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.

So...here's something that came up in another thread. NOTE: this is strictly RAW, so let's leave out the "spirit of the game" for now.

The Armour Piercing special rule is defined thusly-

"Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

Which, I believe, means you could also say-

"A model with this special rule (or is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier on wounds caused in close combat."

Continuing on...-

"If a model has a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are Armour Piercing."

Now, when this sentence says the attacks or shots are "...Armour Piercing...", we should be able to insert the definition of the term (and my rearranged one) in its place, right? So-

"...only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon inflict a further -1 armour save modifier on wounds caused in close combat..."

Which means...ranged weapons don't benefit from the Armour Piercing rule...ever.

Now. Someone prove me wrong. And again, let's keep the RAI out of the discussion for now. This is a matter of grammar and of logic.

"Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

does not equal

"A model with this special rule (or is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier on wounds caused in close combat."

The first one could include missle weapons in the words between the (), the second one does not.

In the first:
- Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule
- (or is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule)

are separate statements that can get: inflict a further -1 .

armour save modifier...

In your attempted rephrasing, you are applying the close combat requirement to both phrases, or:

- A model with this special rule
- (or is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) i

both: nflict a further -1 armour save modifier on wounds caused in close combat.

This sentence:

"If a model has a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are Armour Piercing."

Instead of inserting your definition, if you simply insert "Cause -1 to Armor Saves" it works just fine. They are using "Armor Piercing" as an adjective, not as a noun (even though it is capitalized).

The other way results in a sentence that refers to ranged attacks in close combat, which doesn't work. So even RAW (leaving out intended as you suggest) the only way that works is to assume "Armor Piercing" used as an adjective is referring to the -1 to armor effect that it causes.

I am making that distinction because it's the only way to have it make sense. Otherwise, the sentence makes no sense.

But this is a hard one to justify RAW, they clearly used some clumsy wording... however, if you bring the example into it (which mentions DE crossbows, right?) it probably helps the case for ranged weapons with AP getting to use their AP. I don't have the book in front of me, so if you could quote the example language as well, it could be helpful.

Okay, for one thing, it looks like the guy who originally quoted this left out a "who" in the first sentence (already corrected), which makes it better.

I agree with both of you, but I'm not 100% sold just yet.

@Sleepysnagrund: I understand what you're saying, but I don't think what I did was grammatically incorrect. Here's another way to do it (I think):

"Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

Equals

1- "Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."
2- "Wounds caused in close combat by a model who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

See what I mean?

@RiTides: Does rendering a sentence nonsensical make it automatically not count? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything; I really am curious.
If I'm right that Armour Piercing only works in close combat, a ranged weapon would incur the extra -1 to wounds caused in close combat, which never occur, so the rule never comes up.

The example in the BRB is of a "S4 hit" with Armour Piercing. So...no real clarification there. And...I feel like the name of the rule "Armour Piercing" is an adjective, so you can use it like one, but you can also refer to it as a rule, and then it's a noun. Bottom line: I think that you should be able to insert all of the initial definition into a reference of it.

...though why GW mentions a rule to clarify itself is beyond me.

Warpsolution,

The easiest way to fix that sentence is to just remove the brackets and put in commas. "Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule, or one who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule, inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

Equals

1- "Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."
2- "Wounds caused by a model attacking with a weapon that has this special rule inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

In the terms of the rulebook, the verb "attacking" can be applied to both shooting and close combat, which is why the distinction is made. For your explanation to be correct it would have to read "Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

It fixes the sentence by changing the rule.

The parenthetical statement cannot modify the original statement, just add explanation - so the intial condition of attacking in close combat still applies.

@Cirronimbus: Isn't the sentence you have there as the one I'd need to justify my claim...the one in the rule book?

I'm going to agree with Nosferatu on this one. I think that, to allow Armour Piercing with ranged weapons, the rule should be something like:

"A model with this special rule (or a model who is attacking with a weapon with this special rule) that causes wounds in close combat or in the shooting phase inflicts a further -1 armour save modifier..."

It's still a little awkward, since you have to make sure that Fireball can't be AP and so on, but even this probably has weird exceptions.
Really, we give GW a lot of crap for confusing/incomplete/redundant/incorrect writing, but...even with more people on their editorial team...it's a lot of text to go over, and a pretty exacting standard.

8th is a LOT tighter written, and their FAQ attitude a lot better, compared to 7th and preceding editions.

Fireball couldnt gain AP - it's in neither of the listed phases

I just took out the word "attacking" in that sentence, which I think is the clincher. Attacking doesn't just happen in the close combat phase, it also happens in the shooting phase (and indirectly in the magic phase). So if you said you were attacking a model with a weapon, it could be either a ranged attack or a close combat attack and it would still be called "attacking with x", where x could be a longbow, a great weapon, a throwing axe, etc. So you have "armor piercing wounds in close combat" and "attacking with a weapon that has armor piercing" as both causing "-1 armor save".

I think your sentence is a little better than the one in the rulebook for clearing up any confusion. While they're both awkward to read, I don't think either is wrong (save for maybe an unnecessary use of paranthesis) and they're both saying the same thing.

Grammatically speaking, they don't say the same thing, though. As Nosferatu said, parenthetical statements cannot modify the original statement, just add explanation.

The word "attacking" can mean both, but the phrase specifically says "in close combat".

Everything in the parentheses is just a further clarification of the rest of the statement, which means that (1) a model with this rule inflicts an additional -1 with wounds cause in close combat, and (2) a model attacking with a melee or ranged weapon with this rule inflicts an additional -1 with wounds cause in close combat.

So...the second half of the second situation is nonsensical, which means its disregarded. RAW, you don't change a rule until it makes sense. You just follow it. If you can't, you ignore it.

But the subject of the sentence is the model, not the wounds in close combat.

"Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

So it's 1.- the model itself has the special rule and if so the attacks in close combat only are armor piercing, and 2.- the model is using a weapon that has the special rule, and attacks made with the weapon are armor piercing. It's not modifying the beginning of the sentence because the information in the parentheses is additional with regards to the subject only.

Perhaps my view is tainted by RAI, but I don't see anything grammatically/logically wrong with the way it is.

If you remove the parenthesis you get:

"Wounds caused in close combat by a model who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule"

It still specifies "in close combat" - that part cannot change. Meaning, if it is a ranged attack, it is ignored.

RAI is "easy", in that we know ranged AP should do *something* - however it is still a gross assumption that requires entirely altering the wording of the rule in order to make it fit that assumption.

It's funny. Earlier last night, I was flipping through the BRB, remembered the razor banner question, and paid particularly close attention to how things were worded. To me, it suddenly became clear and simple, and I marveled at how I USED to think the opposite of what I am sure now is the correct interpretation of RAW.

"Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

This sentence applies the -1 armor save effect to two possible scenarios in which the armor piercing rule could be applied.

1. If a MODEL has the armor piercing rule, you apply the -1 save modifier to close combat attacks.

2. If a WEAPON has the armor piercing rule, you apply the -1 save modifer to attacks made by that weapon.

So if my model has the armor piercing rule (through whatever means) and no special dispensation is expressly given to extend that rule to any other form of attack, I will only invoke the special rule on close combat attacks.

If I have a ranged weapon or war machine or some other special weapon that has the special rule, I only apply the save modifier on attacks made by that weapon in the appropriate phase.

Again, unless there is a special explicit declaration in the model's or weapon's description (or in that of the item or spell conferring the Armor Piercing effect) I do not see any support in RAW to extend that effect from one to the other in either direction. The fact that it outlines two specific scenarios like it does is a clear indication that there's an intentional gap there, imo.

Strelka - except that isnt how the sentence is constructed. The items in a parenthesis, according to the rules of English (muddled as they are) are not allowed to modifiy the statement, only provide explanation.

So, no matter what you may THINK you can deconstruct the sentence to, the "in close combat" section applies to all. Which is nonsense, but that is because GW cannot write for toffee.

Hmm I think staying with rules of WFB is safer than even attempting to try to gives rules to English, much more debates there I would think

Strelka wrote:It's funny...

What's a little funnier is that everything you just said was my very first post in the original Razor Banner discussion. Took a little bit to sink in?

I hate to be a rules lawyer- but everyone needs to stop with the "remote the parenthesis" "add this comma" "swap these words" etc.
Read the sentence EXACTLY as it is written following appropriate rules of sentence structure.

While it is not a well written statement, it is correct.

The phrase within the parenthesis applies specifically to the model, not close combat.
+++
"Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armour save modifier..."

Statements within a parenthesis apply to the subject (the model), not the wounds.

Example;
An apple was bought by Bob (though Bob really preferred oranges) with the intent to be eaten later.

It's poor English, but the meaning of the sentence is correct. The statement in the parenthesis applies only to Bob, not the apple and not his intent to eat the apple.



Read correctly, the AP sentence;
Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule or a model who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule, inflict a further -1 armour save modifier...

The specification is made regarding a model making AP attacks in close combat and a model just making attacks with an AP weapon without a distinction of being in close combat or not.

So the REAL questions;
1. Does this mean that shooting attacks made from a model with the AP special rule do not benefit from the AP rule unless the weapon specifically has it.
2. Does shooting specifically count as attacks or not?
3. AP only works with wounds caused, automatic armour saves to avoid a wound does not work, the wound has to be caused before the armour save to apply the penalty.


What does work;
1. close combat attacks, regardless if it is from the model's AP rule or a weapon's AP rule.
2. Possibly shooting attacks made with an AP weapon, but not from a model with the rule.

You are incorrectly removing "Wounds caused in close combat" from the "or", which the sentence does not allow you to do.

Your reading is wrong, in other words.

Kirbinator wrote:

Strelka wrote:It's funny...

What's a little funnier is that everything you just said was my very first post in the original Razor Banner discussion. Took a little bit to sink in?

I lost the focus of that thread after a while, because it got a little heated and circular in some cases. I originally went into it with the belief that it'd apply to ranged and CC (like the Eternal Flame banner), then was made unsure by the early posts in the Razor Banner thread, then got confused by the going back and forth. Then last night, I was refreshing my memory on another rule, saw "Armor Piercing" and looked at it with more critical eyes. By then, this thread was made. So yeah, I guess it took a while to sink in. But then again, there's been a very high signal to noise ratio about this rule... even in the rulebook.

And Nos, I've never been taught that parenthetical asides can't alter a statement. The only hard and fast rule I know off the top of my head is that parentheses are used to set apart information that is structurally independent from the rest of the statement (APA Style Guide). I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that by my understanding of it is different and that your interpretation doesn't seem quite right to me.

If I were a robot (which I've been accused of in the past), I would easily be able to parse this:

IF (($attack = "model with AP" && $attackType = "Close Combat") OR ($attack = "weapon with AP")) {

$saveModifier = -1;

}

Syntax errors notwithstanding, that is a pretty literal and faithful parsing of the RAW.

But, any interpretation that people have is going to run into two issues that we can't get away from by repeating our arguments. One camp feels that the "wounds in close combat" is structurally tied to the parenthetical aside, and that any attempt to take the weapon OUT of close combat it rewriting the rules. The other camp feels that the weapon is independent from the close combat statement by nature of it being specifically pulled aside.

To really test it, I think you'll have to force a logic fault.

- Can we find a ranged weapon or war machine with the AP rule? If so, then the purpose of the rule becomes pretty clear, as you can't have shooting wounds in Close Combat (as far as I know - aren't pistols declared hand weapons in CC?).
- Can we find a mention in the BRB declaring shooting attacks to be "attacks" themselves, without the "shooting" modifier tacked on the front? This won't be a death blow to the argument, but it'll show that there's a possibility where RAW is just a poor implementation of trying to cover all the bases.

It's an interesting argument. Sorry if I'm just throwing fuel on the fire.

So, I think I can respond to this relatively intelligently:

- First, Isn't it true that "attacks" don't change armour saves at all? Wounds do, right?

- I'm not sure if this solves anything, but I'd imagine that, if wounds are the only things that can modify armour, the phrase "or who is attacking with a weapon with this special rule...inflicts a further -1..." doesn't make any sense.

- Now, I'm not going back on what I said before; an illogical rule doesn't mean its wrong. It means you have to ignore it. So, if people are correct in assuming that "Wounds in close combat" doesn't apply to the section on weapons, then AP wouldn't work on weapons at all.

- On the note of whether or not the parentheses modify the statement (because this is where the main argument and answer lie, it seems): language is mutable and always changing, blah blah blah. Can any offer proof in any way?

- @ In_Theory: I don't think that sentence proves your point. For one, it's set up very differently, so a comparison is already kind of hard. For the other, I would have to say this:

So it applies to the subject, "model", not "wounds". So...the phrase about wounds is not modified or changed at all. We learn that (1) a model with this special rule-the non-parenthetical statement-and (2) a model attacking with a weapon with this special rule-the parenthetical statement-inflict a -1 to armour saves when they cause wounds in close combat. Right?

- Finally, I'll just point this out real quick now: we can find missile weapons with AP. That shows us what GW intended. But that's not what we're discussing right now.

Strelka - you still have to retain the initial "wounds in close combat" section, as all you do is exchange in the statement in the parenthesis for "who" in the statement; this does not remove the initial setting that states this deals with "wounds in close combat"

As stated: we can guess the intention, which is that Armour Piercing ranged weapons are meant to actually do something, but that was a) acknowledged in the first post, and subsequent posts and b) isnt the point of this thread.

The point of the thread is that the setence does NOT parse in a way that removes the "in close combat" requirement from the ranged weapon statement in the parentheses. As such the rule is, technically, nonsensical - it stupiulates a condition that can never be fulfilled

As such ranged AP does not work, strictly, according to the rules as written.

It is interesting that we have arrived at the same end result as the other thread (a unit taking the razor banner with ranged weapons does not gain ranged AP), even if it is by different means. Obviously, this RAW-reading applies more broadly, but the effect on the unit taking the banner would be the exact same.

I'll admit that I got a little confused about the point of the thread and focused more on trying to make sense of a rule in order to put it to practical use than on examining it on a purely structural basis.

I still think that the rigid application of "wounds caused in close combat" to the beginning of the parenthetical smells a bit like loopholing to me, but I will concede that it is probably more "correct" if you accept the assumption set out in the original post.

I did just shoot off an email to GW asking for a ruling on both issues (AP in general and Razor Standard), just for giggles. Assuming they actually respond to rules questions with something more than an form letter, I'll share the results. Obviously, it doesn't really relate to initial point of this thread since it's more of a clarification than an analysis of sentence structure, but it might be interesting in its own right.

RiTides - the trouble is the conclusion is also that ranged AP just never works, at least not according to the rules.

Same conclusion from your side, slightly more worrying reasoning here though!

lawl. that was quick...

Ask Your Question <askyourquestion@games-workshop.com> to me
11:14am

This email address is currently inactive; please check for updates on our website for options that may be available in the future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if it seems that I'm pedantic and stuffy about this, it's because I do web and database development for a living. If I come across something that's flawed like this, it's a problem that needs fixing, and I have a hard time stepping back and enjoying it for its inherent flaws.

Dont we all

The fix is fairly obvious, to be honest. The main purpose was to make sure it NEEDED fixing.

And you think you're pedantic? I'm an IT Auditor for a living. We are true pedants, as we're paid to be

nosferatu1001 wrote:RiTides - the trouble is the conclusion is also that ranged AP just never works, at least not according to the rules.

Same conclusion from your side, slightly more worrying reasoning here though!

Agreed . Ripe for a GW FAQ fix... We can only hope!

I see you point but that's being idiotic. Otherwise why give crossbows armor piercing?

I'd literally stop playing if someone pulled that.

...did you read my first post? All of it?

This is a RAW discussion. A brain exercise. That's it.

Look through the posts. Look for one person who said "sweet, now my games against Dark Elf players will go better".

We're all just tossing around what is technically true. But we never wavered from our decision to assume that, though the rule says one thing, we'll play another-the way its intended.

...I admit I may have jumped the gun here. If you understood all of the above, and were just having a laugh at GW's writing, then please, IGNORE ME.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMNJuSl91qY

RiTides wrote:
Ripe for a GW FAQ fix... We can only hope!

You know what I find annoying is that we have debated this AP issue (and that of the banner) for so long and the FAQ will most likely be a simple one word answer, I will feel a little cheated if GW don't offer a more substantial answer than "yes/no".