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.

Wording for the wargear...

'At the start of the enemy assault phase, roll a d3 and nominate an enemy unit. If the enemy unit attempts to assault the Cryptek, or his unit, reduce their assault move by the result of the d3 for that phase.'

Now, my question is this:

is it A)

Roll a d3.
See the result.
THEN nominate

or B)

Nominate an enemy unit
Roll a d3

I'll admit the difference would be situational in the extreme - you'd have to have two units close to assaulting yours, one being closer than the other... but being able to roll a 1" and deny the farther vs. rolling a 3" and denying the closer could be the difference in preventing an assault.

I'd argue that they occur simultaneously.

Since this is obviously impossible, I'd rule that you nominate a unit and then roll the d3 as that does not gain you any advantage, whereas doing it the other way around potentially does.

That said, the phrasing is significantly vague enough (shocker!) that you could play it either way.

I would say RaW and RaI the order is, Roll a D3, nominate an enemy unit, and then reduce the assault move by the D3. I really don't think there is anything vague at all about how it's worded. The wording practically gives the order to you.

Think of it as the Cryptek creating the earthquake, deciding how powerful it is, and then shooting it off at the enemy unit based on how powerful it is.

I agree, this rule is very straightforward. You roll and then nominate, just like the rule says. I think this rule is one of those litmus tests to determine if a person is just malevolently trying to rules lawyer a Xenos ability into nothing.

You roll then nominate, the "then" is implied

That's how I read it as well. I just want second opinions for when a John Doe rules nazi tries to call me on it.

both happen simultaneously, as Nosferatu pointed out you are adding an imaginary 'then' into the sentence.

The wording provides an explicit time for when you do things. That being 'at the start of the assault phase' There is no more timing information given. Therefore you must assume that it applies to both, and thus simultaneously. That said this is physically impossible in the game rules, one must be physically done first, so how do we resolve this? Well nominating a unit does not change the outcome of the die roll, but the outcome of the die roll could change which unit you nominate. Since they happen simultaneously they should not influence each other. Ergo, nominate and then roll.


That said, allow me to elaborate on the wording:

I hand you an apple and an orange. <- Apple and orange are handed to you at the same time

I hand you an apple and then an oranage. <-- Apple first then orange.

The ruling falls into the first category. Just a thought, you're of course free to interpret it however you wish (Matt Ward needs someone checking his work...)

We have words like "simultaneously" (see how it's a complicated, multiple syllable word coming form the Latin (or Greek) roots?) to specify the fairly special case when two things happen at the same time.

Otherwise, the language is sequential by default.

It says roll a d3 and nominate. Those things are in order, one after another. It's not complicated.

If they wanted to deny you the ability to pick after rolling, they would say "nominate and roll". Which still wouldn't be simultaneous, but would have the same game effect. They didn't, and they assume you know how to read English.

I see a lot of "misreading things on purpose" around here. This is one of the most blatant cases. Stop it.

and is symmetric. It always has been, both logically and systematically.

You can do this and that, or that and this and it means the exact same thing.

This is a matt ward codex, have you read the rest of it? It self-contradicts in a number of places, never mind huge vague broad-reaching rules that can be interpreted in many different ways.


By your definition you break Boolean logic btw. If a and b =/= b and a then you fundamentally change how not only computers would function, but most logical reasoning as well.

If there is an apple and an orange on a table is the EXACT same situation as an orange and an apple on a table.

You're the one implying sequence. By your logic in the above example the apple exists on the table before the orange.

That said, between the two of us reading things to gain an advantage it is you trying to gain the advantage of knowing the result of the d3 prior to nominating, not me.

I didn't misread anything, you're the one fishing for a benefit that logically does not exist.

WanderingFox wrote:and is symmetric. It always has been, both logically and systematically.

You can do this and that, or that and this and it means the exact same thing.

This is a matt ward codex, have you read the rest of it? It self-contradicts in a number of places, never mind huge vague broad-reaching rules that can be interpreted in many different ways.


By your definition you break Boolean logic btw. If a and b =/= b and a then you fundamentally change how not only computers would function, but most logical reasoning as well.

If there is an apple and an orange on a table is the EXACT same situation as an orange and an apple on a table.

You're the one implying sequence. By your logic in the above example the apple exists on the table before the orange.

That said, between the two of us reading things to gain an advantage it is you trying to gain the advantage of knowing the result of the d3 prior to nominating, not me.

I didn't misread anything, you're the one fishing for a benefit that logically does not exist.

Hey, guess what? The English language doesn't use Boolean operators! Would you like to know why? Because we require context in our language in order to derive meaning. That's why we don't just speak in terms of "car gas location": Because it is impossible to tell if you are inquiring as to where you can get gas for your car, where your gas for your car already is, where it's going to be, when your car had gas, et cetera. So do not even try to use that substitution fallacy here.

In English, we read from left to right. Unless there is a qualifier to tell us otherwise, left comes before right. "Roll a D3 and nominate a unit" can be read in the same order as "remove your pants and take a ".

Why don't you tell me which one comes first in that sentence? Or perhaps you think they happen at the same time? Go ahead, misread that one. I dare you.

*points at the phrase "start of the enemy's assault phase"*

^ there's the context you're omitting in order to make your point function.

The rule explicitly states a single instant in time.

Also, it's worth noting that modern vernacular of English is stupidly broken, and that the general spoken word is rarely proper. Your quote should read "remove your pants and then take..."

You make a valid point about general assumptions of the language. That said, I still stand by the point that anyone fishing for the die roll prior to nominating is doing just that. Fishing for a benefit.

On that note, from a fluff standpoint it makes no sense to do it the other way around... How can something generate an effect and THEN apply it to a unit. That's like me firing a rifle and then deciding where to aim it.

edit:

Another example... If I were to tell you to pick up milk and eggs at the store, when you got there would you always get the milk first and then the eggs? No, I thought not...

Roll the dice with a flourish, and nominate the unit who you are affecting while the dice are still in the air. Boom. You've done both at the same time!

WanderingFox wrote: Another example... If I were to tell you to pick up milk and eggs at the store, when you got there would you always get the milk first and then the eggs? No, I thought not...

Generally I wouldn't care either way, because I would not think the order would make any difference. However, in a context where the order of operations does have a direct effect on the outcome, then I would most certainly pick up milk first and eggs second. So your example is still not really the proper context. A better example would be "stop the car and get out", wherein the order in which the actions are performed will most definitely have an effect on the outcome.

As to the fluff of how this makes sense in the context of the seismic effect, I don't think of it like shooting a rifle before aiming. I think of it more like charging up the staff to determine how strong the effect will be, and then aiming at a target. Like a water balloon: You fill it up before you decide who to throw it at.

What I meant by that context is that its a random result... The cryptek does not have a choice in the power level, and it's a directed effect (ie. it effects a singular unit). How then can he control a random effect so that after it occurs he can then direct it to a specific unit. Short answer, he really can't.


As for the milk and eggs scenario, that was my point. You must assume that order matters. It does not exist by default. The context of the statement tells you which is important. In the case of the power, it states that the list of effects (rolling nominating) occur at the start of the movement phase.

I do believe i said it was vague enough to play either way in my very first post. It really is up to your interpretation.

WanderingFox, you started proving the silliness of your argument when you started bringing up Boolean Operators. Programmers use Boolean operators because English language is not so precise.

Once again, we run against the fact that GW does not, nor seem inclined to try to, use a key-word based system. Warmachine or Magic have a clear order of operations. GW uses a plain language system, and this can be fuzzy.

It's not in this case, though, not at all. The plain language meaning is clear, totally unambiguous. You are reading it wrong on purpose. Really.

BTW, I don't know if you realize it, but your example, "Pick up milk and eggs" is the wrong kind of "and". It's linking two like objects. If you wanted to be pedantic (i.e. programming based) about it, it's a substitution for two separate actions: "pick up milk" and "Pick up eggs". But because they're two related, like actions, and we're not slowed, we state both at the same time. "Pick up both Milk and Eggs"

On the other hand, "stop the car and get out" or "roll d3 and nominate" describe a series (keyword that, "series)")of events, which is a completely different sort of sentence. And it really is "and then", and the then is assumed. In fact, for grammatical purposes, the "then" is actually there.

We do this all the time in English. Assuming "its" and whatnot, chopping of bits of sentences as though they're still there, and we barely notice when we're doing it. It's why I can't think of one of those classic examples right now.

But in any case, the sentence really does read, "roll d3 and then nominate". Really, in both an academic and a practical sense, the "then" is there.

ANd that makes this, I believe, the single worst case of "misreading a rule on purpose" that I have ever seen.

everything you just said was implication. Just pointing that out.

and is and. It's the same three letters. Which one is meant is derived from context and the personal opinion of the one reading it.

I'm not misreading it... it says something and something else.

If anything I'm taking the more conservative interpretation of it.

Again, I'm pretty sure *checks* yes i did say it was vague at the beginning of the thread. I fail to see why you're insistent on trying to prove there is only one interpretation of it when you just admitted yourself that there are multiple meanings of the word.

People speak differently based on as little as the town in which they were born in, let alone the country they live in. On top of the fact that English, in general, is a vague and largely broken language, i'm merely defending the point that there is another entirely proper means of reading that statement.

I'm not insinuating that you can't read it the other way merely been defending that it is not as clear cut as some would be lead to believe.

Also, misreading a rule on purpose provides some sort of benefit to doing so... I play necrons, I gain no advantage for playing it that I nominate first. It's just how I read the rules.

I would also prefer you stop insinuating I'm trying to deny an ability on purpose. It was a simple debate based on an interpretation. You may wish to re-read the tenants of this forum. Specifically those of attacking the poster and the fact that the definition of words is not sufficient in providing a concrete solution by itself.

That's just the thing. It's not an implication, nor is it an ambiguous. The word "then" is omitted, but it is in a very real sense still there. That's a standard part of english, and it's pretty clear to almost everyone.

You are indeed try to deny an ability on purpose, OR you don't understand English very well.

I think this may be useful to you: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm

AND
To suggest that one idea is chronologically sequential to another: "Tashonda sent in her applications and waited by the phone for a response."
To suggest that one idea is the result of another: "Willie heard the weather report and promptly boarded up his house."
To suggest that one idea is in contrast to another (frequently replaced by but in this usage): "Juanita is brilliant and Shalimar has a pleasant personality.
To suggest an element of surprise (sometimes replaced by yet in this usage): "Hartford is a rich city and suffers from many symptoms of urban blight."
To suggest that one clause is dependent upon another, conditionally (usually the first clause is an imperative): "Use your credit cards frequently and you'll soon find yourself deep in debt."
To suggest a kind of "comment" on the first clause: "Charlie became addicted to gambling — and that surprised no one who knew him."

I see it as the Cryptek conjuring this power and then sending it forth to whom he wishes. If I were to go step by step with this rule in a game, id do this before my opponent assaults, roll a dice and pick a unit. If my opponent had a problem with that, id show the rules to him/here and if they still had a problem with that id play it the way they want but know never to play that opponent again.

It absolutely kills the spirit of the game when the game stops being fun.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:That's just the thing. It's not an implication, nor is it an ambiguous. The word "then" is omitted, but it is in a very real sense still there. That's a standard part of english, and it's pretty clear to almost everyone.

You are indeed try to deny an ability on purpose, OR you don't understand English very well.

I think this may be useful to you: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm

AND
To suggest that one idea is chronologically sequential to another: "Tashonda sent in her applications and waited by the phone for a response."
To suggest that one idea is the result of another: "Willie heard the weather report and promptly boarded up his house."
To suggest that one idea is in contrast to another (frequently replaced by but in this usage): "Juanita is brilliant and Shalimar has a pleasant personality.
To suggest an element of surprise (sometimes replaced by yet in this usage): "Hartford is a rich city and suffers from many symptoms of urban blight."
To suggest that one clause is dependent upon another, conditionally (usually the first clause is an imperative): "Use your credit cards frequently and you'll soon find yourself deep in debt."
To suggest a kind of "comment" on the first clause: "Charlie became addicted to gambling — and that surprised no one who knew him."

The part of your source you conveniently omitted.

"Among the coordinating conjunctions, the most common, of course, are and, but, and or. It might be helpful to explore the uses of these three little words. The examples below by no means exhaust the possible meanings of these conjunctions."

It's also worth noting that the section you emboldened is for COMPOUND SENTENCES.

Again tenants of YMDC rule 6.

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.


Finally, contradicting definition:

Dictionary.com

and
   [and; unstressed uhnd, uhn, or, especially after a homorganic consonant, n] Show IPA
conjunction
1.
(used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover: pens and pencils.
2.
added to; plus: 2 and 2 are 4.
3.
then: He read for an hour and went to bed.
4.
also, at the same time: to sleep and dream.
5.
then again; repeatedly: He coughed and coughed.

Oh look it's vague.

Well, I have to agree with WanderingFox. The English language is...well, broken. It is so strange to the point where the word "ghoti" can correctly be pronounced as "fish".

And I think he has a good understanding if English, to the point where he understands how bizarre of a language it is.

If both events are indeed supposed to occur simultaneously at the start of the assault phase then make them happen simultaneously because that is what the rules say to do. Throw your dice in the air and nominate a unit before the dice hits the ground. I think someone already pointed this out. Problem solved.

In game terms, when examining similar rules to this one, things like this are usually done in the order or operations that you nominate X (a unit) and then apply Y (a dice roll). That is just an observation from playing Warhammer and other assorted games a lot. So, using 'context' here in regards to how we understand the English language it could imply that one nominates X and then applies Y.

However, I could see it being the other way around due to how the sentence is worded. If it was supposed to be nominate X and roll Y it should have been written that way, not roll Y and nominate X. It makes more intuitive sense to me this way because if it was intended to be the other way it could just as easily of been worded as such. We can ride the imperfect use of symbols and language into the ground all we want but I don't think it needs to be that complicated...play it how you agree with your local buddies and wait for an official FAQ.

Summary: If you were supposed to nominate a unit and then roll a d3 wouldn't it read: "nominate an enemy unit and roll a d3" instead of "roll a d3 and nominate an enemy unit" like it does? Or is the argument here that the editors goofed up?

If anyone else had written the codex I'd agree with you for the most part...

However, Matt Ward wrote it, and I'm not sure if you're aware or not but there are around 25 incidents of vagueness in the codex that have come to light so far, with more showing up daily...

It's really hard to take their wording as intended when so much of the codex makes no sense the way it's written.

Fair enough.

forruner_mercy wrote:Well, I have to agree with WanderingFox. The English language is...well, broken. It is so strange to the point where the word "ghoti" can correctly be pronounced as "fish".

No, it cannot. George Bernard Shaw intentionally used pronunciation irregularities outside of their context to confuse people in hopes of promoting his campaign to reform the English language. English is primarily context-based; many elements do not function properly without the rest of the setting as a whole. Photi, for example, does not work because the "sh" sound of "ti" only exists in the context of the rest of the word.

The English language is not broken, it is constantly evolving to absorb new words with foreign and exotic origins, that will often create exceptions to existing phonetic rules. An example of a broken language would be proper French, as it has not evolved or absorbed new words in a very long time. It is broken in the sense that it no longer evolves, and the next step is to become a dead language, which could possibly happen in our lifetime as a direct result of its refusal to incorporate new words as culture and technology advance. (colloquialism aside, try to find the word "Internet" in any official government documents.) George Bernard Shaw aimed to have English befall a similar fate, though I doubt there was malice in his intentions; rather a simple naivete and hubris that often seems to accompany Victorian & Edwardian Englishmen.

Now please, do not confuse irregularities in spelling with grammatical rules, because where the former is very dynamic, the latter has remained quite constant for a very long time now.

While I do respect that fact that you've (WanderingFox) attempted to eloquently justify your position, I'm afraid that I just cannot accept the argument that pronunciation and interpretation is based on as little as regionalism. That is a dangerous argument that corrupts language like a cancer. Regional dialects may be distinct, but they are no more correct than a complete substitution. "Chowder" is not spelled "chowdah" just because someone from New England talks like a brain-damaged Kennedy, nor is it spelled or pronounced "shaowdair" because its speaker is a caricature of a French man. Whilst colloquially we accept that pronunciation because we understand the meaning behind it, that does not necessarily make it correct any more than "ur" as a substitution for "you're" or "your".

Now, editorialism aside, I must get back on topic: I believe my previous post identifies clearly which use of the word "and" should be taken in this context: wherein the outcome of the action does not change dependent on the order of operations, you can interpret "and" to mean simultaneous, such as your example of purchasing milk and eggs. However, when the outcome does change based upon the order, we should interpret the order to read in a linear fashion, from left to right, such as my example of stopping the car and getting out. This latter context would be the same as in the Seismic Crucible rule.

I know that you had used the example of firing a gun and then aiming it previously, but I don't view the ability as such. I think of it more as powering up the staff and rolling a D3 to determine the power level, then aiming and unleashing that power. Think of it like *shudder* Dragon Ball Z:

1. Vegeta looks constipated, grunts and sweats for 20 minutes to power up.
2. He shoots a fireball or whatever.

This is the same dynamic as the Seismic Crucible. Therefore, the D3 prior to selecting a target makes sense. Does this add strength to the utility of the skill? Definitely. Is this game-breaking? Not at all.

what use of and is entirely dependent on which was meant by the writer of the codex. You are guessing.

Secondly, the English language is broken. It is impossible to be sufficiently explicit in several cases. It generates, when spoken, phrases that are impossible to interpret properly, and it follows absolutely no consistent rules as to it's structure. There's a reason everyone else on the planet finds English near impossible to learn.

On that as I leave this thread to it's cyclical reasoning on what is obviously a vague issue, my closing words are these:

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

WanderingFox wrote:what use of and is entirely dependent on which was meant by the writer of the codex. You are guessing.

I am inferring. There is a large difference.

WanderingFox wrote:Secondly, the English language is broken. It is impossible to be sufficiently explicit in several cases. It generates, when spoken, phrases that are impossible to interpret properly, and it follows absolutely no consistent rules as to it's structure. There's a reason everyone else on the planet finds English near impossible to learn.

English has a very consistent structure as to its rules; however few people take the time to learn them, and fewer still refuse to allow people to butcher the language. English is one of the easiest languages in the world to learn at a basic level, and of a mid-level difficulty to learn at a superior level. Try Mandarin or Navajo if you're looking for a challenge.

WanderingFox wrote:On that as I leave this thread to it's cyclical reasoning on what is obviously a vague issue, my closing words are these:

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

A grammatically correct sentence that says nothing. There are no more bison in New York, nor could they have ever bullied one another as bison lack the higher order awareness required to be subjected to coercion. So long as a person understands that Buffalo is a location, buffalo is a noun and sometimes a colloquial verb, this is not problematic. No worse than me saying I ate a baked Alaska while baked in Alaska.

WanderingFox wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:That's just the thing. It's not an implication, nor is it an ambiguous. The word "then" is omitted, but it is in a very real sense still there. That's a standard part of english, and it's pretty clear to almost everyone.

You are indeed try to deny an ability on purpose, OR you don't understand English very well.

I think this may be useful to you: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm

AND
To suggest that one idea is chronologically sequential to another: "Tashonda sent in her applications and waited by the phone for a response."
To suggest that one idea is the result of another: "Willie heard the weather report and promptly boarded up his house."
To suggest that one idea is in contrast to another (frequently replaced by but in this usage): "Juanita is brilliant and Shalimar has a pleasant personality.
To suggest an element of surprise (sometimes replaced by yet in this usage): "Hartford is a rich city and suffers from many symptoms of urban blight."
To suggest that one clause is dependent upon another, conditionally (usually the first clause is an imperative): "Use your credit cards frequently and you'll soon find yourself deep in debt."
To suggest a kind of "comment" on the first clause: "Charlie became addicted to gambling — and that surprised no one who knew him."

The part of your source you conveniently omitted.

"Among the coordinating conjunctions, the most common, of course, are and, but, and or. It might be helpful to explore the uses of these three little words. The examples below by no means exhaust the possible meanings of these conjunctions."

It's also worth noting that the section you emboldened is for COMPOUND SENTENCES.

Again tenants of YMDC rule 6.

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.


Finally, contradicting definition:

Dictionary.com

and
   [and; unstressed uhnd, uhn, or, especially after a homorganic consonant, n] Show IPA
conjunction
1.
(used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover: pens and pencils.
2.
added to; plus: 2 and 2 are 4.
3.
then: He read for an hour and went to bed.
4.
also, at the same time: to sleep and dream.
5.
then again; repeatedly: He coughed and coughed.

Oh look it's vague.

Wait, are you trying say "and" has more than one definition? Like almost every other word?

Look, this is a sentence depicting a series of events. There is a silent "then" there, that is a grammatical fact. I tried to find a reference about it with a quick google search, but go ask an English major, mine is in physics.

As Sir_P has put: this isnt an ambiguous sentence. The order of operations is inferred by context.

You roll then nominate

I really have to throw in with Nosferatu, Azazel et al.

You are given two events in a left to right order which cannot occur simultaneously, as such:

You roll, and then you nominate