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.

 Ghaz wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Think of it this way. You go to the store, see a bin of candy that has 50 pieces in it that says five cents each, you take two pieces, and get charged two dollars and fifty cents to buy those two pieces. Why??? Because it is five cents each, and that means every one in the bin, not the set of two that you were going to purchase.

Except you're ignoring the Monstrous Creature rules that limit you to two weapons.

I was using this as an example for why it would only be the set of two weapons and not all weapons, and how "each" is not "every" I am in the 2 weapons camp, and this was the best example I could come up with while sleep deprived about each not being every. We know that buying 2 pieces of candy, out of a bin of 50 pieces, at five cents each will cost ten cents(excepting sales tax) but the interpretation provided for each being every would lead to my previous example being the norm, and ten cents of candy costing you two dollars and fifty cents.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Polonius: you are thinking like a lawyer again.

The game rules are not written to the standards of law, they are written in 6th-grade english(or 5th or something, I forget the grade) just like newspapers and magazines. This is done for the majority of people to be able to read and understand them.

Pulling out black law dictionary for what could best be described as murky language in 40k rules has about as much effect and relevance to what they may have been trying to say as using it to discern what is being said in the harry potter novels. Neither is written in legal language.

But I can appeal to your corporate law background.

You're making my point for me! Ask a person with a 6th grade reading level what "may fire each weapon at a different target if desired" means. I'm serious, you have to start analyzing the text to really even think that it would mean anything other than a plain reading. Black's Law Dictionary was one source I looked, but every source had "each" mean, essentially, "every individual."

Let's say you are trying to enforce a contract. In that contract are the various subsections. Subsection 1 details the terms of use(product or services). 1a details a single use per instance. 1b details that single use applies to a single situation. Then we get to subsection 2 that concerns modifications to the terms based on upgraded packages. 2a informs us that it modifies 1a to allow 2 uses in a single instance but the limitations of 1b still exist. 2b tells you that you get all the benefits of 2a with the following exceptions, then simply states that each use in an instance can be applied to different situations: how many uses do you get per instance?

That's a false comparison, because there are not a predefined number of "uses."

A better analogy might be a rule on rings.

1) No matter how many rings a person has, each person can only wear one.
2) If a person is a Super Person, they can wear up to two rings, but they must still be on the same hand.
3) Super Duper People are Super people. However, they can wear each of their rings on different hands if desired.

Could a Super Duper Person with three rings wear more than two? I think yes.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

I was using this as an example for why it would only be the set of two weapons and not all weapons, and how "each" is not "every" I am in the 2 weapons camp, and this was the best example I could come up with while sleep deprived about each not being every. We know that buying 2 pieces of candy, out of a bin of 50 pieces, at five cents each will cost ten cents(excepting sales tax) but the interpretation provided for each being every would lead to my previous example being the norm, and ten cents of candy costing you two dollars and fifty cents.

Five cents each does not mean that you have to buy every one. It means that each piece has a cost of five cents. A better example would be that normally, kids are only allowed to buy one piece of candy, no matter how many nickles they have. However, teenagers can buy up to two pieces of candy, as long as they are the same type. Children over 16 are still teeneagers. However, they are allowed to spend each of their nickels on different pieces of candy if they wish.

 Polonius wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

I was using this as an example for why it would only be the set of two weapons and not all weapons, and how "each" is not "every" I am in the 2 weapons camp, and this was the best example I could come up with while sleep deprived about each not being every. We know that buying 2 pieces of candy, out of a bin of 50 pieces, at five cents each will cost ten cents(excepting sales tax) but the interpretation provided for each being every would lead to my previous example being the norm, and ten cents of candy costing you two dollars and fifty cents.

Five cents each does not mean that you have to buy every one. It means that each piece has a cost of five cents. A better example would be that normally, kids are only allowed to buy one piece of candy, no matter how many nickles they have. However, teenagers can buy up to two pieces of candy, as long as they are the same type. Children over 16 are still teeneagers. However, they are allowed to spend each of their nickels on different pieces of candy if they wish.

It is a demonstration that each does not mean every. I am demonstrating it at an absurd level, in which we know it means each piece is a five cents, but the definition proposed would make it the two dollars and fifty cents.

"Five cents each does not mean that you have to buy every one." My point exactly. Each means every remember? So either each means 10 cents for the set of two pieces purchased(2 weapons allowed to fire) or it means every(all weapons carried) and it costs you two dollars and fifty cents to buy those two pieces of candy.

Your example means the 16 year old is only allowed to purchase 2 pieces of candy, but in any combination.

 Polonius wrote:
Because I'm an idiot and I get sucked into these things, I actually looked up the word "each" in Black's Law Dictionary:

http://thelawdictionary.org/each/

"A distributive adjective pronoun, which denotes or refers to every one of the persons or things mentioned; every one of two or more persons or things, composing the whole, separately considered. The effect of this word, used in the covenants of a'bond, is to create a several obligation."

Note that the word "every" appears in the definition. This is consistent with the colloquial definition, which also includes by reference the concept of every.

So, it's not that people are reading the word "every" into the rules, it's that the concept is generally included in the definition.

Went ahead and made the part of the definition Camp #1 (GMC fire two weapons) considers relevant more noticeable. You're pinning Camp #2's argument on the word "every," as far as this definition is concerned, where Camp #1 focuses on "mentioned." Here, the "mentioned" persons or things would be the two (2) weapons denoted in the Monstrous Creatures ruleset. Thus each would be "referring to every one of two (2) weapons mentioned (in Monstrous Creature ruleset)."

Since GC's follow the rules for Monstrous Creatures and since MC's can fire two weapons, GC's can fire two weapons, but they have a caveat: GC's may fire each of those weapons at different targets.

 Polonius wrote:
You're making my point for me! Ask a person with a 6th grade reading level what "may fire each weapon at a different target if desired" means. I'm serious, you have to start analyzing the text to really even think that it would mean anything other than a plain reading. Black's Law Dictionary was one source I looked, but every source had "each" mean, essentially, "every individual."

By isolating the GC's rule on shooting each weapon at a different target if desired you're removing the context of the MC rules we're also required to follow, which is why simply putting the single sentence to someone unfamiliar with the rules specifics for a simple answer isn't really that conclusive, I would say.

 obsidiankatana wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Because I'm an idiot and I get sucked into these things, I actually looked up the word "each" in Black's Law Dictionary:

http://thelawdictionary.org/each/

"A distributive adjective pronoun, which denotes or refers to every one of the persons or things mentioned; every one of two or more persons or things, composing the whole, separately considered. The effect of this word, used in the covenants of a'bond, is to create a several obligation."

Note that the word "every" appears in the definition. This is consistent with the colloquial definition, which also includes by reference the concept of every.

So, it's not that people are reading the word "every" into the rules, it's that the concept is generally included in the definition.

Went ahead and made the part of the definition Camp #1 (GMC fire two weapons) considers relevant more noticeable. You're pinning Camp #2's argument on the word "every," as far as this definition is concerned, where Camp #1 focuses on "mentioned." Here, the "mentioned" persons or things would be the two (2) weapons denoted in the Monstrous Creatures ruleset. Thus each would be "referring to every one of two (2) weapons mentioned (in Monstrous Creature ruleset)."

No, the things mentions are "it's weapons." The limitation to two weapons is not in that sentence. It's incorporated by reference two paragraphs up. I'm not saying we can fully ignore it, but the word each is a pronoun, which means it has a specific antecedent. In this case, that is "it's weapons."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
You're making my point for me! Ask a person with a 6th grade reading level what "may fire each weapon at a different target if desired" means. I'm serious, you have to start analyzing the text to really even think that it would mean anything other than a plain reading. Black's Law Dictionary was one source I looked, but every source had "each" mean, essentially, "every individual."

By isolating the GC's rule on shooting each weapon at a different target if desired you're removing the context of the MC rules we're also required to follow, which is why simply putting the single sentence to someone unfamiliar with the rules specifics for a simple answer isn't really that conclusive, I would say.

Why not? That single sentence is in the explicit context of exceptions to the MC rules.

Regardless of what MC rules say, the GC shooting rules are all exceptions. Which means that a rule that alters the core MC rules is highly likely. Which makes the face value of the phrase in question highly probative.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
"Five cents each does not mean that you have to buy every one." My point exactly. Each means every remember? So either each means 10 cents for the set of two pieces purchased(2 weapons allowed to fire) or it means every(all weapons carried) and it costs you two dollars and fifty cents to buy those two pieces of candy.

Each does not just mean every. It means "every individual." In essence, sentences with "Each" usually mean "every individual has the following property."

Your example means the 16 year old is only allowed to purchase 2 pieces of candy, but in any combination.

I think you would be hard pressed to enforce that rule in any real world situation, but that's your opinion.

 Polonius wrote:
Why not? That single sentence is in the explicit context of exceptions to the MC rules.

Regardless of what MC rules say, the GC shooting rules are all exceptions. Which means that a rule that alters the core MC rules is highly likely. Which makes the face value of the phrase in question highly probative.

The rule in question is certainly explicitly an exception to who Gargantuan Creatures may target, but I do not think it explicitly overrides the number of weapons alllowed to be fired. Implicitly by the reading of some, yes, though personally I disagree with that reading by reason of context.

 Polonius wrote:

I think you would be hard pressed to enforce that rule in any real world situation, but that's your opinion.

I think you would be hard pressed for getting any child to only accept 2 pieces of candy, whether or not it is five cents or fifty cents. But that is my opinion.

 Polonius wrote:
No, the things mentions are "it's weapons." The limitation to two weapons is not in that sentence. It's incorporated by reference two paragraphs up. I'm not saying we can fully ignore it, but the word each is a pronoun, which means it has a specific antecedent. In this case, that is "it's weapons."

The stipulation of an antecedent is that it logically precedes the pronoun. Given that the GMC ruleset directly references MC ruleset, when speaking of GMC shooting rules it is logical to precede this with knowledge of MC shooting rules. Just saying "No" isn't much an argument - it's a disagreement, which is fine. "Each" by definition refers to a multiple - that being more than one of an object. We both agree on this. So it cannot be dependent on a single noun, thus it references a plurality of a noun (see: weapons). Here, we still agree. The disagreement comes in that Camp #2 declares "each" to not reference the previously stipulated weapon restriction of two, where as Camp #1 declares that it does.

 obsidiankatana wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
No, the things mentions are "it's weapons." The limitation to two weapons is not in that sentence. It's incorporated by reference two paragraphs up. I'm not saying we can fully ignore it, but the word each is a pronoun, which means it has a specific antecedent. In this case, that is "it's weapons."

The stipulation of an antecedent is that it logically precedes the pronoun. Given that the GMC ruleset directly references MC ruleset, when speaking of GMC shooting rules it is logical to precede this with knowledge of MC shooting rules. Just saying "No" isn't much an argument - it's a disagreement, which is fine. "Each" by definition refers to a multiple - that being more than one of an object. We both agree on this. So it cannot be dependent on a single noun, thus it references a plurality of a noun (see: weapons). Here, we still agree. The disagreement comes in that Camp #2 declares "each" to not reference the previously stipulated weapon restriction of two, where as Camp #1 declares that it does.

I was incorrect. Each is not a pronoun, it is a "determiner."

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/each

A determiner, according to Wikipedia, is "is a word, phrase or affix that occurs together with a noun or noun phrase and serves to express the reference of that noun or noun phrase in the context." So, it would occur together with a noun phrase, which in this case is "its weapons."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_pronoun

As a rule, no written text should assume that a read can relate a pronoun to an antecedent from prior paragraphs, even less so when it was only incorporated by reference.

It's an interesting question, but the more I look into it, the clearer the general meaning of the term "each" seems to be.

 Polonius wrote:
I was incorrect. Each is not a pronoun, it is a "determiner."

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/each

A determiner, according to Wikipedia, is "is a word, phrase or affix that occurs together with a noun or noun phrase and serves to express the reference of that noun or noun phrase in the context." So, it would occur together with a noun phrase, which in this case is "its weapons."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_pronoun

As a rule, no written text should assume that a read can relate a pronoun to an antecedent from prior paragraphs, even less so when it was only incorporated by reference.

It's an interesting question, but the more I look into it, the clearer the general meaning of the term "each" seems to be.

The noun phrase could just as easily include the MC restriction of two weapons. And while written text should assume a relation to prior paragraphs, this one should not be hand-waved by stating it was only incorporated by a reference. GMCs simply would not function without the referenced paragraph. They are utterly dependent on MC rules, with exceptions / expansions upon those rules. As far in depth as this analysis of the english language goes it remains a subjective interpretation of what "each" refers to - whether it overrides the MC restriction of two (2) or calls upon it.

 obsidiankatana wrote:

The noun phrase could just as easily include the MC restriction of two weapons.

It really couldn't have. The word each relies on a pretty tight relationship with a group of things. There is a group of things in the sentence the word each was in. It's simply not plausible English to think that a writer wrote each, referring to something from two paragraphs ago, rather than the things included in the exact same sentence. If that was the intent, it was horrible writing.

And while written text should assume a relation to prior paragraphs, this one should not be hand-waved by stating it was only incorporated by a reference. GMCs simply would not function without the referenced paragraph. They are utterly dependent on MC rules, with exceptions / expansions upon those rules. As far in depth as this analysis of the english language goes it remains a subjective interpretation of what "each" refers to - whether it overrides the MC restriction of two (2) or calls upon it.

First off, they would function just fine without that paragraph. the only rules the MC section adds is the ability shoot two weapons and a prohibition on going to ground. They are MCs, just that any rule that affects MCs also affects them, but I wouldn't call that utterly dependent. (Contrast to Superheavy vehicles, which are utterly dependent on the underlying vehicle rules).

But I think I've done about all I can here. I don't see any real fresh angles, so I probably won't contribute too much more.

Interesting talk, in that I think I better understand some English now.

 Polonius wrote:
It really couldn't have. The word each relies on a pretty tight relationship with a group of things. There is a group of things in the sentence the word each was in. It's simply not plausible English to think that a writer wrote each, referring to something from two paragraphs ago, rather than the things included in the exact same sentence. If that was the intent, it was horrible writing.

Unfortunately, my experience with GW leads me to believe horrible writing is more plausible than a necessary dissection of english to properly comprehend rules.

 Polonius wrote:
First off, they would function just fine without that paragraph. the only rules the MC section adds is the ability shoot two weapons and a prohibition on going to ground. They are MCs, just that any rule that affects MCs also affects them, but I wouldn't call that utterly dependent. (Contrast to Superheavy vehicles, which are utterly dependent on the underlying vehicle rules).

But I think I've done about all I can here. I don't see any real fresh angles, so I probably won't contribute too much more.

Interesting talk, in that I think I better understand some English now.

More support for the "horrible writing" side of things - I do agree that the sentence functions on its own, but GMCs don't - as without the paragraph there's a null reference. They'd follow all the normal rules for shooting as _____. But there is a reference to that paragraph - which if each substitutes two with all and allows them to be targeted separately, means such a reference was unnecessary to begin with. That MC shooting rules were referenced to begin with leads me to believe they cannot be discounted in both weapon number and targeting restrictions.

If it's an MC with additional GC rules then it can only fire two weapons and may target seperate units with those weapons.

You know you can just play 6th edition and apocalypse rules if you want your GC's to fire all thier weapons?
You may prefer D strength rules in apocalypse too!