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.

 vict0988 wrote:
D6, I don't think I ever use the word die or dice in the rules I propose.

Die means to cease living.

Dice could be a 20D20s or 1D3.

The Miralce rules don't seem ambiguous though, in this case it is not a problem.

I don't agree that it's not a problem. The style in which GW writes rules these days is basically a human rights violation. Using an incorrect singular is an avoidable complication that makes things worse than they have to be.

I was going to reply but two mie ran across the kitchen floor and startled me. I didn't c them

 Geifer wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
D6, I don't think I ever use the word die or dice in the rules I propose.

Die means to cease living.

Dice could be a 20D20s or 1D3.

The Miralce rules don't seem ambiguous though, in this case it is not a problem.

I don't agree that it's not a problem. The style in which GW writes rules these days is basically a human rights violation. Using an incorrect singular is an avoidable complication that makes things worse than they have to be.

I will change my mind if you show me where a misunderstanding can arise from using dice instead of die. 9th edition has better writing than 1st-8th and no worse than any game I have ever played. For the most part you don't need to read rules multiple times and if you're confused about something reading the rule explains the rule. Looking up rules on Dakka and Discord is mostly a thing of the past.

 Geifer wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
D6, I don't think I ever use the word die or dice in the rules I propose.

Die means to cease living.

Dice could be a 20D20s or 1D3.

The Miralce rules don't seem ambiguous though, in this case it is not a problem.

I don't agree that it's not a problem. The style in which GW writes rules these days is basically a human rights violation. Using an incorrect singular is an avoidable complication that makes things worse than they have to be.

Totally agree.

I mean, apparently it's not technically "incorrect" anymore. As I said in the OP, apparently if enough people say it wrong for long enough it becomes right.

But that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that it's totally needless confusing a singular with a plural when there's absolutely no need to do so. Nobody is every going to confuse "role your die" with "death", while plenty of people can misunderstand "roll your dice" to mean "more than one of those square things you roll in games" ... because ... y'know ... that's what the word meant for the past few hundred odd years. It's just unecessary confusion for zero gain.

Maybe I'm just thick or something but reading that Sorirtas card short-circuited wires in my brain.

Fair enough if you cannot understand it, I think it is beyond clear because of all the clarifying text. But to be fair I am biased because I have played against basically the same rule in 9th (I don't think there are any meaningful changes).

Before making an Advance roll, Battle-shock test, Charge roll, Damage roll, Hit roll, Saving throw or Wound roll for a unit from your army with the Acts of Faith ability, if you have one or more dice in your Miracle dice pool, that unit can perform an Act of Faith. If it does, select a die from your Miracle dice pool to replace one die from among the dice rolled. The die being replaced is not rolled; instead, the value of the selected Miracle die is used as if it had been rolled (this counts as an unmodified dice roll of that value for all rules purposes). Each Miracle die can only replace one die. Once all Miracle dice replacements have been made, remove the chosen Miracle die from your Miracle dice pool, and roll all remaining dice that are a part of the dice roll.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They also say "Indexes" and "Codexes" rather than Indices and Codices.

Given all the psudo-Latin they put in 40k, I find this quite silly.

Because these are not in-universe terms. In a non-scientifc context, codexes/indexes/matrixes/apexes/vertexes/vortexes/etc.. are the correct pluralisation, not codices/indices/matrices/apices/vortices/etc..

My issue with the Sororitas rule isn't whether it is technically written to be mechanically unambiguous. GW manages that somewhat better these days, with all the tedium reading that nonsense entails.

What bothers me in this specific case is how much it highlights the die/dice issue. The rule allows you to replace a singular die, and impresses that it is only a single die, but uses the plural form both for one and multiple dice. The thing is, different singular and plural provides disambiguation. Identical singular and plural does not. It's dodgy to use a colloquialism like that to begin with, although I can understand why GW does it. They've been doing it since basically forever and exhibit uncharacteristic consistency for once, stubbornly sticking with it. Added on top of that is that you have a case where the player is meant to think of a singular die but is made to read the plural form instead of the correct singular when a single die is referenced. It's bad style not just because it's not necessary, but because it does confuse the part of the readership that does not habitually use the singular and plural forms of dice incorrectly. Those people are made to read against their expectations. Even if it does not actually result in getting the rule wrong in the end, it adds to the tedium of GW's writing style. If there's one thing that style does not need, it's more tedium.

 Geifer wrote:
My issue with the Sororitas rule isn't whether it is technically written to be mechanically unambiguous. GW manages that somewhat better these days, with all the tedium reading that nonsense entails.

What bothers me in this specific case is how much it highlights the die/dice issue. The rule allows you to replace a singular die, and impresses that it is only a single die, but uses the plural form both for one and multiple dice. The thing is, different singular and plural provides disambiguation. Identical singular and plural does not. It's dodgy to use a colloquialism like that to begin with, although I can understand why GW does it. They've been doing it since basically forever and exhibit uncharacteristic consistency for once, stubbornly sticking with it. Added on top of that is that you have a case where the player is meant to think of a singular die but is made to read the plural form instead of the correct singular when a single die is referenced. It's bad style not just because it's not necessary, but because it does confuse the part of the readership that does not habitually use the singular and plural forms of dice incorrectly. Those people are made to read against their expectations. Even if it does not actually result in getting the rule wrong in the end, it adds to the tedium of GW's writing style. If there's one thing that style does not need, it's more tedium.

Agreed. Dice/die aside, reading through a lot of the rules for 10th (9th too) I get the impression that they "over-explain" simple concepts to the point where it just gets confusing. I can understand why they are doing it - to leave no ambiguity and "no stone unturned" in rules interpretation. But man it's difficult to read. Sometimes I have to read the same paragraph four times only to realize it's saying something perfectly simple in a very superfluous manner.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They also say "Indexes" and "Codexes" rather than Indices and Codices.

Given all the psudo-Latin they put in 40k, I find this quite silly.

Because these are not in-universe terms. In a non-scientifc context, codexes/indexes/matrixes/apexes/vertexes/vortexes/etc.. are the correct pluralisation, not codices/indices/matrices/apices/vortices/etc..

It's codices and vortices in the UK according to Cambridge, vortexes is American.

 vict0988 wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They also say "Indexes" and "Codexes" rather than Indices and Codices.

Given all the psudo-Latin they put in 40k, I find this quite silly.

Because these are not in-universe terms. In a non-scientifc context, codexes/indexes/matrixes/apexes/vertexes/vortexes/etc.. are the correct pluralisation, not codices/indices/matrices/apices/vortices/etc..

It's codices and vortices in the UK according to Cambridge, vortexes is American.

Indeed. I’m from the UK and I’ve always used indices, vortices, appendices, matrices, etc and never the other version. Though they generally only come up in a scientific or mathematical context.

On the other hand, codexes does not exist in any dictionary. The proper plural of codex is codices.

However, Cambridge defines dice as "a small cube (= object with six equal square sides) with a different number of spots on each side, used in games involving chance". It also defines die in this context to be "US also or old use".

So if you agree with Cambridge, GW is using the proper noun when it uses dice in a singular sense since they are a UK company and would therefore write their rules using British English.

 alextroy wrote:
On the other hand, codexes does not exist in any dictionary. The proper plural of codex is codices.

I can't say I've checked in every single dictionary, but it does in fact exist in the Oxford dictionary as a valid plural.

I vaguely recall a comment on this from GW years ago, where they pointed out that High Gothic is similar to Latin, but not actually Latin... and "Codexes" is the in-universe plural, and so used for colour.

 The Pig-Faced Orc wrote:

"Irregardless" is not a word you ignorant hethen. It's "regardless".

"Irregardless" drives me batty, but is also accepted by dictionaries and has been in use for 200 years or so now. As with some Americans saying that they 'could care less', I've come to accept that some language usage is just silly, but there's nothing that can actually be done to stop people doing it, so to just roll with it.

 Necroagogo wrote:
This gave me an embolism.

It was painful to read...

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Because these are not in-universe terms.

I never made the argument that they were. I genuinely believe that you didn't quite understand my post.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
In a non-scientifc context, codexes/indexes/matrixes/apexes/vertexes/vortexes/etc.. are the correct pluralisation, not codices/indices/matrices/apices/vortices/etc..

Codices is still the correct word. As is vortices. Indices. And so on.

 insaniak wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
On the other hand, codexes does not exist in any dictionary. The proper plural of codex is codices.

I can't say I've checked in every single dictionary, but it does in fact exist in the Oxford dictionary as a valid plural.

I'll admit I don't have access to the Oxford dictionary. Codexes does not appear in the online dictionaries for Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Collins, Macmillan, or Dictionary.com. That makes Oxford an outlier. Maybe they are on the cutting edge of this evolution in language?

Die is singular, dice is plural. This needs to be adhered to or else we'll have more people on this forum and other places than we ALREADY DO that use "dices" as the plural.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And don't bother with dictionaries nowadays; they've started saying "irregardless" is a word.

 Just Tony wrote:

And don't bother with dictionaries nowadays; they've started saying "irregardless" is a word.

They 'started' doing that in at least the 1930s. Ship has sailed, dude.

 solkan wrote:
As far as I know, the original poster is doomed to disappointment.

Because, as others have noted, GW has been using the word 'dice' as both singular and plural for long enough that Americans were just being told "That's British English for you" for about the last twenty five year.

It's also worth noting that dreadsocks are not officially recommended as a tool for curbing the behavior of players who are engaging in excessively exuberant English language liberties.

Dreadsocks don't work anywhere near as well anymore. The plastic just doesn't have the heft of the old metal brick in a sock. Don't even get me started on the FW resin ... which is less heavy than the plastic.

 insaniak wrote:

 The Pig-Faced Orc wrote:

"Irregardless" is not a word you ignorant hethen. It's "regardless".

"Irregardless" drives me batty, but is also accepted by dictionaries and has been in use for 200 years or so now. As with some Americans saying that they 'could care less', I've come to accept that some language usage is just silly, but there's nothing that can actually be done to stop people doing it, so to just roll with it.

Yes, just another example of how if enough people say something wrong over and over again, it becomes right.

"Over exaggerate" is another one that annoys me. That at worst makes no sense and at best is superfluous. It's only signalling that speaker doesn't know what the word "exaggerate" means. But it is also now accepted in many dictionaries. Speaking of dice and die, to "exaggerate" is like to be dead. You're either doing it or not. There's no such thing as being "over dead". It makes no sense, just like over-exaggerate.

Language evolves and meanings shift over time. That's entirely natural and expected and pointless to try to fight against. That doesn't mean words that fall out of general use, or become less popular, shouldn't be used where appropriate. The "die" vs "dice" situation feels like one of those situations.

The reason language evolves is because its purpose is to facilitate clear communication between people. If the common usage of a word changes such that it means something different to what it used to you need to reflect that. Similarly, if a word falls out of fashion, using a different word may be more effective when it comes to communication. However, the word "die" provides extra clarity in many cases where GW use the word "dice" so it's better to use it even though it may not be as commonly used as it once was.

 The Pig-Faced Orc wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 The Pig-Faced Orc wrote:

"Irregardless" is not a word you ignorant hethen. It's "regardless".

"Irregardless" drives me batty, but is also accepted by dictionaries and has been in use for 200 years or so now. As with some Americans saying that they 'could care less', I've come to accept that some language usage is just silly, but there's nothing that can actually be done to stop people doing it, so to just roll with it.

Yes, just another example of how if enough people say something wrong over and over again, it becomes right.

"Over exaggerate" is another one that annoys me. That at worst makes no sense and at best is superfluous. It's only signalling that speaker doesn't know what the word "exaggerate" means. But it is also now accepted in many dictionaries. Speaking of dice and die, to "exaggerate" is like to be dead. You're either doing it or not. There's no such thing as being "over dead". It makes no sense, just like over-exaggerate.

I exaggerate something for effect.
But I went too far-I over exaggerated in my words.

Look, I'm all for poo-pooing dumb words, but that one makes sense.

 The Pig-Faced Orc wrote:


"Over exaggerate" is another one that annoys me. That at worst makes no sense and at best is superfluous. It's only signalling that speaker doesn't know what the word "exaggerate" means. But it is also now accepted in many dictionaries. Speaking of dice and die, to "exaggerate" is like to be dead. You're either doing it or not. There's no such thing as being "over dead". It makes no sense, just like over-exaggerate.

That is interesting, because in slavic languages you very much can over exaggerate.But then again we have over 20 words for various types of exaggerating things, words, situations, sickness, is done within potential reality or pure fantasy, is it a lie or not, different for body parts and generaly things doing with art etc.
You can under exaggerate too in the house on fire and dog sitting inside saying "it is fine" style.

And you can very much be over dead in slavic languages too. In one of our polish novels, one of the character says to his guards to stacke the herald and to make it so that he is "feeling that he is dieing", and that way of death is an "over death". regular death is in bed, in accident. etc Underdeath is when you die in a forest boars eat you, and no one ever know how, why and where you died. And it is not a synonym of bad death, because bad death is witnessed by other people or at least people know of it.

Apologies if I'm repeating what's already been said...

one die....
two or more dice....
dices... burn them on the stake.....

That said, I suspect that one would have to work quite hard to misunderstand the intent of "roll 1 dice"

This reminds me of inflammable vs flammable

Brickfix wrote:
This reminds me of inflammable vs flammable

I'm just so glad that one has never ever caused any confusion...

 JNAProductions wrote:

 The Pig-Faced Orc wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 The Pig-Faced Orc wrote:

"Irregardless" is not a word you ignorant hethen. It's "regardless".

"Irregardless" drives me batty, but is also accepted by dictionaries and has been in use for 200 years or so now. As with some Americans saying that they 'could care less', I've come to accept that some language usage is just silly, but there's nothing that can actually be done to stop people doing it, so to just roll with it.

Yes, just another example of how if enough people say something wrong over and over again, it becomes right.

"Over exaggerate" is another one that annoys me. That at worst makes no sense and at best is superfluous. It's only signalling that speaker doesn't know what the word "exaggerate" means. But it is also now accepted in many dictionaries. Speaking of dice and die, to "exaggerate" is like to be dead. You're either doing it or not. There's no such thing as being "over dead". It makes no sense, just like over-exaggerate.

I exaggerate something for effect.
But I went too far-I over exaggerated in my words.

Look, I'm all for poo-pooing dumb words, but that one makes sense.

Indeed. Time for an example...

Imagine you're a manager for a small restaurant. On a normal Friday night, you might have twenty tables in over the course of the evening, plus or minus five.

Exaggerating for effect might mean saying you had thirty or forty tables in - busier than normal, but probably manageable.

Over-exaggerating would be claiming one hundred...

you've been told a billion times not to exaggerate

 JNAProductions wrote:

 The Pig-Faced Orc wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 The Pig-Faced Orc wrote:

"Irregardless" is not a word you ignorant hethen. It's "regardless".

"Irregardless" drives me batty, but is also accepted by dictionaries and has been in use for 200 years or so now. As with some Americans saying that they 'could care less', I've come to accept that some language usage is just silly, but there's nothing that can actually be done to stop people doing it, so to just roll with it.

Yes, just another example of how if enough people say something wrong over and over again, it becomes right.

"Over exaggerate" is another one that annoys me. That at worst makes no sense and at best is superfluous. It's only signalling that speaker doesn't know what the word "exaggerate" means. But it is also now accepted in many dictionaries. Speaking of dice and die, to "exaggerate" is like to be dead. You're either doing it or not. There's no such thing as being "over dead". It makes no sense, just like over-exaggerate.

I exaggerate something for effect.
But I went too far-I over exaggerated in my words.

Look, I'm all for poo-pooing dumb words, but that one makes sense.

I understand what you're saying. If you're aiming for a certain "level" of exaggeration and you went over the level of exaggeration that you intended, you "overshot the mark", ergo you "over-exaggerated". So I understand your logic but still disagree.

1. Regardless as to whether you agree with what I'm saying or not, the fact is that is not the context it is used in most often. Most often people just substitute it for "exaggerate". Adding a superfluos word for no reason. I don't think I've ever in my life heard it used in the sense of, "look, I fully intended to exaggerate, but I exaggerated too much".

2. Technically it still makes no sense. "Over" is not the same as "big". "Over" implies that you've gone beyond some limit and it's become something else. There's no "limit" to an exaggeration. A "gross exaggeration" makes perfect sense. As does a "small exaggeration". An "over exaggeration" or "under exaggeration" doesn't make sense. An exaggeration is an exaggeration, period. If you get shot in the face by a bazooka at point blank range it might be an "extreme" way to kill someone. But they didn't "over-die". that makes no sense because "to die" is a binary state, just like "to exaggerate". Neither death nor exaggeration are things that you can "go beyond". You're dead or you're not. You exaggerate or you don't. A whopping huge exaggeration is just that. It's not over exaggerating. And it's not something you can fall-short-of (under) either.

(P.S. yes, I know this is needlessly technically picky and it doesn't really matter - but that's the theme of the thread, so suck it up lads).








Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 The Pig-Faced Orc wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 The Pig-Faced Orc wrote:

"Irregardless" is not a word you ignorant hethen. It's "regardless".

"Irregardless" drives me batty, but is also accepted by dictionaries and has been in use for 200 years or so now. As with some Americans saying that they 'could care less', I've come to accept that some language usage is just silly, but there's nothing that can actually be done to stop people doing it, so to just roll with it.

Yes, just another example of how if enough people say something wrong over and over again, it becomes right.

"Over exaggerate" is another one that annoys me. That at worst makes no sense and at best is superfluous. It's only signalling that speaker doesn't know what the word "exaggerate" means. But it is also now accepted in many dictionaries. Speaking of dice and die, to "exaggerate" is like to be dead. You're either doing it or not. There's no such thing as being "over dead". It makes no sense, just like over-exaggerate.

I exaggerate something for effect.
But I went too far-I over exaggerated in my words.

Look, I'm all for poo-pooing dumb words, but that one makes sense.

Indeed. Time for an example...

Imagine you're a manager for a small restaurant. On a normal Friday night, you might have twenty tables in over the course of the evening, plus or minus five.

Exaggerating for effect might mean saying you had thirty or forty tables in - busier than normal, but probably manageable.

Over-exaggerating would be claiming one hundred...

No, that's still exaggerating. It's larger exaggeration relative to the previous one you made, sure. But it's still just an exaggeration. That's what the word means. There's no "limit" to it. It doesn't stop being an exaggeration at 100 tables. Or 10000 tables. Or five-billion-trillion tables. They're all just still exaggerations by the definition of the word.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

stroller wrote:
Apologies if I'm repeating what's already been said...

one die....
two or more dice....
dices... burn them on the stake.....

That said, I suspect that one would have to work quite hard to misunderstand the intent of "roll 1 dice"

Yes, in that context, but not so much "roll the dice".

The fact is it's just adding needless confusion. Maybe it's a tiny bit of confusion, maybe it can be cleared up by implication from the surrounding sentance. It's still unecessary.

 The Pig-Faced Orc wrote:

I understand what you're saying. If you're aiming for a certain "level" of exaggeration and you went over the level of exaggeration that you intended, you "overshot the mark", ergo you "over-exaggerated". So I understand your logic but still disagree.

2. Technically it still makes no sense. "Over" is not the same as "big". "Over" implies that you've gone beyond some limit and it's become something else. There's no "limit" to an exaggeration. A "gross exaggeration" makes perfect sense. As does a "small exaggeration". An "over exaggeration" or "under exaggeration" doesn't make sense. An exaggeration is an exaggeration, period. If you get shot in the face by a bazooka at point blank range it might be an "extreme" way to kill someone. But they didn't "over-die". that makes no sense because "to die" is a binary state, just like "to exaggerate". Neither death nor exaggeration are things that you can "go beyond". You're dead or you're not. You exaggerate or you don't. A whopping huge exaggeration is just that. It's not over exaggerating. And it's not something you can fall-short-of (under) either.

(P.S. yes, I know this is needlessly technically picky and it doesn't really matter - but that's the theme of the thread, so suck it up lads).

I can't follow your logic for the bolded section above. If you're fine with a small exaggeration or a gross exaggeration it follows that an over exaggeration should also be fine, since you're already admitting "exaggeration" is not an absolute and can therefore be qualified. "Over" in this sense just means extreme, which is synonymous with big in context. It's certainly possible to under exaggerate too. If you don't exaggerate enough, you can leave people in doubt as to whether you even intended to exaggerate.

Also the term "overkill" is a thing, so I don't think your bazooka example holds either.

Well, it might be because english is not my first language, but I learnt that "die" is singular and "dice" is plural, and I use it that way.

 The Pig-Faced Orc wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 The Pig-Faced Orc wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 The Pig-Faced Orc wrote:

"Irregardless" is not a word you ignorant hethen. It's "regardless".

"Irregardless" drives me batty, but is also accepted by dictionaries and has been in use for 200 years or so now. As with some Americans saying that they 'could care less', I've come to accept that some language usage is just silly, but there's nothing that can actually be done to stop people doing it, so to just roll with it.

Yes, just another example of how if enough people say something wrong over and over again, it becomes right.

"Over exaggerate" is another one that annoys me. That at worst makes no sense and at best is superfluous. It's only signalling that speaker doesn't know what the word "exaggerate" means. But it is also now accepted in many dictionaries. Speaking of dice and die, to "exaggerate" is like to be dead. You're either doing it or not. There's no such thing as being "over dead". It makes no sense, just like over-exaggerate.

I exaggerate something for effect.
But I went too far-I over exaggerated in my words.

Look, I'm all for poo-pooing dumb words, but that one makes sense.

Indeed. Time for an example...

Imagine you're a manager for a small restaurant. On a normal Friday night, you might have twenty tables in over the course of the evening, plus or minus five.

Exaggerating for effect might mean saying you had thirty or forty tables in - busier than normal, but probably manageable.

Over-exaggerating would be claiming one hundred...

No, that's still exaggerating. It's larger exaggeration relative to the previous one you made, sure. But it's still just an exaggeration. That's what the word means. There's no "limit" to it. It doesn't stop being an exaggeration at 100 tables. Or 10000 tables. Or five-billion-trillion tables. They're all just still exaggerations by the definition of the word.

"How many does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? Hmmmm? A thousand? Ten thousand?? A million?!?!?! HOW MANY DOES IT TAKE?!?!?!?!??!?!"