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.

Kangodo wrote:

Reading the English language and parsing a sentence has nothing to do with language?
That's... an interesting stance.

You could also actually address the argument instead of using up bytes on the internet.
And no, that has nothing to do with language since it's about logic.
It's the same in every language, so I hardly see how this has anything to do with English.

No, it has everything to do with English. The word is INCLUDING. The only possible way to parse it correctly is that it belongs to the immobilised result, because that is just how English grammar works
You can disagree, but that disagreement is irrelevant when factually you are just incorrect.

INcluding absolutely, incontrovertibly belongs to the immobilised result. You cannot disagree with that on any meaningful level, as that is literally how the language works. Any argument based on ignoring that fact is irrelevant.

You are the one "using up bytes", as you refuse to accept this fact.

I would not HIWPI that you lose 2, however.

I've been away ref'fing afantasy tournament todya, with much fun had by all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it has everything to do with English. The word is INCLUDING. The only possible way to parse it correctly is that it belongs to the immobilised result, because that is just how English grammar works
You can disagree, but that disagreement is irrelevant when factually you are just incorrect.

And me and others have disagreed with that, pointing out how logically it can also refer to the failing of the Dangerous Terrain-test.
If all you keep doing is yelling "You are wrong!", than I am done with you.

INcluding absolutely, incontrovertibly belongs to the immobilised result.

Accept that hasn't been proven.
All you keep yelling is: "That's English!", but seeing as people with perfectly fine English disagree that is not proven.

I would not HIWPI that you lose 2, however.

Then you are contradicting yourself or breaking the 'Penetrating hit'-rule.
Congratulations!

Kangodo wrote:

I would not HIWPI that you lose 2, however.

Then you are contradicting yourself or breaking the 'Penetrating hit'-rule.
Congratulations!

It's not at all unusual for people to play the game differently to how they think the RAW reads, particularly where the RAW leads to a silly outcome. You might have noticed that Nos isn't the only one to say that he would play this differently to the actual rules... because courtesy of the errata, this particular rule is now a bit of a mess.

That's not a contradiction. It's recognising that a rule doesn't function as it was probably intended to, and choosing to play it differently in the interests of keeping the game playable and fun.




However, I think this one has gone around in circles for long enough, as people are fairly firmly entrenched on both sides and all of the relevant points appear to have been made several times over, so it's time to give this a rest and hope that GW decide to address it properly at some point in the future.