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.
col_impact wrote: Please do get grammatical as I have and identify the dependent clauses, independent clauses, and the type of dependent clause we are dealing with (in this case its an adjectival present participle clause). I am sure you will find that once you dig into the actual grammar that the rule is easy to unpack. It's only if you avoid such a grammatical analysis that confusion remains.
There really is no ambiguity. Simply ask the question what counts as moving that turn? Can a 'phrase' count as moving that turn? Obviously not. Obviously, its the models that count as moving that turn and so the dependent clause is tied to the main noun ('models') of one of the independent clauses and not to any part of the prepositional phrase ('in their subsequent Shooting phase').
For clarity, we can present the rule as follows with the participle clause immediately adjacent to the noun it modifies.
Spoiler:
After disembarking, models, counting 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.
To the contrary, I think models in their subsequent shooting phase is an appropriate noun to count as having moved that turn, but then, I explained that above.
Once again you fail at basic grammar. "Caveat" and "list" are not grammatical terms, and they are not descriptive at all of what is going on grammatically here. I suggest you refresh yourself with dependent and independent clauses and present participle clauses and prepositional phrases, since you seem ill-prepared to actually discuss grammar. So google yourself up a refresher so you can actually unpack the sentence here instead of vaguely referring to "contextual", "caveat", and "list" as if they mean anything beyond nonsense.
"In their subsequent shooting phase" is an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying 'shoot' or 'run' as it answers the 'when' of 'shoot' or 'run'. Furthermore. the phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" does not globally apply to the whole statement as you would have it since it obviously does not apply either 'after embarking', 'manifest their psychic power', or 'declare a charge'. The phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" is ancillary and only narrowly applies insofar as modifying 'shoot' or 'run'.
"Counting as moving that turn" is a dependent clause adjectivally and globally modifying the noun 'models' in reference to the current state the models are in, which is "after disembarking". "That turn" can be no other turn than the turn in which the models disembark.
Unpacked to its essential elements the rule reads thusly.
Spoiler:
After disembarking, models count as having moved that turn. The models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run, but they cannot declare a charge.
The prepositional phrases "in their subsequent Shooting phase" and "in their subsequent Assault phase" provide additional ancillary info to the verbs 'shoot or run' and 'declare' respectively.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/12/10 20:37:58
col_impact wrote: Once again you fail at basic grammar. "Caveat" and "list" are not grammatical terms, and they are not descriptive at all of what is going on grammatically here. I suggest you refresh yourself with dependent and independent clauses and present participle clauses and prepositional phrases, since you seem ill-prepared to actually discuss grammar. So google yourself up a refresher so you can actually unpack the sentence here instead of vaguely referring to "contextual", "caveat", and "list" as if they mean anything beyond nonsense.
Considering that this would be advanced grammar, and not basic grammar, I would say that you fail at proper instruction. I am using the terms I am familiar with. As I said, I am not taking this to Oxford English Professor level, especially as most people here probably only passed high school English by the greatest luck, myself included, and slept through those portions of phrases and clauses since they didn't make sense. But apparently you do not understand what I mean, and more importantly, you do not care.
"Contextual" as in viewing the context of the statement. Taking "Deep Strike, also known as Deep Strike Reserves" is taking a phrase out of the context of the sentence.
"Caveat" is a way of setting a condition or limitation. In this case, applying the counting as moved that turn to shooting in the subsequent shooting phase.
"List" is when someone makes a list of something. I like to eat carrots, potatoes, and apples, but not peas, is a list of options. You can move forward, jump left, and shamble right, but you cannot fall behind is another list.
col_impact wrote: "In their subsequent shooting phase" is an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying 'shoot' or 'run' as it answers the 'when' of 'shoot' or 'run'. Furthermore. the phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" does not globally apply to the whole statement as you would have it since it obviously does not apply either 'after embarking', 'manifest their psychic power', or 'declare a charge'. The phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" is ancillary and only narrowly applies insofar as modifying 'shoot' or 'run'.
Which actually does not counter anything I have stated previously. But then, maybe you are focusing too much?
col_impact wrote: "Counting as moving that turn" is a dependent clause adjectivally and globally modifying the noun 'models' in reference to the current state the models are in, which is "after disembarking". "That turn" can be no other turn than the turn in which the models disembark.
Yes, it is a dependent clause, just like all caveats are. Caveats as provisos of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations require something to apply it to. In this case, shooting in their phase after they disembarked.
col_impact wrote: Unpacked to its essential elements the rule reads thusly.
Spoiler:
After disembarking, models count as having moved that turn. The models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run, but they cannot declare a charge.
The prepositional phrases "in their subsequent Shooting phase" and "in their subsequent Assault phase" provide additional ancillary info to the verbs 'shoot or run' and 'declare' respectively.
More importantly, when the rulebook, and indeed, all proper writers, create a list, such as indicating the actions allowed to a unit after they disembark, they would put the "counting as moved in that turn" at the front if it was intended for the turn alone. Talk about missing your intermediate grammar. One does not put a list of actions out of the order in which they are processed. Noting that they count as moved is pointless after they are already past that Phase, unless it was only applying TO that phase.
But hey, you worry about the iron ratio of the nails, I'll enjoy the house.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/10 21:16:54
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.
col_impact wrote: Once again you fail at basic grammar. "Caveat" and "list" are not grammatical terms, and they are not descriptive at all of what is going on grammatically here. I suggest you refresh yourself with dependent and independent clauses and present participle clauses and prepositional phrases, since you seem ill-prepared to actually discuss grammar. So google yourself up a refresher so you can actually unpack the sentence here instead of vaguely referring to "contextual", "caveat", and "list" as if they mean anything beyond nonsense.
Considering that this would be advanced grammar, and not basic grammar, I would say that you fail at proper instruction. I am using the terms I am familiar with. As I said, I am not taking this to Oxford English Professor level, especially as most people here probably only passed high school English by the greatest luck, myself included, and slept through those portions of phrases and clauses since they didn't make sense. But apparently you do not understand what I mean, and more importantly, you do not care.
"Contextual" as in viewing the context of the statement. Taking "Deep Strike, also known as Deep Strike Reserves" is taking a phrase out of the context of the sentence.
"Caveat" is a way of setting a condition or limitation. In this case, applying the counting as moved that turn to shooting in the subsequent shooting phase.
"List" is when someone makes a list of something. I like to eat carrots, potatoes, and apples, but not peas, is a list of options. You can move forward, jump left, and shamble right, but you cannot fall behind is another list.
Sorry. You have google and the internet at your disposal. If you cannot bother to read up on and research actual English grammar then how can we take what you argue seriously. I have studied grammar at the university level and I used to teach grammar at the university level. I have presented a well-supported grammatical analysis that counters your lazy attempt and anyone who wants to check up on what I am arguing merely has to research grammar on the internet. "Contextual", "caveat", and "list" are homemade terms you came up with in some kind of "Charistophe's cool tricks to reading rules". I will stick with actual grammar since that is what we are allowed when we formulate a RAW argument.
col_impact wrote: "In their subsequent shooting phase" is an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying 'shoot' or 'run' as it answers the 'when' of 'shoot' or 'run'. Furthermore. the phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" does not globally apply to the whole statement as you would have it since it obviously does not apply either 'after embarking', 'manifest their psychic power', or 'declare a charge'. The phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" is ancillary and only narrowly applies insofar as modifying 'shoot' or 'run'.
Which actually does not counter anything I have stated previously. But then, maybe you are focusing too much?
On the contrary. It directly counters everything you have said previously. "Counting as moving in that turn" is an adjectival present participle dependent clause that directly modifies "models" and does not have anything to do at all with the phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" which is a prepositional phrase that modifies 'shoot or run' in a localized way. Your argument is that "counting as moving in that turn" acts as a caveat to "in their subsequent shooting phase". I have wholly proven your argument to be wrong as it is based on a fundamental misread of the grammar in the rule. If you are somehow in your head reading "counting as moving in that turn" as acting as a caveat on " in their subsequent shooting phase" then you are in fact misreading it and are grammatically confused by the sentence. So your read does not count at all in a RAW discussion, because RAW includes the grammar in which the rules are written.
col_impact wrote: "Counting as moving that turn" is a dependent clause adjectivally and globally modifying the noun 'models' in reference to the current state the models are in, which is "after disembarking". "That turn" can be no other turn than the turn in which the models disembark.
Yes, it is a dependent clause, just like all caveats are. Caveats as provisos of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations require something to apply it to. In this case, shooting in their phase after they disembarked.
col_impact wrote: Unpacked to its essential elements the rule reads thusly.
Spoiler:
After disembarking, models count as having moved that turn. The models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run, but they cannot declare a charge.
The prepositional phrases "in their subsequent Shooting phase" and "in their subsequent Assault phase" provide additional ancillary info to the verbs 'shoot or run' and 'declare' respectively.
More importantly, when the rulebook, and indeed, all proper writers, create a list, such as indicating the actions allowed to a unit after they disembark, they would put the "counting as moved in that turn" at the front if it was intended for the turn alone. Talk about missing your intermediate grammar. One does not put a list of actions out of the order in which they are processed. Noting that they count as moved is pointless after they are already past that Phase, unless it was only applying TO that phase.
But hey, you worry about the iron ratio of the nails, I'll enjoy the house.
Sorry. Grammar does not work that way. Dependent clauses can stylistically be moved around and be well-formed grammatically. The positioning of where dependent clauses wind up does not in and of itself carry semantic weight - they still only modify the noun or verb of the independent clauses that they do. You would know all these things if you would bother to read up on grammar but you are admittedly too lazy to do so. In fact your interpretation is based on misconceptions and a willful neglect of actual grammar and a wrongful application of some 'hacky' rules of interpretation that you are making up.
they would put the "counting as moved in that turn" at the front if it was intended for the turn alone. Talk about missing your intermediate grammar. One does not put a list of actions out of the order in which they are processed. Noting that they count as moved is pointless after they are already past that Phase, unless it was only applying TO that phase.
This is all stuff you are making up out of nowhere. Grammar does not work this way at all. We are not allowed to replace grammar with your made-up rules of interpretation. Mark your argument as HYWPI.
Feel free to check up on what I am arguing about grammar and sense. It's all out there on the internet, and if you want to you can challenge my analysis. But you cannot challenge my analysis with your made-up hacky rules of interpretation and claim RAW.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2015/12/10 22:24:14
col_impact wrote: Sorry. You have google and the internet at your disposal. If you cannot bother to read up on and research actual English grammar then how can we take what you argue seriously. I have studied grammar at the university level and I used to teach grammar at the university level. I have presented a well-supported grammatical analysis that counters your lazy attempt and anyone who wants to check up on what I am arguing merely has to research grammar on the internet. "Contextual", "caveat", and "list" are homemade terms you came up with in some kind of "Charistophe's cool tricks to reading rules". I will stick with actual grammar since that is what we are allowed when we formulate a RAW argument.
I may have google and the internet available part of the time, but the time to research such things are not always available, especially at work. Even more so when they seem counter to how I have read and used English for the last 35 years. And yet, you try to apply literary terms as grammatical terms means that you really are incredibly off.
Considering that you are the only one who didn't understand what I meant with the terms I used, consider them completely made up or homemade, and you can't even believe that they are actual terms makes me wonder at your grammatical knowledge.
And no, I see no grammatical context for your position because it would take hours to research such concepts to confirm them, and that's assuming that I wasn't already exhausted from a day's work, and an evening's work with family. I think we're dealing with a low level of grammar that is either below your training, or you're making stuff up.
Either way, it seems more that you are trying to use big fancy words to overwhelm someone who disagrees with you in to believing you actually know what you are talking about.
col_impact wrote: On the contrary. It directly counters everything you have said previously. "Counting as moving in that turn" is an adjectival present participle dependent clause that directly modifies "models" and does not have anything to do at all with the phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" which is a prepositional phrase that modifies 'shoot or run' in a localized way. Your argument is that "counting as moving in that turn" acts as a caveat to "in their subsequent shooting phase". I have wholly proven your argument to be wrong as it is based on a fundamental misread of the grammar in the rule. If you are somehow in your head reading "counting as moving in that turn" as acting as a caveat on " in their subsequent shooting phase" then you are in fact misreading it and are grammatically confused by the sentence. So your read does not count at all in a RAW discussion, because RAW includes the grammar in which the rules are written.
I disagree. I still think that you are trying to use big words to ignore how people use English. I have already pointed out that if the movement was only considered for the model alone, it would have actually been placed where you put it in your example. In fact, many of the other parts of the sentence are not separated by comma until the caveat and the exception against Charging.
col_impact wrote: Sorry. Grammar does not work that way. Dependent clauses can stylistically be moved around and be well-formed grammatically. The positioning of where dependent clauses wind up does not in and of itself carry semantic weight - they still only modify the noun or verb of the independent clauses that they do. You would know all these things if you would bother to read up on grammar but you are admittedly too lazy to do so. In fact your interpretation is based on misconceptions and a willful neglect of actual grammar and a wrongful application of some 'hacky' rules of interpretation that you are making up.
Well, I used google to define dependent clause and that's what it came up with on short order. So either it is not what you think it is, or you are just plain wrong. I am using grammar concepts that has been taught to me by numerous English teachers and used by numerous well-credited English authors as well and standard manual uses.
So, either you are just talking big, or these concepts are just so far outside your paradigm and use that it is useless and unrecognizable to you.
col_impact wrote: This is all stuff you are making up out of nowhere. Grammar does not work this way at all. We are not allowed to replace grammar with your made-up rules of interpretation. Mark your argument as HYWPI.
Feel free to check up on what I am arguing about grammar and sense. It's all out there on the internet, and if you want to you can challenge my analysis. But you cannot challenge my analysis with your made-up hacky rules of interpretation and claim RAW.
If I am making things up, then only I would understand what I'm talking about. The only person who seems not to understand the concept I have espoused is you. So, either I'm talking too low for your fanciness, you're a blowhard, or both.
Feel free to check up on what I'm talking about then. I will not be cowed by your big words that are being used to try and browbeat me in to submission. If I have time after work and dealing with my kids and a good long nap, I might try to review the advanced grammar concepts you claim ignores how English is used regularly. However, I will likely not. Those who are professional English types are worse than mathematicians and engineers and like to try and muddle the language in to some magic code only "they" can truly "understand".
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.
col_impact wrote: Please do get grammatical as I have and identify the dependent clauses, independent clauses, and the type of dependent clause we are dealing with (in this case its an adjectival present participle clause). I am sure you will find that once you dig into the actual grammar that the rule is easy to unpack. It's only if you avoid such a grammatical analysis that confusion remains.
Your analysis seems centred on deciphering who the clause refers to, which is not in question. Once again, the ambiguity lies in which turn "that turn" refers to. In there ordinary course of disembarking the specific turn the determiner refers to is clear; it all occurs in the same turn.
When trying to apply it to disembarking from a Transport in your opponent's turn there are two turns in question, so the specific determiner ends up referring to one of either the turn off disembarking or the turn in which the subsequent Shooting phase occurs.
There really is no ambiguity. Simply ask the question what counts as moving that turn? Can a 'phrase' count as moving that turn? Obviously not. Obviously, its the models that count as moving that turn and so the dependent clause is tied to the main noun ('models') of one of the independent clauses and not to any part of the prepositional phrase ('in their subsequent Shooting phase').
Who counts as moving is not at issue, as above/earlier.
col_impact wrote: Sorry. You have google and the internet at your disposal. If you cannot bother to read up on and research actual English grammar then how can we take what you argue seriously. I have studied grammar at the university level and I used to teach grammar at the university level. I have presented a well-supported grammatical analysis that counters your lazy attempt and anyone who wants to check up on what I am arguing merely has to research grammar on the internet. "Contextual", "caveat", and "list" are homemade terms you came up with in some kind of "Charistophe's cool tricks to reading rules". I will stick with actual grammar since that is what we are allowed when we formulate a RAW argument.
I may have google and the internet available part of the time, but the time to research such things are not always available, especially at work. Even more so when they seem counter to how I have read and used English for the last 35 years. And yet, you try to apply literary terms as grammatical terms means that you really are incredibly off.
Considering that you are the only one who didn't understand what I meant with the terms I used, consider them completely made up or homemade, and you can't even believe that they are actual terms makes me wonder at your grammatical knowledge.
And no, I see no grammatical context for your position because it would take hours to research such concepts to confirm them, and that's assuming that I wasn't already exhausted from a day's work, and an evening's work with family. I think we're dealing with a low level of grammar that is either below your training, or you're making stuff up.
Either way, it seems more that you are trying to use big fancy words to overwhelm someone who disagrees with you in to believing you actually know what you are talking about.
col_impact wrote: On the contrary. It directly counters everything you have said previously. "Counting as moving in that turn" is an adjectival present participle dependent clause that directly modifies "models" and does not have anything to do at all with the phrase "in their subsequent shooting phase" which is a prepositional phrase that modifies 'shoot or run' in a localized way. Your argument is that "counting as moving in that turn" acts as a caveat to "in their subsequent shooting phase". I have wholly proven your argument to be wrong as it is based on a fundamental misread of the grammar in the rule. If you are somehow in your head reading "counting as moving in that turn" as acting as a caveat on " in their subsequent shooting phase" then you are in fact misreading it and are grammatically confused by the sentence. So your read does not count at all in a RAW discussion, because RAW includes the grammar in which the rules are written.
I disagree. I still think that you are trying to use big words to ignore how people use English. I have already pointed out that if the movement was only considered for the model alone, it would have actually been placed where you put it in your example. In fact, many of the other parts of the sentence are not separated by comma until the caveat and the exception against Charging.
col_impact wrote: Sorry. Grammar does not work that way. Dependent clauses can stylistically be moved around and be well-formed grammatically. The positioning of where dependent clauses wind up does not in and of itself carry semantic weight - they still only modify the noun or verb of the independent clauses that they do. You would know all these things if you would bother to read up on grammar but you are admittedly too lazy to do so. In fact your interpretation is based on misconceptions and a willful neglect of actual grammar and a wrongful application of some 'hacky' rules of interpretation that you are making up.
Well, I used google to define dependent clause and that's what it came up with on short order. So either it is not what you think it is, or you are just plain wrong. I am using grammar concepts that has been taught to me by numerous English teachers and used by numerous well-credited English authors as well and standard manual uses.
So, either you are just talking big, or these concepts are just so far outside your paradigm and use that it is useless and unrecognizable to you.
col_impact wrote: This is all stuff you are making up out of nowhere. Grammar does not work this way at all. We are not allowed to replace grammar with your made-up rules of interpretation. Mark your argument as HYWPI.
Feel free to check up on what I am arguing about grammar and sense. It's all out there on the internet, and if you want to you can challenge my analysis. But you cannot challenge my analysis with your made-up hacky rules of interpretation and claim RAW.
If I am making things up, then only I would understand what I'm talking about. The only person who seems not to understand the concept I have espoused is you. So, either I'm talking too low for your fanciness, you're a blowhard, or both.
Feel free to check up on what I'm talking about then. I will not be cowed by your big words that are being used to try and browbeat me in to submission. If I have time after work and dealing with my kids and a good long nap, I might try to review the advanced grammar concepts you claim ignores how English is used regularly. However, I will likely not. Those who are professional English types are worse than mathematicians and engineers and like to try and muddle the language in to some magic code only "they" can truly "understand".
LOL. Once again you are admitting to little more than laziness and have slunk down into pure defensiveness. And, even worse, you are trying to present your laziness as some virtue over some "fanciness" or "blowhardiness" on my part. Nice try putting a positive spin on your laziness, but you are just effectively conceding to my due diligence in doing an actual grammatical analysis.
I am claiming no elite knowledge. My grammatical argument is easily verifiable by anyone who takes the time and the information is freely available on the internet. I have pointed out that your interpretation is wrong as it is based on a misread and a misunderstanding of the grammatical structure of the sentence and I have done so by pointing to grammatical concepts that you can freely double check yourself (clause, phrase, independent vs dependent clauses, participle clauses, present participles, past participles, gerunds, prepositional phrases, etc.)
Since you "will likely not" put anything further into your lazy argument, it looks like my argument stands uncontested.
col_impact wrote: Please do get grammatical as I have and identify the dependent clauses, independent clauses, and the type of dependent clause we are dealing with (in this case its an adjectival present participle clause). I am sure you will find that once you dig into the actual grammar that the rule is easy to unpack. It's only if you avoid such a grammatical analysis that confusion remains.
Your analysis seems centred on deciphering who the clause refers to, which is not in question. Once again, the ambiguity lies in which turn "that turn" refers to. In there ordinary course of disembarking the specific turn the determiner refers to is clear; it all occurs in the same turn.
When trying to apply it to disembarking from a Transport in your opponent's turn there are two turns in question, so the specific determiner ends up referring to one of either the turn off disembarking or the turn in which the subsequent Shooting phase occurs.
There really is no ambiguity. Simply ask the question what counts as moving that turn? Can a 'phrase' count as moving that turn? Obviously not. Obviously, its the models that count as moving that turn and so the dependent clause is tied to the main noun ('models') of one of the independent clauses and not to any part of the prepositional phrase ('in their subsequent Shooting phase').
Who counts as moving is not at issue, as above/earlier.
Deciphering what the clause "counting as having moved that turn" can structurally modify is actually the crux of the matter. As I have shown, the clause modifies the noun "models" and not the object ("phase") of the prepositional phrase ("in their subsequent Shooting phase"). The actual grammatical structure of the sentence removes any ambiguity. "That turn" definitively refers to the state the "models" are in ("after disembarking"), and can not be referring structurally at all to "subsequent shooting phase".
So grammatically there is no ambiguity. Contextually as well there is no ambiguity. Up until this point in time, the rules have only made mention of the case of normal disembarking during the unit's movement phase (I mark the indicator's of this in red in the spoiler below). So contextually speaking, "that turn" can only mean the turn the models disembark. Immediately after the key sentence we keep debating is the actual first mention in the rules of the case of a unit disembarking during the opponent's turn. The sentence that follows (which I mark in green) then provides the player with the information they need to handle this special case.
Spoiler:
Disembarking
A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either
before or after the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so long as the
vehicle has not moved more than 6".
If the vehicle had not moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle can then move
normally. If the vehicle had already moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle
cannot move further that turn (including pivoting on the spot, moving Flat Out, Running
or charging). In addition, a vehicle cannot Tank Shock or Ram on a turn that a unit
disembarks from it.
Placing Disembarked Models
When a unit disembarks, place the models one at a time, using the following method:
place the first model in base contact with one of the vehicle’s Access Points (including its
flying base, if it has one). A disembarking model’s base cannot be placed within 1" of an
enemy model or within impassable terrain.
The model can then make a normal move – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests
should be taken as normal, but it must end its move wholly within 6" of the Access
Point it disembarked from (we assume that any distance that is lost because of this
has been used getting out of the Transport). Repeat this process for each model in the
unit. At the end of the unit’s move, all models must be in unit coherency.
Disembarkation Restrictions
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. If a unit disembarks from a destroyed
vehicle during the enemy turn, it cannot charge in the Assault phase of its own turn
unless the destroyed vehicle had the Assault Vehicle special rule.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/12/11 02:06:40
col_impact wrote: LOL. Once again you are admitting to little more than laziness and have slunk down into pure defensiveness. And, even worse, you are trying to present your laziness as some virtue over some "fanciness" or "blowhardiness" on my part. Nice try putting a positive spin on your laziness, but you are just effectively conceding to my due diligence in doing an actual grammatical analysis.
I am claiming no elite knowledge. My grammatical argument is easily verifiable by anyone who takes the time and the information is freely available on the internet. I have pointed out that your interpretation is wrong as it is based on a misread and a misunderstanding of the grammatical structure of the sentence and I have done so by pointing to grammatical concepts that you can freely double check yourself (clause, phrase, independent vs dependent clauses, participle clauses, present participles, past participles, gerunds, prepositional phrases, etc.)
Since you "will likely not" put anything further into your lazy argument, it looks like my argument stands uncontested.
You confuse laziness for not wanting to have to go through several hours, at a minimum, to try and understand what you cannot seem to explain in simple words. If I wanted English lessons, I will do so in the proper forum. This is not an English class forum, but again, you seem even more lazy since you will not even try to understand the simpler terms and concepts I am proposing that others here seem to have little trouble understanding.
col_impact wrote: Please do get grammatical as I have and identify the dependent clauses, independent clauses, and the type of dependent clause we are dealing with (in this case its an adjectival present participle clause). I am sure you will find that once you dig into the actual grammar that the rule is easy to unpack. It's only if you avoid such a grammatical analysis that confusion remains.
Your analysis seems centred on deciphering who the clause refers to, which is not in question. Once again, the ambiguity lies in which turn "that turn" refers to. In there ordinary course of disembarking the specific turn the determiner refers to is clear; it all occurs in the same turn.
When trying to apply it to disembarking from a Transport in your opponent's turn there are two turns in question, so the specific determiner ends up referring to one of either the turn off disembarking or the turn in which the subsequent Shooting phase occurs.
There really is no ambiguity. Simply ask the question what counts as moving that turn? Can a 'phrase' count as moving that turn? Obviously not. Obviously, its the models that count as moving that turn and so the dependent clause is tied to the main noun ('models') of one of the independent clauses and not to any part of the prepositional phrase ('in their subsequent Shooting phase').
Who counts as moving is not at issue, as above/earlier.
Deciphering what the clause "counting as having moved that turn" can structurally modify is actually the crux of the matter. As I have shown, the clause modifies the noun "models" and not the object ("phase") of the prepositional phrase ("in their subsequent Shooting phase"). The actual grammatical structure of the sentence removes any ambiguity. "That turn" definitively refers to the state the "models" are in ("after disembarking"), and can not be referring structurally at all to "subsequent shooting phase".
So grammatically there is no ambiguity. Contextually as well there is no ambiguity. Up until this point in time, the rules have only made mention of the case of normal disembarking during the unit's movement phase (I mark the indicator's of this in red in the spoiler below). So contextually speaking, "that turn" can only mean the turn the models disembark. Immediately after the key sentence we keep debating is the actual first mention in the rules of the case of a unit disembarking during the opponent's turn. The sentence that follows (which I mark in green) then provides the player with the information they need to handle this special case.
Spoiler:
Disembarking
A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either
before or after the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so long as the
vehicle has not moved more than 6".
If the vehicle had not moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle can then move
normally. If the vehicle had already moved before the unit disembarked, the vehicle
cannot move further that turn (including pivoting on the spot, moving Flat Out, Running
or charging). In addition, a vehicle cannot Tank Shock or Ram on a turn that a unit
disembarks from it.
Placing Disembarked Models
When a unit disembarks, place the models one at a time, using the following method:
place the first model in base contact with one of the vehicle’s Access Points (including its
flying base, if it has one). A disembarking model’s base cannot be placed within 1" of an
enemy model or within impassable terrain.
The model can then make a normal move – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests
should be taken as normal, but it must end its move wholly within 6" of the Access
Point it disembarked from (we assume that any distance that is lost because of this
has been used getting out of the Transport). Repeat this process for each model in the
unit. At the end of the unit’s move, all models must be in unit coherency.
Disembarkation Restrictions
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. If a unit disembarks from a destroyed
vehicle during the enemy turn, it cannot charge in the Assault phase of its own turn
unless the destroyed vehicle had the Assault Vehicle special rule.
Even more interesting, if they already make a normal move, why bother making a note that they count as moving after mentioning the following Shooting Phase, unless they disembarked in a separate turn... Order of process is still important when listing clauses, and this clause is out of order if only referring to the model counting as moved the turn they disembark, as opposed to counting as moved in the shooting phase following their Disembarking.
But hey, you see what you choose to see, and I think you are over-complicating the whole sentence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/11 05:08:55
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 confuse laziness for not wanting to have to go through several hours, at a minimum, to try and understand what you cannot seem to explain in simple words. If I wanted English lessons, I will do so in the proper forum. This is not an English class forum, but again, you seem even more lazy since you will not even try to understand the simpler terms and concepts I am proposing that others here seem to have little trouble understanding.
I provided a grammatical analysis using grammatical terms that are easily verifiable on the internet. Your 'simpler terms and concepts' have nothing to do with grammar. I will stick with the grammatical analysis that actually involves grammar and welcome anyone to double check my analyses. We are discussing RAW and grammar is a transparent inquiry. Any other person could in theory investigate the matter and should come up with the exact same grammatical analysis that I have, which is good since we are dealing with formulating RAW arguments that are supposed to emerge out of the words, language, and the structure of the rules themselves.
Charistoph wrote: Even more interesting, if they already make a normal move, why bother making a note that they count as moving after mentioning the following Shooting Phase, unless they disembarked in a separate turn... Order of process is still important when listing clauses, and this clause is out of order if only referring to the model counting as moved the turn they disembark, as opposed to counting as moved in the shooting phase following their Disembarking.
But hey, you see what you choose to see, and I think you are over-complicating the whole sentence.
First, disembarking would not necessarily count as a move unless it was designated as such by the rules.
Second, order of process is not important when listing clauses. There is quite a bit of flexibility to how they can be ordered while maintaining identical sense.
This sentence has four clauses.
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.
The clauses can be re-arranged in numerous ways while maintaining the same sense.
Spoiler:
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 count as having moved that turn and 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.
After disembarking, models count as having moved that turn. They 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.
You are falsely trying to generate significance out of where the clause 'counting as having moved that turn' occurs in the overall sentence. No matter where it is, it is a present participle dependent clause that adjectivally modifies the noun "models" because that's how the grammar of the sentence works, and you are free to double check my grammatical analysis. Grammar is not some secret knowledge known only to the Illuminati.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/11 05:59:24
col_impact wrote: I provided a grammatical analysis using grammatical terms that are easily verifiable on the internet. Your 'simpler terms and concepts' have nothing to do with grammar. I will stick with the grammatical analysis that actually involves grammar and welcome anyone to double check my analyses. We are discussing RAW and grammar is a transparent inquiry. Any other person could in theory investigate the matter and should come up with the exact same grammatical analysis that I have, which is good since we are dealing with formulating RAW arguments that are supposed to emerge out of the words, language, and the structure of the rules themselves.
Considering you don't know what a caveat, list, or context is, I doubt your veracity or your competance.
col_impact wrote: You are falsely trying to generate significance out of where the clause 'counting as having moved that turn' occurs in the overall sentence. No matter where it is, it is a present participle dependent clause that adjectivally modifies the noun "models" because that's how the grammar of the sentence works, and you are free to double check my grammatical analysis. Grammar is not some secret knowledge known only to the Illuminati.
Incorrect. I am not falsely doing anything. I just do not agree with your assessment. I may be mistaken, but I am stating what I believe to be fact.
I still stand by that according to my assessment based on 35 years of an, admittedly at best, amateur study of English, that that phrase is being used as a caveat to the models for their following shooting phase similar to use in other instruction manuals and conversations. If I have time to study all this phrase nonsense you are blathering about, I might look it up, but considering I am a busy man and have no time to waste on something I will not even gain a partial English credit on, I wouldn't hold my breath.
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.
col_impact wrote: Deciphering what the clause "counting as having moved that turn" can structurally modify is actually the crux of the matter. As I have shown, the clause modifies the noun "models" and not the object ("phase") of the prepositional phrase ("in their subsequent Shooting phase"). The actual grammatical structure of the sentence removes any ambiguity. "That turn" definitively refers to the state the "models" are in ("after disembarking"), and can not be referring structurally at all to "subsequent shooting phase".
Having considered it further I think you may be mistaken in considering it an adjectival participle clause, and that it's more correctly an adverbial participle clause. I think also you're mistaking the use of the participle clause for the use of a relative clause.
Earlier in the thread you claimed we could make the sentence clearer by rearranging:
"After disembarking, models, counting 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."
Except to any sensible person the sentence reads horrifically (more so than it already does, if you can believe it), because arranged like that it should read as a relative clause rather than using the participle clause:
"After disembarking, models, which 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."
The problem with your idea of rearranging is that it's not worded that way because a participle clause is being used, and not a relative clause. Taking it as the adverbial participle rather than adjectival however it makes clear sense in referring to both subject and verb (models shooting) in terms of the condition in which or how the subject performs the verb (counting as having moved that turn when doing so).
That also tidily does away with the ambiguity of the specific determiner because it's always referring to the turn in which the subsequent Shooting phase occurs, regardless of whether the disembark was in the immediately preceding Movement phase or the opponent's preceding Shooting phase.
Cindis wrote: It's always amused me how quickly people lose interest in an argument once it becomes clear they've lost.
It's always amused me how quickly people incapable of making the proper argument jump on the bandwagon of someone once it seems (rightly or wrongly) they know what they're talking about. And then try to stick the boot in as if they have some credit to claim.
"Yeah, clauses - um, and phrases! It's not my argument at all but - what he said!"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/11 09:14:44
My points still stand and I'll try to explain without using too many big words since that seems to scare some people. When reading the sentence in the context it's written, using the proper definitions of the terms used per RAW, its very clear the unit only counts as moving the turn it disembarks. Any other conclusion breaks the game unless, as col impact has also pointed out, you start making ridiculous assertions with no support per RAW at all.
For your interpretation to work the following must also be true:
1) Units that disembark in the enemy turn cannot move in their subsequent turn - as they count as having already moved that turn, not phase. Turn is the word used and per RAW a turn refers to all four phases.
2) A unit that is forced to disembark in its shooting phase will not be able to fire Heavy or Salvo weapons normally until its remained stationary for two more controlling player turns.
3) Units forced to disembark during the enemy turn, not yet counting as moved, will fire their full complement of salvo shots in overwatch.
If we apply your version of the rule the game starts becoming a completely unintuitive mess, as rules and terms start being used rather more loosely and these absurd inferences have to start being made to get everything to fit together.
Col impact's English lesson is just the final nail in the coffin, you didn't have a leg to stand on from the start. The next argument you make try to support it using the actual words in the book, not your feelings.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/11 15:20:35
1) First off, under "Placing Disembarked Models" (pg81), the first paragraph describes placing disembarked models in base contact with their vehicle's Access Point. The second paragraph then clearly states The model can then make a normal move, but must end within 6" of the Access Point. So it establishes that under normal circumstances, after disembarking from a transport, units can move normally.
2) Under "Disembarkation Restrictions" (also pg 81) is the line in the OP, establishing what units can and can't do after Disembarking. It establishes here that units count as moving in the context of its subsequent phases - "..models can manifest their psychic powers and either shoot or Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, counting as having moved that turn..." This quite clearly establishes that this statement concerns possible actions in the Shooting phase, not the movement phase.
3) That same paragraph the rule continues: "If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy turn, it cannot charge in the Assault phase of its own turn unless the destroyed vehicle had the Assault Vehicle special rule." There is no other restriction on what a unit can or cannot do if its transport was destroyed in the previous player's turn.
4) On the next page under EFFECT OF DAMAGE ON PASSENGERS, the rules establish that units forced to disembark from a destroyed transport must end their move within 3" of their wrecked transport rather than the usual 6", and must take a pinning test. No other restrictions appear to be applied to the unit.
5) Way back on page 17 under "GAME TURNS AND PLAYER TURNS" the rulebook specifically states that any rule that refers to 'a turn' means a 'player turn'.
In summation, the only argument here that I can see is whether a unit is allowed to move its full 6" or is limited to 3" in the controlling player's next movement phase, since the rules on Effect of Damage on Passengers makes no mention of subsequent movement phase. Other than this there is no hint of any movement restrictions due to destroyed transports. The references to "counts as having moved" have no bearing on whether or not a unit can move; they simply establish that if the unit chooses not to move at all after a forced disembarkation, it still counts as moving for the purposes of determining what actions the unit can take in the Shooting phase. Also there is a difference between a statement like "counts as moving" and "is treated as if it has moved"; the former applies a reference to limitations on subsequent actions, the latter an actual restriction on the current action.
Personally I think the intention is that the Pinning test units must take when their transport is destroyed is supposed to be the primary 'limiting' factor on the unit and that otherwise, a forced disembarkation is no different than a normal disembarkation done at the start of the controlling player's next movement phase, with the possibly exception of the unit having to end its move within 3" of its destroyed transport rather than the normal 6".
Cindis wrote: My points still stand and I'll try to explain without using too many big words since that seems to scare some people. When reading the sentence in the context it's written, using the proper definitions of the terms used per RAW, its very clear the unit only counts as moving the turn it disembarks. Any other conclusion breaks the game unless, as col impact has also pointed out, you start making ridiculous assertions with no support per RAW at all.
For your interpretation to work the following must also be true:
1) Units that disembark in the enemy turn cannot move in their subsequent turn - as they count as having already moved that turn, not phase. Turn is the word used and per RAW a turn refers to all four phases.
Not true at all. If the phrase regarding moving that turn is a caveat for the ability to use Psychic Powers, Shooting, and Running (which is all that was mentioned in the sentence to that point), than it is not addressing the Movement Phase at all. If the Movement Phase is not addressed, than it is not affected. So being a caveat would translate that a unit disembarked by enemy action will snap fire Heavy Weapons and short fire their Salvo Weapons in their following Shooting Phase, even if they stayed perfectly still since they lost their Transport.
Cindis wrote: 2) A unit that is forced to disembark in its shooting phase will not be able to fire Heavy or Salvo weapons normally until its remained stationary for two more controlling player turns.
That is a risk for going Flat Out in Dangerous Terrain, isn't it? But this is a balance concern.
Cindis wrote: 3) Units forced to disembark during the enemy turn, not yet counting as moved, will fire their full complement of salvo shots in overwatch.
Ironically true. But this is a balance concern. There are quite a few rules that get quirky when used during unanticipated times.
Cindis wrote: If we apply your version of the rule the game starts becoming a completely unintuitive mess, as rules and terms start being used rather more loosely and these absurd inferences have to start being made to get everything to fit together.
Hate to tell you this, but the game is already a completely unintuitive mess, with rules and terms being used rather loosely, with absurd inferences having to be made to get much of anything to fit together. Or should we talk about Super-Heavy targeting and its relationship to the Shooting Sequence?
Cindis wrote: Col impact's English lesson is just the final nail in the coffin, you didn't have a leg to stand on from the start. The next argument you make try to support it using the actual words in the book, not your feelings.
What English lesson? He was using words that I have not seen in use (much less regular use) since before I was attracted to girls, literally. When it was suggested that he try to "dumb it down", he doubled down and just kept right on going. The average person has more use of Algebra than the technical terms used in advanced sentence deconstruction, so those terms and concepts get lost to time.
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.
Rule 1: Be Polite This seems obvious, however many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions. Just because you don't see the other users' faces doesn't mean they don't have feelings and won't be hurt by rude comments or offensive images. When you see something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to it than you initially thought. Look at it again, keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in a visual format. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.
If after clarification you still disagree with the person then politely outline your points. Try to avoid name-calling or even implying insults wherever possible. These tactics generally only inflame a situation and lead to what are known as "Flame Wars." Whenever a flame war starts it usually ruins a perfectly good discussion. Others will lose interest in the thread and the site in general if this kind of interchange becomes a common occurrence.
Please remember that posting and reading online is a visual format and as such the spelling, grammar and look of your posts is the only way others understand what you are saying. Therefore, in order to be polite, all users are expected to make an effort to use proper spelling, grammar and punctuation and should refrain from using internet shorthand or other distracting methods of writing, such as writing a post completely bolded, with capital letters, in a strange color, etc.
It also should go without saying that swearing, profanity, sexual references, etc, are strictly forbidden, including all images that are posted on or uploaded to our site. Remember that we have users of all ages and that Dakka should be a welcoming place for everyone to enjoy.
col_impact wrote: Deciphering what the clause "counting as having moved that turn" can structurally modify is actually the crux of the matter. As I have shown, the clause modifies the noun "models" and not the object ("phase") of the prepositional phrase ("in their subsequent Shooting phase"). The actual grammatical structure of the sentence removes any ambiguity. "That turn" definitively refers to the state the "models" are in ("after disembarking"), and can not be referring structurally at all to "subsequent shooting phase".
Having considered it further I think you may be mistaken in considering it an adjectival participle clause, and that it's more correctly an adverbial participle clause. I think also you're mistaking the use of the participle clause for the use of a relative clause.
Earlier in the thread you claimed we could make the sentence clearer by rearranging:
"After disembarking, models, counting 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."
Except to any sensible person the sentence reads horrifically (more so than it already does, if you can believe it), because arranged like that it should read as a relative clause rather than using the participle clause:
"After disembarking, models, which 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."
The problem with your idea of rearranging is that it's not worded that way because a participle clause is being used, and not a relative clause. Taking it as the adverbial participle rather than adjectival however it makes clear sense in referring to both subject and verb (models shooting) in terms of the condition in which or how the subject performs the verb (counting as having moved that turn when doing so).
That also tidily does away with the ambiguity of the specific determiner because it's always referring to the turn in which the subsequent Shooting phase occurs, regardless of whether the disembark was in the immediately preceding Movement phase or the opponent's preceding Shooting phase.
Your analysis is faulty. You are correct in that it is a present participle clause, as I have also noted. However, it is an adjectival present participle clause and as an adjectival clause it will function similarly to a relative clause since those are always adjectival (and no I am not confusing relative clauses with participle clauses at all). "Counting as having moved during that turn" can only be descriptive of a noun, an object that can count as having moved (ie the object is mobile and not stationary). Your argument that it is an adverbial clause has no support - you try to argue that it refers to both subject and verb as if it were some sort of adjectival AND adverbial clause (which is entirely faulty since the clause is either adjectival or adverbial but not both). However, simply put, verbs (actions) do not 'count as having moved', nouns (objects) do.
Moreover, you seem to be trying to obfuscate the issue by saying certain examples read horrifically when they read as perfectly fine and acceptable English.
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.
After disembarking, models, counting 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.
After disembarking, models, who 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.
After disembarking, models count as having moved that turn. They 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.
After disembarking, models count as having moved that turn and 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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/12/11 18:33:19
col_impact, you've simply confused the participle clause. That's all there is to it. It's adverbial rather than adjectival.
How do we know this? Because it's placing a limitation on what the models can do and when. It's not describing how the models are; it's modifying the action they are given permission to take. Charistoph is entirely correct in his non-grammatical assessment of it being provided as a caveat; a caveat necessarily places a condition on something in the same way adverb participle clauses do grammatically.
The way you've rearranged the sentence (the first time, not that mess of semantically-altered sentences you just provided as if they were the same thing) I can see why you've made the mistake, because ordinarily an adjective participle clause will be close to the noun it's describing.
In this case though it's properly close to the verb it modifies as an adverbial participle clause, which is why rearranging it the way you have absolutely butchers it in its proper use as an adverb - you've moved it to the opposite end of the sentence from the verb it modifies.
You've tried to misrepresent my argument, claiming I'm arguing as if it were both adverb and adjective when I'm not. I pointed out that an adverb describes how the shootin action is performed by the subject in this case. I have not said it modifies the subject, though.
You've then gone on to write a handful of rearranged sentences as if rearranging it is something you can necessarily do without changing the semantics of the sentence.
It's noteworthy that in all of your examples you've conveniently moved the clause close to the noun to make it seem more like it's modifying it as an adjective would, which is not the case in the original. Grammatically perhaps you can alter the sentence structure in that way just fine, but semantically you should expect the meaning of the sentence may (though won't always) change.
I don't expect you to agree with me; you're far too entrenched in your own position for that, as am I. But that's fine; I'm happy to agree to disagree with you.
Mr. Shine wrote: col_impact, you've simply confused the participle clause. That's all there is to it. It's adverbial rather than adjectival.
How do we know this? Because it's placing a limitation on what the models can do and when. It's not describing how the models are; it's modifying the action they are given permission to take.
Incorrect. It's obviously adjectival. "Counting as having moved that turn" can only describe an object, and the clause here is describing that object as mobile and not stationary. You cannot describe an action as "counting as having moved that turn" It simply doesn't make sense - the clause in question is specifically descriptive of an object and not specifically descriptive of an action. The relative ease at which the participle clause in question can be transformed into a relative clause with a 'who .. ' construct only further reinforces what has already been stated as obvious, that the clause in question is adjectival.
So good job on identifying the clause as a present participle, but you fail at discriminating adjectival versus adverbial.
I feel like an engineer is trying to use technical jargon to convince me that peddling a bicycle makes it go backwards. He can write paragraph after paragraph regarding gears and the transfer of force, and I don't understand it at all... but I know that when I peddle my bike, it goes forwards.
Similarly, I have no idea what is going on with the level of grammar being discussed here, but I know a caveat/exception/clarification when I see it, and the phrase "counting as having moved that turn" is clearly meant to apply to the bit about psychic and shooting phases.
Deathypoo wrote: I feel like an engineer is trying to use technical jargon to convince me that peddling a bicycle makes it go backwards. He can write paragraph after paragraph regarding gears and the transfer of force, and I don't understand it at all... but I know that when I peddle my bike, it goes forwards.
Similarly, I have no idea what is going on with the level of grammar being discussed here, but I know a caveat/exception/clarification when I see it, and the phrase "counting as having moved that turn" is clearly meant to apply to the bit about psychic and shooting phases.
Information about grammar is at your fingertips on the internet. Lazily providing merely your hunches or feelings on the matter offers nothing to the RAW debate.
I have a question regarding transports and wrecking:
When a transport is Wrecked, can the owning player disembark them at the same spot the vehicle was? Or is he forced to disembark them up to 3" (but not on it) and only then start considering the vehicle as a Wreck?
When a transport is Wrecked, can the owning player disembark them at the same spot the vehicle was? Or is he forced to disembark them up to 3" (but not on it) and only then start considering the vehicle as a Wreck?
Read the rulebook Your question is answered there.
Wrecked vehicle is not removed from table, so you are not allowed to place models on the spot the vehicle was, only on top of it, but:
wrecked vehicle bceomes dificult terrain AFTER unit disembarked - unitl then you are not allowed to place models on it..
When a transport is Wrecked, can the owning player disembark them at the same spot the vehicle was? Or is he forced to disembark them up to 3" (but not on it) and only then start considering the vehicle as a Wreck?
Spoiler:
• Wrecked (other than Zooming Flyers). The passengers must immediately
disembark in the usual manner, save that they must end their move wholly within 3" of
the vehicle, rather than 6". If, even by performing an emergency disembarkation, some
models are unable to disembark, then any models that cannot disembark are removed as
casualties. This does not prevent the rest of the unit from disembarking. The unit must
then take a Pinning test. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. It's obviously adjectival. "Counting as having moved that turn" can only describe an object, and the clause here is describing that object as mobile and not stationary. You cannot describe an action as "counting as having moved that turn" It simply doesn't make sense - the clause in question is specifically descriptive of an object and not specifically descriptive of an action. The relative ease at which the participle clause in question can be transformed into a relative clause with a 'who .. ' construct only further reinforces what has already been stated as obvious, that the clause in question is adjectival.
So it is grammatically impossible for models to shoot counting as having moved that turn?
Deathypoo wrote:I feel like an engineer is trying to use technical jargon to convince me that peddling a bicycle makes it go backwards. He can write paragraph after paragraph regarding gears and the transfer of force, and I don't understand it at all... but I know that when I peddle my bike, it goes forwards.
Similarly, I have no idea what is going on with the level of grammar being discussed here, but I know a caveat/exception/clarification when I see it, and the phrase "counting as having moved that turn" is clearly meant to apply to the bit about psychic and shooting phases.
Indeed. But while he thinks he's smart enough to understand the rules of grammar he is espousing, he cannot explain them outside of those terms.
col_impact wrote:Information about grammar is at your fingertips on the internet. Lazily providing merely your hunches or feelings on the matter offers nothing to the RAW debate.
The information may be there, but the simple terms mean nothing without understanding the relationships. It is researching these relationships and every aspect of those relationships, including possibilities that may counter your argument, that takes time.
The English language is not a technical manual one can just look up simple definitions for. It is a system and an art form with interconnections between its members of such you are discussing that are far more complex than looking up a paragraph or phrase in a rulebook is.
Laziness is not as much the factor as time is. Though, I admit the lack of desire to devote my precious time resources for such research just to confirm or deny your claims does play a part.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/12 22:39:56
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.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. It's obviously adjectival. "Counting as having moved that turn" can only describe an object, and the clause here is describing that object as mobile and not stationary. You cannot describe an action as "counting as having moved that turn" It simply doesn't make sense - the clause in question is specifically descriptive of an object and not specifically descriptive of an action. The relative ease at which the participle clause in question can be transformed into a relative clause with a 'who .. ' construct only further reinforces what has already been stated as obvious, that the clause in question is adjectival.
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.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. It's obviously adjectival. "Counting as having moved that turn" can only describe an object, and the clause here is describing that object as mobile and not stationary. You cannot describe an action as "counting as having moved that turn" It simply doesn't make sense - the clause in question is specifically descriptive of an object and not specifically descriptive of an action. The relative ease at which the participle clause in question can be transformed into a relative clause with a 'who .. ' construct only further reinforces what has already been stated as obvious, that the clause in question is adjectival.
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?
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.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. It's obviously adjectival. "Counting as having moved that turn" can only describe an object, and the clause here is describing that object as mobile and not stationary. You cannot describe an action as "counting as having moved that turn" It simply doesn't make sense - the clause in question is specifically descriptive of an object and not specifically descriptive of an action. The relative ease at which the participle clause in question can be transformed into a relative clause with a 'who .. ' construct only further reinforces what has already been stated as obvious, that the clause in question is adjectival.
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. 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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/12 23:41:37
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. It's obviously adjectival. "Counting as having moved that turn" can only describe an object, and the clause here is describing that object as mobile and not stationary.You cannot describe an action as "counting as having moved that turn" It simply doesn't make sense - the clause in question is specifically descriptive of an object and not specifically descriptive of an action.
Sorry, but how do you propose to use "counting as having moved that turn" to describe the subject "models" without changing the form of the clause? You absolutely can use "counting as having moved that turn" to modify the verb, however - using "how" rather than "who".
"The models can shoot, counting as having moved that turn.
How can the models shoot? Counting as having moved that turn.
The relative ease at which the participle clause in question can be transformed into a relative clause with a 'who .. ' construct only further reinforces what has already been stated as obvious, that the clause in question is adjectival.
The who doesn't factor into it. How certainly does, though, as I've shown above. To draw a parallel:
"Jim can run quickly."
"How can Jim run? Quickly."
Oh look, adverbs.
Cindis wrote:Col impact's English lesson is just the final nail in the coffin, you didn't have a leg to stand on from the start. The next argument you make try to support it using the actual words in the book, not your feelings.
Considering you're arguing something other than his "English lesson" and have not actually had any own input into the grammatical argument, you've no right to say this. It's evident the grammar is going right over your head and you're simply nodding like a child to the words of someone talking above you in words you don't understand.
Please stop.
col_impact wrote:Information about grammar is at your fingertips on the internet. Lazily providing merely your hunches or feelings on the matter offers nothing to the RAW debate.
Considering the only two people arguing the grammar in any detail are those who have both studied and taught it at a tertiary level (well, who both claim to) it's pretty evident that laziness has nothing to do with it. It'd be nice for you step down from your high horse of education and experience, and not treat people who haven't had the education and don't have the time to Google (which, let's be honest, isn't a swiftly helpful or conducive way to learn grammar) as if they're idiots. They're not.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/13 00:53:25
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. It's obviously adjectival. "Counting as having moved that turn" can only describe an object, and the clause here is describing that object as mobile and not stationary.You cannot describe an action as "counting as having moved that turn" It simply doesn't make sense - the clause in question is specifically descriptive of an object and not specifically descriptive of an action.
Sorry, but how do you propose to use "counting as having moved that turn" to describe the subject "models" without changing the form of the clause?
All of these mean exactly the same thing and I have not changed the form of the clause - the present participle is used in each sentence.
"The models can shoot, counting as having moved that turn."
"The models,counting as having moved that turn, can shoot."
"Counting as having moved that turn, the models can shoot."
The relative clause equivalent:
"The models, who count as having moved that turn, can shoot."
All of this free movement of the clause in question amply illustrates that the adjectival read is the correct one.
Notice I can do the same free movement in an adverbial instance using your example.
"Jim can run quickly."
"Quickly, Jim can run."
"Jim, quickly, can run."
Some of those sound like Yoda, but the adverbial read is always clear. The position of the adverb or adjective does not factor in.
You absolutely can use "counting as having moved that turn" to modify the verb, however - using "how" rather than "who".
"The models can shoot, counting as having moved that turn.
How can the models shoot? Counting as having moved that turn.
This literally makes no sense and shows that you are trying to force an adverbial read based on positioning alone, but grammar does not work that way. 'Counting as having moved that turn' describes the noun and not the verb. What is counting as having moved that turn? The models.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/12/13 01:39:49
col_impact wrote: All of these mean exactly the same thing and I have not changed the form of the clause - the present participle is used in each sentence.
"The models can shoot, counting as having moved that turn."
"The models,counting as having moved that turn, can shoot."
"Counting as having moved that turn, the models can shoot."
The relative clause equivalent:
"The models, who count as having moved that turn, can shoot."
All of this free movement of the clause in question amply illustrates that the adjectival read is the correct one.
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."
/ BMG: Mr. Freeze, Deathstroke / Battletech: SR, OWA / Fallout Factions: BoS / HGB: Caprice / Malifaux: Arcanists, Guild, Outcasts / MCP: Mutants / SAGA: Ordensstaat / SW Legion: CIS / WWX: Union
Your question is answered there.