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.

Happyjew wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Fair enough. So if I could prove that "at this stage" means "during this stage". And "at this stage" is a timeframe. That would convince you?

If the rule said "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit during this stage" that would change your mind?

If you could prove to me with rules, that "at this stage" means "during this stage" without a shadow of doubt, it would convince me. If the rule said "during this stage" I would be on your side.

Note, blue shows up horribly against the dark grey background, that's why I switched it to orange.

I believe the two phrases are synonymous. It's up to us to read the rules using our understanding of English. The only guideline for English comprehension will be outside sources such as dictionary definitions or common usage.

At this time.
At this moment.
At this step.
At this stage.


All of these mean "during" this time, this moment, this stage, this step. The rulebook is not going to say "at this" = "during".

Here, since your not grasping the point Im gona take you to school good sir.
http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/grammar/english_tenses.htm

Page 27 BRB wrote:
Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over.

Here above is the sentence and preceding list accompanying it. The rule itself is doing what?

Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage;

The underlined is our action, we are checking for any save or Special Rule. To disagree is incorrect.

Next, we must figure out the time frame that this check goes on for. This is part your unable to grasp. Allow me to demonstrate.

Unless otherwise specified

, no save or other special rule

can

rescue the unit

at this stage

;

This section tense wise is categorized above as a current-progressive tense word. You may have us but wait, theres the comma. We must continue with the rest of the sentence as its still ongoing!

This word is both a present and future tense word. Its tense is hinged on the words the precede it to put it into its defined tense.

This section frames up the remaining check for the rule. Its written as a Present Perfect tense. This shapes up the rest of the previous tenses throughout the sentence.

http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/grammar/tenses_bild.htm
Now, I know your next logical step to refute this is going to be that the terms of the previously mentioned "Unless otherwise specified" detail is written as future tense in the rules sentence. I simply point you to the remaining sentence. It gives you the items you are otherwise checking for, and the time frame to check for them in. Since the subject matter of check is limited to present-perfect tense, so too is your check per the English language. If you still believe the "Unless otherwise specified" over-rides the the rest of the sentences present tense, your incorrect. The tense of a sentence is one tense, not multiple tenses but only one.

Next your simply going to point out that my second link proves that there is a time frame. "But this denotes that the time frame is from the Sweeping Advance to the end of the game!" This is actually incorrect.

; for them the battle is over.

The extension to the end of the game is cut off by the semi-colon. That list item after it would change this present-perfect tense sentence to a present-progressive tense sentence.
Next point your bring back up is the 'stage' has yet to be outlined. Well, good sir, as it turns out it has been! The grammar of "at this stage" is possessive adjective. What is it it that possesses the 'stage'? The rules for Sweeping Advances. As the rules for Sweeping Advances comes to an end, so too will any checks possessed by the rule as we have previously outlined the established timeline for the check for saves and Special Rules. Since the "at this stage" is not possessed by the rules after it (in this case, the End of Combat Pile in and Consolidation), you are no longer allowed to check for any saves or special rules to allow the unit to either stop the Sweeping Advance or put the model back onto the battlefield.

1) Stop saying "You're going to reference the words after the semicolon!" because I won't. I never have. Thanks.
2) I think it's funny you attempt to "take [me] to school" about grammar but continue to use "your" instead of "you're"

rigeld2 wrote:2) I think it's funny you attempt to "take [me] to school" about grammar but continue to use "your" instead of "you're"

I thought you were above insults? Ad hominem much?

rigeld2 wrote:1) Stop saying "You're going to reference the words after the semicolon!" because I won't. I never have. Thanks.
2) I think it's funny you attempt to "take [me] to school" about grammar but continue to use "your" instead of "you're"

Excellent, the legs of your argument have vanished beneath you and your decision only serve to help our side.
Youll notice I type in an aloof manner. I dont speak with proper grammar and never will. I do on the other hand keep myself knowledgeable of proper grammar, thats the difference. :3

liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:2) I think it's funny you attempt to "take [me] to school" about grammar but continue to use "your" instead of "you're"

I thought you were above insults? Ad hominem much?

Ad hominem?

I quoted him, and noted that while he was attempting to correct me on grammar he failed in multiple places. I thought it was amusing.
Regardless, you can consider this a win if you want - I've already said I'm done with the thread which is why I haven't bothered responding to argue.

Happyjew wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The way you worded #5.

5. Restrictions defined as being for a particular stage, end when then stage ends.

I don't agree that it's worded only for the SA stage. I don't agree that it needs to specify it is an ongoing effect.
I don't agree that the RFP is completely separate from the "unless otherwise specified".

Therefore I don't agree with your conclusion.

Fair enough. So if I could prove that "at this stage" means "during this stage". And "at this stage" is a timeframe. That would convince you?

If the rule said "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit during this stage" that would change your mind?

If you could prove to me with rules, that "at this stage" means "during this stage" without a shadow of doubt, it would convince me. If the rule said "during this stage" I would be on your side.

Note, blue shows up horribly against the dark grey background, that's why I switched it to orange.

Unfortunately, 'stage' is never formally defined as a part of the rules as opposed to Player/Game Turn, Phase, and sub-phase. So you're really not going to get that definition. What you can go on is context. I think I've made a clear case for how the SA rule is to be executed. It also provides a path by which a 'cron player isn't forced to partially execute (i.e., break) the EL rule. Which is just messy in my opinion. Given the context of the SA rule, how the end result of the SA rule is the destruction and removal of the swept unit as well as the restriction placed on saving/rescuing said unit from destruction and removal, I do not see how one can claim that the EL rule constitutes an attempt to save/rescue the unit. As far as the SA rule is concerned, once it's destroyed and removed the unit it's job is done. It doesn't care if they come back after the unit has been swept. It only cares if you have a rule in place to prevent the unit from being destroyed [i[when it's swept[/i].

-Yad

" I think I've made a clear case for how the SA rule is to be executed."

Actually you have simply restated your assertion over and over, without actually proving that "rescue" requires SA being prevented. You have simply made fallacy after fallacy (for example assuming as ATSKNF is the only current example of something that specifies SA, that the only way to defeat SA is to do exactly what ATSKNF does - poor assumption you havent made any attempt to justify using any actual rules, of course, same as the rest)

WE also showed how you dont partially execute EL, using the actual rules - it resolves just fine. You just, as usual, choose to pretend this hasnt happened.

EL and WBB both rescue the unit, WBB is an example of a rule that doesnt work with SA, yet you are claiming with no backing that EL does. Keep ignoring that fact, it still destroys your arguments validity.

Keep going round and round Yad, failing to give rules backing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:" I think I've made a clear case for how the SA rule is to be executed."

Actually you have simply restated your assertion over and over, without actually proving that "rescue" requires SA being prevented. You have simply made fallacy after fallacy (for example assuming as ATSKNF is the only current example of something that specifies SA, that the only way to defeat SA is to do exactly what ATSKNF does - poor assumption you havent made any attempt to justify using any actual rules, of course, same as the rest)

WE also showed how you dont partially execute EL, using the actual rules - it resolves just fine. You just, as usual, choose to pretend this hasnt happened.

EL and WBB both rescue the unit, WBB is an example of a rule that doesnt work with SA, yet you are claiming with no backing that EL does. Keep ignoring that fact, it still destroys your arguments validity.

Keep going round and round Yad, failing to give rules backing.

Oh where to begin...

When two opposing thoughts argue don't you think there would be a tendency to restate, in various fashions, the same points in an attempt to better clarify their own position? I have spoken to each part of the SA rule, providing my reasoning behind each point. Saying that I'm simply repeating myself ad nauseum strikes me as you finding another way of disagreeing with me. Not actually demonstrating any intelligent counter-point.

As far as these many fallacies I've apparently committed, you really mean to state that, given the very specific language in the SA rule on how to 'save or rescue' the unit, coupled with the only rule that does so, you don't think that this demonstrates the defacto standard on how this is done? odd, but not unexpected. Perhaps if there is a FAQ or rule in the future that also specifically addresses SA, saving or rescuing the unit without stopping its destruction, then you would have a point. As it stands you're reaching here.

This constant refrain from you (Pot meet Kettle) is rather tiresome. What is the point of asking for rules outside of EL and SA? Especially when nothing I've posted suggests the need to, or references rules outside of these two. Which is more than I can say for you when you tried to pull in rules from two editions ago. What specific rules are you looking for? Not only that, but why to you think these mysterious rules need to be cited? When you do this, it comes off as looking intellectually incoherent. Time and again you seem to fall back to this position. When you've got nothing more constructive to say you bleat on about citing the rule, when you ought to know that the rule;your looking for doesn't exist because your point is irrelevant.

-Yad

Yad wrote:Oh where to begin...

When two opposing thoughts argue don't you think there would be a tendency to restate, in various fashions, the same points in an attempt to better clarify their own position? I have spoken to each part of the SA rule, providing my reasoning behind each point. Saying that I'm simply repeating myself ad nauseum strikes me as you finding another way of disagreeing with me. Not actually demonstrating any intelligent counter-point.

As far as these many fallacies I've apparently committed, you really mean to state that, given the very specific language in the SA rule on how to 'save or rescue' the unit, coupled with the only rule that does so, you don't think that this demonstrates the defacto standard on how this is done? odd, but not unexpected. Perhaps if there is a FAQ or rule in the future that also specifically addresses SA, saving or rescuing the unit without stopping its destruction, then you would have a point. As it stands you're reaching here.

This constant refrain from you (Pot meet Kettle) is rather tiresome. What is the point of asking for rules outside of EL and SA? Especially when nothing I've posted suggests the need to, or references rules outside of these two. Which is more than I can say for you when you tried to pull in rules from two editions ago. What specific rules are you looking for? Not only that, but why to you think these mysterious rules need to be cited? When you do this, it comes off as looking intellectually incoherent. Time and again you seem to fall back to this position. When you've got nothing more constructive to say you bleat on about citing the rule, when you ought to know that the rule;your looking for doesn't exist because your point is irrelevant.

-Yad

Please note I am just kidding about the following pic. (If someone can tell me how to make the pic a "spoiler" so people don't have to actually view it, I would appreciate it).

"given the very specific language in the SA rule on how to 'save or rescue' the unit"

THis doesnt have support, again.

Also - same rule. Same, exact rule. Stop ignoring that - it does you even fewer favours than usual.

Your argument is, and continues to be, proven wrong.

Like Rigeld, done asking for actual rules to be met with assertions, lies and fallacies.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"given the very specific language in the SA rule on how to 'save or rescue' the unit"

THis doesnt have support, again.

Also - same rule. Same, exact rule. Stop ignoring that - it does you even fewer favours than usual.

Your argument is, and continues to be, proven wrong.

Like Rigeld, done asking for actual rules to be met with assertions, lies and fallacies.

So your response is nah nah nah nah nah I'm right. Cool beans.

We're gone as far as e're likely to here I reckon.