Switch Theme:

More Dakka vs Lightning fast reactions  [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 es
Regular Dakkanaut




That statement misses the entire point of what I was saying - "can shoot" whether at single or multiple targets means they haven't already shot yet. The shooting is in the future.


Obviously, they haven't already shot, because they haven't completed the action yet. The sentence merely adds information on how to handle the process, but in no case specifies the moment in which the unit starts shooting. The only thing we have that indicates when the unit starts shooting is the wording of the rule, that clearly shows the unit is "a shooting unit" after being chosen to shot with, thus it has already started the action (but not finished it, of course). If you don't think those words have that meaning, can you tell me what "a shooting unit" and "a shooting model" mean exaclty? Because you sem to deliberately ignore them.

Nonsense. Step 3 clearly indicates that the unit hasn't shot yet, even though the shooting unit has been declared. There's a difference between declaring a unit is going to shoot in the very near future, and the unit actually shooting. :"In either case, declare how you will split the shooting unit's shots before the dice are rolled, and resolve all the shots against one target before moving on to the next target." How you will be splitting the shots means you haven't shot yet. This indicates you aren't actually shooting until you are resolving the shots. That's step 4.




Again, the language in step 3 does not indicate that at all. You are assuming that "resolving the shots" indicates the start of the shooting action, but the language used does not imply that. You are either assuming that the "shooting" is an instantaneos action that does not last in time, but no such thing exists, or you are trying to equate the situation of shooting in real life whith a gameplay action, which is a false equivalency and would require to arbitrarily compare the steps in both situations.

Can you tell me which sentence in step 4 indicates that shooting start there? Because there are zero instances of the words "shot, "shoot" or "shooting" in that section. The only way to infer that the shooting action starts there is, again, to falsely equate that step with a real life situation.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/04/24 16:06:52


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






The wording in step 3 indicates that "Resolve Attacks" starts the unit actually shooting. I've already quoted relevant parts.

You haven't provided any evidence that the unit is actually shooting except for a statement about the "shooting unit", and I already provided a counter example showing that in step 3 they mention "shooting unit", but are referring to "can shoot" and the like as something that hasn't happened you. Can you provide any other evidence indicating that the unit is already shooting in step 1?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 doctortom wrote:

The wording in step 3 indicates that "Resolve Attacks" starts the unit actually shooting. I've already quoted relevant parts.

You haven't provided any evidence that the unit is actually shooting except for a statement about the "shooting unit", and I already provided a counter example showing that in step 3 they mention "shooting unit", but are referring to "can shoot" and the like as something that hasn't happened you. Can you provide any other evidence indicating that the unit is already shooting in step 1?


In addition to the above, the fact that a unit can be selected in step 1 and subsequently not shoot at all (eg smoke launchers) gives further weight to the proposition that the shooting doesn’t start in step one and so must be at some later stage.
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




The only possible meaning in english for " a shooting model" is "a model that is, at this moment, performing the act of shooting" (or a model that has the intention to shoot at some point in the future, but that 's impossible). Unless you want to want to change how language works,

When you use smoke launchers, you are not choosing a unit to shoot with and then replacing the shooting with smoke. Using smoke launchers is a different action that you can do as long as you don't shoot in the same phase, as stated in the rulebook FAQ. Otherswise, units without ranged weapons or that have fallen back would not be able to use smoke, as they would not be able to be chosen to shoot in the first place. In the same way, when a weapon does "a mortal damage instead of normal damage", you don't need to actually do the normal damage (meaning you don't have to go through saves) before the mortal wound can apply.

In 40k, when something is done "instead of", it does not mean "replace instaces of X with Y" but "do Y and X can't happen".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/24 17:02:58


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Seizeman wrote:
The only possible meaning in english for " a shooting model" is "a model that is, at this moment, performing the act of shooting" (or a model that has the intention to shoot at some point in the future, but that 's impossible). Unless you want to want to change how language works,



No, you are only declaring which unit will be shooting. The unit is not already shooting. What you are stating is not proof.and is refuted by the wording in step 3 indicating that the shooting has not happened yet.

From the stratagem: "Use this Stratagem before an ORK unit from your army shoots in your Shooting phase."

The unit isn't doing any actual shooting until step 4. From the wording in step 3, the unit's shooting is still in the future, So, anywhere during steps 1 through 3 you can declare using the stratagem.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/24 17:21:54


 
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




If you would only be declare which unit will be shooting, then it would not be " a shooting unit". A "shooting unit" is a unit that's shooting in the present, not in the past, not in the near future, but at this precise moment. Step 2 refers to "shooting unit" and "shooting model" at that point, not in the past, nor in the future. That's not my interpretation, that's basic english.

And what do you mean by "isn't doing any actual shooting"? What's the difference between "actual shooting" and other kinds of shooting, and on what basis do you make it? Tha's just fallacious reasoning. There's absolutely no word that refers to "actual shooting" taking place in the future. Can you quote which sentence in that paragraph is in future form?

Furthermore, the "number of attacks" paragraph does say "when a unit shoots, it WILL make a number of attacks", which means making the attacks is not the shooting itself, but just part of it, or else the sentence makes no sense. Otherwise, the wording would be "when a unit shoots, it makes a number of attacks".
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Seizeman wrote:
If you would only be declare which unit will be shooting, then it would not be " a shooting unit". A "shooting unit" is a unit that's shooting in the present, not in the past, not in the near future, but at this precise moment. Step 2 refers to "shooting unit" and "shooting model" at that point, not in the past, nor in the future. That's not my interpretation, that's basic english.


Yet step 3 refers to "can shoot" such as "if a unit conatins more than one model, they can all shoot at the same time", which indicates that they haven't actually started shooting yet. That's not an interpretation, that is basic engling.


Seizeman wrote:
And what do you mean by "isn't doing any actual shooting"?


It means that although you may have declared which unit will be shooting (in the future of the statement), the unit hasn't actually started shooting. The later sentences in step 3 make clear that resolving the attacks, the shots, is when "actual" shooting happens.



Seizeman wrote:
Furthermore, the "number of attacks" paragraph does say "when a unit shoots, it WILL make a number of attacks", which means making the attacks is not the shooting itself, but just part of it, or else the sentence makes no sense. Otherwise, the wording would be "when a unit shoots, it makes a number of attacks".


Balderdash. You ignore the first part that says that when a unit shoots, it makes a number of attacks. It then goes on to describe how to make the attacks in the "Resolve attacks" secion. You have a definition right there to use, but you choose to ignore it.
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




The sentence " a unit can shoot at the same time" is a general statement, and it gives absolutely no temporal context.

You ignore the first part that says that when a unit shoots, it makes a number of attacks


That sentence does not appear in the rulebook, you just made it up. What the rules say is "when a unit shoots, it WILL make a number of attacks", which implies that attacking and shooting and not one and the same thing. If what you are suggesting is that, if "when a unit shoots, it makes a number of atttacks" then "if it doesn't make the attacks, it doesn't shoot", you are using faulty logic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/24 19:43:01


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Seizeman wrote:
The sentence " a unit can shoot at the same time" is a general statement, and it gives absolutely no temporal context.


Your statement is incorrect. In instructions on handling shooting, saying "it can shoot" is indicating a decision that can be made. If the decision can be made, that means the decision hasn't already been made. That indicates there's a tense involved.

EDIT: Doing a quick google search on "will", it quickly displayed a definition from dictionary.com

will
/wil,wəl/
verb
1.expressing the future tense.
"you will regret it when you are older"
2expressing inevitable events.
"accidents will happen"

Definition 1 puts the kibosh on your statement about "will" having absolutely no temporal context.



Seizeman wrote:
You ignore the first part that says that when a unit shoots, it makes a number of attacks


That sentence does not appear in the rulebook, you just made it up. What the rules say is "when a unit shoots, it WILL make a number of attacks"


Sorry, I was paraphrasing. That's not making it up, but the quotation makes things worse for your stance. " It WILL make a number of attacks" does not mean "it HAS made a number of attacks" or It IS MAKING a number of attacks" at that step, This means it's in a future step, which means shooting is in a step in a future from where the statement is (step 3). That's how tenses work in English.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/24 20:15:12


 
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




A decision can be made, but it's not a decision wether to shoot or not, but a decision on how to handle the targeting part of the shooting. The decision wether to shoot or not is made in step 1. Making all decisions about the shooting is not a prerequisite to start the shooting action. The shooting action is divided into several steps, and each one has different decisions, and not having made all of them does not mean you haven't started shooting.

This means it's in a future step, which means shooting is in a step in a future from where the statement is


No, it means MAKING ATTACKS is in a step in the future. You are still arbitrarily equating making attacks and shooting. "Will" indeed gives a temporal context, but for the attack making, not the shooting.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/24 20:33:50


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Seizeman wrote:
A decision can be made, but it's not a decision wether to shoot or not, but a decision on how to handle the targeting part of the shooting. The decision wether to shoot or not is made in step 1. Making all decisions about the shooting is not a prerequisite to start the shooting action. The shooting action is divided into several steps, and each one has different decisions, and not having made all of them does not mean you haven't started shooting.

This means it's in a future step, which means shooting is in a step in a future from where the statement is


No, it means MAKING ATTACKS is in a step in the future. You are still arbitrarily equating making attacks and shooting. "Will" indeed gives a temporal context, but for the attack making, not the shooting.


"when a unit shoots, it WILL make a number of attacks"

Doesn't seem arbitrary at all. It tells you the process, what is involved with shooting, and the temporal context. More to the point, "will" is a future tense, and it says when a unit shoots, it "will" do something in the future. It hasn't done that thing yet. It is not in the past, or in the present. It is in the future. It is something that happens after step 3. It is shooting as the statement tells you what shooting is.

I do have to ask seeing as your flag marks you from Spain, how well do you know English?
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




I do have to ask seeing as your flag marks you from Spain, how well do you know English?


Personal attacks have no place in a civilised discussion and are against the forum rules. I will not waste time arguing with someon that lacks basic manners, so this conversation is over.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/29 23:50:40


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Seizeman wrote:
I do have to ask seeing as your flag marks you from Spain, how well do you know English?


Personal attacks have no place in a civilised discussion and are against the forum rules. I will not waste time arguing with someon that lacks basic manners, so this conversation is over.


I'm sorry you see it as a personal attack, but when you make statements such asThe sentence " a unit can shoot at the same time" is a general statement, and it gives absolutely no temporal context." when saying it can shoot means you have not already shot - it's something that happens in the future, and likewise not understanding that "when a unit shoots, it WILL make a number of attacks" is indicating that in the future when it shoots it WILL at that future time make a number of attacks, it does raise questions about how well you know tenses, conditional statements and the like..

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/26 19:21:14


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 doctortom wrote:
I'm sorry you see it as a personal attack, but when you make statements such asThe sentence " a unit can shoot at the same time" is a general statement, and it gives absolutely no temporal context." when saying it can shoot means you have not already shot - it's something that happens in the future, and likewise not understanding that "when a unit shoots, it WILL make a number of attacks" is indicating that in the future when it shoots it WILL at that future time make a number of attacks, it does raise questions about how well you know tenses, conditional statements and the like..


"Your flag isn't from an English speaking country" has become a quite common here on dakka when a native speaker doesn't like the other person's argument.

His argument is that making attacks is not the same as shooting and is not related to language or grammar at all.
It's about whether you define "making attacks" or the entire process described as part of the sequence as shooting.

For what it's worth, I agree with you, because there is this little sentence "Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks." - if that's not a definition of "shoots", I don't know what is.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/04/27 07:23:30


7 Ork facts people always get wrong:
Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other.
A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot.
Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests.
Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books.
Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor.
Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers.
Orks do not have the power of believe. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Jidmah wrote:
 doctortom wrote:
I'm sorry you see it as a personal attack, but when you make statements such asThe sentence " a unit can shoot at the same time" is a general statement, and it gives absolutely no temporal context." when saying it can shoot means you have not already shot - it's something that happens in the future, and likewise not understanding that "when a unit shoots, it WILL make a number of attacks" is indicating that in the future when it shoots it WILL at that future time make a number of attacks, it does raise questions about how well you know tenses, conditional statements and the like..


"Your flag isn't from an English speaking country" has become a quite common here on dakka when a native speaker doesn't like the other person's argument.

His argument is that making attacks is not the same as shooting and is not related to language or grammar at all.
It's about whether you define "making attacks" or the entire process described as part of the sequence as shooting.

For what it's worth, I agree with you, because there is this little sentence "Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks." - if that's not a definition of "shoots", I don't know what is.



I had initially argued that it could be interpreted either way, but I saw the same sentence you quoted just above and that convinced me that it would be allowable up to step 4; that's definitely a game definition for "shoots".

His argument had been based solely on the phrase "shooting unit", which I had shown in step 3 to have been used in locations where they were still talking about "will" shoot or "can" shoot, in addition to the quotation you gave, so purely relying on the phrase "shooting unit" appearing early is not an indication that the unit is shooting at that point.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: