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.

YDMC is called you make da call. It is not called Rules as Written (and even then, this argument stands). Sorry.
Although you were clearly stating your viewpoint as RAW until it seemed you were in the minority. Seems a bit silly to maintain your argument is RAW and then say people shouldn't argue RAW.

I would never roll off for this. This completely changes how effective a unit is in close combat.
Then be prepared to have people think you're a bad sport. If it's clearly a rule violation (rolling an armour save and a cover save for the same model, for instance) then no, you shouldn't have to roll-off. If it's a genuine disagreement about a somewhat ambiguous rule, then that's completely fair. Still your choice to leave, of course, but you probably won't make many friends that way.

As far as the any/all discussion goes, well that's mostly just semantics but this is how I see it:

1) You may replace all lasguns with sniper rifles.
2) You may replace any lasguns with sniper rifles.
3) You may replace any and all lasguns with sniper rifles.

Number 1 seems to tell you it's all or nothing. Either the squad has lasguns, or they have sniper rifles.
Number 2 seems to tell you you have the choice. One member can exchange, all members, or no members.
Number 3 seems to say exactly the same thing as 2.

In this example, the word 'any' is much stronger than the word 'all.' Regardless of whether 'all' is present in the sentence or not, it is the word 'any' that specifically gives you permission to pick and choose. It doesn't follow that because in this situation 'any and all' means the same as 'any' that 'any and all' means the same as 'all.'

Sorry if that doesn't make sense, it did in my head, I promise!

DoW



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm clearly way too slow to post on online forums...

DogOfWar wrote:

YDMC is called you make da call. It is not called Rules as Written (and even then, this argument stands). Sorry.
Although you were clearly stating your viewpoint as RAW until it seemed you were in the minority. Seems a bit silly to maintain your argument is RAW and then say people shouldn't argue RAW.

I would never roll off for this. This completely changes how effective a unit is in close combat.
Then be prepared to have people think you're a bad sport. If it's clearly a rule violation (rolling an armour save and a cover save for the same model, for instance) then no, you shouldn't have to roll-off. If it's a genuine disagreement about a somewhat ambiguous rule, then that's completely fair. Still your choice to leave, of course, but you probably won't make many friends that way.

As far as the any/all discussion goes, well that's mostly just semantics but this is how I see it:

1) You may replace all lasguns with sniper rifles.
2) You may replace any lasguns with sniper rifles.
3) You may replace any and all lasguns with sniper rifles.

Number 1 seems to tell you it's all or nothing. Either the squad has lasguns, or they have sniper rifles.
Number 2 seems to tell you you have the choice. One member can exchange, all members, or no members.
Number 3 seems to say exactly the same thing as 2.

In this example, the word 'any' is much stronger than the word 'all.' Regardless of whether 'all' is present in the sentence or not, it is the word 'any' that specifically gives you permission to pick and choose. It doesn't follow that because in this situation 'any and all' means the same as 'any' that 'any and all' means the same as 'all.'

Sorry if that doesn't make sense, it did in my head, I promise!

DoW



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm clearly way too slow to post on online forums...

Hey man, dont put yourself down. Theres nothing wrong with your post.

I agree, it can be seen like that, however when talking about rolling, its in my opinion read that you may reroll "up to" all of the dice, as in the example "you may use all the money in the budget". Basically as in you can choose how much (or many dice) you wish to roll out of what youre given, which is how youd interpret it if your boss said this to you.

The problem with all of your analogies there Night Lords is that the secondary meaning you are attributing the permissive phrasing is not inherent. You are attributing what is mostly social convention into an analogy about semantics and verbiage.

To twist your analogies:
Maybe the apples come in bags of 5 so you have to take all 5 or none at all?
Maybe the budget of 500k needs to be spent for some outside reason, and having 50k left over is actually worse than spending it.

This is why your analogies don't work. You are simply using outside factors to influence the meaning of the analogous phrase - and then using that as a reason for your interpretation.

edit: "The Psyker may re-roll all rolls to hit and rolls to wound for the entirety of that players turn".

Speaking semantics here, the phrase means either:

The Psyker is allowed to choose to re-roll all rolls to hit and rolls to wound...

or

The psyker is allowed to choose to not re-roll all rolls to hit and rolls to wound...

Because of the way its phrased, RAW really does mean exactly that. No getting around it, no analogies will save you from it.

Now comes to part where you decide with your opponent if you actually want to use RAW on this or not.

Dracos wrote:

To twist your analogies:
Maybe the apples come in bags of 5 so you have to take all 5 or none at all?
Maybe the budget of 500k needs to be spent for some outside reason, and having 50k left over is actually worse than spending it.

And if this is the intended meaning, then the word must would come into play. You MUST spend all 500k. You MUST take all 5 apples.

OR, common phrasing would be "you may use all $500k, but if you do, you must spend it all."

Again, I fail to see how it doesnt relate when "you may take 5 apples" in itself grants you the ability to take up to 5 apples in any realistic situation. Should we not apply common sense to the rules? Should we twist the meaning of phrases and break the sentence down into tiny pieces to get an advantage? No.

Night Lords wrote:And if this is the intended meaning, then the word must would come into play. You MUST spend all 500k. You MUST take all 5 apples.

And again, that doesn't work because it removes the option to not take anything.

The rule in question gives you the option (through the use of the word 'may') to make a reroll or to not make a reroll. Replacing 'may' with 'must' would remove the option to not make a reroll. If you cast the power, you would be forced to reroll your attacks.

Using the word 'may' or the word 'must' has no effect whatsoever, though, on just what it is you're rerolling if you do so.

Again, I fail to see how it doesnt relate when "you may take 5 apples" in itself grants you the ability to take up to 5 apples in any realistic situation.

Because, again, it doesn't do any such thing.

In a 'realistic' situation, the person granting you the apples would more likely be saying that you may take up to 5 apples. If they didn't, and simply said that you may take 5 apples, then whether or not you're both well enough versed in English grammar to realise it, they are saying that you take exactly 5 apples.

Should we twist the meaning of phrases and break the sentence down into tiny pieces to get an advantage? No.

Given that you're the one here arguing that the rule means something other than what it actually says because your interpretation makes the rule seem more useful to you personally, I would suggest having a good think about statement.

insaniak wrote:

And again, that doesn't work because it removes the option to not take anything.

That is just one part of the sentence. See: "OR, common phrasing would be "you may use all $500k, but if you do, you must spend it all." which is what I JUST wrote. Or "if you wish to reroll, you must reroll all dice".

Because, again, it doesn't do any such thing.

In a 'realistic' situation, the person granting you the apples would more likely be saying that you may take up to 5 apples. If they didn't, and simply said that you may take 5 apples, then whether or not you're both well enough versed in English grammar to realise it, they are saying that you take exactly 5 apples.

"You may use all the money in the budget" does NOT imply all or none. Sorry you are pressing on this issue, which even others on your side know to be true and are coming up with other silly excuses. You are also implying that if it doesnt say those exact words, there is no way to communicate that message, which is absolutely insane. English has many ways to communicate the same thought, maybe you shouldnt be so narrow minded.

Given that you're the one here arguing that the rule means something other than what it actually says because your interpretation makes the rule seem more useful to you personally, I would suggest having a good think about statement.

And another stupid statement which has nothing to do with what Im doing. Im reading the entire sentence instead of seeing the word "all" and going "ALL MEANS ALL!!". You are picking and choosing

Night Lords wrote:That is just one part of the sentence. See: "OR, common phrasing would be "you may use all $500k, but if you do, you must spend it all." which is what I JUST wrote. Or "if you wish to reroll, you must reroll all dice".

Whether or not either of those are common phrasing doesn't change the meaning of the actual rule as written.

"You may use all the money in the budget" does NOT imply all or none. Sorry you are pressing on this issue, which even others on your side know to be true and are coming up with other silly excuses.

Pardon?

What 'excuses' am I coming up with?

And for what?

You are also implying that if it doesnt say those exact words, there is no way to communicate that message, which is absolutely insane.

It might indeed be. I wouldn't know, since I have no idea what you just said.

English has many ways to communicate the same thought, maybe you shouldnt be so narrow minded.

I'm not being narrow minded. I'm insisting that the word 'all' means 'all'... because it does.

And another stupid statement which has nothing to do with what Im doing.

So you weren't the one who, earlier in the thread, argued that the opposing view couldn't possibly be right because it made your army useless?

Must be confusing you with someone else then. My apologies.

Im reading the entire sentence instead of seeing the word "all" and going "ALL MEANS ALL!!". You are picking and choosing

Picking and choosing what, exactly?

'All' does mean 'all'

Nothing else in the rule changes that.

So, we have two interpretations of the rule.

The first interpretation that people are insisting is RAW despite subjective and vague wording, breaks the rule and conflicts with other RAW.

The other interpretation that also works due to vague wording doesn't break the game. Its also the only way i've ever heard of anybody ever playing it and is the usual answer that i've read on these forums for over a year now with this being the first time option one has been brought up.

I think i'm going to keep playing with the option that doesn't break the rest of the rule system.

Ok, Im sick of the same weak arguements against me being stretched out to 4 or 5 screens. Here it is, please counter this sentence or dont waste time replying to me, thanks!

Hey, congratulations, youve just won the Super Pitch sweepstakes! In doing so, youve won season tickets to the New York Yankees! This means you may go to all the 2009 season games for absolutely no cost!

-----

Hey, congratulations, youve just won the Chaos Glory sweepstakes! In doing so, youve won access to a special psyker power! This means you may reroll all the rolls to hit at no cost!

Orange = MAY
Blue = The ACTION
Red = ALL
Green = The object the action is being performed on

There you go, that's my interpretation of it, and its just as valid as "ALL = ALL". On the tabletop I will argue this, and I will be right and allowed to do so. If you are actually going to argue that you are forced to go to all the Yankee games or none of them, then please save yourself the trouble of posting and go read a book instead. Thanks.

And how exactly does deciding ot reroll all of the dice 'break' the rest of the rule system? Simply put, it doesn't.

From Cambridge University's Site: http://www.cambridge.org/elt/cge/cge/pdfs/Introduction_to_Grammar.pdf

Introduction to Grammar and Spoken English wrote:
There are abandoned or incomplete structures (e.g. It was a bit erm … A bit.).
‘Incomplete’ structures rarely cause any problem of understanding, and can be
collaboratively completed by others. For example, the utterance "For a car"
shows one speaker completing the utterance of another.

Introduction to Grammar and Spoken English wrote:
Ellipsis is common (e.g. [it] All looks great.). Ellipsis occurs when words
usually considered ‘obligatory’ (e.g. a subject for a verb in a declarative clause)
are not needed because they can be understood from the immediate context
or from the knowledge which is shared between speakers. For speakers and
listeners, there are no words ‘missing’, and what we call ellipsis is simply an
economical and sufficient form of communication which is different from the
typical grammar of written English, where greater elaboration and
specification is usually necessary because the written text is usually being read
at a different time and place from when it was created.

Emphasis mine.

So it's clear that when you SAY to somebody "You may take all the apples." that the implication that you may take fewer can be communicated in other ways than actual speech, and that verbal communication is a collaborative effort. Written grammar is by necessity far more precise thatn verbal; there are no cues to the meaning of the text other than what is written on the page, so if you read 'You may take all the apples." that is exactly what is meant... ALL the apples, or none.

Mod:

I can see this is a classic YMDC argument and I am very pleased to see such fine points of grammar being used to elucidate the meaning.

The thread is throwing off Mod alerts so I am going to lock it and first, here is my interpretation.

1. The phrase 'all' means 'all' not 'some of'.
2. GW probably meant to allow the player to reroll only rolls he wanted to, but their grammar let them down.
3. If in any doubt, check GW's FAQ on the matter.
4. If GW haven't FAQed the point, check the Adepticon FAQ list.
5.Failing all else, D6 it.

Try to have a fun game!