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.

test

Man this is not going to end well. The only thing this will lead to is a yelling contest with neither side budging which is exactly what happened when we had the GC debate last time (and all you're really doing is opening that can worms again which is not helpful).

All I'm going to say is its foolish to assume that either side is right or wrong because the English language isn't rigid and static (and this isn't specific to any region either). English is a dynamic and flexible language that is constantly changing its own rules to fit language needs (that's why their are so many exceptions to the rules). For instance "literally" just got a redefined to include "figuratively" as a definition for it which is the exact opposite of what "literally" means. If the English language can do that then it can easily have the same phrase be read in two different ways. It is silly to assume otherwise.

GW are a British company therefore our (British) interpretation wins.

I try to read the rules under a British English understanding.

But the gmc issue is not one of cultural difference, it is a far worse problem: a vocal minority that screams phrases, sentence fragments and quotations out of context.

Reading just the gmc rules it does not give a number of weapons that can be fired, in this case each would mean all.

But the gmc rules are not stand-alone rules. Gmc rules are modifications to mc rules, and mc rules set a number. So in context the each weapon is not "each weapon the model has", but "each weapon the model is already established as being allowed to fire".

If the gmc was allowed to fire all weapons, it would have specific verbiage to that effect(a clearly stated allowance to the number of weapons that can be fired). It does not have any specific statements that change the established limit of 2.

All that said, I do also think that a gmc should be able to fire all weapons. Not because of the RAW, but rather by virtue of being a step above mc(and most gmcs have more than 2 weapons, sometimes manned #cough# squiggoth #cough#)

 CrownAxe wrote:
Man this is not going to end well. The only thing this will lead to is a yelling contest with neither side budging which is exactly what happened when we had the GC debate last time (and all you're really doing is opening that can worms again which is not helpful).

All I'm going to say is its foolish to assume that either side is right or wrong because the English language isn't rigid and static (and this isn't specific to any region either). English is a dynamic and flexible language that is constantly changing its own rules to fit language needs (that's why their are so many exceptions to the rules). For instance "literally" just got a redefined to include "figuratively" as a definition for it which is the exact opposite of what "literally" means. If the English language can do that then it can easily have the same phrase be read in two different ways. It is silly to assume otherwise.

American English is definitely very fluid. I am not sure on British English, as I don't live in England. American English is constantly adding words an concepts from other languages and cultures. We also tend to not give in when we are wrong, so oddities like "literally" getting used incorrectly occur. I learned that the most popular songs in America are done at, something like, a 3rd grade reading level, give that a moment to sink in.....yep, our school system is failing. I haven't been to school in a while, but my niece has said they don't teach penmanship, spelling, and sentence structure anymore. She even said that they spent more time learning about Rosa Parks than they did the Civil War. Not that she doesn't deserve to be taught in the class, but maybe it should be in the social studies class rather than history that she gets the most focus, but maybe they don't do social studies anymore. Also "slang" language should never be included in the definition of a word, as that is really dumb. "Slang" probably isn't the term used anymore, but it changes on a daily basis. When writing the rules, they are probably not writing it using "slang" but likely are using the actual mechanics of the English language.

itsNot2ndEd wrote:
I'm starting to believe that the differences in cultural impacts effecting the uptake, understanding and use of language, specifically connotation of certain words and phrases, between the US and UK, is the fundamental cause for the majority of rules confusion in 40k. To the point where you could probably complete a PHD on the topic. God forbid anyone does...

A prime example is the current debate raging in parts of the US about the GMC and number of weapons allowed to shoot.

As a brit reading these rules, as with most of the rules issues that arise, I really don't 'get' what all the fuss is about, as our (British?) use of 'each' seems to be much clearer than in the US.

I feel therefore that this must be an American thing...

To me, and everyone in my work and social circle that i've bothered to discus with all appear to hold the same understanding, that the use of 'each' in no way imply a numerical value, it just means however many there are, inclusively.

"each of us".

"each and everyone of us"

"each day"

"each and every day"


The rule states you can only fire 2 weapons.

The exception states that each weapon can fire at different targets.

So in this case, 2.

Please no Racism, keep it civil and share the love!

Paraphrase... "I see that differences in interpretation exist. Obviously, my interpretation is correct, because I asked a limited and regionally isolated population consisting of the people I hang out with and work with. That makes the difference in interpretation an American problem. Why are Americans so bad at understanding the Queen's English?"

Do you see the issue with what you've written? All you've really done is provide circumstantial evidence that people who live close together tend to use words the same way. If you'd like to learn more, look up the field of linguistics study.

For context, I was born in America, but primarily educated in Switzerland under British teachers. Whenever I run into a problem, I refer back to grammar manuals and dictionaries. In this particular case, I'm not particularly interested in vernacular (i.e., common) usage. In the absence of a predetermined population, 'each' will typically mean 'all'. In the presence of a predetermined population, 'each' will typically refer back to that population.

In effect, we have...

'You can fire two weapons. You can fire each weapon at a different target."

Given the way 'each' typically works, my argument is that we have a predetermined population of two weapons that the 'each' is referring back to. To read it as 'all weapons' breaks the definition.

My two cents... this isn't a cultural problem at all. It's an education problem combined with a definition of words vs. common usage of words problem. In much the same way that many people don't really bother to cite rules when they make a statement - "this is how we've always played it", many people don't bother to look up the 'proper' definition and usage of words - "this is how my friends and I use the word".

My education (British teachers, American parents and now living in America) puts me in the frequent position of questioning my grammar, spelling and word choices. The dictionary is my friend. Grammar guides are my friend.

Guys, I am neither American and/or English and believe that I can provide a objective point of view.

GW is an UK company with rules written by (mostly) by UK english speaker (most especially corrected by).

But here the point is not a question of interpretation but Definition. Usage vs. meaning

All countries (cultures) have a different way of using specific words (ex: Fine in US = Ok/Not Bad, in UK = Great/Excellent, Definition = Excellent).

In this case, I agree with OP (and the dictionary would give me reason) that "each" define all items/people/thing within a specific group/area/limitation.
To take back his/her example: if a unit has 3 weapon (but only allowed to fire 2 as per rule book) and the ability to fire at different target with "each" weapon, then it can fire up to 2 weapons at different targets.

Just tossing my 2 cents here...

I think GW intended for GMC's to be able to fire all their weapons, and fire each of them at different targets. Unfortunately, I think it's very clear that the Rules as Written limit GMC's to firing just the 2 weapons.

That touches in a few other points in this game/forum.

40k should not be played in a tournament format, that is never how the rules were written nor intended.

For all the griping about how terrible gw is at writing rules, the issues wouldn't be there at all if not for the tournaments ; in fact this forum would be a vastly different environment with much more conservative/lax readings on the rules(if it were viewed as just a game to have fun with friends/local groups most arguments about the meaning of certain rules would be less "hard RAW all the time" and the game would basically balance itself)

The other point you touched on enlightens me a little more, many of the rules i have argued about here and in other forums are based on sentence structure. If the schools aren't teaching it anymore, that explains why so many do not understand what a proper sentence looks like(or what the subject of a sentence with multiple nouns/pronouns and then a "it", "they", or "their" is. Especially in the middle of a paragraph)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
That touches in a few other points in this game/forum.

40k should not be played in a tournament format, that is never how the rules were written nor intended.

For all the griping about how terrible gw is at writing rules, the issues wouldn't be there at all if not for the tournaments ; in fact this forum would be a vastly different environment with much more conservative/lax readings on the rules(if it were viewed as just a game to have fun with friends/local groups most arguments about the meaning of certain rules would be less "hard RAW all the time" and the game would basically balance itself)

The other point you touched on enlightens me a little more, many of the rules i have argued about here and in other forums are based on sentence structure. If the schools aren't teaching it anymore, that explains why so many do not understand what a proper sentence looks like(or what the subject of a sentence with multiple nouns/pronouns and then a "it", "they", or "their" is. Especially in the middle of a paragraph)

I disagree. I believe there are enough people like me, namely people who enjoy debating rules but don't enjoy playing in tournaments, that a rules forum like this would still flourish in the absence of a national or local tournament scene.

The issue is really how the rules are written. There is too much ambiguity. For context, Magic the Gathering rules interactions aren't as hotly debated as there tends to be no need. The rules are written and structured in such a way as to allow for almost no ambiguity. Compare this to something like Dungeons and Dragons. DnD rules aren't hotly debated either as there tends to be no point. The game is predicated, to a certain extent, on creating a world where anything can happen and there is a built-in 'judge', i.e., the DM/GM, present for every game.

To eliminate the need for a rules forum, you either need to clean up the rules (for the love of the Emprah, hire a technical copy editor), or restructure the rules so that they require a judge per game to rule on any dispute.

 Kriswall wrote:
The issue is really how the rules are written. There is too much ambiguity. For context, Magic the Gathering rules interactions aren't as hotly debated as there tends to be no need. The rules are written and structured in such a way as to allow for almost no ambiguity.

Not to mention that Magic: The Gathering comprehensive rules are updated very frequently whenever new issues are discovered! The very first rule in the comprehensive rulebook even says "use these rules" - that's how comprehensive they are.

Kriswall, I've worked up a comprehensive rules set for 40k. If you'd like to see it and help me revise it to make something truly comprehensive, it'd be an honour. PM me and I'll shoot you the Google Doc link.

 Yarium wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The issue is really how the rules are written. There is too much ambiguity. For context, Magic the Gathering rules interactions aren't as hotly debated as there tends to be no need. The rules are written and structured in such a way as to allow for almost no ambiguity.

Not to mention that Magic: The Gathering comprehensive rules are updated very frequently whenever new issues are discovered! The very first rule in the comprehensive rulebook even says "use these rules" - that's how comprehensive they are.

Kriswall, I've worked up a comprehensive rules set for 40k. If you'd like to see it and help me revise it to make something truly comprehensive, it'd be an honour. PM me and I'll shoot you the Google Doc link.

PM sent.

2 bits kriswall:

1 i didn't say we wouldn't need ymdc, i said the environment here would be vastly different. We would still need a rules forum to hash out the intricacies of rules interactions and to hash out what was likely meant by the rules as written.

2 mtg is a game designed for tournament play(well it is now anyways) back when it first came out the rules were far less comprehensive(it was first meant like 40k, just sit arounf having fun). Once they started tournaments they overhauled most of the rules(I had a 120 card goblin deck in what was that forgotten empires?). There did not used to be limited cards, you could have 4 of any given card in the game in your deck, and etc.

I also used to play warmachine starting back with the release of escalation, the rules were for a fun game with friends but we still had a rules forum, and there were still heated debates. But there also wasn't as much butt-hurt and rage in the discussions. It was exactly what was bringing new players into the game(along with the debacle that was 4th ed 40k). The forum was there but the environment was different.

I also have to say I am loving this thread. It is exactly the environment I am talking about in a tournament-free rules thread; we are all amicably discussing our ideas, debating what we mean, and even the 1 rule that was brought up had the RAW vs RAI stated and no one is having a fit about it.

I think the intention is for each to mean any each weapon it has, not each weapon it may fire. I think the lack of distinction using a term such as "Each weapon it may fire" shows that it is not bound by the rules for MC firing.

another non GC example of this is the tyrranocyte/sporocyst

Each weapon can fire at a
different target unit, but they
cannot be fired in any other
way or at any other time

very similar wording to the GC but no one seems to take it to mean it is restricted still to firing two weapons like a MC, and it is a MC not a GC.

I think the real issue is that GW's in-house writers seem to have no formal training in technical writing nor any desire to write in a clear and concise manner.

 agnosto wrote:
I think the real issue is that GW's in-house writers seem to have no formal training in technical writing nor any desire to write in a clear and concise manner.

I completely agree with this comment. I've been involved with technical writing in the past. It's a learned skill that you don't usually just pick up on your own. Sure, some people think and write more logically than others, but you really need to be told how to structure a rule set (or instruction manual, or programming algorithm, etc.).

Realistically, you'd keep the current writers as is and then simply hire a game minded technical copy editor to tighten up the rules. Maybe, and forgive me if this sounds crazy, actually do some community play testing to find the issues. Maybe just work with a limited group of tournament minded individuals, like the INAT FAQ team.

 Kriswall wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
I think the real issue is that GW's in-house writers seem to have no formal training in technical writing nor any desire to write in a clear and concise manner.

I completely agree with this comment. I've been involved with technical writing in the past. It's a learned skill that you don't usually just pick up on your own. Sure, some people think and write more logically than others, but you really need to be told how to structure a rule set (or instruction manual, or programming algorithm, etc.).

Realistically, you'd keep the current writers as is and then simply hire a game minded technical copy editor to tighten up the rules. Maybe, and forgive me if this sounds crazy, actually do some community play testing to find the issues. Maybe just work with a limited group of tournament minded individuals, like the INAT FAQ team.

One thing that I'm required to do as part of my job is create training documents that condense complicated concepts into easily digestible orders of operation for the handling of funds. I've learned through repeated mistakes to be very clear in my writing and to basically approach formal writing as a sort of math equation (much like programming). GW's writers fail in every way when it comes to writing clearly; they write like teenage girls who are texting friends, expecting the reader to know exactly what they're talking about and what they mean without actually spelling it out.

blaktoof wrote:
I think the intention is for each to mean any each weapon it has, not each weapon it may fire. I think the lack of distinction using a term such as "Each weapon it may fire" shows that it is not bound by the rules for MC firing.

another non GC example of this is the tyrranocyte/sporocyst

Each weapon can fire at a
different target unit, but they
cannot be fired in any other
way or at any other time

very similar wording to the GC but no one seems to take it to mean it is restricted still to firing two weapons like a MC, and it is a MC not a GC.

On the contrary i still read that snippet of rules as modifying targeting restrictions, not number of weapons fired. That mc can still only fire 2 weapons(using just this snippet, im at work so cannot check the dex for further rules that alter the number), each at different targets.

 agnosto wrote:
I think the real issue is that GW's in-house writers seem to have no formal training in technical writing nor any desire to write in a clear and concise manner.

I agree. They also either do not edit anything ever, or their editor is one person who does a bad job.

take the new eldar codex.

by the rules as written storm guardians come with shuriken catapults, not shuriken pistols, all their upgrades require shuriken pistols...

also by the rules as written rangers come with eldar jetbikes. 60 pts for 5 guys with infiltrate, MtC, and shrouded and sniper rifles on jetbikes, yes pls but obviously not the intended rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
I think the intention is for each to mean any each weapon it has, not each weapon it may fire. I think the lack of distinction using a term such as "Each weapon it may fire" shows that it is not bound by the rules for MC firing.

another non GC example of this is the tyrranocyte/sporocyst

Each weapon can fire at a
different target unit, but they
cannot be fired in any other
way or at any other time

very similar wording to the GC but no one seems to take it to mean it is restricted still to firing two weapons like a MC, and it is a MC not a GC.

On the contrary i still read that snippet of rules as modifying targeting restrictions, not number of weapons fired. That mc can still only fire 2 weapons(using just this snippet, im at work so cannot check the dex for further rules that alter the number), each at different targets.

I failed to cut and paste the entire quote because it was in two columns apparentally, first part:

Instinctive Fire: Each
weapon on this model
automatically fires at the
nearest enemy unit within
range and line of sight. The
shots are resolved at the end
of the Shooting phase before
Morale checks are taken.

so yes, they actually do have a rule that states 'each weapon on this model'

This is a straight forward scenario and it has nothing to do with language. The GC has the same rules for shooting as an MC except you replace this sentence:

"Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase- they must, of course, fire both at the same target."

with this one:

"When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired."

The two sentences are conflicting so you replace the whole thing. It makes no sense to only replace part of the sentence from the MC section.

And if you do want to turn this into a word game then "may fire each of its weapons" can really only be interpreted one way unless there was something added onto the end of it, which there is not. Thus RAW is clear.

"Each weapon on this model" is not the same as "can fire each weapon at a different target"

it specifies the amount of weapons in the sentence

I'm American and the way I understood it the first time I read it was in line with what you describe as the "British" interpretation.

However, this also makes sense to me:

Rx8Speed wrote:
This is a straight forward scenario and it has nothing to do with language. The GC has the same rules for shooting as an MC except you replace this sentence:

"Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase- they must, of course, fire both at the same target."

with this one:

"When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired."

The two sentences are conflicting so you replace the whole thing. It makes no sense to only replace part of the sentence from the MC section.

And if you do want to turn this into a word game then "may fire each of its weapons" can really only be interpreted one way unless there was something added onto the end of it, which there is not. Thus RAW is clear.

I really don't think this has to do with language differences, as the disagreement with GCs only firing 2 weapons is really just stating that the specific GC rules trump the general MC rules. It also just makes more sense to me that GCs can fire all their weapons.

See the mc rules trump the shooting rules: 1 model may only fire 1 weapon.

The bit at the end is just a clarification that the other shooting rule(each unit may only target 1 unit) is still in effect.

The gmc rules first tells us that the gmc is a mc with the following extra bits.

The gmc shooting rule does not change the weapon allowance only the targeting allowance(RAW)

I do still believe that a gmc #should# be allowed to fire all weapons(and play it that way even though i have no gmcs and my main opponent is an eldar player with a wk) RAI, its just not what the rules actually say.

Rx8Speed wrote:
This is a straight forward scenario and it has nothing to do with language. The GC has the same rules for shooting as an MC except you replace this sentence:

"Monstrous Creatures can fire up to two of their weapons each Shooting phase- they must, of course, fire both at the same target."

with this one:

"When a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire each of its weapons at a different target if desired."

The two sentences are conflicting so you replace the whole thing. It makes no sense to only replace part of the sentence from the MC section.

And if you do want to turn this into a word game then "may fire each of its weapons" can really only be interpreted one way unless there was something added onto the end of it, which there is not. Thus RAW is clear.

This isn't a thread about GCs and how many weapons they can shoot. This is a thread about cultural (and educational) differences in interpreting the written word. If the rules as written were truly clear, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Here is an example of clearly written rules...

'Gargantuan Creatures follow the rules for Monstrous Creatures with the following exceptions:
1. When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may fire all of its ranged weapons.
2. When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may select a different target for each weapon fired.'

The above leaves absolutely no ambiguity as to how many weapons may be fired... as many as the GC has equipped. Compare to...

'Gargantuan Creatures follow the rules for Monstrous Creatures with the following exceptions:
1. When a Gargantuan Creature makes a shooting attack, it may select a different target for each weapon fired.'

Again, there is absolutely no ambiguity. The GC can fire two weapons when making a shooting attack, per the MC rules. Then, it can select a different target for each weapon fired.

You have to write these rules with an eye towards avoiding ambiguities. Games Workshop simply doesn't do this.

 Kriswall wrote:

You have to write these rules with an eye towards avoiding ambiguities. Games Workshop simply doesn't do this.

I agree and I also believe that the writers have no real interest in being precise in their wording. People often say that 40K has such a large, intricate rules-set that it is impossible to be concise. I disagree whole heartedly with that sentiment, a primary reason being that you just disproved it with your post.

I believe some of the confusion is related to legacy rules, and how current rules seem like the old rules while not actually being the old rules. The example of the GC is perfect for this:

Older editions had GCs able to fire all weapons, with no restrictions on number of targets.

Current is written as if GCs can still do the same, except that the clause stating that GCs are MCs with additional rules, and the only change to shooting is the removal of being restricted to firing at only one target.

So in this edition, GCs can only shoot two weapons, despite that not being true in the previous edition. This may be intentional (RAI), it may be accidental (such as the complete removal of rules dealing with levels in terrain), but it is written as such (RAW).

My point is that the problem has less to do with language, and more to do with inconsistency within the rule set.

Another excellent example is Psychic Shriek. Do you roll To Hit? Doesn't matter if the reader is English or American, the rules for Witchfire tell us to roll To Hit, while the power implies that you don't. That's not a language issue, that's a consistency issue.

Or how about Deep Strike (also referred to as Deep Strike Reserves)? That little turn of phrase has huge implications if you play it as written, and if anyone can agree on what it actually means as written.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Current is written as if GCs can still do the same, except that the clause stating that GCs are MCs with additional rules, and the only change to shooting is the removal of being restricted to firing at only one target.

It says additional rules AND exceptions. Which means that the clause that says they can fire each weapon at a different target does not have to be in addition to firing two weapons, but can be replacing it, too. That's the whole crux of the issue.

Why did they leave the rule text pretty much the same like in Apocalypse (where they could certainly fire every weapon), only a bit less clear? Why didn't they write "they can fire both of their weapons at different targets" if they meant it to only be two? Why does the OP state that 'each' means 'however many there are, inclusive' but then *not* conclude you can fire however many weapons there actually are?

Will any of these questions ever be answered? (Well, these are probably the answers, according to my personal interpretation: "Because GW always writes sloppily. Because more than two weapons being fired is still intended. Bias.")

"Each of ITS weapons..."
As the OP has said, "each" functions as an inclusive term, the stuff following it pointing out what group you draw from. "Its" is possessive, so here the sentence basically reads "each weapon possessed by the GMC..." I don't see how this is cultural at all, the wording seems clear enough to me.

The problem is the clause that states GCs are MCs was additional rules, and only change to shooting is the ability to shoot at more than one target. Nothing in GC tells us to ignore the MC limit on firing only two weapons per turn. That's on GW as either an intention or an error, not on English usage in other countries.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The problem is the clause that states GCs are MCs was additional rules, and only change to shooting is the ability to shoot at more than one target. Nothing in GC tells us to ignore the MC limit on firing only two weapons per turn. That's on GW as either an intention or an error, not on English usage in other countries.

SJ

Additions AND exceptions. Being given permission to shoot each of its weapons is an exception. That is precisely the thing that tells us to ignore the MC rule by telling us which rule to use instead. That is precisely what an exception is, something you do different to the general rule. In this case, GMC do the general rule of shooting only two weapons different by firing *each* weapon instead.

I'd be willing to go for "It can be read either way..." but the stubborn insistence that rule text we are specifically told constitutes exceptions to the basic MC rules cannot alter the basic MC rules is ridiculous.

Yeah, i would not call the gc argument a cultural thing. More like wishful thinking and a poor attempt at rules lawyering to get what they want.

Although, i have had more than one argument over how to read english with other players here in oz. Though i believe it to be more of a lack of education which is not directly related to country.

I know poorly educated people in almost every country ive been to lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unahim wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The problem is the clause that states GCs are MCs was additional rules, and only change to shooting is the ability to shoot at more than one target. Nothing in GC tells us to ignore the MC limit on firing only two weapons per turn. That's on GW as either an intention or an error, not on English usage in other countries.

SJ

Additions AND exceptions. Being given permission to shoot each of its weapons is an exception. That is precisely the thing that tells us to ignore the MC rule by telling us which rule to use instead. That is precisely what an exception is, something you do different to the general rule. In this case, GMC do the general rule of shooting only two weapons different by firing *each* weapon instead.

I'd be willing to go for "It can be read either way..." but the stubborn insistence that rule text we are specifically told constitutes exceptions to the basic MC rules cannot alter the basic MC rules is ridiculous.

You are right. It is an exception. It specifically allows you to fire at different targets with each of its weapons. Which ever 2 it wishes to fire.
It does alter the mc rule. Just not in the way some people insist