
2019/08/26 14:10:29
Subject: Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
If grammatic rules are correctly applied to the wording then there is only a single correct meaning which is unambiguous.
Ambiguity is only introduced as a) grammar isn’t being correctly applied and/or b) the answer produced from correctly applying grammar isn’t matching their expectation so are seeking an alternative.
The sentence structure does not make it as easy as possible alternative wordings to get to the single correct meaning, and would agree that the wording is an ‘and’ or a comma away from being a list of 2 conditions to apply to the model, but that doesn’t stop their being only 1 grammatically correct interpretation of the wording.
2019/08/26 14:37:11
Subject: Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
Cornishman wrote: If grammatic rules are correctly applied to the wording then there is only a single correct meaning which is unambiguous.
Ambiguity is only introduced as a) grammar isn’t being correctly applied and/or b) the answer produced from correctly applying grammar isn’t matching their expectation so are seeking an alternative.
The sentence structure does not make it as easy as possible alternative wordings to get to the single correct meaning, and would agree that the wording is an ‘and’ or a comma away from being a list of 2 conditions to apply to the model, but that doesn’t stop their being only 1 grammatically correct interpretation of the wording.
Your argument is based on the assumption that there is one universally agreed correct form of English. Which is not true.
Even when following a given set of rules though, ambiguity is still possible. That's the whole point of trying parse arguments in formal logic, because language is imperfect.
2019/08/26 14:55:55
Subject: Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
Cornishman wrote: If grammatic rules are correctly applied to the wording then there is only a single correct meaning which is unambiguous.
Ambiguity is only introduced as a) grammar isn’t being correctly applied and/or b) the answer produced from correctly applying grammar isn’t matching their expectation so are seeking an alternative.
The sentence structure does not make it as easy as possible alternative wordings to get to the single correct meaning, and would agree that the wording is an ‘and’ or a comma away from being a list of 2 conditions to apply to the model, but that doesn’t stop their being only 1 grammatically correct interpretation of the wording.
Your argument is based on the assumption that there is one universally agreed correct form of English. Which is not true.
Even when following a given set of rules though, ambiguity is still possible. That's the whole point of trying parse arguments in formal logic, because language is imperfect.
Fine then,
show us which grammatical style guide doesn't support this reading of the grammar.
Harvard agrees with this reading, MLA agrees with this reading, Oxford agrees with this reading, CP style agrees with this reading, APA agrees with this reading...
Sooo, you are right, there are many ways to interpret the English language, however, all the formal style guides agree on this particular set of rules .... soooo .... unless you are claiming that GW has created its own writing style that ignores a fundamental set of grammar rules all other formal style guides agree on then I am pretty sure there is one way to read this rule.
I am not saying GW always has the best grammar in there rules, but are we really going to just start assuming they don't follow grammar rules that are established in pretty much every English language style guide ? if so we can assume every single rule in the game should be interpreted by intent with no regards for any sort of formal word process.
Maybe when the rule book says "To target an enemy unit,the attacking model must either be within 1"of that unit,or within 1"of another model from its own unit that is itself within 1"of that enemy unit."
We should assume they want us to target only units 1" of another model from its own unit AND within 1" of that model. Because why not, we arn't following established grammatical rules anymore. I think GW didn't know better, they are using OR instead of AND because english can be interpreted in different ways.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/26 15:04:54
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.
2019/08/26 15:16:28
Subject: Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
With respect to the form of English:
I assert that the 40k rules set is written in British English.
1) British English spellings are used,
2) The use of British English is consistent with GW as a British company writing the rules in their native variant of English.
As a native of the UK I am unaware of any style of British English which would support any interpretation of the sentence other than ‘All models in a qualifying units get the bonus so long as their unit is within distance of the source’ being grammatically correct.
Being British English Oxford is usually considered a definative source on the matter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/26 15:16:56
2019/08/26 15:23:40
Subject: Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
Cornishman wrote: With respect to the form of English:
I assert that the 40k rules set is written in British English.
1) British English spellings are used,
2) The use of British English is consistent with GW as a British company writing the rules in their native variant of English.
As a native of the UK I am unaware of any style of British English which would support any interpretation of the sentence other than ‘All models in a qualifying units get the bonus so long as their unit is within distance of the source’ being grammatically correct.
Being British English Oxford is usually considered a definative source on the matter.
Britain generally uses Oxford Style/Hart's Rules or the EU English style guide (almost exactly Oxford)
So yes, I completely agree, they likely stick to Oxford grammar. (I personally prefer Harvard because I like putting my comma after the word "and" XD)
However, if we are claiming they don't and all grammar and language style is up for interpretation in GW rules, I guess we can do what ever we want with the rules really, its all how we interpret it XD.
So assuming that GW uses some sort of formal language standards (most likely Oxford), which we should assume, considering the alternative is to have no standardized grammar rules what so ever and thus make reading RAW completely impossible,
then ability affects the entire unit.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/26 15:26:28
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.
2019/08/26 18:02:19
Subject: Re:Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
It's ambiguous as it is now. Work it out with your opponent beforehand or check with your T.O., whichever is appropriate, and this will probably be FAQ'd soon.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/26 18:04:57
2019/08/26 20:45:09
Subject: Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
It’s models within range, not their whole unit if just one model is in. It’s similar wording to Azrael’s magic shield ability.
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"
2019/08/26 21:00:51
Subject: Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:We'd certainly play it as the whole unit being affected with the wording you are describing. However if you feel this needs a more official ruling you can contact the rules team at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2019/08/26 21:04:37
Subject: Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
Warhammer 40,000 wrote:We'd certainly play it as the whole unit being affected with the wording you are describing. However if you feel this needs a more official ruling you can contact the rules team at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.
The fact facebook says that pretty much confirms it's models only.
Remember, even GW says "Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
2019/08/26 22:20:37
Subject: Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
Unless Facebook is almost always wrong, I'd say it confirms nothing. I don't even play Spacemarines, but I'd rule that it affects every model in a unit with 3".
You can make 1 additional attack for models in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY,BIKER and CAVALRY units that are within 3" of the bearer when they make their attacks in the Fight phase...
There's two ways to parse this rule.
1) "friendly Space Wolves Infantry, Biker, and Cavalry models within 3"...", which would support your interpretation.
2) "all models that are a part of a friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY,BIKER and CAVALRY units within 3"..." which would support the opposite conclusion.
Right now, grammar and semantics aside, neither interpretation is more RAW than the other. This is a really ambiguous rule. But I DO feel like the intent is for the latter to apply, as 3" is incredibly small to only apply to individual models. Best case scenario, you can apply that aura to, what, 8 models? If they're Bikers or Cavalry, you'll be lucky to get 4 of them into that aura.
2019/08/27 07:27:43
Subject: Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
So it’s agreed and accepted that ‘all models in an applicable unit get the bonus whilst their unit is within 3” ‘ is a grammatically correct interpretation.
What’s not agreed is either a) that the above is the only grammatically correct meaning, or b) that ‘models in an applicable unit and within 3” ‘ is a grammatically correct interpretation.
Whilst many have asserted that ‘models in an applicable unit and within 3” ‘ is a grammatically correct interpretation, no rationale demonstrating this has been provided.
The assertion that it is ambiguous is reliant on the assertion that ‘models in an applicable unit and within 3” ‘ is a grammatically correct interpretation.
The counter argument against it being ambiguous is that there is only a single grammatically correct interpretation, thus there is no ambiguity in the RAW. Any ambiguity is the result of using a grammatically incorrect interpretation of the rule or finding the grammatically correct version unsatisfactory and seeking an alternative.
Critically whilst the case for ‘all models in an applicable unit get the bonus whilst their unit is within 3” ‘ being the only grammatically correct interpretation has been clearly presented I can’t help but notice that the strongest case against this is the counter assertion ‘because it is ambiguous’, with the reasoning behind the this not presented.
To counter the assertion that there is only one correct interpretation it has been suggested that there are different forms of English, and so potentially different rules thus different results (e.g. BODMAS vs PEDMAS). However no examples of this have been offered, and what I think can be considered definitive form of English (e.g. Oxford and Harvard) are consistent with there only being a single correct interpretation.
Would someone be kind enough to explain how and why ‘models in an applicable unit and within 3” ‘ is a grammatically correct interpretation? My understanding does not support this view, and without this currently unprovided explanation it’s a bit hard to see where I may be mistaken.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/27 07:29:26
2019/08/27 07:56:27
Subject: Re:Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
p5freak wrote: Grammatics aside, why would anyone write models, when they mean the entire unit ?
As its the models that take the actions. They've changed the wording in the latest codex Marines for things like Rights of Battle and Tactial Precision to specially include models in the sentence as there was the arguement that the previous wording of 'you can Re-roll hit/wound rolls of 1 for <chapter> units that are within...' didn't actually do anything as its the models within the units that did the attacking.
2019/08/27 08:26:36
Subject: Re:Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
p5freak wrote: Grammatics aside, why would anyone write models, when they mean the entire unit ?
As its the models that take the actions. They've changed the wording in the latest codex Marines for things like Rights of Battle and Tactial Precision to specially include models in the sentence as there was the arguement that the previous wording of 'you can Re-roll hit/wound rolls of 1 for <chapter> units that are within...' didn't actually do anything as its the models within the units that did the attacking.
That's a very strange argument. It's crystal clear what units making attacks means.
2019/08/27 08:33:00
Subject: Re:Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
p5freak wrote: Grammatics aside, why would anyone write models, when they mean the entire unit ?
As its the models that take the actions. They've changed the wording in the latest codex Marines for things like Rights of Battle and Tactial Precision to specially include models in the sentence as there was the arguement that the previous wording of 'you can Re-roll hit/wound rolls of 1 for <chapter> units that are within...' didn't actually do anything as its the models within the units that did the attacking.
That's a very strange argument. It's crystal clear what units making attacks means.
I didn't say it wasn't clear what the intention was.
However GW have changed the wording in the latest C:SM to include models where previously it was just units.
Edit: the summer astartes update provides...
The new wording of Rites of Battles (from captain in Phobos Armour) Re-roll hit rolls of 1 for attacks made by models in friendly <Chapter> units whilst their unit is within 6" of this model.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/27 09:40:34
2019/08/27 11:23:25
Subject: Re:Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
Exactly, the inclusion of the word model is to indicate that each model in the unit makes an extra attack.
Units don't make attacks and even if they did the following problem would arise.
Lets say you have a 10 SWBC unit. If they wrote that the unit gets 1 extra attack and did not include the word model then it would be simply 1 extra attack for the entire unit. By including the word model we know it should be 10 extra attacks, one for each model.
Grammatically it makes sense and it is written in the way that it is in order to both indicate that your unit hase +1 attack per model and to indicate what units are restricted from getting this benefit.
I know that it reads weird (linguistically), but grammatically it is quite clear what the meaning is. I also think it is quite clear why they had to mention model and unit in this way. If they didnt there would be confusion about a) do units make attacks or do models ? and b) does the unit get +1 attack or do you get +1 attack for each model ? .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
p5freak wrote: Its true. Lieutenant and captain in phobos armor have their rules changed :
Rites of Battle: Re-roll hit rolls of 1 for attacks made by models in friendly <Chapter> units whilst their unit is within 6" of this model.
Tactical Precision: Re-roll wound rolls of 1 for attacks made by models in friendly <Chapter> units whilst their unit is within 6" of this model.
Here is the captain from the BA codex :
Rites of Battle: You can re-roll hit rolls of 1 made for friendly BLOOD ANGELS units within 6" of this model.
Can anyone with the new SM codex check if the wording of the non primaris captain and non primaris lieutenant have been changed as well ?
I can confirm on page 112 of the new SM codex rites of battle, on a regular non-primaris captain, reads as follows
Rites of Battle: Re-roll hit rolls of 1 for attacks made by models in friendly <CHAPTER> units whilst their unit is within 6" of this model.
I can confirm the regular non-primaris LIEUTENANTS entry from the new SM codex reads as follows from page 113:
TacticalPrecision: Re-roll wound rolls of 1 for attacks made by models in friendly<CHAPTER>units whilst their unitis within 6"of this model.
Again, the only way to change the meaning in all of these to mean models only and not units is to add two commas.
Current syntax = "ability X is granted to models in friendly Y units whilst their unit is within Z" of bearer/model"
this syntax means the entire unit. In order to change that to ONLY mean models you would need to write it as the following :
"ability X is granted to models, in friendly Y units, whilst their unit is within Z" of bearer/model"
Those commas would make all the difference. And I know its a confusing sentence because the simple linguistic act of pausing changes its meaning. But when written, we can visually see where those pauses are and how to properly interpret the sentence. Without having those commas the only way to read that rule is to have it affect the entire unit.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/08/27 11:49:24
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.
2019/08/27 11:54:52
Subject: Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
BaconCatBug wrote: The only reason those rules affect all models in the unit is because the rule says "whilst their unit is within".
units whilst their unit is within 6"
v.s.
units that are within 3"
these are synonymous.
In fact the wulfen stone reading is even more obviously the entire unit XD. As Rites of Battle refers back to the models again but the wulfen stone just stops at "units that within 3" ".
BCB at this point your stretching. The syntax is the same, the grammar means what it means. How many times have I seen you write "because that's how english works" to people.
lets look at the sentence again.
"You can make 1 additional attack for models in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY, BIKER and CAVALRY units that are within 3" of the bearer"
as written, you have the first predicate "1 additional attack for" the first subject "models in friendly x units" (introduces a new subject) follows up with that's subjects own predicate "that are within 3" of the bearer"
with out extra commas it can only mean
+1 attack for models (that meet the following qualifiers) in friendly space wolves infantry biker and cavalery UNITS that are within 3" of the bearer.
Therefor models, that are both in units that are SWI SPWB SPC and are in units that are within 3" of the bearer, get +1 attack... you can't just cut out the middle part and go pretend it is saying models within 3" of the bearer.... it does not say models within 3" of bearer. It says units within 3" of the bearer. The only way for it to say models within 3" of the bearer is to stick commas in the middle of the sentence so the word UNITS is not directly next to THAT ARE WITHIN 3" of the bearer.
this IS the sentences, just look at it. BCB I know you pride yourself in following the rules verbatim according to the English language.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/08/27 13:23:06
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.
2019/08/27 13:13:39
Subject: Re:Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
BaconCatBug wrote: The only reason those rules affect all models in the unit is because the rule says "whilst their unit is within".
units whilst their unit is within 6"
v.s.
units that are within 3"
these are synonymous.
They are only synonymous when you snip it out of context like that. With the full sentence it is ambiguous whether the 'units' is what the 'that' is referring to or the models earlier in the sentence.
It is ambiguous.
2019/08/27 14:28:56
Subject: Re:Does the Wulfen Stone affect models or units ?
p5freak wrote: Ok, the wulfen stone affects all models in the unit, when at least one model is within 3".
Excellent,
And for those still unsure
‘Rites of Battles’ and ‘Tactical Precision’ have been re-written…
From
‘you can Re-roll hit/wound rolls of 1 for <chapter> units that are within...’
To
‘Re-roll hit/ wound rolls of 1 for attacks made by models in friendly <Chapter> units whilst their unit is within 6" of this model
Looking at ‘3. The Shooting Phase’:
‘1. Choose a Unit to Shoot With
In your shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons…’
‘Number of Attacks
Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks.’
This I believe was behind the very precise and pedantic argument that could be made that the previous wording of ‘Rites of Battle’ and ‘Tactical Precision’ did nothing. The unit has the ability to re-roll hits rolls, but it’s actually the models in the units that have the to hit rolls… I am not saying I support this argument, only presenting the logical basis behind it. Either way we all seem to be happy either a) whilst RAW makes the rule pointless the RAI case is so strong that we are happy <Chapter> Units means all the models in that make up such a unit (i.e. Models in a <Chapter Units> ), or that as members of the unit it applies to the models anyway.
However, the Wulfen Stone (and Tau Fireblade) affect is slightly different. Rather than applying to each and every to hit/ wound roll, it adds to the number of attacks. Attacks are calculated on a by model (and by weapon) basis. So, as Type40 has said whilst it could be phrased as ‘You may make an additional attack with <applicable> units when they attack this would mean the as a unit a total of 1 additional attack is made irrespective of the number of models in that unit. Changing ‘Units’ to ‘Models in Units’ changes the meaning so that the additional attack is applicable per model in that unit. Thus, the inclusion of ‘Model’ is required for adding additional attacks, when this inclusion may not be necessarily required for re-roll effects (the affect of applying a re-rolls of any 1 is the same whether applied as a unit or on a model by model basis). As such the inclusion of model in the sentence doesn’t automatically mean the distance is to be measured to each model.
As for other sources of ambiguity I have proposed ambiguity arising from the misunderstanding of the rule. Given the length of discussion I hope we are in agreement that the sentence is not as easy to correctly read as it could be. Part of this is that structurally it is a comma away from being a list of 2 criteria (1) part of applicable unit, 2 within distance of source) that would both apply to each model on a model by model basis. Thus it is possible to read the sentence, expect it to be list, and then try to turn it into one.
Another source of ambiguity is finding the answer unsatisfactory. This could be due to expecting a list as above, or forming the opinion that the rule is excessively powerful to be what GW intented, so seeking to find an alternative which better fit.
With respect to the latter potential source. ‘The Standard of Macragge Invoilate’ from the Ultramarines Supplement - ‘Add 1 to the Attacks Characteristic of models in Friendly Ultramarines units whilst their unit is within 6” of a model with this relic’. The wording here is consistent with the new wording ‘Rites of Battle’ and ‘Tactical Precision’. Given the revised wording I hope we are all in agreement that GW has produced a relic of similar power (arguably greater given the greater radius).
Additionally, there are Wulfen: You can make 1 additional attack for models in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY,
BIKER and CAVALRY units that are within 6" of any unit with this ability when they make their attacks in the Fight phase. – Okay this is the same phrasing as is causing contention, but is another source of it.
Collectively I think this means we are back to the crux of the issue being whether ‘all models in an applicable units get the bonus whilst their unit is within distance of source” ‘ is:
1) A grammatically correct interpretation.
or
2) The only grammatically correct interpretation.
So would someone be kind enough to explain how and why ‘models in an applicable unit and within 3” ‘ is a grammatically correct interpretation? I can not understand how this can be done other than by inserting additional punctiation (or an 'and') between ...units... and ... within 3"....
Additionally, the view that ‘all models in an applicable units get the bonus whilst their unit is within distance of source’ as the only grammatically correct interpretation appears to be consistent with what I hope should be considered definitive authorities on English Grammer (Oxford and Harvard style of English). As grammar exists to ensure a common understanding, I am most intrigued how the sentence is interpreted to get the alternative meaning, and what grammatical authority supports this.
Without this currently unprovided explanation it’s a bit hard to see where I may be mistaken.
I am a rather inquisitive and logic person so assertions of 'it's ambiguous because it’s ambiguous', or 'it can be interpreted differently because it can be' rather cyclic in nature and don’t provide a satisfactory answer as to why this is the case. Especially as the WHY and the HOW appear to the the crux of the matter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/27 14:29:47
