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.

Charistoph wrote:
It also doesn't help when just using the simple expediency that they used for every other unit type besides Jump and Jet Pack, i.e. models, would have saved everyone some time and grief for this.

Brings up a jejune reading of taking a keyword out of context, then complains about someone else wasting everyone's time.

Notsureifserious....jpeg

culsandar wrote:

Charistoph wrote:
It also doesn't help when just using the simple expediency that they used for every other unit type besides Jump and Jet Pack, i.e. models, would have saved everyone some time and grief for this.

Brings up a jejune reading of taking a keyword out of context, then complains about someone else wasting everyone's time.

Notsureifserious....jpeg

It is not out of context for me, at least at the time I wrote it, and for most people who are not lawyers.

The rules for language on this is found in middle-school english(nee language arts) textbooks.

The point you raised about the rules not written in a manner that holds up to legal scrutiny is not even just a valid point; it is gospel-truth. All the rules are written in a similar format to journalism, that is in a way that someone in 6th grade should be able to read and understand them.

It is the attempts to disect the rules that causes so many to claim that gw are bad rules writers. But the rules are written in layman's terms and for the lowest common denominator. Could they have used other terms? Yes, in many cases they could have.

For the oddity of "jump/jetpack units" vs the other unit types; it is more about sounding/looking right. Simply "bikes", "cavalry", "monstrous creatures", "beasts", et al look and sound fine. But just saying: "jump have the following special rules" would feel so incredibly wrong to a native english speaker that many(those who actually care about proper language) would want to gouge their eyes out upon reading it or puncture their eardrums when hearing it(seriously, though try saying that sentence aloud and you will find yourself thinking the author is terrible).

I had brought up the term "psyker unit" earlier in the thread because it is the same issue only with a slightly different bend. Psyker unit is a defined term, and shares that definition with the term psyker. In that definition they also use the term unit alone. This is where it gets a little goofy for most: units can change on the battlefield, but the psyker rules deal with absolutes. The only time a unit is an absolute is just after armylist construction. There are several armies(and now formations) that can either combine ir split the units purchased either just prior to or during deployment; then you have psyker ics. We can extrapolate from those rules and logic that the usage if the term unit in that definition is not the battlefield state, but the purchased state, otherwise you get a lovely case where Multiple ic models with the psyker rule are in 1 unit and people claim that 1 unit is 1 psyker and cannot cast the same power twice; once that claim is made you can turn it around to have johnny-random tac marine in the unit as the range/los source or taking the perils of the warp effect(the whole unit is after all 1 psyker). This is clearly not how tge rules are meant to work so we apply what we know about armylist entries being the units we purchase and once purchased that individual unit is a psyker ir psychic unit unto itself no matter what happens to effect that unit in game. Forced combination of psykers would result in each element still being an individual psyker; the inverse is the same: combat squading a gk unit will result in 2 psykers because the single psyker has been split into 2 elements.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The rules for language on this is found in middle-school english(nee language arts) textbooks.

Interesting. It's been 30 years since I've had to peruse one, but I don't remember an "introduction to legalese" section or "gaming terms 101" in either of them (moved during that year). The most exposure to legalese that kids at that age had that did not include custodial, guardianship, or crime hearings were the Emancipation Proclamation and the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Of course, it has been 30 years, so many changes have come to pass. And most English classes I've experienced since then were more concerned with literary courses and propagandizing through the guise of writing reports with restricted focuses.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The point you raised about the rules not written in a manner that holds up to legal scrutiny is not even just a valid point; it is gospel-truth. All the rules are written in a similar format to journalism, that is in a way that someone in 6th grade should be able to read and understand them.

When did I say that? I just said that most people are not trained in legalese, partly in response to which you ascribed to having a lawyer to understand the intricacies. If every 11-12 year old is supposed to understand it, why would we need lawyers?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
It is the attempts to disect the rules that causes so many to claim that gw are bad rules writers. But the rules are written in layman's terms and for the lowest common denominator. Could they have used other terms? Yes, in many cases they could have.

Well excuse me for using the terms they defined as opposed to recognizing when they change language from "in-game" to "legalese" without bothering to make a note about it.

And that is part of the problem. They do not recognize when they shift patterns and use synonyms when they should be precise. For example, how many different ways do they describe a unit being put in to a Transport?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
For the oddity of "jump/jetpack units" vs the other unit types; it is more about sounding/looking right. Simply "bikes", "cavalry", "monstrous creatures", "beasts", et al look and sound fine. But just saying: "jump have the following special rules" would feel so incredibly wrong to a native english speaker that many(those who actually care about proper language) would want to gouge their eyes out upon reading it or puncture their eardrums when hearing it(seriously, though try saying that sentence aloud and you will find yourself thinking the author is terrible).

Too which I stated that if they had used "models" instead of "units" that they used in every other unit type definition at least once, it would have prevented any misunderstanding. I never said that they should just drop the word "unit" at all.

For example, instead of, "Jet Pack units have the Bulky, Deep Strike and Relentless special rules", it could have been written "Jet Pack models have the Bulky, Deep Strike and Relentless special rules."

Interceptors have relentless?

For so long I have never know the use of a mobile psycannon