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.

The Death Ray seems to have an extremely bad way of stating its rules. Depending on how you read it it can have two different meanings. It kind of reminds me of those drawings where you think you see one thing, but if you look at a different angel you see something else.

This leads to the question: How many models can a Death Ray hit? Just the models under the line, or all the models in a unit?

Every Unit underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line.


The "Every model in the unit is hit" interpretation separates the sentence like this:
Every Unit underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in (the unit underneath the line.)
This is where the word "models" is the subject and relates to the phrase "the unit underneath the line".

The "only models under the line" interpretation separates the sentence like this:
Every Unit underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of (models in the unit) underneath the line.
This is where the phrase "models in the unit" is the suject and how it relates to the phrase "underneath the line".

As both ways are gramatically correct I do believe that this question needs a FAQ and quickly.

It does, just so it's not confusing. However I interpret and play it as if it hits 6 models under the line in the 30 man squad. than 6 it is.

It is rather ambiguous.

I strongly suspect that you only hit the models that are directly under the line, but it does need to be FAQ'd to clear things up.

I would assume that if the line falls over a squad of 10 imperial guardsmen and hits 4 of them, and also falls on a squad of 5 space marines and hits 2 of them, the IG unit takes 4 hits to be assigned wherever, the marine squad takes 2 hits to be assigned wherever. It doesn't specifically say that it hits those exact models, since that's a very rare thing in 40k as far as I'm aware, so I think it's the owner's choice. I don't know if this helps because I confess I didn't really understand the question's grammatical query, but those are my thoughts.

Agree with Scary Nerd, that's how I read it and understand it.

The second addition of the phrase "underneath the line" at the end of the rule seals the deal for me - It only hits the number of models it touches per squad. If that last clause was left out then the sentence would read completely differently and the gun would hit every model in the squad. Adding the clause "underneath the line" to the end of the phrase is there to clarify that only the models you can draw a line over are the ones hit. Wound allocation is done as normal by the defending player, as the death ray has no explicit rules detailing otherwise.

The way I initially read it inferred that every model under the line in seperate units (so a 10 man squad gets 2 hits, and a 5 man squad gets 2 hits) that each unit took four hits, but I'm not going to lie, I only read it twice.

Scarey Nerd and Tetrisphreak are both right.

It is worded weirdly, but it was done specifically to avoid Death Ray becoming another JoTWW. It can't 'snipe' specific models out of a unit because of how it's written.

It would be a little OP if you could hit 230 ork boyz with 230 S10 hits (just a little OP)

Rex-Nine wrote:It would be a little OP if you could hit 230 ork boyz with 230 S10 hits (just a little OP)

With the Death Ray's maximum length, you can only really hit about 18, seeing as a standard base is 1" long.

Scarey Nerd wrote:

Rex-Nine wrote:It would be a little OP if you could hit 230 ork boyz with 230 S10 hits (just a little OP)

With the Death Ray's maximum length, you can only really hit about 18, seeing as a standard base is 1" long.

No I meant that if the rule did read that "Every model in the unit is hit" Every Unit underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in (the unit underneath the line.)
This is where the word "models" is the subject and relates to the phrase "the unit underneath the line". That would be OP.
I agree with Scary Nerd and Hereticdave on this one, only hits whats under the line.

It will most likely be an errata and not a FAQ ruling, but as written, unfortunately, it states that every model in the unit is counted.

"Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line"

From a purely grammatical standpoint, the rule is that all of the models in the unit suffer the hit. Completely ridiculous and overpowered, and probably not what was intended; the sentence has an unnecessary extra condition.

The rule should read:
"Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models underneath the line"

As stated, "Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line", seems to explicitly indicate that every model in the unit is counted, not just those models under the line.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looking at the effusive description of the unit and its high point cost actually leads me to believe that it was intended as an overpowered 'one shot' unit. The fact that the line has a variable length, and a 12" range, and the vehicle is a 'soft' target, means that it will be easily shot down after it delivers its payload.

It may be actually written as intended.

What the hell are you people talking about? There is no way to read it that the entire unit is hit. This is, for once, perfectly clear English.

The only way to interpret this as meaning the whole unit is to assume that the last "underneath the line" is somehow restating which "unit" we are talking about. That's clearly unnecessary, there's only one subject "unit" in the sentence (despite the plural).

The rules of grammar in fact indicate just the opposite, that "number of models in the unit under the line" is a qualifier addressing the second subject of the sentence, the "number of hits", which shall be equal to that number of models.

Nevermind that this works exactly like every single other template we have seen, and replicates a line effect we've seen at least twice before.

This is classic "depends upon what the definition of 'is' is" stuff.

It's like people who want to read the second amendment so that it applies only to the army and police. You're purposefully twisting the wording to generate results that are nonsensical.

There's no ambiguity here. It doesn't need to be FAQ'd, probably won't. You know what the rule means just fine, you just want to play stupid games with the wording.

There are real rules issues, things that are actually ambiguous people, that really do need to be sussed out and need clarification. This is not one of them.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:What the hell are you people talking about? There is no way to read it that the entire unit is hit. This is, for once, perfectly clear English.

Obviously false statement is false. This needs an FAQ because the wording, as much as you say it isn't, is kludgy. There have been many variations posted in various threads that are far moreclear.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:What the hell are you people talking about? There is no way to read it that the entire unit is hit. This is, for once, perfectly clear English.

If the English is so perfectly clear why oh why are there 2 different and equally grammatically correct interpretations with the English?

All I want to say is that when I read the rules of the death ray I completely understood what it meant the first time I read it. I wasn't confused about it or thought it was "kludgy". Mostly because, grammatically correct or not, you have to think of it in a game balance perspective as well. A little bit of common sense and comprehension go a long way to figuring out what a rule is actually supposed to say. And in this case, I think this is a rules dispute that has gone completely awry and it is ludicrous to think you'd hit a whole squad just because you hit one guy. "Maybe" if it was str 3 Ap - then I'd see it being arguable, but the fact it's horrendously powerful already should lend credence to the fact that there is no way it should operate any other way than what is written and intended. Which is: Number of hits equals number of models from that unit that was touched by the line.

Saiisil wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:What the hell are you people talking about? There is no way to read it that the entire unit is hit. This is, for once, perfectly clear English.

If the English is so perfectly clear why oh why are there 2 different and equally grammatically correct interpretations with the English?

because a lot of people dont know how to read english very well.

A lot of the calls for FAQs arent needed, just that readers dont understand what is written, thats their fault not gws.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:What the hell are you people talking about? There is no way to read it that the entire unit is hit. This is, for once, perfectly clear English.

The only way to interpret this as meaning the whole unit is to assume that the last "underneath the line" is somehow restating which "unit" we are talking about. That's clearly unnecessary, there's only one subject "unit" in the sentence (despite the plural).

The rules of grammar in fact indicate just the opposite, that "number of models in the unit under the line" is a qualifier addressing the second subject of the sentence, the "number of hits", which shall be equal to that number of models.

Nevermind that this works exactly like every single other template we have seen, and replicates a line effect we've seen at least twice before.

This is classic "depends upon what the definition of 'is' is" stuff.

It's like people who want to read the second amendment so that it applies only to the army and police. You're purposefully twisting the wording to generate results that are nonsensical.

There's no ambiguity here. It doesn't need to be FAQ'd, probably won't. You know what the rule means just fine, you just want to play stupid games with the wording.

There are real rules issues, things that are actually ambiguous people, that really do need to be sussed out and need clarification. This is not one of them.

Nope.

It says the .... the number of models IN THE UNIT UNDERNEATH THE LINE. Not the number of models underneath the line. It's clearly indicating that that entire unit is being hit, otherwise the 'in the unit' would have been omitted.

The UNIT is being modified by underneath the line, not Models.

You can either choose to interpret it as a grammatical oversight, or as a very powerful rule; but as written, it's saying that everyone gets punched in the face.

Saiisil wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:What the hell are you people talking about? There is no way to read it that the entire unit is hit. This is, for once, perfectly clear English.

If the English is so perfectly clear why oh why are there 2 different and equally grammatically correct interpretations with the English?

There's not. You guys are frankly making stuff up. It's ok, you have good company, so did Bill Clinton.

junk wrote:It says the .... the number of models IN THE UNIT UNDERNEATH THE LINE. Not the number of models underneath the line. It's clearly indicating that that entire unit is being hit, otherwise the 'in the unit' would have been omitted.

And if it were omitted then you would cause as many hits as there were total models under the line from ALL units and not just the unit in question.

I read it as Scary Nerd states.

What the rule says ...
Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line.

What the rule should say ...
Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the fine suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models underneath the line, in that unit.

or for the other reading ...
Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the fine suffers a hit for every model in that unit.

Trouble is from a purely grammatical stand point the original rule points to both options ... from a practical point it takes a lot less writing to say every one is hit. Which is why i think you only hit the models under the line ...

... but then why not just put ...
"For every model under the line, the unit they belong to suffers a hit"
... >_<

I can see points being valid but im leaning more in-line with Junk. After reading it it sounds like everyone in the unit is hit, thats just me, but also know that im really looking forward to using this necron army and so I may be a bit biased. Anyways, the Doom Scythes are very vulnerable with no quantum shielding and only AV 11, so its balanced out in some ways.

There's already a Spanish GW FAQ on this. It's the number of models under the line. The number of models in the unit never comes into play.

Doom Scythe fires.
It's line Crosses three models in a 10 man scout squad, two in a 10 man tactical squad, and one in a 10 man assault squad.

How many hits are inflicted?
A) 10 hits on each.
B) 6 hits on each.
C) 3 on scout, 2 on tactical, 1 on assault.

Which one of those makes the most sense with the wording?
I think C.

-Matt

zacharia wrote:
because a lot of people dont know how to read english very well.

A lot of the calls for FAQs arent needed, just that readers dont understand what is written, thats their fault not gws.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

There's not. You guys are frankly making stuff up. It's ok, you have good company, so did Bill Clinton.

Which it seems the two of you don't have an in depth understanding of the functionality of English as a written language. Lets use the word Equal out of the rule for example, the meaning it portrays in a sentence changes depending on the form it is used, now in this rule can we clearly say it is an Adjective, a Noun, or a Verb? If it is an Adjective then what you are suggesting is the most correct answer but then what does an adjective do? it modifies a noun, what down is Equal in front of or behind directly to be modified? Hits in this sentence is a verb so that isn't being modified and To is being used in one of 2 forms, Preposition or Adverb, which form will be clearer depending on the usage of Equal. Now back to the word of example, it is clear that with it's surrounding words Equal isn't an Adjective so lets look at the other two possibilities, if it is a noun it doesn't really provide closure one way or the other to this debate because the structure of the rest of the sentence, if used as a verb then it leads to the belief of every model within the unit because the unit itself is under the line even if just by 1 model. If you want I can actually do a word for word breakdown of the sentence and by doing so show how badly this sentence was written.

Saiisil wrote:

zacharia wrote:
because a lot of people dont know how to read english very well.

A lot of the calls for FAQs arent needed, just that readers dont understand what is written, thats their fault not gws.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

There's not. You guys are frankly making stuff up. It's ok, you have good company, so did Bill Clinton.

Which it seems the two of you don't have an in depth understanding of the functionality of English as a written language. Lets use the word Equal out of the rule for example, the meaning it portrays in a sentence changes depending on the form it is used, now in this rule can we clearly say it is an Adjective, a Noun, or a Verb? If it is an Adjective then what you are suggesting is the most correct answer but then what does an adjective do? it modifies a noun, what down is Equal in front of or behind directly to be modified? Hits in this sentence is a verb so that isn't being modified and To is being used in one of 2 forms, Preposition or Adverb, which form will be clearer depending on the usage of Equal. Now back to the word of example, it is clear that with it's surrounding words Equal isn't an Adjective so lets look at the other two possibilities, if it is a noun it doesn't really provide closure one way or the other to this debate because the structure of the rest of the sentence, if used as a verb then it leads to the belief of every model within the unit because the unit itself is under the line even if just by 1 model. If you want I can actually do a word for word breakdown of the sentence and by doing so show how badly this sentence was written.

I understand the English language, and grammar, quite well, thank you. It is possible for a sentence to be ambiguous, but it's actually fairly hard.

There are rules for what an "it" in any sentence refers to as the subject. In most cases, it's the simply the last defined subject. ("subject" here means a specific noun)

If you understand those rules, there is no ambiguity, it's actually a surprisingly clear rule as far GW goes. Those who are reading it to mean other than the obvious are either bad at grammar, or, as I think more likely, misreading it on purpose.

Think of it this way: The sentence has an obvious, first glance meaning, right? Enough so that you have to take pains to explain any alternative meaning, right? Well , that initial meaning is actually the only technically correct one, if you follow the strict rules of grammar. It's not a coincidence.

I saw a panda gangster in a restaurant the other day. After finishing a big plate of bamboo, she shot the waiter and left.

Funny thing about that panda gangster. It eats shoots and leaves.



The purpose of that little bit was that English actually is one of the most difficult, ambiguous and kerfuffled befuddled languages out there, between the homophones, heteronyms and multi-part-of-speech words it's a wonder that anyone knows what anyone else is talking about.

When I first read the rule, I thought it meant that, barring the roll of Strength against Toughness, entire units would get wiped out if even one of them was touched. And I thought that was awesome. It's a Death Ray. It kills stuff, and it kills stuff good.

Then someone mentioned that it might mean, and probably does mean, that only the number of models under the line are hit. And honestly? I'd never even thought of that possibility. 40K is about insane weapons and such, and having a weapon of that power would mean that anyone facing a Necron army woudl have completley different setups, and that model would be the target of every single Str 5 and up weapon in the list.

So, basically, you could have it one way, and have a balanced, fluffy model with an interesting weapon, that'd be great in tourneys and such. Or you could have a cheesily overpowered weapon on an underpriced model that would cause rampant devestation and utter havoc with the enemy deployment and movement, would probably be dis-allowed in Tourneys, but would be a blast between friends in friendly games or Apoc.

And apparently the Spanish codex, with its different grammatical rules, is unequivicably the former, un-funner one, that's just a basic line weapon.

I, too, read it originally as number of hits equal to the number of models in the (unit under the line), IE, if it was a unit of 10, the unit would take ten hits. Number of hits equal to the number of (models in the unit under the line) sounds much more balanced, and makes the sentence sound a bit less redundant.

The pic may be an indicator as well. It shows a BIG straight blast coming out, not a zig zagging line goin from one trooper to the next. So it probably is just the models under the line that get hit.