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.

BE WARNED ALL WHO DARE POST YOU VENTURE UNTO A THREAD THAT IS A GRAMMATICAL SEMANTIC ARGUMENT


So here is Uriens rule...

Urien Rakarth’s Master of Pain special rule affects all friendly units within 12" of him, not just his own unit.

And the problem is that

Master of Pain :

Master of Pain: The model and his unit treat the current turn as being one higher than it actually is when determining what special rules they benefit from as the result of the Power from Pain special rule.



It's a silly question but I like to point things out like this as it seems the argument could be made that, Father of Pain in fact gives normal Eldar the Power from the Pain special rule...

If you are wondering why it's because the rule itself Master of Pain is written in such a way that it basically says, this unit has Power from the Pain because of the underlined part.


I know you are like WAIT THAT DOES NOT WORK but it actually in fact does say anywhere in the Master of the Pain or the Power from the Pain rules Dark Eldar, it just says models with this special rule.

This is a grammatical Argument

No. It does not give friendly units the Power from Pain special rule if they don't already have it. All Master of Pain does is allow the model and his unit to treat the turn as one higher than it actually is, while Father of Pain increases the range from the unit he's joined to any friendly units within 12".

This "argument" is rather clear. The dude provides all friendlies in 12" a rule. The rule says the treat the turn 1 higher than should be when resolving another rule.

However, if a model doesn't have that rule, it cant resolve it.

Thus, this grammar "argument " is not an argument. Perhaps a miss understanding, or not giving enough importance to the word result.

Edited: because grammar.

Hollismason wrote:

BE WARNED ALL WHO DARE POST YOU VENTURE UNTO A THREAD THAT IS A GRAMMATICAL SEMANTIC ARGUMENT

lol, some of use love these semantic debates. That's inherent to discussions about written rules.

I fail to see how Urien's specific implementation of Master of Pain matters, since as BB any Haemonculus can just join an Eldar unit.

I think they key part that makes this not work is the bolded wording (what you underlined wasn't enough)

The model and his unit treat the current turn as being one higher than it actually is when determining what special rules they benefit from as the result of the Power from Pain special rule.

This is specifically granting the Eldar unit who is benefiting from the Master of Pain rule a +1 to the PfP Table. Note how narrow that is: simply a +1 to the PfP Table.

From the Power from Pain rules:

All models with the Power from Pain special rule gain the special rules listed on the table

Because they do not have the Power from Pain rule, they can never benefit from the +1 on the PfP table. It's like giving an Eldar Guardian a +1 to armor penetrations when preforming Tank Shocks - yes, he would get a +1 to armor penetrations when performing a Tank Shock, but he doesn't have the Tank Shock rule so it doesn't really matter.

No, Craftworld Eldar don't benefit from Power from Pain, since they lack the Special Rule "Power from Pain" themselves.

Power from Pain doesn't talk about units gaining FnP, or whatnot, they talk about models with the rule (which is going to be DE models).

"At the start of each game turn, before the first player's Movement phase, look up the game turn number on the Power from Pin table. All models with the Power from Pain special rue have the special rules listed on the table, in addition to any other special rules they have (Codex: Dark Eldar, pg 112)."

The only way Craftworld Eldar might benefit from it would be if a USR affects everyone in the unit (such as Fearless).

The key part of this discussion that I will be hammering home is the following.


as the result of the Power from Pain special rule.


Now why do I say grammatically this means a unit has Power from the Pain or that the sentence grants power from the Pain.

It is in fact giving the unit itself the PFP rule from this statement.

The problem is the phrase as a result of

Semantically or Grammatically this is granting something.


Why? Because it's a prepositional phrase.

It means something else happened before something else basically.

If I said

" Jimmy gave Sue an apple as a result of his admiration."

Who has admiration?

Jimmy.

The phrase itself gives the meaning and the special rule.


Basically in short in order for the first thing to happen, the second thing has to happen, because the second thing happens, the first happens.

It doesn't give them the Power from Pain rule, it modifies what special rules they benefit from if they have the Power from Pain rule. You can't benefit from the results of a rule you don't have.

I like DanielBeaver's answer.
All models with the Power from Pain special rule gain the special rules listed on the table
- Assume that came from the Power from Pain Special Rule itself.

The additional Special Rules on that table are given to Models which have a specific Special Rule on their Army-List Entries.
Models which do not have this Special Rule gain nothing from the table, even if they can access it through a secondary Rule.

Yeah this is just grammatical and that's the way I'm arguing it.


as the result of the Power from Pain special rule

Because of that phrase,

as a result of

That's the key thing to take away from that sentence.

I've listed my reasons above already.

No, it doesn't give them PfP. It just means units within 12" that do benefit from PfP get an extra benefit.

You can't benefit from PfP if you don't have the rule, and MoP requires you to have PfP.

Master of Pain allows the unit to treat the current turn as being one higher than it actually is when determining what special rules they benefit from. How do you determine what these benefits are? These benefits are determined by the results of the Power from Pain rule.

Power from Pain gives the unit a result according to what turn it is.

Master of Pain allows the unit to treat the turn as one higher than it actually is for the result of the Power from Pain rule.

Father of Pain allows all units within 12" to treat the turn as one higher than it actually is for the result of the Power from Pain rule.

I stated pretty clearly what kind of argument this is going to be, grammatically that's a true statement because of the preposition.

Normal Eldar do not gain abilities or powers from the PfP rule, since they don't have it. Therefore, it is irrelevant what turn they treat it as being in regards to said rule. Nothing in Rakarth's rules could be reasonably construed as granting the rule to models that don't already possess it.

Hollismason wrote:
I stated pretty clearly what kind of argument this is going to be, grammatically that's a true statement because of the preposition.

No, it's not. They may treat the turn as being one higher than it actually is but it is meaningless because they do not have the Power from Pain rule and the passage you keep quoting does not grant it to them.

Just because the phrase generates ambiguity does not imply that the ambiguity itself allows the freedom of implication.

It is similar to saying. "I have a feeling" - feeling requires context to be defined. It has many potential meanings. It is ambiguous.

However, you are saying because I am ambiguous I am some predefined emotion. That is invalid. If anything you should request more information.

However, thankfully 40k has plenty of context in the special rule section. In this section we can see that a unit, as posted above, doesn't just get a rule.

We can therefore conclude that this does not give a special rule and that if you are to discuss any more of this subject you are 1) a devils advocate. 2) Attempting to use ambiguity to generate potential meaningless benefits in game.

and lastly, because I must edit everything. If you try to pull in this in a real game situation, not many people will like what you are doing.

and read this link to define implication in a logical setting

Hollismason, do you just enjoy confrontation ?

You are always defending a rules interpretation that does not make any sense in the eyes of those who can read English. In every single thread. Or maybe that's a coincidence ?

The rules in general are very poorly written grammatically. I'm grammatically correct on this, but whatever. I enjoy arguing about the rules, simply because I find it fun. I also like to point out things like this. For example see the recent thread where the Haemy Coven Detachments each formation you take is a -1 modifier that does in fact stack with other formations.

No you're not, because a result of the Power from Pain rule is not to give a unit the rule in the first place. The results of the Power from Pain rule on a unit that doesn't have that rule is nothing.

The whole point of this discussion is the structure of that sentence and whether it is a true statement or if it makes the other statement false.

You have two statements and special rules.

Urien's Father of Pain Special rule.

affects all friendly units within 12" of him, not just his own unit.

And the Master of Pain special Rule

The model and his unit treat the current turn as being one higher than it actually is when determining what special rules they benefit from as the result of the Power from Pain special rule.


Both of those statements remain true as long as it's a equal application, once you say it does not , then you've made one of those statements false.


Let's talk about grammar.

We know that because the statement all in Urien's special rule that all means all of the controlling players friendly units. We also know specifically this would only apply to Eldar. As they're the only other Army that is actually Battle Brothers which makes them friendly per the rules.

So we know that.

1. Urien's ability does in fact affect Eldar units.


So we are finished with that true statement. That's a absolutely one hundred percent true statement.


Now we move onto the actual Master of Pain.


The model and his unit treat the current turn as being one higher than it actually is when determining what special rules they benefit from as the result of the Power from Pain special rule

Is this a true statement? If it doesn't affect the Eldar unit, then it's a false statement.

It is however a true statement as we know that Urien's statement is true.

As a Result of , grammatically is unto itself giving the the special rule to the Eldar unit, because we know the true statement that Urien's rule does affect Eldar units.

The sentence as well , states why the Eldar unit would get the turn bonus, as a result of . That's a prepositional phrase that refers back to the subject in this case the eldar unit and what that unit has or the reason why that unit treats the turn higher.

That's why I've stated it's a grammatical argument.

You seem to be confused about the difference between grammar and logic, and appear to be attempting to conflate the two.

And you keep ignoring the fact that giving a unit the Power from Pain rule is not "... the result of the Power from Pain special rule".

This is more a discussion for an English class rather than a 40k forum. The rule is clear. The grammatical correctness of the sentence isn't important when the meaning is entirely clear.

It's important to note that as a result of phrase and what that actually means.

The first happens because they have the second. It's not that complicated.

Urien would affect Craftworld Eldar as they are a friendly unit.

But Eldar lack the PfP rule in the first place and at no point does the Master of Pain special rule specifically state "This ability confers the Power from Pain special rule as described in Codex: Dark Eldar onto friendly units that do not already have it". So they receive no benefits, despite being in the 12 bubble of Father of Pain.

Hollismason wrote:
The key part of this discussion that I will be hammering home is the following.


as the result of the Power from Pain special rule.


Now why do I say grammatically this means a unit has Power from the Pain or that the sentence grants power from the Pain.

It is in fact giving the unit itself the PFP rule from this statement.

The problem is the phrase as a result of

Semantically or Grammatically this is granting something.


Why? Because it's a prepositional phrase.

It means something else happened before something else basically.

If I said

" Jimmy gave Sue an apple as a result of his admiration."

Who has admiration?

Jimmy.

The phrase itself gives the meaning and the special rule.


Basically in short in order for the first thing to happen, the second thing has to happen, because the second thing happens, the first happens.

Alright I'll bite.

In your example..

" Jimmy gave Sue an apple as a result of his admiration."

Yes the first thing (giving of the apple) happened because the second thing "jimmy admired Sue". And the only way for the giving of the apple to occur is for there to be admiration.

Back to the rule in question...

"The model and his unit treat the current turn as being one higher than it actually is when determining what special rules they benefit from as the result of the Power from Pain special rule."

There's a lot more going on in this sentence than the 'as a result of' part but lets paraphrase to...

"The unit gains ...A... when determining ... B ... as a result of Power from Pain."

In your example, the giving of the apple would be B which can only occur if Power from Pain is used.

An Eldar unit is granted A and you're saying that because B can't happen without Power from Pain then Power from Pain must exist for all units that are granted A. That's a pretty big logical leap and I don't think the sentence can be interpreted this way in any form of English.

Hollismason, has it occurred to you that maybe you would greatly benefit from a reading comprehension course ?

You seem to have issues with very basic English which make you hold untenable positions which in turn make you look like someone who often argues the wrong point and doesn't really understand English.

Just to use an example to refute the logic here

Joe's insurance company pays $100 more for all customers medical proceedures.

Inscurance companies will pay for proceedures as a result of cancer.

By the OPs logic this means that all cusotmers have cancer.

The rules function as such

All friendly units count as 1 turn higher for any special rules gained as a result of power from pain.

Unit A lacks Power from pain so has no special rules as a result of Power from pain, as such it gains no benefit.

Breng77 wrote:
Just to use an example to refute the logic here

Joe's insurance company pays $100 more for all customers medical proceedures.

Inscurance companies will pay for proceedures as a result of cancer.

By the OPs logic this means that all cusotmers have cancer.

The rules function as such

All friendly units count as 1 turn higher for any special rules gained as a result of power from pain.

Unit A lacks Power from pain so has no special rules as a result of Power from pain, as such it gains no benefit.

Your example is almost right but not quite as you broke it into two separate sentences.

Joe's insurance company pays $100 more for all customers medical proceedures as a result of cancer.

Who has cancer?

Yeah it's a silly example but it's to demonstrate that yes, this is in fact poorly written in regards to the rules.

Also, the rules don't care about external logic, they only care about a reasonable person. They have their own internal logic that they function by.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:
Hollismason, has it occurred to you that maybe you would greatly benefit from a reading comprehension course ?

You seem to have issues with very basic English which make you hold untenable positions which in turn make you look like someone who often argues the wrong point and doesn't really understand English.

Hello Pot it is very nice to meet you.

Uriens rule is also broken into seperate parts

Part 1: Urien applies master of pain to all friendly units within 12"

Part 2: The master of pain rules.

Also the insurance statment you just wrote actually reads as, Joe pays $100 more for all customers who have proceedures as a result of cancer, if they don't have cancer, they don't get those proceedures paid for.

Essentially, does a customer have cancer?

If so did they have any proceedures as a result of it
If so they get $100 extra.

Same with Urien.

You work back ward, does the unit have PfP
if yes, do they have special rules from it
if yes count those rules as 1 turn better.

The Master from pain rules applies a bonus to special rules resulting from a condition.

I don't think it's poorly written.

It clearly defines what conditions must exist in order to execute the rule.

Or in that example, cancer must exist for the insurance company to pay $100.