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.

Honestly man, I cant even reply to you because I have no idea wtf youre trying to say (to be honest I never know what youre trying to say). So I didnt read a topic from a month ago...which has people arguing the same thing I am? Ok?

Its funny now how my "logic" is simply wrong with no explanation though.

Night Lords wrote:Its funny now how my "logic" is simply wrong with no explanation though.

We have explained it many times. Re-read the thread and you will see.

Gwar! wrote:

Night Lords wrote:Its funny now how my "logic" is simply wrong with no explanation though.

We have explained it many times. Re-read the thread and you will see.

I saw a lot of insults and "CONTEXT!" answers, but I fail to see where youve proven anything wrong.

Dont worry though, you cant, because its clearly written here in the rulebook as a singular unit. Unless you can change the English language of course (good luck )

But yet you appear to be the one "changing the English language" because even though the rule is talking singular you feel that an unstated concept of firing at a transport can be inserted into the middle of two connected sentences to allow assault...okay, I'm going to try to break down my line of thought and your line of thought in order to make sure I understand this.

I think we both agree that: There are two sentences that are under consideration here.

I believe they state:
1. A unit that fires at and destroys a transport may not also fire at the now disembarked unit.
2. However they may then assault them (if meeting other assault guidelines)

You believe they state:
1. A unit that fires at and destroys a transport may not also fire at the now disembarked unit.
2. However any and every unit that fired upon the transport may then assault the now disembarked unit (if meeting other assault guidelines)

If this was what was intended why would they use the connector "however"? That is really where I'm getting the hangup here. They're talking about a unit that destroyed the transport and what they cannot shoot, and then say 'however' to explain that they can assault. That is, to me, plain as day English.

Because of the use of 'However' the only way to access that sentence isi through the previous sentence. The previous sentence puts the requirement to destroy the transport on the unit that wants to assault. Therefore a unit may not assault unless it destroyed the transport in question.

Since our...well, at least my...confusion seems to be hovering over the use of 'however' could you just explain to me how you read the however and how it does or does not connect to the previous sentence? That is really my only hangup with reading the rule the way I do as opposed to the way you do, and I think therein lies the solution.

Regards,
Thor.

Thor - first off, thanks for actually being respectful on here. With all the childish posts on here its easy to go down to their level.

In my opinion, the "however" is there in the context of "You may not shoot the troops, however, you may assault if the transport was destroyed and the unit shot it".

Night Lords wrote:Thor - first off, thanks for actually being respectful on here. With all the childish posts on here its easy to go down to their level.

In my opinion, the "however" is there in the context of "You may not shoot the troops, however, you may assault if the transport was destroyed and the unit shot it".

Nice, so "My hypocrisy knows no bounds" is fair?

As far as the opinion, sure, that was given pages back too.

Night Lords wrote:In my opinion, the "however" is there in the context of "You may not shoot the troops, however, you may assault if the transport was destroyed and the unit shot it".

Okay, I believe I grok where you're coming from.

I will note that the reason I disagree with you is because the use of 'However' in English unfortunately doesn't support your interpretation. It's use as a conjunctive adverb irrevocably connects it to the previous sentence - and the previous sentence is clearly talking about something only one squad can do (destroy a transport), therefore the subject of the second sentence, because of 'however', is obligated to also be a singular (in this case 'the unit') For your interpretation to work you would have to accept that 'the unit' in the second sentence would have been more accurately written the unit(s) but, by the presence of 'however' we know this cannot be the case. That's what makes the rule so clear to me in the way I read it.

If I went with your reading of it wouldn't I then be obligated to believe that the writer of the two sentences in question intended for your method but grammatically set up the sentence to not support it? I know it's apparently uncool to support RAW over RAI, but I'm going on the basis that if a rule isn't a "gray area" then we ought to go with the way it's written. Your thoughts?

Didn't this come up a couple of months ago?

Based purely on the language, the rule is too ambiguous to determine what happens in this situation. There is no way to determine for certain which unit is "the" unit referred to in the rule when multiple units fire, so it's a blind spot as far as the language goes.

Thor665 wrote:

Night Lords wrote:In my opinion, the "however" is there in the context of "You may not shoot the troops, however, you may assault if the transport was destroyed and the unit shot it".

Okay, I believe I grok where you're coming from.

I will note that the reason I disagree with you is because the use of 'However' in English unfortunately doesn't support your interpretation. It's use as a conjunctive adverb irrevocably connects it to the previous sentence - and the previous sentence is clearly talking about something only one squad can do (destroy a transport), therefore the subject of the second sentence, because of 'however', is obligated to also be a singular (in this case 'the unit') For your interpretation to work you would have to accept that 'the unit' in the second sentence would have been more accurately written the unit(s) but, by the presence of 'however' we know this cannot be the case. That's what makes the rule so clear to me in the way I read it.

If I went with your reading of it wouldn't I then be obligated to believe that the writer of the two sentences in question intended for your method but grammatically set up the sentence to not support it? I know it's apparently uncool to support RAW over RAI, but I'm going on the basis that if a rule isn't a "gray area" then we ought to go with the way it's written. Your thoughts?

It does not require the word "unit(s)" because we're still talking about the unit that may not continue to fire their bolters into the disembarked troops. Im not sure how the word "however" doesnt support my interpretation or why you brought up singular units, because thats exactly what Im saying. Im saying the rule is on a case by case basis, looking at each squad in isolation. The rule does not bring multiple squads into consideration.

The first sentence does nothing for the second (where the whole issue is based around) except to tell you that "the unit that shot it" is the unit from the previous sentence, to inform you that while you were unable to shoot the troops, you may however assault them.

The sentence essentially says "Squad A may not fire their bolters into the squad, however, Squad A may assault the unit (because they shot it)".

Squad B, which shot and failed to destroy the tank ignores the first part because there are no troops to shoot at at the time of their shooting. They may simply assault the unit because they shot at it.

Night Lords wrote:It does not require the word "unit(s)" because we're still talking about the unit that may not continue to fire their bolters into the disembarked troops. Im not sure how the word "however" doesnt support my interpretation or why you brought up singular units, because thats exactly what Im saying.

Well, up to this point we're agreeing, but I'll show you where we digress below. 'However' is important for the reasons I listed in my post above and I suggest you're not using the word correctly in the way you're reading the rule. In short, it makes everything in the second sentence dependent upon the information in the first sentence.

Im saying the rule is on a case by case basis, looking at each squad in isolation. The rule does not bring multiple squads into consideration.

I agree that it's about one squad, and I'll even agree it's a case by case basis, but the 'however' will be important in understanding the case by case.

The first sentence does nothing for the second (where the whole issue is based around)

I strongly disagree here. It's impossible for a sentence to begin with 'however' unless the sentence in front of it connects and affects it. As i said, I feel this is where we're diverting.

except to tell you that "the unit that shot it" is the unit from the previous sentence, to inform you that while you were unable to shoot the troops, you may however assault them.

I'll agree and have always believed that 'the unit' being referenced is the same in both sentences.

The sentence essentially says "Squad A may not fire their bolters into the squad, however, Squad A may assault the unit (because they shot it)".

Shot *and* destroyed it. The 'however' makes the second part intrinsic upon the first part. They must have destroyed the transport in order to access the sentence that 'however' begins.

Squad B, which shot and failed to destroy the tank ignores the first part because there are no troops to shoot at at the time of their shooting. They may simply assault the unit because they shot at it.

Simply put, I disagree that the word "however" suddenly makes the first sentence a prerequisite. I also disagree with your interpretation of the word "however", to me it clearly is saying you may not shoot, however you may assault.

The sentence does *not* say shot or destroyed. It says the unit that shot it, period.

Looking at it again, I would have to say that while both sentences are single units, I would argue that the sentences are completely different thoughts discussing two seperate rules, and the inclusion of the word "however" is irrelevant. In the example given they have a lascannon firing and destroying a transport. A lascannon is a heavy weapon. Seeing as how "units firing a heavy weapon in the shooting phase may not assault in the assault phase", I disagree entirely that the first sentence is a prerequisite, as in the example given its not even possible. This leads me to believe the rule deals with the shooting phase in one sentence, and then the assault phase in the other.

With that said, I think it's even more clear now that it's two entirely different rules, and the use of the word "however" is just there strictly to point out this very unique rule where you may not shoot troops but may assault.

Finally, considering all assaults are done on a case to case basis, you look at the now obvious assault rule after shooting a transport:

Was a transport destroyed by a ranged attack? Yes. This unit shot at it? Yes -> you may now assault the disembarked passengers.

I would also like to point out that most people on here give GW way too much literary credit. They are after all game designers, not literary artists by any sense of the words.

While I understand why RAW supports the first unit that shot and didn't destroy the vehicle not allow it to assault.

RAI should also be considered in this manner. I makes sense for the first unit to be able to assault, to deny the assault only adds confusion as it is only logical for all units that shot the transport to be able to assault if one was able to under the certain condition of the transport being destroyed.

Again you must ask yourself does GW hire designers or authors. Clearly if they would have hired an English professor of some sort this wouldn't be an issue, as it would have been well formulated in the first place.

Also consider that shooting is not simultaneous like assaulting is. It is only simultaneous within the unit. Thus the shooting rules are only going to be worded from a single unit's perspective and how the rules affect them. The shooting rules are very linear. If this then do that. And so on.

sbeasley wrote:RAI should also be considered in this manner. I makes sense for the first unit to be able to assault, to deny the assault only adds confusion as it is only logical for all units that shot the transport to be able to assault if one was able to under the certain condition of the transport being destroyed.

This is a great example of why RAI is potentially handy for keeping the game moving, but useless for determining what the rules are actually supposed to be.

Because while wht you've suggested here is certainly reasonable, I think it makes more sense to stick with the general premise of the assault rules, which is that units that shot can only assault their target. So RAI, to me, would be that only the unit that destroyed the transport can assault the unit the disembarked.

Night Lords wrote:Simply put, I disagree that the word "however" suddenly makes the first sentence a prerequisite. I also disagree with your interpretation of the word "however", to me it clearly is saying you may not shoot, however you may assault.

I'm totally fine with you disagreeing with me, but I would note that it is not "my" interpretation. It is simply the way the English language works.

For instance your sentence above "you may not shoot, however you may assault." is grammatically incorrect. You would have to write it "you may not shoot, however, you may assault." and if you write that then what you're writing is; "you may not shoot, you may assault." Which would only argue my point about how clearly it's connected to the first sentence. Though, really, this is all just grammatical blabbering by this point, as I think you understand my point you just choose to use 'however' in a way either I'm unfamiliar with or in a way it's not really meant to be used (or you're just comfortable ignoring the 'however' in sake of doing something that, to you, "makes sense") All of this I'm fine with, I just see no support for your interpretation within the rules themselves.

sbeasley wrote:RAI should also be considered in this manner. I makes sense for the first unit to be able to assault, to deny the assault only adds confusion as it is only logical for all units that shot the transport to be able to assault if one was able to under the certain condition of the transport being destroyed.

Yet I (and I presume you) are totally comfortable with the concept that a unit that deep strikes and shoots a unit may not assault it even though another unit might be able to because deep striking has special rules about getting to shoot yet not assault. It is hardly a sudden or strange interpretation in the rules that in certain situations units are unable or able to perform assaults that others may not. To be honest until these threads started popping up here it had never even occured to me that a unit that shot and didn't destroy a transport could assault the unit that disembarked because it wasn't allowed under the normal rules for assault. SO while I am willing to accept that your interpretation "makes sense" I would add that I see no reason my position makes any more or less sense.

I'm also totally fine with RAI in cases involving Librarians in Terminator armor where, to my mind, clearly the RAW has a linguistic anomaly that appears a simple oversight. I just don't see that as likely in a specialized note that reads normally unless you presume the writers (however poorly they may or may not be versed in English) used the incorrect word at the start of a sentence.

Thor665 wrote:
It is simply the way the English language works.

You see, while I accept disagreeing with you, i do not agree with this statement at all. This implies that my argument is somehow void, when it is not. The use of the word however in no way implies that the first sentence is a prerequisite in anyway. It connects the two sentences, yes, but thats all it does. Its a similar train of thought, but the "however" is just there to make it clear that while in this case you cannot shoot the troops, you can assault.

I think your interpretation of the word "however" is an assumption, and an assumption that is really has no grounds to be stated as a fact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thor665 wrote:For instance your sentence above "you may not shoot, however you may assault." is grammatically incorrect. You would have to write it "you may not shoot, however, you may assault." and if you write that then what you're writing is; "you may not shoot, you may assault." Which would only argue my point about how clearly it's connected to the first sentence. Though, really, this is all just grammatical blabbering by this point, as I think you understand my point you just choose to use 'however' in a way either I'm unfamiliar with or in a way it's not really meant to be used (or you're just comfortable ignoring the 'however' in sake of doing something that, to you, "makes sense") All of this I'm fine with, I just see no support for your interpretation within the rules themselves.

You are right, without the comma it isn't correct, but that's not really an issue. I think you're missing the point because while it is connected to the first sentence (in order to flow with the same idea), in no way does the rule *only* apply if the first sentence is performed. The rulebook is written to communicate to you, and the use of the word however in no way, shape or form indicates that it is a prerequisite. They are clearly two ideas with two completely different rules. If you can't see past that I don't know what to tell you.

Night Lords wrote:

Thor665 wrote:
It is simply the way the English language works.

You see, while I accept disagreeing with you, i do not agree with this statement at all. This implies that my argument is somehow void, when it is not. The use of the word however in no way implies that the first sentence is a prerequisite in anyway. It connects the two sentences, yes, but thats all it does. Its a similar train of thought, but the "however" is just there to make it clear that while in this case you cannot shoot the troops, you can assault.

I think your interpretation of the word "however" is an assumption, and an assumption that is really has no grounds to be stated as a fact.

I am not attempting to be trite or simplistic, but at the same time I think I've taken a fair bit of time to explain to you how the word 'however' is used. I said I was fine with it that you chose not to use it that way, but I am oddly put off that you're acting like I'm "assuming" how to use the word. I am willing to simply disagree with you when it comes to the rules of 40k, but in the use of 'however' there is an absolute and provable right and wrong as to how the English language uses the word. I offer you some potential reading;

How to use 'However'
How to use 'However'
How to use 'However'

I would welcome you to do research of your own and come back to me with any source on English grammar that debunks my beliefs in this regard.

When it comes to the use of 'however' in a sentence, without trying to sound like a jerk - I am correct about how it is used, I am assuming nothing, and I'm afraid to say it is you who are 'assuming' things about the use of the word. Go ahead and return to the rulebook and replace 'however' with 'nevertheless' and see how the rule reads to you then. 'Nevertheless' is a grammatically identical replacement for 'however' in the way it is used in that sentence. The two sentences are connected and it's not because I'm assuming stuff or trying to make up things in order to prove you wrong. All I am doing is using the rules of the language the words and sentences of the rulebook are written in.

If you can't see past that I don't know what to tell you.

For the record I feel I've worked fairly hard to understand your point and have explained it back to you. I have even said what parts I could accept and what specific word changes would make me reassess my current standing. I've explained why I choose not to use the rule through your interpretation and why I feel my way is properly supported via the rules. I'm not trying to come off as unreceptive to your point of view - if I am doing so please let me know where, and how, I did so.

I would think the only reason the marines could be argued that they may attack the disembarked units is because it only says shot at and not destroyed, implying that the unit must use its ranged attacks at the vehicle if it wants to assault whats inside.

Reasoning for this, the rules for shooting and assaulting units, the assaulters may only target the unit they shot for assault, they dont need to do any damage, but the must target them.

just an idea...

They are connected, so your 3 links and giant paragraph werent necessary because we agree on that.

However, being connected does not automatically make them the same idea. The point of connecting two ideas together with "however" is to show that its in the same situation, but they are two seperate ideas (or in this case, rules). The two seperate ideas are shooting and assault, which in itself are two completely different phases.

It's to the point now where it's just getting silly. They are connected, yes, but in no way does that mean under a rulebook that one HAS to happen before the other.

Again, sorry if you can't see that.

I think insaniak's rule o' grammar in YMDC has just been proven....

Night Lords wrote:However, being connected does not automatically make them the same idea.

Here is a sentence, it's connected to its previous sentence by a 'however'. In my world I cannot understand what this sentence means or what it is on about without referencing the previous sentence, that you now appear to agree *is* connected. So you then agree that the above sentence, without reference of its previous sentence, is unable to be read and understood - yet you continue with a belief that a rule starting with 'however', though connected, is still independantly applicable to any and all units that fired at a given transport?

If they're connected, and you need to read the previous sentence to understand the one that begins with 'however' then you are correct that I "can't see that" because I don't understand how you then feel that it's possible for a unit to only utilize the second part of a connected rule. Could you explain that for me, or am I totally losing where you're going here?

*sigh*

Having a restrictive action followed by a permissive one DOES make it connected. That's the sole connection between the two. This is the only situation I can think of where you cant shoot but you may assault. Assault phase is followed by shooting, so it is connected in every regard.

If the first sentence was a prerequisite, they would have used terms like "provided you destroyed the tank...". No where does it imply the first sentence must have happened in order to assault.

Youre in GW and you need to use the washroom. "Sorry Thor, you may not use this washroom as it's for employees only. However, you may use the public washroom next door.". Are you really going to tell me that the only way for me to use the washroom next door is if I'm not allowed to use the washroom in GW?

That's insane, and is exactly what you're arguing.

Because shooting is resolves one unit at a time, the process as I see it goes as follows:

1. Choose a Unit
2. Unit Shoots.
3. Is the vehicle destroyed? If no; go to 1, if yes; go to 4.
4. This unit may assault the disembarked troops.

If you allowed the interpretation of 'any unit that shot at the vehicle in the whole shooting phase' - you'd run into situations where an assault squad would unload their bolt pistols at a land raider in case the devastator squad managed to blow it up.

Night Lords wrote:Youre in GW and you need to use the washroom. "Sorry Thor, you may not use this washroom as it's for employees only. However, you may use the public washroom next door.". Are you really going to tell me that the only way for me to use the washroom next door is if I'm not allowed to use the washroom in GW?

That's insane, and is exactly what you're arguing.

Sorry I'm making you *sigh*.

Your bathroom example is interesting, but it doesn't follow the full and proper structure of the example in the book and is thus slightly misleading.

Thor, who is in GW, wishes to use a washroom but may not use the employee water closet. However, he may use the public water closet next door.

What I am saying is that; if I do not have a desire to use the washroom, then there is never a need or ability for me to go to the next sentence to discover I can use the one next door. Also, without the first sentence, we never discover *why* I need to use the one next door. If you keep discussing grammar I really feel you should not be dismissive of my 'paragraph and three links' post above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

unistoo wrote:Because shooting is resolves one unit at a time, the process as I see it goes as follows:

1. Choose a Unit
2. Unit Shoots.
3. Is the vehicle destroyed? If no; go to 1, if yes; go to 4.
4. This unit may assault the disembarked troops.

If you allowed the interpretation of 'any unit that shot at the vehicle in the whole shooting phase' - you'd run into situations where an assault squad would unload their bolt pistols at a land raider in case the devastator squad managed to blow it up.

I concur with your assessment, as do a fair number of others. Some disagree though and the current reasoning seems to be a disagreement over the use of the word 'however' and what it does or does not entail. We're very exciting people here.

Thor665 wrote:
Sorry I'm making you *sigh*.

Your bathroom example is interesting, but it doesn't follow the full and proper structure of the example in the book and is thus slightly misleading.

Thor, who is in GW, wishes to use a washroom but may not use the employee water closet. However, he may use the public water closet next door.

What I am saying is that; if I do not have a desire to use the washroom, then there is never a need or ability for me to go to the next sentence to discover I can use the one next door. Also, without the first sentence, we never discover *why* I need to use the one next door. If you keep discussing grammar I really feel you should not be dismissive of my 'paragraph and three links' post above.

Youre still looking at it the wrong way. Granted, I came up with that comparison in two seconds just to throw it out, theres a million more out there. The one i provided still works.

Going to the washroom is the same as attacking.
Going in GW is the same as shooting
Going next door is the same as assaulting.

I want to go to the washroom [attack your troops]. I may not go in GW [shoot them]. However, I may go next door [assault them]. You wish to do something, in one situation you cannot, in the other you can. That's all it is, it's actually extremely simple and I think you're making it far more complicated than it needs to be.

unistoo wrote:If you allowed the interpretation of 'any unit that shot at the vehicle in the whole shooting phase' - you'd run into situations where an assault squad would unload their bolt pistols at a land raider in case the devastator squad managed to blow it up.

Why would that happen? Even if they didn't shoot at it first, AS would be able to assault the units inside if the Devastators blew it up.

Where do you include the destroying of the transport in the first sentence in that example?

It is extremely simple in your example, but your example is not a proper reflection of what the sentences you're exemplifying are.

The first sentence has an action (destroying a transport) and a restriction (may not shoot the disembarked troops). The second sentence has a conjunctive adverb (however) and a permission (may assault) Your example lacks an action and thus of course will have a different meaning then the example you are not fully drawing from. You need to have them in two sentences with the grammar remaining the same otherwise what you're doing is making new sentences which, of course, could have different meanings.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

unistoo wrote:If you allowed the interpretation of 'any unit that shot at the vehicle in the whole shooting phase' - you'd run into situations where an assault squad would unload their bolt pistols at a land raider in case the devastator squad managed to blow it up.

Why would that happen? Even if they didn't shoot at it first, AS would be able to assault the units inside if the Devastators blew it up.

Whoops, misunderstood that part of the debate.

I'm still not sure why people are trying to insert a plurality into a sentence that deals strictly in the singular though.

Thor665 wrote:Where do you include the destroying of the transport in the first sentence in that example?

It is extremely simple in your example, but your example is not a proper reflection of what the sentences you're exemplifying are.

The first sentence has an action (destroying a transport) and a restriction (may not shoot the disembarked troops). The second sentence has a conjunctive adverb (however) and a permission (may assault) Your example lacks an action and thus of course will have a different meaning then the example you are not fully drawing from. You need to have them in two sentences with the grammar remaining the same otherwise what you're doing is making new sentences which, of course, could have different meanings.

The point was that's how I interpreted "however", and it's perfectly legit. You argued it can't be used without being a prerequisite and Ive proven that wrong. Im not making a perfect example because you should now be able to use common sense and apply it to the rulebook (seriously, lascannons, bolters, shooting & assaulting...what is truly going to compare to that?)

Please just go look up conjunctive adverbs and learn what they mean and do.

As I said a few posts ago I'm perfectly fine with you playing the rule that way - I was not fine with you suggesting I was the one making an error in how I read 'however'. You are perfectly entitled to read it and play it any way you care to, but the English language suggests one is correct and the other is not.

Seriously, this is getting really ridiculous. Why do I have to look something up when Ive just proven a case where the use of "however" falls into my interpretation? How can there possibly be something out there denying my interpretation of word when I just gave an example that does work?

Ive never ever in my life had a situation where the word "however" somehow completely restricted the following sentence into being solely linked the sentence before it.

Really, Im done with this "however" issue. If you can't put two and two together, I can't help you man. It's painfully obvious.

unistoo wrote:Because shooting is resolves one unit at a time, the process as I see it goes as follows:

1. Choose a Unit
2. Unit Shoots.
3. Is the vehicle destroyed? If no; go to 1, if yes; go to 4.
4. This unit may assault the disembarked troops.

If you allowed the interpretation of 'any unit that shot at the vehicle in the whole shooting phase' - you'd run into situations where an assault squad would unload their bolt pistols at a land raider in case the devastator squad managed to blow it up.

true, true, but keep in mind, the devastators could simply be resolved first, and if they blow it up, the assault squad shoots and assaults the troops inside anyway...