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.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:The problem is probably 99% of the English speaking population get this rule of grammar wrong. In a comma delineated list in sentence form, the second to last item should not have a comma. It is incorrect grammar to include it, but damn near everyone puts it in and thinks a sentence is wrong to not have it.

Kaaihn, you're talking out of your hat here. The reason why nearly everyone puts it in is because it's not "incorrect grammar." The issue about the final comma in a series is currently under debate.

The big book of grammar that your wife is using (and her editor) just happen to be ones that give one version of the rule. I can find probably just as many books that give the other version, and even more, more progressive ones like Hacker, that acknowledge the controversy and list the rule as optional or make a persuasive argument that omitting the comma can lead to ambiguity--as is the case here.

I do remember specifically in school when I was learning sentence structure (3rd grade? 4th?) asking my teacher about that "last comma", and the fact that it was not used in a particular sentence. I thought there should be one as there was a 'pause' in the sentence when spoken. She told me that it was optional, and that I should use the form that felt most correct to me. I have been using that comma ever since.

Lordhat wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:The problem is probably 99% of the English speaking population get this rule of grammar wrong. In a comma delineated list in sentence form, the second to last item should not have a comma. It is incorrect grammar to include it, but damn near everyone puts it in and thinks a sentence is wrong to not have it.

Kaaihn, you're talking out of your hat here. The reason why nearly everyone puts it in is because it's not "incorrect grammar." The issue about the final comma in a series is currently under debate.

The big book of grammar that your wife is using (and her editor) just happen to be ones that give one version of the rule. I can find probably just as many books that give the other version, and even more, more progressive ones like Hacker, that acknowledge the controversy and list the rule as optional or make a persuasive argument that omitting the comma can lead to ambiguity--as is the case here.

I do remember specifically in school when I was learning sentence structure (3rd grade? 4th?) asking my teacher about that "last comma", and the fact that it was not used in a particular sentence. I thought there should be one as there was a 'pause' in the sentence when spoken. She told me that it was optional, and that I should use the form that felt most correct to me. I have been using that comma ever since.

And again, as I have already stated in this thread, the style you use (comma or not) is irrelevant to the original point, which is that the argument that the absence of a comma in the sentence about duplicate powers and wargear would not have a different meaning if the comma was added.

Kaaihn wrote:Page 49, Bjorn the Fell-Handed, Ancient Tactician: ...can reroll the dice to see who picks deployment zones first

Technically useless. In none of the three missions do you roll a die to see who picks deployment zones first. You roll the die to see who goes first or second. The order in which you choose the deployment zone is a condition of whether you go first or second.

I'm sorry if this has been addressed already, but we had a discussion on Bjorn in our LGW and came up with a result that seems to make some sense.

There is no specific dice roll that determines who picks the deployment zone. It is the roll for who gets to go first that determines who picks the deployment zone first. Therefore, Bjorn allows you to re-roll the dice to see who goes first.

Isn't there a similar situation with Emperors Tarot from DH?

Steelmage99 wrote:Isn't there a similar situation with Emperors Tarot from DH?

Yeah but when it was written it actually worked.

Kaaihn wrote:Not contradicting in the slightest that both ways are correct depending on which style guide you use (although I'm glad I'm not the only one that saw how Flavius wrote his post as inflammatory). Right or wrong is beside the point though on the inclusion of the comma.

The original point is that whether it is there or not, the meaning of the sentence is the same. As it is not wrong to not have the comma, the argument that the sentence has a different meaning because of the lack of the comma is an incorrect argument. The lack of the comma changing the meaning is the specific argument I was addressing.

No worries at all. I know my comment was completely off topic, but I'm a big English language geek, and I really enjoy these type of discussions.

Also, I actually agree with your rules interpretation as far as the lack/presence of a comma is concerned. Its use or lack of use is completely stylistic rather than syntactic; the lack or presence of the comma does not change the meaning of the sentence.

Tzeentchling9 wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Page 49, Bjorn the Fell-Handed, Ancient Tactician: ...can reroll the dice to see who picks deployment zones first

Technically useless. In none of the three missions do you roll a die to see who picks deployment zones first. You roll the die to see who goes first or second. The order in which you choose the deployment zone is a condition of whether you go first or second.

I'm sorry if this has been addressed already, but we had a discussion on Bjorn in our LGW and came up with a result that seems to make some sense.

There is no specific dice roll that determines who picks the deployment zone. It is the roll for who gets to go first that determines who picks the deployment zone first. Therefore, Bjorn allows you to re-roll the dice to see who goes first.

That's the obvious answer. With the exception of Tempest and duplicate powers vs duplicate power combinations, I haven't seen anything in the codex that doesn't have an obvious answer. We weren't compiling questions that needed discussions so much as just documenting inconsistent RAW in this thread.

Razerous wrote:Blood claws actually "Forgo" its shooting phase "altogether" which would preclude them from doing anything during that phase. This includes running. In this instance (there are some el-dodgy writtings in this new arcane codex) its quite clear if you read the rules, in my opinion.

100%

However this brings up a fun point - Bloodclaws get to measure ranges during movement?
Otherwise, how would they know to forgo their shooting phase altogether?
Perhaps during shooting, but . . . shrug.

kirsanth wrote:

Razerous wrote:Blood claws actually "Forgo" its shooting phase "altogether" which would preclude them from doing anything during that phase. This includes running. In this instance (there are some el-dodgy writtings in this new arcane codex) its quite clear if you read the rules, in my opinion.

100%

However this brings up a fun point - Bloodclaws get to measure ranges during movement?
Otherwise, how would they know to forgo their shooting phase altogether?
Perhaps during shooting, but . . . shrug.

But you are not allowed to measure any range unless specifically permitted...

YAY GW STRIKES AGAIN!

Gwar! wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Razerous wrote:Blood claws actually "Forgo" its shooting phase "altogether" which would preclude them from doing anything during that phase. This includes running. In this instance (there are some el-dodgy writtings in this new arcane codex) its quite clear if you read the rules, in my opinion.

100%

However this brings up a fun point - Bloodclaws get to measure ranges during movement?
Otherwise, how would they know to forgo their shooting phase altogether?
Perhaps during shooting, but . . . shrug.

But you are not allowed to measure any range unless specifically permitted...

YAY GW STRIKES AGAIN!

It does permit. It mentions 6" which I guess you are allowed to check, by the way it is worded.

The best way to do it would be to measure only 6" from the cloest enemy model; Not the actual blood claw.

Lots of people here need to go back to playing MtG.

Darknite wrote:Lots of people here need to go back to playing MtG.

Was that flaming, insulting, or pointing out that they write tight rules for that system?

Also: why not play both?

kirsanth wrote:

Darknite wrote:Lots of people here need to go back to playing MtG.

Was that flaming, insulting, or pointing out that they write tight rules for that system?

Also: why not play both?

All 3 I would imagine.

Kaaihn wrote:

dietrich wrote:Some stuff isn't clear (like the "same powers or wargear") in the rules, because GW has once again, done a 90% job with the rules and called it good enough.

This one actually is clear. The problem is probably 99% of the English speaking population get this rule of grammar wrong. In a comma delineated list in sentence form, the second to last item should not have a comma. It is incorrect grammar to include it, but damn near everyone puts it in and thinks a sentence is wrong to not have it.

The sentence here is grammatically referring to three distinctly separate entities. They are:

Sagas
Psychic powers
Wargear combinations
.

Just finished this point in my technical writing class. The comma of the second to last item in a comma delineated list may or may not include a comma. According to MLA and APA standards this is writer's choice. The AND attached to the last item, however, is not a choice.

Now I'm an engineering major, not an English major. But my tech writing instructor was, and since we were going through the latest MLA manual as she taught, I'm pretty sure she has this rule correct.

Way to miss the point, I know. Also, way to not read the rest of the thread.

apwill4765 wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

dietrich wrote:Some stuff isn't clear (like the "same powers or wargear") in the rules, because GW has once again, done a 90% job with the rules and called it good enough.

This one actually is clear. The problem is probably 99% of the English speaking population get this rule of grammar wrong. In a comma delineated list in sentence form, the second to last item should not have a comma. It is incorrect grammar to include it, but damn near everyone puts it in and thinks a sentence is wrong to not have it.

The sentence here is grammatically referring to three distinctly separate entities. They are:

Sagas
Psychic powers
Wargear combinations
.

Just finished this point in my technical writing class. The comma of the second to last item in a comma delineated list may or may not include a comma. According to MLA and APA standards this is writer's choice. The AND attached to the last item, however, is not a choice.

Now I'm an engineering major, not an English major. But my tech writing instructor was, and since we were going through the latest MLA manual as she taught, I'm pretty sure she has this rule correct.

Way to miss the point, I know.

Hey, you know you are not talking about the main point, so I can't complain!

This has already been covered as well though, the inclusion or not is a point of style. It's existence (or lack thereof) doesn't change the meaning of the sentence though.

Ah! I shall amend my previous post to say "Way to not read the rest of the thread" then.

Saldiven wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:The issue about the final comma in a series is currently under debate.

To back up Flavius here (in a less inflammatory manner), he does have a point. All through high school, I was taught to use the "a, b, and c" construct. It was not until I got to college that I was taught to use the "a, b and c" construct. If I remember correctly, this was using guidelines as set out by the Modern Language Association, and they had not been out all that long. I still own two of my high school grammar books, and I have three other style manuals that I got during and after college, and both usages exist.

From what I remember being taught, the MLA version of the grammatical rule was the result of consideration towards publishers. Removing a comma may not seem like it takes up much ink or space on a page, but when you're talking about dozens of potential comma removals over hundreds of pages and thousands to millions of books, the potential savings to the publisher by removing that comma can be surprisingly large.

As near as I can generalize about it, it seems that academics mostly think the comma should be in to avoid possible ambiguity, whereas editors and publishers all think the comma should be out to save space. MLA, for example, which is run by academics has the one answer while the CMS, which is used by publishers, has the other. Even if Phil Kelly originally had the comma in his text, his editor probably would have taken it out.

Sorry about the inflammatoryness. I think it's just a reflex reaction since I'm so used to arguing about this point. My wife is an editor and I'm an academic, so this question (and also the one about when to hyphenate compound modifiers) are a big deal around the house.

Agreed that I don't think it leads to any ambiguity in this particular case, although you can see the potential where it might have come close with the "combination" thing.

I vaguely remember something about the Blood Claws character Sergent, something about Hits allocated to him must be rerolled, and thinking to myself, that doesn't sound right shouldn't i be allocating wounds there not hits. I'll recheck this either tomorrow or Friday whenever i can make the time to spend a few hours at my FLGS.

Red_Lives wrote:I vaguely remember something about the Blood Claws character Sergent, something about Hits allocated to him must be rerolled, and thinking to myself, that doesn't sound right shouldn't i be allocating wounds there not hits. I'll recheck this either tomorrow or Friday whenever i can make the time to spend a few hours at my FLGS.

This is an odd situation, because he is an upgrade character you do not allocate hits to him directly you allocate hits to the squad and wounds are allocated to the models, The way my FLGS plays it is that after wounds have been allocated, all of them on Lukas are rerolled, any of them that miss at that point dont go through. its odd, but it works well enough.

Hmm, actually, it seems that RaW it only works in CC if he is alone. The rule specifically mentions "All to Hit Rolls Specifically allocated against Lukas (not attacks against the squad he is with)"

Looks to me as though its to prevent him being snipered by Mind War and Vindicares (Doesn't help against Telion as he messes with wounds, not hits), as it works on Shooting "to-hit" rolls as well. In CC it doesn't work unless he is alone. Makes sence really, no ammount of Doppleganger skin is gonna help if the enemy is 2 feet away.

So yeah, this looks like another case of "RaW is Clear but people will play it wrong".

Were debating a codex's rules before it has even been released to the general public or played by the general public? Why don't we wait for the actual codex release before discussing this?

Ironhide wrote:Were debating a codex's rules before it has even been released to the general public or played by the general public? Why don't we wait for the actual codex release before discussing this?

Because Us Special people have the codex already? Also it just shows how useless GW are, as we have been able to find MAJOR issues before the codex is even released to the public. Imagine what they could do with proofreaders!

Pretty much pointless reasons IMO.

1. You're only going to have a small pool of people debating it, and probably most of those will quoting, "What they remember seeing at their LGS."

2. GW already has the book to the printers so finding stuff that is wrong now isn't going to change it, and certainly not by a small percentage of people.

Need to wait for more people to get the book and complain about the discrepancies with a bigger "voice".

Maybe then GW will errata the whole charge vs. assault thingy.

Ironhide wrote:Pretty much pointless reasons IMO.

Well, no-ones making you read the thread

1. You're only going to have a small pool of people debating it, and probably most of those will quoting, "What they remember seeing at their LGS."

Surely you mean "A Small Pool of Knowledgeable people who have the codex who can correct the people who state "What they remember seeing at their LGS" and who have more brainpower than the trained Poodle they use to proofread"?

2. GW already has the book to the printers so finding stuff that is wrong now isn't going to change it, and certainly not by a small percentage of people.

So we should not bother looking? Oh, ok then. Do you suppose GW shouldn't issue Errata at all then?

Need to wait for more people to get the book and complain about the discrepancies with a bigger "voice".

Or we can find them now, and add the voice later

Maybe then GW will errata the whole charge vs. assault thingy.

Yeah, and maybe GW will Errata the Whole Dark Angels book. We will be lucky to get an FAQ/Errata in a year or two. All the more reason to find these and get the INAT FAQ updated so we have some sort of framework.

About the comma thing (I like to derail threads with tangents that cannot die):

White Wolf, writers of Exalted, WoD, and several other semi-popular roleplaying games tell their writers not to include the comma for space reasons. As for how it should be used, I think that there are conflicting ideas, but let me just chime in with how I use it and why, as I think it makes the most sense.

"I like apples, oranges, and bananas."

The above sentence is a list of several items, each with equal importance.

"Bananas and chocolate is my favorite flavor of yogurt."

The above sentence has an equal weight on one item. This second example is where the confusion can be said to come from. Let's phrase it differently and see where there might be a problem:

"My favorite flavors of yogurt are strawberry, blueberry, bananas, and chocolate."

Nothing seems to be wrong with the above sentence, but I think it is intuitive to say that if someone said:

"My favorite flavors of yogurt are strawberry, blueberry, bananas and chocolate."

we might be wanting of a close to their thought, with the discreet impression that they were attempting to divide by zero. That said, there is something more to be said of metered constructions and lilting phrases. I think it is likely easier, for example, to feel the tempo in a written work with polysyndeton vs normal syndeton (assuming iambic form):

"Sally and Dick and Jane and Sue..." vs. "Sally, Dick, Jane, and Sue."

It is also noticeably effective to change the rules from time to time, as the following asyndeton shows:

"I came, I saw, I conquered."

But the important thing is that without an inherent rule to be broken, none of the above would be differentiable. I think that the examples I've given demonstrate that pauses given by commas really do follow a certain formality, and that this formality seems most successfully broken intentionally. It is better to have lived, loved, and died, rather than to have lived, loved and not.

As for the pups stuff, I'll be on it in a few hours.

Gwar! wrote:

Ironhide wrote:Pretty much pointless reasons IMO.

Well, no-ones making you read the thread

1. You're only going to have a small pool of people debating it, and probably most of those will quoting, "What they remember seeing at their LGS."

Surely you mean "A Small Pool of Knowledgeable people who have the codex who can correct the people who state "What they remember seeing at their LGS" and who have more brainpower than the trained Poodle they use to proofread"?

2. GW already has the book to the printers so finding stuff that is wrong now isn't going to change it, and certainly not by a small percentage of people.

So we should not bother looking? Oh, ok then. Do you suppose GW shouldn't issue Errata at all then?

Need to wait for more people to get the book and complain about the discrepancies with a bigger "voice".

Or we can find them now, and add the voice later

Maybe then GW will errata the whole charge vs. assault thingy.

Yeah, and maybe GW will Errata the Whole Dark Angels book. We will be lucky to get an FAQ/Errata in a year or two. All the more reason to find these and get the INAT FAQ updated so we have some sort of framework.

1. No, I meant what I said.

2. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I said you needed a larger pool of people to make this discussion more relevant. Instead of a small pool of knowledgeable people. It's like you got a group of nerds sitting around the table picking at the codex, but you won't see the problems till people are out there playing the codex in large quantities. That's when the lowest common denominator factor will hit.

3. First you ask if I think GW should issue errata and then you later sarcastically add how slow GW is about doing an errata. Which is it? Sounds to me that you yourself don't care if GW gives an official errata.

"sarcastically add how slow GW is about doing an errata"

Nothing sarcastic about it, they are slow.

Is Bjorn touching himself when the battle ends?

What happens when Arjac attempts to hit a unit consisting of a Tomb Spyder and >1 scarab?

Do necrons that would be removed by Lukas as casualties get WBB rolls?

Do vehicles hit by Vengeful Tornado receive a 3+ cover save if Njal is not facing their side armor?

Does Chain Lightning affect models unengaged in combat?

When Ragnar is joined with a squad of BloodClaws and they assault, do they get +2 attacks or +D3 attacks each? +2+D3?

Does a model with Mark of the Wulfen and two close combat weapopns, one of which is a special weapon, get a bonus attack, and if so, does he get the special weapon's bonus on that attack? If he chooses a thunder hammer, does he attack at I1 or does he only have one attack that goes at I1?

That's it for now, I really need to catch up on homework.

Kitzz wrote:Is Bjorn touching himself when the battle ends?

I should hope not. I mean, I know Space Wolves like fighting...

Is Bjorn touching himself when the battle ends?

Yes, as 10,000 year old men don't get much tail, but for the purposes of the game, no.

What happens when Arjac attempts to hit a unit consisting of a Tomb Spyder and >1 scarab?

Arjac says "if possible". If it is not Possible because of a Retinue, the rule does not work. Also a Tomb Spyder is not an IC so it doesn't matter.

Do necrons that would be removed by Lukas as casualties get WBB rolls?

RaW, yes. While it does not allow armour saves, it is not specified as a weapon (and is in fact a Special Rule), so Necrons can take WBB against it.

Do vehicles hit by Vengeful Tornado receive a 3+ cover save if Njal is not facing their side armor?

No.

Does Chain Lightning affect models unengaged in combat?

Yes. This is what "Unengaged" means.

When Ragnar is joined with a squad of BloodClaws and they assault, do they get +2 attacks or +D3 attacks each? +2+D3?

Both effects replace the +1 for assaulting, and do not tell us which one takes priority. Thus, this is in need of a clarification. RaW however, the Blood Claw effect does not work anyway, so the Ragnar one would be the one to use. To go a little off into the land of "How would I play it", I would say you get to pick which effect they get after rolling the dice, because there is no way that Blood Claws could be LESS insane because Ragnar is with them.

Does a model with Mark of the Wulfen and two close combat weapopns, one of which is a special weapon, get a bonus attack, and if so, does he get the special weapon's bonus on that attack? If he chooses a thunder hammer, does he attack at I1 or does he only have one attack that goes at I1?

Models with the MotW do not get the +1 for bonus weapons, nor may they use any Wargear or special weapons (as directed by the "and so on"). This is a Specific Rule of MotW overriding the General BRB rules.