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.
Sorry, that wasn't particularly clear of me. What I was trying to get at was that, if it's adjectival and has no relation to the verb, you should be able to remove the verb from the equation and with the same participle clause create a simple is/are sentence with the subject/object the adjective modifies:
"The model is/the models are counting as having moved that turn."
Which is ridiculous because it should of course be, "The models count as having moved that turn."
"The model is counting as having moved that turn"
"The models are counting as having moved that turn"
Those are both perfectly understandable sentences and are simple is/are constructions of the even simpler . . .
"The models count as having moved that turn."
The above sentences only differ in tense.
It looks to me like the meaning of the clause is retained even when the verb "to shoot" is dropped.
All of this just further underscores that "Counting as having moved that turn" is an adjectival participle clause modifying "models"
I have to say I find this discussion quite silly and there is some trolling in progress. There is a point when general consensus and common sense overrides splitting hairs and multiple paragraphs to make a weak attempt at proving your point. Abusive language means nothing in a logical debate .
Charistoph wrote: So it is grammatically impossible for models to shoot counting as having moved that turn?
Its grammatically possible albeit only in an adjectival manner, describing the subject. The models can count as having moved that turn. The action (shoot) cannot count as having moved that turn.
So, it would be impossible for the models to count has having moved when they reach their subsequent shooting phase, even if they did not move?
The question you are asking does not follow from the previous question or my answer.
Than you truly do not understand the direction I am heading. Not surprising since you do not understand what I meant regarding caveat and list and consider them not but homegrown words and ideas.
Also interesting that the you stated that the statement under discussion basically can only apply in such a manner in adjectival manner, yet, you also continue to insist that phrase operates in this manner as well.
col_impact wrote:I indicated in my answer that grammatically the models are described as counting as having moved that turn and that the action is not described as counting as having moved that turn. This is because the clause grammatically modifies the subject and not the verb. If you want to start talking logic then back up and frame some questions in terms of logic and not muddle the discussion with loaded questions. Hotswitching from grammatical inquiry to logical inquiry on your part can be seen as a an attempt at obfuscating the discussion.
Ah, so instead of actually answering the question, you revert back to trying to only look at things grammatically. Even more so, you refuse to even try to understand everything I've been saying.
For some reason you cannot conceive the possibility that this phrase in question is meant to encompass the entire sentence up to this point, which is the point of the question I last posted. I do not seek to try and address it adverbly, or adjectively, but instead as a parameter for the actions previously entailed. In other words, it should affect this, "After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase...". Or in other words, not just "models" are considered having moved that turn, but "models who are manifesting psychic powers, shooting, or running in their following Shooting Phase".
The models are still the target for this comment about being considered to have moved, but specifically models in a particular state are the targets of this clause, and not any other state.
Try reading the sentence aloud in two different ways as a way to understand my perspective and listen how they flow. In the first method, read everything after "models can" as you would listing off the possible maneuvers and actions available to the models and their unit. In the second method, try reading the sentence this way, "After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase (counting as having moved that turn), but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase", with the phrase in parentheses slightly under your breath as if done as a side note or caveat.
Now, which method is less painful to listen to? Which sounds more appropriate?
You can try going off about how grammar works, but if you use technical words again, my eyes will just glaze over and my short-term memory will not catch them. Fair warning, as if it should be needed at this point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/13 07:00:48
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
For some reason you cannot conceive the possibility that this phrase in question is meant to encompass the entire sentence up to this point, which is the point of the question I last posted. I do not seek to try and address it adverbly, or adjectively, but instead as a parameter for the actions previously entailed. In other words, it should affect this, "After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase...". Or in other words, not just "models" are considered having moved that turn, but "models who are manifesting psychic powers, shooting, or running in their following Shooting Phase".
The models are still the target for this comment about being considered to have moved, but specifically models in a particular state are the targets of this clause, and not any other state.
It looks like we are in agreement that the clause pertains to the whole sentence. I am glad that you are starting to see things my way. Your prior argument was trying to attach the clause narrowly to just "in their subsequent Shooting phase".
The clause in question, "counting as having moved that turn," globally modifies the entire sentence by describing the noun "models" which is a shared noun in the entire sentence (which is composed of two dependent clauses and two independent clauses).
The clause could be placed lots of places in the sentence and retain the same meaning.
Spoiler:
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.
Counting as having moved that turn, models can, after disembarking, manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.
After disembarking, models can, counting as having moved that turn, manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers, counting as having moved that turn, and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase, counting as having moved that turn.
These sentences all mean the same thing since the clause is always describing globally the state that the models are in after disembarking. In fact, since the clause globally grammatically modifies the noun for the whole the sentence, we know "that turn" refers to the turn of disembarking. In the normal state of things the turn of disembarking is the same turn as the phase described by 'the subsequent Shooting phase'. The normal case isn't what is confusing for people.
What is confusing for some people is the odd situation when "that turn" of disembarking is not the same turn "of the subsequent Shooting phase" which occurs when the unit disembarks in the enemy turn. "That turn" still refers to the turn of disembarking since the clause globally modifies the noun for the whole the sentence and describes the state of the models "after disembarking". "That turn" now refers to the 'enemy's turn' in the unusual case of disembarking on the enemy's turn. "The models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved [in the enemy's] turn".
So we have cases where disembarking happens on your turn and cases where disembarking happens on the enemy's turn. "That turn" always refers to the turn the disembarking happens. If the subsequent Shooting phase is affected by whatever "that turn" winds up being then shooting will be affected. In the normal case of disembarking on your turn, 'heavy' weapon firing for the disembarked unit might be affected in the shooting phase, for example. In the case of disembarking in the enemy turn, shooting will be affected for the unit that disembarked in the case of overwatch in the enemy turn but not for normal shooting in the subsequent Shooting phase. "That turn" does not have to refer to the same turn of the subsequent Shooting phase. It just happens to refer to the same turn in the normal case.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/12/13 09:15:23
For some reason you cannot conceive the possibility that this phrase in question is meant to encompass the entire sentence up to this point, which is the point of the question I last posted. I do not seek to try and address it adverbly, or adjectively, but instead as a parameter for the actions previously entailed. In other words, it should affect this, "After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase...". Or in other words, not just "models" are considered having moved that turn, but "models who are manifesting psychic powers, shooting, or running in their following Shooting Phase".
The models are still the target for this comment about being considered to have moved, but specifically models in a particular state are the targets of this clause, and not any other state.
It looks like we are in agreement that the clause pertains to the whole sentence. I am glad that you are starting to see things my way. Your prior argument was trying to attach the clause narrowly to just "in their subsequent Shooting phase".
To the contrary, that has been my position from the beginning. I was attributing it to the previous phrase, to which I was referencing, "models can... subsequent Shooting Phase". You just assumed that I was only referencing "in their subsequent Shooting Phase." Even more so, you were not even acknowledging a connection between the phrase in question and any part of the sentence but the initial noun.
col_impact wrote: The clause in question, "counting as having moved that turn," globally modifies the entire sentence by describing the noun "models" which is a shared noun in the entire sentence (which is composed of two dependent clauses and two independent clauses).
Which is not what you have been saying or implying with your arguments. What you have been saying and implying is that it only applied to the models and it ignored every single part of the sentence in between them.
col_impact wrote: The clause could be placed lots of places in the sentence and retain the same meaning.
Spoiler:
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.
Counting as having moved that turn, models can, after disembarking, manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.
After disembarking, models can, counting as having moved that turn, manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers, counting as having moved that turn, and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase, counting as having moved that turn.
These sentences all mean the same thing since the clause is always describing globally the state that the models are in after disembarking. In fact, since the clause globally grammatically modifies the noun for the whole the sentence, we know "that turn" refers to the turn of disembarking. In the normal state of things the turn of disembarking is the same turn as the phase described by 'the subsequent Shooting phase'. The normal case isn't what is confusing for people.
You cannot claim that it applies to the entire sentence before, but then claim that the turn it is speaking of only applies to the turn the models embarked. It is either referencing the preceding portion of the sentence, at which point it is being a caveat, or it is only referencing the models alone, at which point it is being used as part of a list of allowed/disallowed actions and conditions applying to the models in question.
col_impact wrote: What is confusing for some people is the odd situation when "that turn" of disembarking is not the same turn "of the subsequent Shooting phase" which occurs when the unit disembarks in the enemy turn. "That turn" still refers to the turn of disembarking since the clause globally modifies the noun for the whole the sentence and describes the state of the models "after disembarking". "That turn" now refers to the 'enemy's turn' in the unusual case of disembarking on the enemy's turn. "The models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved [in the enemy's] turn".
I disagree. If it was just meant to apply only to the turn the models disembarked, than counting as moved would be used as a list item, and so would have been placed earlier in the sentence. Movement comes before psychic manifesting and shooting, and so any restrictions on movement would .be mentioned first as any proper list is constructed. By placing it after the permission to manifest psychic powers, shoot, and Run, it places the restriction on the models when it reaches those points and defines that particular stretch of the sentence as such.
In other words, if it was only to restrict the models to counting as moved the turn it Disembarked, the sentence would be as such, "After disembarking, models count as having moved that turn, can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase."
But if you put commas to separate out the phrase as a clause, "After disembarking, models can, counting as having moved that turn. manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.", than this still puts the caveat delineated in this phrase on to what is following and not exclusively to the action of Disembarking.
col_impact wrote: So we have cases where disembarking happens on your turn and cases where disembarking happens on the enemy's turn. "That turn" always refers to the turn the disembarking happens. If the subsequent Shooting phase is affected by whatever "that turn" winds up being then shooting will be affected. In the normal case of disembarking on your turn, 'heavy' weapon firing for the disembarked unit might be affected in the shooting phase, for example. In the case of disembarking in the enemy turn, shooting will be affected for the unit that disembarked in the case of overwatch in the enemy turn but not for normal shooting in the subsequent Shooting phase. "That turn" does not have to refer to the same turn of the subsequent Shooting phase. It just happens to refer to the same turn in the normal case.
Again, I disagree. If it was only meant to reference the turn the model disembarked, its placement in the sentence would be completely different, as I have demonstrated above. "That turn" does not have to refer to the same turn as the subsequent Shooting Phase, but the placement of the phrase sure seems to be what is referencing, and more likely than just the turn the models disembarked.
And did you bother with the little exercise I asked you to do? It's far easier than googling English phrase definitions and relationships, or even looking up a paragraph in the rulebook.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
For some reason you cannot conceive the possibility that this phrase in question is meant to encompass the entire sentence up to this point, which is the point of the question I last posted. I do not seek to try and address it adverbly, or adjectively, but instead as a parameter for the actions previously entailed. In other words, it should affect this, "After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase...". Or in other words, not just "models" are considered having moved that turn, but "models who are manifesting psychic powers, shooting, or running in their following Shooting Phase".
The models are still the target for this comment about being considered to have moved, but specifically models in a particular state are the targets of this clause, and not any other state.
It looks like we are in agreement that the clause pertains to the whole sentence. I am glad that you are starting to see things my way. Your prior argument was trying to attach the clause narrowly to just "in their subsequent Shooting phase".
To the contrary, that has been my position from the beginning. I was attributing it to the previous phrase, to which I was referencing, "models can... subsequent Shooting Phase". You just assumed that I was only referencing "in their subsequent Shooting Phase." Even more so, you were not even acknowledging a connection between the phrase in question and any part of the sentence but the initial noun.
col_impact wrote: The clause in question, "counting as having moved that turn," globally modifies the entire sentence by describing the noun "models" which is a shared noun in the entire sentence (which is composed of two dependent clauses and two independent clauses).
Which is not what you have been saying or implying with your arguments. What you have been saying and implying is that it only applied to the models and it ignored every single part of the sentence in between them.
col_impact wrote: The clause could be placed lots of places in the sentence and retain the same meaning.
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.
Counting as having moved that turn, models can, after disembarking, manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.
After disembarking, models can, counting as having moved that turn, manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers, counting as having moved that turn, and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase, counting as having moved that turn.
These sentences all mean the same thing since the clause is always describing globally the state that the models are in after disembarking. In fact, since the clause globally grammatically modifies the noun for the whole the sentence, we know "that turn" refers to the turn of disembarking. In the normal state of things the turn of disembarking is the same turn as the phase described by 'the subsequent Shooting phase'. The normal case isn't what is confusing for people.
You cannot claim that it applies to the entire sentence before, but then claim that the turn it is speaking of only applies to the turn the models embarked. It is either referencing the preceding portion of the sentence, at which point it is being a caveat, or it is only referencing the models alone, at which point it is being used as part of a list of allowed/disallowed actions and conditions applying to the models in question.
col_impact wrote: What is confusing for some people is the odd situation when "that turn" of disembarking is not the same turn "of the subsequent Shooting phase" which occurs when the unit disembarks in the enemy turn. "That turn" still refers to the turn of disembarking since the clause globally modifies the noun for the whole the sentence and describes the state of the models "after disembarking". "That turn" now refers to the 'enemy's turn' in the unusual case of disembarking on the enemy's turn. "The models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved [in the enemy's] turn".
I disagree. If it was just meant to apply only to the turn the models disembarked, than counting as moved would be used as a list item, and so would have been placed earlier in the sentence. Movement comes before psychic manifesting and shooting, and so any restrictions on movement would .be mentioned first as any proper list is constructed. By placing it after the permission to manifest psychic powers, shoot, and Run, it places the restriction on the models when it reaches those points and defines that particular stretch of the sentence as such.
In other words, if it was only to restrict the models to counting as moved the turn it Disembarked, the sentence would be as such, "After disembarking, models count as having moved that turn, can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase."
But if you put commas to separate out the phrase as a clause, "After disembarking, models can, counting as having moved that turn. manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but they cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.", than this still puts the caveat delineated in this phrase on to what is following and not exclusively to the action of Disembarking.
col_impact wrote: So we have cases where disembarking happens on your turn and cases where disembarking happens on the enemy's turn. "That turn" always refers to the turn the disembarking happens. If the subsequent Shooting phase is affected by whatever "that turn" winds up being then shooting will be affected. In the normal case of disembarking on your turn, 'heavy' weapon firing for the disembarked unit might be affected in the shooting phase, for example. In the case of disembarking in the enemy turn, shooting will be affected for the unit that disembarked in the case of overwatch in the enemy turn but not for normal shooting in the subsequent Shooting phase. "That turn" does not have to refer to the same turn of the subsequent Shooting phase. It just happens to refer to the same turn in the normal case.
Again, I disagree. If it was only meant to reference the turn the model disembarked, its placement in the sentence would be completely different, as I have demonstrated above. "That turn" does not have to refer to the same turn as the subsequent Shooting Phase, but the placement of the phrase sure seems to be what is referencing, and more likely than just the turn the models disembarked.
And did you bother with the little exercise I asked you to do? It's far easier than googling English phrase definitions and relationships, or even looking up a paragraph in the rulebook.
Charistophe, there are several big problems with your argument.
1) The clause "counting as having moved that turn" has been identified as an adjectival present participle globally modifying the noun 'models'. Grammatically, "that turn" can only refer to the turn the models disembark.
2) The clause "counting as having moved that turn" is not locally or specifically tied to the phrase "in their subsequent Shooting phase" in any way so no direct reference exists between "that turn" and "phase". An example of a specific tie or reference would be . . ."After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase (the models count as having moved in that phase) . . . " Without a specific tie, grammatically and logically, "that turn" the models disembark could mean the same turn as the one that would include 'their subsequent Shooting phase' OR it could not mean the same turn. Its really up to the specific game instance whether they are indeed the same turn - no specific tie or reference is enforcing they are the same turn. In the case of disembarking on the enemy turn, "that turn", as in the turn the the unit disembarks, will not be the same turn as the unit's subsequent Shooting phase.
3) The positioning of the "counting as having moved that turn" clause does not introduce meaning nor does positioning on its own have meaning-bearing weight. It cannot take the place of a specific reference or tie, nor can it overrule grammatical structure. Your argument hinges heavily on making a big to-do on where the clause is exactly positioned, when grammar and semantic allow for flexible positioning. The clause can be re-positioned and retain the exact same meaning since the clause, as I have shown, globally modifies the whole sentence. While there might be stylistically a superior position for a clause or a position that aids reader comprehension, the clause can be repositioned without affecting the meaning and repositioning will not alter the meaning. Further, it should be pointed out that even if you say out loud the clause to yourself in a scary voice that does not actually do anything to the grammar or semantics of the actual rule. Your argument doesn't have any substance - arguing based on clause positioning and the voice you use when you read the rule is meaningless drivel. I strongly suggest turning to grammar or semantics to provide substance to your argument.
4) The clause "counting as having moved that turn" provides information that may be relevant in most cases but does not have to be relevant in all cases. The information that the clause brings up is relevant in the case where the model disembarks in its movement phase (which is most often the case) but it is not relevant in the case where the model disembarks in the enemy turn. You seem hellbent on insisting that the clause will always be relevant and will impose an active restriction on all cases when there is no reason at all to assume that the information in the clause is always relevant in all cases. The rule makes mention of "counting as having moved that turn" because it will often (thought not always) be relevant information for play. It will not be relevant information in the case of disembarking on the enemy's turn.
I know you have a strong feeling that "that turn" must always be the same turn as "their subsequent Shooting phase" but grammar, semantics, logic, and the rule as they are written all disagree with you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/13 23:08:23
col_impact wrote: Charistophe, there are several big problems with your argument.
1) The clause "counting as having moved that turn" has been identified as an adjectival present participle globally modifying the noun 'models'. Grammatically, "that turn" can only refer to the turn the models disembark.
I should point out that only you have made this identification. I still question this judgement since you believe "list" and "caveat" to be made up, homegrown words.
col_impact wrote: 2) The clause "counting as having moved that turn" is not locally or specifically tied to the phrase "in their subsequent Shooting phase" in any way so no direct reference exists between "that turn" and "phase". An example of a specific tie or reference would be . . ."After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase (the models count as having moved in that phase) . . . " Without a specific tie, grammatically and logically, "that turn" the models disembark could mean the same turn as the one that would include 'their subsequent Shooting phase' OR it could not mean the same turn. Its really up to the specific game instance whether they are indeed the same turn - no specific tie or reference is enforcing they are the same turn. In the case of disembarking on the enemy turn, "that turn", as in the turn the the unit disembarks, will not be the same turn as the unit's subsequent Shooting phase.
1) "After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase (the models count as having moved in that phase) . . . " would be inaccurate, since movement is not performed in that phase unless it is Running, of which the sentence already addressed..
2) There is more to tie in "that turn" to the "subsequent shooting phase" than to "after disembarking". Again, the order of the sentence precludes that option.
col_impact wrote: 3) The positioning of the "counting as having moved that turn" clause does not introduce meaning nor does positioning on its own have meaning-bearing weight. It cannot take the place of a specific reference or tie, nor can it overrule grammatical structure. Your argument hinges heavily on making a big to-do on where the clause is exactly positioned, when grammar and semantic allow for flexible positioning. The clause can be re-positioned and retain the exact same meaning since the clause, as I have shown, globally modifies the whole sentence. While there might be stylistically a superior position for a clause or a position that aids reader comprehension, the clause can be repositioned without affecting the meaning and repositioning will not alter the meaning. Further, it should be pointed out that even if you say out loud the clause to yourself in a scary voice that does not actually do anything to the grammar or semantics of the actual rule. Your argument doesn't have any substance - arguing based on clause positioning and the voice you use when you read the rule is meaningless drivel. I strongly suggest turning to grammar or semantics to provide substance to your argument.
Which just shows you know little in how instructions are constructed. When instructions are made, if any order of operations has been already established, any properly written future lists involving them will also follow that order as well. Placement can be VERY important when writing out instructions, and even more so in lists. If I told someone that the Phases of the turn were Psychic, Shooting, Movement, and Assault, they would assume that Movement is the 4th Phase, whereas the game truly considers it the first. But I guess your training doesn't involve instructional writing?
But let's face it, "models' is not what you are trying to attach to this clause, it is "After disembark" that you are connecting this phrase to. And the connections between these to phrases are remote.
And if you think the "voice" doesn't matter, than you misunderstood the point of the exercise. Timber, pacing, and inflections alter when voicing them in different ways. With these changes, the level of communication increases. This wasn't about being presented in a "scary" or "sarcastic" tone, but how you are perceiving the sentence to be.
You keep saying that this phrase is one thing, but you keep trying to force it as another when you start spouting big words and give your final summation. And that does not help your case, either.
col_impact wrote: 4) The clause "counting as having moved that turn" provides information that may be relevant in most cases but does not have to be relevant in all cases. The information that the clause brings up is relevant in the case where the model disembarks in its movement phase (which is most often the case) but it is not relevant in the case where the model disembarks in the enemy turn. You seem hellbent on insisting that the clause will always be relevant and will impose an active restriction on all cases when there is no reason at all to assume that the information in the clause is always relevant in all cases. The rule makes mention of "counting as having moved that turn" because it will often (thought not always) be relevant information for play. It will not be relevant information in the case of disembarking on the enemy's turn.
If it was only pertinent in the turn that the unit disembarks, either it would state it at the beginning of the sentence, per how instructions are normally kept in order of operations, or it would be included as part of the Disembarking instructions, including right after the permission to move the 3-6" after Disembarking.
col_impact wrote: I know you have a strong feeling that "that turn" must always be the same turn as "their subsequent Shooting phase" but grammar, semantics, logic, and the rule as they are written all disagree with you.
I cannot say anything about grammar, as the technical language is as beyond me at this present time as some of the technical painting language. Logic states otherwise, as they follow set patterns to establish relationships, and that phrase is out of place to tie in to "after disembarking" and ignore "subsequent Shooting Phase". Semantics is the study of language and would include both grammar and logic in its purview. Since one I am familiar with is against your perspective, I will rely on what I know, which tells me your assessment is inaccurate or too focused to consider the entire picture as a whole.
As I said before, have fun studying the nails, I'll enjoy the house.
P.S.: Now, it is entirely possible that the sentence is just poorly constructed for conveying that point that you believe it is trying to reach, it's not like that has happened before, but poorly constructed or not, it is currently what it is. If it was truly meant not to consider the turn the subsequent shooting phase is in, the word "subsequent" is beyond superfluous, and actually contributes to confusing the issue. If they count as moving in the phase they Disembark, then they would still be considered having moved in the Shooting Phase of the same turn. This is what logic tells me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/14 00:56:29
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Okay let's look at the tense of this rule and establish what the rule does in reference to time. Again this will be an examination of grammar and will be an examination that anyone can double check since it will be using terminology that is universally available and standard and thereby fully appropriate for a Rules as Written discussion.
After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in
their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot
declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.
1) "After disembarking," is an adverbial present participle clause expressing timing. The time clause + present participle (after + <verb>-ing) is used to express that the action has been completed in the immediate past and is actively informing the ongoing present state of affairs.
2) "Models" is the shared subject for the two dependent clauses and the two independent clauses. What we want to determine is the current state that the various tenses place the subject in (ie Is the subject in the past, present, or future? What is the past, what is the present, and what is the future not yet realized from the perspective of the subject?)
3) (optional) modal verb "can" + verb ("e.g., shoot") + 'subsequent' = can + verb in present tense (present as future) + context of "subsequent"/upcoming. The models are granted the potential to do the action in the upcoming future. The use of "subsequent" means that the rule is referring to future time and future states and not the current state.
4) "counting as having moved that turn" = present participle (counting) + perfect participle (having moved).
The subject is currently being considered in a state of completion for an action (move) in the current time ("that turn")
The timing of the sentence and the temporal relationship between different portions of the rule can be established by tense.
A) The models have disembarked in the immediate past that is currently informing and describing the present.
B) The present state of the models is 'counting as having moved' and 'after disembarking' in a current time which is "that turn"
C) The models are granted the potential to do things in upcoming time frames (e.g., in their subsequent Shooting phase) that are forward in the future and not the current time frame of the models.
An examination of the tense of the rule further cements the argument that "that turn" refers to the turn disembarking happens and that "that turn" refers to the present state of affairs and that "subsequent" refers to future events which may or may not be encapsulated by "that turn". Normally, "that turn" will encapsulate "subsequent phase" but in the rare case of disembarking on the enemy turn "that turn" will not encapsulate "subsequent phase".
col_impact wrote: Okay let's look at the tense of this rule and establish what the rule does in reference to time. Again this will be an examination of grammar and will be an examination that anyone can double check since it will be using terminology that is universally available and standard and thereby fully appropriate for a Rules as Written discussion.
Again, the terminology may be universally available, but UNDERSTANDING the relationships they encompass will take much longer. Dumb it down.
col_impact wrote: After disembarking, models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in
their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn, but they cannot
declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase.
1) "After disembarking," is an adverbial present participle clause expressing timing. The time clause + present participle (after + <verb>-ing) is used to express that the action has been completed in the immediate past and is actively informing the ongoing present state of affairs.
2) "Models" is the shared subject for the two dependent clauses and the two independent clauses. What we want to determine is the current state that the various tenses place the subject in (ie Is the subject in the past, present, or future? What is the past, what is the present, and what is the future not yet realized from the perspective of the subject?)
3) (optional) modal verb "can" + verb ("e.g., shoot") + 'subsequent' = can + verb in present tense (present as future) + context of "subsequent"/upcoming. The models are granted the potential to do the action in the upcoming future. The use of "subsequent" means that the rule is referring to future time and future states and not the current state.
4) "counting as having moved that turn" = present participle (counting) + perfect participle (having moved).
The subject is currently being considered in a state of completion for an action (move) in the current time ("that turn")
The timing of the sentence and the temporal relationship between different portions of the rule can be established by tense.
A) The models have disembarked in the immediate past that is currently informing and describing the present.
B) The present state of the models is 'counting as having moved' and 'after disembarking' in a current time which is "that turn"
C) The models are granted the potential to do things in upcoming time frames (e.g., in their subsequent Shooting phase) that are forward in the future and not the current time frame of the models.
An examination of the tense of the rule further cements the argument that "that turn" refers to the turn disembarking happens and that "that turn" refers to the present state of affairs and that "subsequent" refers to future events which may or may not be encapsulated by "that turn". Normally, "that turn" will encapsulate "subsequent phase" but in the rare case of disembarking on the enemy turn "that turn" will not encapsulate "subsequent phase".
You seriously have never seen a phrase presented as a caveat to a previous statement where the previous statement is in a future tense, but the caveat is in a present tense and grammatically correct? I really find that hard to believe, unless all you have read is treatises on grammar.
But again, you do not understand caveats, anyway, so I guess its a waste of time trying to help you understand this.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Charistoph wrote: You seriously have never seen a phrase presented as a caveat to a previous statement where the previous statement is in a future tense, but the caveat is in a present tense and grammatically correct? I really find that hard to believe, unless all you have read is treatises on grammar.
But again, you do not understand caveats, anyway, so I guess its a waste of time trying to help you understand this.
I am fully aware of what a caveat is, and frankly you have been applying a completely erroneous understanding of what a caveat is this whole time.
Caveat is a legal term as when someone provides you a notice of liabilities that you might not be aware of.
Caveats in English usage are statements issued as warnings or disclaimers, etc. and they are clearly marked as such ("Warning:. . .", "Take note:. . .", "N.B. . . .", "A caveat being . . ., "Disclaimers: . . ."). Caveats make themselves known as caveats ("you have been warned"). If it's unclear whether something is a caveat or not then it's not a caveat. Caveats are clearly marked as such since an important part of what they do is make sure that the party in question has been made fully aware ("caveat emptor").
The dependent clause in question "counting as having moved that turn" is simply not a caveat. It functions perfectly well in the sentence and is not marked off in any way from the sentence. The clause does not itself form a full statement or convey warning or break from the prose as a bolded proclamation or address the reader directly.
If you want to insist that the clause in question is a caveat then you are going to have to back up your claim with support and examples of usage. So post some links to examples on the web. Take note: you have your work cut out for you because as you will soon find out you have been wrongly applying caveat this whole time.
Keep in mind that saying that a clause kind of functions like a caveat is wholly different than saying a clause is a caveat. Normal vanilla dependent clauses have no problems functioning like a caveat (ig imposing qualifications on what is conveyed elsewhere) without actually themselves being caveats.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/14 18:16:58
"The models are counting as having moved that turn"
Those are both perfectly understandable sentences and are simple is/are constructions of the even simpler . . .
"The models count as having moved that turn."
The above sentences only differ in tense.
It looks to me like the meaning of the clause is retained even when the verb "to shoot" is dropped.
All of this just further underscores that "Counting as having moved that turn" is an adjectival participle clause modifying "models"
If you think those sentences are correct as a current continuous state applying to a timeframe or turn distinct from the current (i.e. 'that turn' rather than 'this turn') then, um, okay.
Naw wrote: Got to admit that I skipped some pages and I have no idea what they are talking about. Maybe a summary at this point would be a good idea?
Edit: ..autocorrect..
It was established a few days ago that units getting out of transports only count as having moved for the turn they get out, this is indisputable from both a RAW standpoint and a proper understanding of the English language.
The last day or so has just been Charistoph and Mr. Shine unwilling to admit they were mistaken and col_impact repeatedly bludgeoning them until they submit.
If this was a UFC fight the ref would've stopped it in the first round.
Or a more fair summary would be that it was not agreed and a debate has gone on about the grammar, with col_impact claiming "counting as having moved that turn" functions as an adjective describing the models (although I'm not sure how he's established that links to the models "after disembarking" and not the models "in their subsequent Shooting phase") and myself claiming it functions as an adverb describing how the models can shoot.
Cindis has agreed with col_impact's grammar argument, seemingly claiming he understands but not actually contributing to it. He's also made some general rules arguments that I believe were not addressed again because they were discussed in the first page or two.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/15 00:27:09
