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.

Yes it does.

You want the unit to be in Reserve but do not want to declare them in Reserves at the start of the game.

 Happyjew wrote:
If you are treating the unit as being in reserves prior to the Deep Strike, why are you not declaring the unit to be in DS reserve at the start of the game?

It is not prior to Deep Strike, it is simultaneous.

So anything that even possibly disproves your point is "dumb and missing the entire point"? At this point all you're doing is trolling.

 Ghaz wrote:
So anything that even possibly disproves your point is "dumb and missing the entire point"? At this point all you're doing is trolling.

No because you are actually being willfully ignorant and ignoring my points. I've repeatedly stated why it does work and why it literally has to be written that way in order to make sense grammatically. You've not disproven my point at all. You've not even addressed it.

Answer either of those questions, just answer that one question. Answer one single question and I'll call it quits.

Answer this:



Why was this part of the sentence written?


When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

The only choices you have are


1. They do in fact arrive from reserve, abilities do trigger on them arriving and they can be selected. As I have pointed out grammatically, logically, and intelligently. It's actually clarifying where they've come from when they deepstrike.

2. No, abilities trigger as they live in the "aether", that sentence makes no sense grammatically and has no reason to be written as it is clarifying nothing.

Cause if it's your way and it's number 2, it shouldn't be there at all. Also, just FYI , Deepstrike itself prevents a unit from charging.

You have no rules basis for your arguments as they have all been debunked.

Repeating the same debunked arguments again will not get us anywhere.

Do you have any rules backing for any other arguments?

 DeathReaper wrote:
You have no rules basis for your arguments as they have all been debunked.

Repeating the same debunked arguments again will not get us anywhere.

Do you have any rules backing for any other arguments?

Okay you are just being purposefully ignorant so that you don't have to debate me because you know I'm right. Either way you haven't debunked a single thing that I've said and are basically ignoring facts and my argument itself .

 DeathReaper wrote:
You have no rules basis for your arguments as they have all been debunked.

Repeating the same debunked arguments again will not get us anywhere.

Do you have any rules backing for any other arguments?

Okay...I am going to again ask you to read Hollismason's grammatical break down of the rule in which he PROVES that the verb phrase "having arrived" does NOT in fact make the sentence past tense. This has not been debunked. In fact, it has yet to be addressed. There is literally nothing in the rule telling us when exactly the unit is treated as arriving from reserves. It does not say "after arriving" or "once on the table." Grammatically, everything after the semicolon happens at the same that the unit is given permission to arrive via Deep Strike.

Insaniak did address it. Almost immediately.

There's really no point , they literally don't understand it.

Here's another example :



This

When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

Is not the same as


When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range. The new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.


This

Because of this.

When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

And This

When the power is resolved COMMA the new unit then arrives via Deep StrikeCOMMAwithin the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

This has to be placed in the sentence

When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum rangeSEMICOLON the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

Because it is dependent on this

When the power is resolved,


The sentence is actually

When the power is resolved, the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range.


this


When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum rangeSEMICOLON the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

Does not mean any of these ( afterwards, after) it used because there is a comma in that first clause.

2nd

If this


When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

Does not happen at the same time as this


When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

Which it does because of

When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

Then this


When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.


Has no reason to be in the sentence and is not necessary because it has no function. It is a clarifying statement on where the unit is arriving from. It is clarifying that the unit arrives from Reserves.

The reason is this

When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

Isn't necessary because no rules that affect units that arrive from reserve affect them by your "understanding.

It already states that

1. They Deep Strike which precludes them from assaulting and movement further in the statement it clarifies further that it cannot use conjuring.

In Addition, it specifically uses that phrasing because if it says


When the power is resolved the new unit is under your control and is treated as arriving from Reserves for all rules purposes.

When the power is resolved the new unit is under your control arriving from Reserves for all rules purposes.

When the power is resolved the new unit is under your control and arrives from Reserves for all rules purposes.

Then this would mean : You would have to make a reserve roll.

When the power is resolved the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

This clarifies that it definitively happens and where it comes from and when it happens.

Exactly this.

So your argument is "when the power is resolved they are treated as having arrived from reserves"?

 Happyjew wrote:
So your argument is "when the power is resolved they are treated as having arrived from reserves"?

Not exactly..

The sentence has two independent clauses.

The new unit then arrives via Deep Strike within the power’s maximum range.
The new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.


Now what answers when this happens?

When the power is resolved both of those things happen. Neither one happens before the other.

The reason we write , having arrived from, which is really important it's telling us where it is arriving from Reserve.

It can't say

1. The new unit is under your control and is treated as arriving from Reserves for all rules purposes.

Or

2. The new unit is under your control and is treated arrives from Reserves for all rules purposes.

The first type doesn't work because we want to write that as that implies it arrives from reserves and we'd have to make a reserve roll.
The 2nd one doesn't work grammatically you'd have to rewrite the sentence, and that also would imply because of the last part of the sentence that you would roll for it.
[u]

If your interpretation was correct, the sentence wouldn't make sense , like at all because we know that it deepstrikes and we know what it's restrictions are. It would simply say the unit deep strikes.


Now you have to ask yourself this question, Do abilities that trigger on arrives from reserve trigger on things like Gates of Infinity, or any other ability that allows the unit to move around Deep Striking? There are multiple instances of this that can happen in the game. Gate of Infinity is just a example.


That last sentence isn't a orderly progression, it happens at the same time as it deep striking because it if it doesn't there is no reason to put that sentence in the phrase at all.

It's a clarifying statement to tell you exactly where you are suppose to be treating it as arriving from.


Having Arrived not correct grammar by the way that's taking a phrase out of context. "Having arrived from" is actually the full phase and correct. From is a Preposition.

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You have no rules basis for your arguments as they have all been debunked.

Repeating the same debunked arguments again will not get us anywhere.

Do you have any rules backing for any other arguments?

Okay...I am going to again ask you to read Hollismason's grammatical break down of the rule in which he PROVES that the verb phrase "having arrived" does NOT in fact make the sentence past tense. This has not been debunked. In fact, it has yet to be addressed. There is literally nothing in the rule telling us when exactly the unit is treated as arriving from reserves. It does not say "after arriving" or "once on the table." Grammatically, everything after the semicolon happens at the same that the unit is given permission to arrive via Deep Strike.

I have read it, and he ignores the fact that '...treated as having arrived from reserves...' is past tense.

So they are '...treated as having arrived from reserves...' but only after they actually use the DS rules.since '...treated as having arrived from reserves...' is past tense.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You have no rules basis for your arguments as they have all been debunked.

Repeating the same debunked arguments again will not get us anywhere.

Do you have any rules backing for any other arguments?

Okay...I am going to again ask you to read Hollismason's grammatical break down of the rule in which he PROVES that the verb phrase "having arrived" does NOT in fact make the sentence past tense. This has not been debunked. In fact, it has yet to be addressed. There is literally nothing in the rule telling us when exactly the unit is treated as arriving from reserves. It does not say "after arriving" or "once on the table." Grammatically, everything after the semicolon happens at the same that the unit is given permission to arrive via Deep Strike.

I have read it, and he ignores the fact that '...treated as having arrived from reserves...' is past tense.

So they are '...treated as having arrived from reserves...' but only after they actually use the DS rules.since '...treated as having arrived from reserves...' is past tense.

Wow...I again urge you to read his posts more carefully. It explains in detail how the past tense verb phrase is only refering back to the begining of the sentence, "When the power is resolved." At this point, two things happen at the same time. The unit arrives via deepstrike and is treated as if it were arriving from reserves. You are getting hung up on the tense of "having arrived" and are failing to see that it is only written that way because grammar requires it to be. The rule is one complete sentence with two clauses that are ONLY dependent on the power resolving, which means they happen at the same time (when the power is resolved). If it were two seperate sentences, you might have a leg to stand on, but the semicolon pretty much kills your argument.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You have no rules basis for your arguments as they have all been debunked.

Repeating the same debunked arguments again will not get us anywhere.

Do you have any rules backing for any other arguments?

Okay...I am going to again ask you to read Hollismason's grammatical break down of the rule in which he PROVES that the verb phrase "having arrived" does NOT in fact make the sentence past tense. This has not been debunked. In fact, it has yet to be addressed. There is literally nothing in the rule telling us when exactly the unit is treated as arriving from reserves. It does not say "after arriving" or "once on the table." Grammatically, everything after the semicolon happens at the same that the unit is given permission to arrive via Deep Strike.

I have read it, and he ignores the fact that '...treated as having arrived from reserves...' is past tense.

So they are '...treated as having arrived from reserves...' but only after they actually use the DS rules.since '...treated as having arrived from reserves...' is past tense.

Yea and you just don't understand fundamentally what I have said repeatedly why it is written that way and why it occurs simultaneously because you do not understand English or the written word. You also don't understand verb phrasing, prepositions, what a adverb is, what a linking verb is or anything of the sort.

You are ignorant to the rules of the written language and you should stop posting here as you've yet to answer any of my points or explained why am wrong other than to fall back on your tried and true " This is past tense, derp derp derp".

What is the verb in this sentence and phrase?

Having Arrived From?


. So I don't see any point in you responding further until you actually either respond to the very logical and written out statement I have made on why that is not true, and what purpose that sentence serves.


Stop responding in the thread until you actually answer the question I have asked repeatedly or you somehow convince the rest of the world they are incorrect grammatically. I have written extensively why you are in fact wrong, so good luck with that.

Hollismason wrote:
It can't say

1. The new unit is under your control and is treated as arriving from Reserves for all rules purposes.

...
The first type doesn't work because we want to write that as that implies it arrives from reserves and we'd have to make a reserve roll.

You would only potentially need to make a reserve roll if it said that the unit is treated as being in reserve.


Saying 'the unit is treated as arriving from Reserves..' would do exactly what you are trying incorrectly to do with the current wording. It would treat the unit as arriving from reserve now, rather than as having already arrived.

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
It can't say

1. The new unit is under your control and is treated as arriving from Reserves for all rules purposes.

...
The first type doesn't work because we want to write that as that implies it arrives from reserves and we'd have to make a reserve roll.

You would only potentially need to make a reserve roll if it said that the unit is treated as being in reserve.


Saying 'the unit is treated as arriving from Reserves..' would do exactly what you are trying incorrectly to do with the current wording. It would treat the unit as arriving from reserve now, rather than as having already arrived.

No it would if it didn't say all rules purposes then it wouldn't have to. You have to follow all rules for Reserves and for Arriving from reserve. If it stated it like that it would be a unclear statement.

The sentence literally has no function with the interpretation people seem to take and you shouldn't take one single part of that sentence out and then go well it states this because there are other parts of that sentence.

If it stated

Having Arrived Deep by strike then everyone would be correct. It doesn't and people aren't reading it incorrectly as they think that "having arrived" is automatically "past tense" it's past tense because of resolved. Not because the unit Arrives via deepstrike

That's a verb phrase. Having Arrived from , is a verb phrase telling us where it's from. Having arrived from Reserves it follows all the rules for arriving from reserves. It means it's arriving from reserve. Hence it saying Having.

You can't write the first sentence with the arriving or arrived.
You can't write the second sentence with arrives or arriving.

Because it would look like this

When the spell is resolved the new unit then arriving via Deep Strike within the power’s maximum range . < Incorrect Grammar
When the power is resolved the new unit then arrived via Deep Strike with in the power's maximum range < Incorrect Grammar


The new unit is under your control and is treated as as arriving from Reserves for all rules purposes. Implies a roll because of the last statement
The new unit is under your control and is treated as arrives from Reserves for all rules purposes. <- Does not work

How the sentence structure actually is and should be read.

The new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range and the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes when the power is resolved. < -- Bad Grammar , it makes it a run on sentence.

The second part of that sentence is a clarifying statement on the first. If it is written any other way it is a unclear statement as of the second part of the sentence makes you follow "all" the rules. It has to be arriving from somewhere, it doesn't have to be placed in reserve. It can be treated as arriving from reserve which is what it states.


Why?

Because if you read it incorrectly the sentence literally has no purpose because it doesn't need to clarify anything. Semicolons are not periods. That is not a orderly list, the semicolon is used because you don't use multiple commas like that as it makes it so that it is in fact a progression or if it said after, or then or any other past tense phrase it would mean that it does in fact occur after deepstriking. It occurs at the same time. Well actually a little bit before but that's going to be some like paragraphs of explaining.

I've listed the multiple reasons why that statement is written that way, why if it wasn't it would be confusing and ultimately why it wouldn't exist if interpreted the way you would like to interpret it.

Also,

Having arrived from Reserve , Having arrived isn't past tense its a past participle. It's a Gerund with a past participle.

I really don't know how to explain this further to illustrate. I've already went over this previously. Ugh, rewriting this as clear as I possibly can is very difficult. Anyway yeah, I mean I guess I can word tree it?


Look if you don't believe me go to this website. I use it in my GED tutoring a lot.

http://www.myenglishteacher.net/gerunds.html

It explains easily and concisely how to break down a sentence. The strange thing is that is actually a well written sentence. For someone who like does legal documentation or writes law or policy. It's just fething awful for anything else.

Hollismason wrote:
Look if you don't believe me go to this website. I use it in my GED tutoring a lot.

http://www.myenglishteacher.net/gerunds.html

It explains easily and concisely how to break down a sentence. The strange thing is that is actually a well written sentence. For someone who like does legal documentation or writes law or policy. It's just fething awful for anything else.

Does this site deal with 'm'r'can English, or British English? I know us Yanks misspell words, but I'm unsure if there is any grammatical differences between the two.

 Happyjew wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Look if you don't believe me go to this website. I use it in my GED tutoring a lot.

http://www.myenglishteacher.net/gerunds.html

It explains easily and concisely how to break down a sentence. The strange thing is that is actually a well written sentence. For someone who like does legal documentation or writes law or policy. It's just fething awful for anything else.

Does this site deal with 'm'r'can English, or British English? I know us Yanks misspell words, but I'm unsure if there is any grammatical differences between the two.

Actually that's a pretty British way of writing that. We don't use that "having" or "Have" a lot other than like legal documents. You know " Having been of sound, mind , and body".

It's still the same thing grammatically, we have the same rules we just use certain things a little differently. I volunteer tutor for GED at a homeless youth shelter. This is actually like 9th to 10th grade stuff. Its just incredibly boring and we never see it so it really messes with you an then your like " Wait what was the rules Mrs. Tuminello was stating in English class 19 years ago?".
It's frustrating to explain something multiple ways and have multiple people explain it and why it works that way . Only to have someone go " Nu uh" because they literally don't understand.


Perfect Participle Phrase
a. used in the active form with "Having" + a Past Participle. It shows that the
action takes place before the action described in the main clause.

Here this PDF explains it a lot more clearly.

http://www.csun.edu/~bashforth/305_PDF/305_PDF_Grammar/ParticiplePhrasesAsReducedARelatives.pdf


Okay so that's all I've got , I have literally exhausted everything. Explained it grammatically, explained why it does not make sense logically to write, explained what's its function is.

If you still disagree I don't know what to tell you.

Here's the sentence again which I've written multiple times already but I guess one more time.


The new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range when the power is resolved.

or


When the power is resolved the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range.


Either way it happens kind of at the same time and kind of before. It doesn't happen after it.*

*Except Tyranids


Drops Mic

 extremefreak17 wrote:


Wow...I again urge you to read his posts more carefully. It explains in detail how the past tense verb phrase is only refering back to the begining of the sentence, "When the power is resolved."

I have read it, it is still incorrect logic.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:


Wow...I again urge you to read his posts more carefully. It explains in detail how the past tense verb phrase is only refering back to the begining of the sentence, "When the power is resolved."

I have read it, it is still incorrect logic.

This is just. I don't even know where to begin.

Hollismason wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:


Wow...I again urge you to read his posts more carefully. It explains in detail how the past tense verb phrase is only refering back to the begining of the sentence, "When the power is resolved."

I have read it, it is still incorrect logic.

This is dumb.

This post by Insaniak highlights why your argument is incorrect.

 insaniak wrote:
Saying 'the unit is treated as arriving from Reserves..' would do exactly what you are trying incorrectly to do with the current wording. It would treat the unit as arriving from reserve now, rather than as having already arrived.

Ergo, Hollismason, it seems that your arguments are the ones that do not understand grammar, and are not logical.

 Happyjew wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Look if you don't believe me go to this website. I use it in my GED tutoring a lot.

http://www.myenglishteacher.net/gerunds.html

It explains easily and concisely how to break down a sentence. The strange thing is that is actually a well written sentence. For someone who like does legal documentation or writes law or policy. It's just fething awful for anything else.

Does this site deal with 'm'r'can English, or British English? I know us Yanks misspell words, but I'm unsure if there is any grammatical differences between the two.

As a general rule, there is not.

At least none I've ever heard of.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:


Wow...I again urge you to read his posts more carefully. It explains in detail how the past tense verb phrase is only refering back to the begining of the sentence, "When the power is resolved."

I have read it, it is still incorrect logic.

This is dumb.

This post by Insaniak highlights why your argument is incorrect.

 insaniak wrote:
Saying 'the unit is treated as arriving from Reserves..' would do exactly what you are trying incorrectly to do with the current wording. It would treat the unit as arriving from reserve now, rather than as having already arrived.

This post by me

Perfect Participle Phrase
a. used in the active form with "Having" + a Past Participle. It shows that the
action takes place before the action described in the main clause.

Here this PDF explains it a lot more clearly.

http://www.csun.edu/~bashforth/305_PDF/305_PDF_Grammar/ParticiplePhrasesAsReducedARelatives.pdf


Okay so that's all I've got , I have literally exhausted everything. Explained it grammatically, explained why it does not make sense logically to write, explained what's its function is.

If you still disagree I don't know what to tell you.

Here's the sentence again which I've written multiple times already but I guess one more time.


The new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range when the power is resolved.

or


When the power is resolved the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range.


Either way it happens kind of at the same time and kind of before. It doesn't happen after it.*

*Except Tyranids


Drops Mic

Unequivocally proves that as a false statement. Prove I'm wrong say that is not that and you will be literally arguing against the definition of grammatical phrases. It's just wrong. You need to read that and actually understand it.

Cause you are wrong , this isn't a going back and forth argument. This is a literally " Here is what that phrase means and how it is to be used".

There's no argument here. I've explicitly shown why that is grammatically incorrect. Stop digging the hole deeper.




Perfect Participle Phrase
a. used in the active form with "Having" + a Past Participle. It shows that the
action takes place before the action described in the main clause.

Argue with me that I'm not right. Tell me that's not the definition of a Perfect Particple Phrase.

I understood it, you didn't. Neither of those sentences are what the actual rules state...

The actual rules quote is "When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes."

and of course the webway says "..... From then on any units arriving from reserve may move onto the board from the portal markers edge instead of entering as normal ( it does not matter whether these units were intending to deepstrike, outflank, simply move on from their own table edge, and so on)"

Treated as having arrived from reserve means they have already arrived, and as such no webway use.

Also to use the webway you need to be arriving from reserve, which conjured units are not doing until after they are conjured and have deep struck into play.

Remember that the DE codex was written in 5th ed, there were no such thing as allies.

As such the context of the DE codex, "your army" in the DA book refers to Dark Eldar models and units only.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I understood it, you didn't. Neither of those sentences are what the actual rules state...

The actual rules quote is "When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes."

and of course the webway says "..... From then on any units arriving from reserve may move onto the board from the portal markers edge instead of entering as normal ( it does not matter whether these units were intending to deepstrike, outflank, simply move on from their own table edge, and so on)"

Treated as having arrived from reserve means they have already arrived, and as such no webway use.

Also to use the webway you need to be arriving from reserve, which conjured units are not doing until after they are conjured and have deep struck into play.

Remember that the DE codex was written in 5th ed, there were no such thing as allies.

As such the context of the DE codex, "your army" in the DA book refers to Dark Eldar models and units only.

This is literally all wrong, and you cannot argue with me on what that phrase means or it's order placement. So yeah let's see you do that or are you actually saying that "having arrived" is not a perfect participle phrase. I have already stated what a perfect participles placement is with in that compound sentence and proven without doubt that it actually occurs before the main clause.

Which by the way does not make it past tense at all.

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/participlephrase.htm

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/mainclause.htm

Again, you are just completely and utterly wrong and are not only arguing that this in fact has some other meaning but arguing that the very definition and the rules of grammar are wrong.

take the your units crap to the other thread and be wrong there as well.

You refuse to accept the basic rules of Grammar as I have explained multiple times. Just stop posting about it, you don't get it obviously and will never get it so just don't waste your time trying to understand something that may in fact be beyond your understanding as you seem to constantly indicate.


No one has addressed the huge elephant in the room about your illogical "interpretation" which is if that sentence means that it has zero purpose for placement there. It clarifies nothing at all and serves no purpose. You cannot say what purpose that sentence serves at all as just saying " deep strikes" suffices and it clarifies it's own rules later in regards to spell casting.

Hollismason wrote:

Perfect Participle Phrase
a. used in the active form with "Having" + a Past Participle. It shows that the
action takes place before the action described in the main clause.

Argue with me that I'm not right. Tell me that's not the definition of a Perfect Particple Phrase.

The funny part is that, yes, it is a Perfect Participle Phrase... and what a Perfect Participle phrase does is indicate something that happened previously.

Your definition specifically disproves your argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
No one has addressed the huge elephant in the room about your illogical "interpretation" which is if that sentence means that it has zero purpose for placement there. It clarifies nothing at all and serves no purpose. You cannot say what purpose that sentence serves at all as just saying " deep strikes" suffices and it clarifies it's own rules later in regards to spell casting.

There is a list of stuff in the reserve rules that a unit that arrived from reserves can not do on that same turn. All of that will apply to the conjured daemons unless they have specific rules that say otherwise.

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

Perfect Participle Phrase
a. used in the active form with "Having" + a Past Participle. It shows that the
action takes place before the action described in the main clause.

Argue with me that I'm not right. Tell me that's not the definition of a Perfect Particple Phrase.

The funny part is that, yes, it is a Perfect Participle Phrase... and what a Perfect Participle phrase does is indicate something that happened previously.

Your definition specifically disproves your argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
No one has addressed the huge elephant in the room about your illogical "interpretation" which is if that sentence means that it has zero purpose for placement there. It clarifies nothing at all and serves no purpose. You cannot say what purpose that sentence serves at all as just saying " deep strikes" suffices and it clarifies it's own rules later in regards to spell casting.

There is a list of stuff in the reserve rules that a unit that arrived from reserves can not do on that same turn. All of that will apply to the conjured daemons unless they have specific rules that say otherwise.

Again, you are not getting the basic order of that sentence, it arrives from reserve before it deepstrikes.

Perfect Past Participle
a. used in the active form with "Having" + a Past Participle. It shows that the
action takes place before the action described in the main clause.


This and this


When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

Happen before

This

When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

Because
Perfect Past Participle
a. used in the active form with "Having" + a Past Participle. It shows that the
action takes place before the action described in the main clause.



We have two independent clauses connected by a semi-colon and a dependent clause.

Because those two sentences are independent clauses and one is a perfect past participle we know that the events with in happen before the main clause as they are connected by a semi-colon.

This happens previously to it Deepstriking

This happens, before this

the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.
When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range


I've already stated why and listed all of the reasons. This is just English grammar that has rules we follow. When the power is resolved - is a dependent clause because of when. The next are two independent clauses or main clauses. The 2nd main clause states that it happens first because it cannot happen before itself.


I've literally laid this out like 3 times now with direct references and examples.

Here are the rules again:
http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/participlephrase.htm
http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/mainclause.htm

A easy to read PDF of Grammar Rules
http://www.csun.edu/~bashforth/305_PDF/305_PDF_Grammar/ParticiplePhrasesAsReducedARelatives.pdf


On to you your next point :

It doesn't need to say that at all because stating it deepstrikes, includes all of the special rules from arriving from reserve. There is no rule that is in the Reserves rule that is not in the deep strike rules themselves that it would have to follow or that is not clarified later on.


If this were not true name me one rule that it has to follow from arriving from reserve that it has to follow that is not included within the deepstrike rules themselves or that is not clarified further in the paragraph

You make it a pointless sentence by stating that because here is the full paragraph.

Deep Strike Restrictions

In that turn’s Shooting phase, these units can fire (or Run, Turbo-boost or move Flat Out) as normal, and count as having moved in the previous Movement phase. Vehicles, except for Walkers, count as having moved at Combat Speed (even Immobilised vehicles). This can affect the number of weapons they can fire with their full Ballistic Skill.

In that turn’s Assault phase, however, these units cannot charge. This also applies to units that have disembarked from Transports that arrived by Deep Strike that turn

The additional information for Conjuring rules

If the new unit suffers a Deep Strike mishap and ends up in Ongoing Reserves, it can Deep Strike anywhere on the board when it enters play.

If the new unit is a Psyker, generate its psychic power(s) as soon as the conjuration is manifested; the new unit cannot attempt to manifest conjuration powers on the same turn it was itself conjured.

The actual reserve rules

When a Reserves unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player’s table edge. Measure the model’s move from the edge of the table, as if they had been positioned just off the board in the previous turn. A unit cannot charge, or use any abilities or special rules that must be used at the start of the turn, in the turn it arrives from Reserve.

This is important something you'll argue, but its superfluous but because we know that the unit arrives after the start of the turn. We know the summoned units cannot use abilities that occur at the beginning of the turn as they arrive after the beginning of the turn.


Again your interpretation makes that sentence pointless.

Hollismason wrote:
This and this


When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

Happen before

This

When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

Yes. So when you get to the Deep Strike part, the unit is already treated as having arrived from Reserve. It is not, at that point, arriving from reserve. It already did. You just haven't put them on the table yet.

I've literally laid this out like 3 times now with direct references and examples.

Yeah. weird, right? It's almost starting to seem like people disagree with you.

It doesn't need to say that at all because stating it deepstrikes, includes all of the special rules from arriving from reserve.

Not at all. If they hadn't included that bit, people would be arguing that it shouldn't be treated as having arrived from reserve, because it was never in reserve to begin with. It just used the Deep Strike rules to get onto the table.'

And I know people would be arguing that, because we had that exact argument on numerous occasions over Gate of Infinity in previous editions.

 insaniak wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
This and this


When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

Happen before

This

When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.

Yes. So when you get to the Deep Strike part, the unit is already treated as having arrived from Reserve. It is not, at that point, arriving from reserve. It already did. You just haven't put them on the table yet.

I've literally laid this out like 3 times now with direct references and examples.

Yeah. weird, right? It's almost starting to seem like people disagree with you.

It doesn't need to say that at all because stating it deepstrikes, includes all of the special rules from arriving from reserve.

Not at all. If they hadn't included that bit, people would be arguing that it shouldn't be treated as having arrived from reserve, because it was never in reserve to begin with. It just used the Deep Strike rules to get onto the table.'

And I know people would be arguing that, because we had that exact argument on numerous occasions over Gate of Infinity in previous editions.

I can't be any clearer that having arrived from is not a past tense statement. I've listed the grammatical rules. if you just simply refuse to acknowledge that it arrives from reserve before it deepstrikes , then I don't know what to tell you.

The 2nd part O_o , you simply didn't answer my question.

So now are you saying that Coteaz ability works on units that Deep Strike with Gate of Infinity but not units that are summoned. Cause arriving and having arrived are the same statement in that sentence we know these abilities trigger because of grammatical order. Point to a rule that that unit has to follow if it in fact is treated as arrived but not arriving from reserve. There's not one that's not included in Deep Strike. There's no rules in Reserve that it has to follow that are not including in the deepstrike rules themselves. It's a clarification on where it is arriving from so that you know to treat it as arriving from reserve. That's the purpose of that sentence. It clarifies where it is arriving from.

When < -
having arrived is not past tense it's present tense of arrives <- PRESENT

Then arrives - is not present tense because of the word THEN

This is you making a semantic argument over grammar, and it's just incorrect.

If people disagree with me, they're disagreeing with the function of the English language. I don't know how to lay it out any more than to physically come to your house with a lesson plan and a red pen. Let someone else explain this cause you obviously are not getting it and are just retreading the same argument over and over again because people don't seem to understand tenses.