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.
In this paragraph, it is still talking about the bodies of models, but intervening models are not mentioned any more than the second paragraph. Visibility of an intervening model is not of a concern or mentioned, only the target's. So this paragraph does not apply to anything but the targeter and the target.
Do not continue to pick and choose statements and take them out of context to prove your statements.
Do not continue to ignore the difference between definite and indefinite articles. They are important.
Spoiler:
we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
The rule is referring to "a model" in the general sense and so we ignore wings, tails, and antennae for line of sight purposes (whether viewer, target or intervening). If it were only referring to 'the target model', then it would refer to 'the target model' and not generally "a model".
If you have trouble with what I am saying then you have trouble with GW's use of an indefinite article to refer generally to "a model". If their grammar offends you then take it up with them, but as stated models ignore wings, tails, and even antennae when dealing with what constitutes the body of a model for visibility.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/25 04:47:51
You have presented no rules to support your assertion, even having been asked to do so multiple times at this point. You keep just stating it as if it is fact. That is demonstrating a hesitation or unwillingness to accept an undertaking or the refusal to do so, the definition of balk.
In other words, I have nothing to retract.
nosferatu1001 wrote: the doors while "up" are required to maintain the crafts drop ability. Without these in place, the craft would tumble. It is as required for the functionality of the pod as the engines or stabilisers.
An assumption of fluff. Where are the Drop Pod's doors stated to provide stability for the Drop? Also consider, does the Doors of a Drop Pod continue in this function when it has Arrived, or is merely nothing more than decoration? More importantly, where does this apply to a Rhino, a Land Raider, or a Devilfish? It needs to be consistent for everything to be considered properly.
Also consider, that many of those things which are not Hull are still part of maintain the Vehicle's functionality in the battlefield like weapon muzzles, Tank Commanders, and radio antennas.
nosferatu1001 wrote: It's hull, up or down, and remains hull. The hull has no more in game purpose that you can point to than the doors do, hence despite asking again, you will not show your in games rules definition of hull.
The doors are functionally hull while up. So show either they stop being hull when down, or aren't hull, when up. You have yet to prove this.
I have done more to support my position than you have done to support yours. An open door on the game table means nothing in the rules. A closed door on the table means nothing in the rules. Can you demonstrate otherwise? If not, then it is Decorative, and therefore cannot be recognized by the game as part of the Hull.
The Hull does have a game definition, sort of, and that it is an extrapolation of the term used with non-Vehicles for Line of Sight and as also used in regular parlance, the body of the Vehicle.
col_impact wrote:Do not continue to ignore the difference between definite and indefinite articles. They are important.
Fancy terms do not make ignoring context any less of a problem.
col_impact wrote:
Spoiler:
we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
The rule is referring to "a model" in the general sense and so we ignore wings, tails, and antennae for line of sight purposes (whether viewer, target or intervening). If it were only referring to 'the target model', then it would refer to 'the target model' and not generally "a model".
If you have trouble with what I am saying then you have trouble with GW's use of an indefinite article to refer generally to "a model". If their grammar offends you then take it up with them, but as stated models ignore wings, tails, and even antennae when dealing with what constitutes the body of a model for visibility.
I have trouble with what you are saying because it ignores the context surrounding the statement. Hence, why I said, do not just pick and choose your statements and take them out of context to prove your statements.
To help you identify the context, where does it state that only intervening models' bodies are to be considered for interfering with Line of Sight?
Whose bodies are being considered for Line of Sight in paragraph 2?
Why is visibility to an intervening model important, if at all?
Proper rules quotes now.
Mitochondria wrote:GW writes gak rules.
No argument here.
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.
I have trouble with what you are saying because it ignores the context surrounding the statement. Hence, why I said, do not just pick and choose your statements and take them out of context to prove your statements.
To help you identify the context, where does it state that only intervening models' bodies are to be considered for interfering with Line of Sight?
Whose bodies are being considered for Line of Sight in paragraph 2?
Why is visibility to an intervening model important, if at all?
Proper rules quotes now.
An indefinite article signifies that context is not important. The rule is referring to models generally ("a model") and not specifically ("the target model").
You are having trouble with general logical statements and using language to refer to things generally. If a rule is referring to something specific then it will use specific language.
Consider:
Laura adds the numbers 2 and 7 together.
Numbers are important.
Laura determines the result to be 9.
Now, is the passage telling us that 2 and 7 specifically are important (and saying nothing of any other number) or is it saying that all numbers are important?
The answer is that the passage is telling us that all numbers generally are important.
Similarly, the use of "a model" indicates that we are dealing with the general case of models.
Please prove the rule showing the in game use of the 5 "spines" such that they are thus hull. Page and graph.
I have shown more support, by stating you draw los to hull but you except decorative items etc. As you hsve bern unable to demonstrate a rule stating they are decorative, they retain their role as "hull".
Please provide the first principles in game rules definition of hull you are using to arbitrarily decide there is a difference between the open and closed state of a drop pods doors, and that landed vs dropping changes this.
Once you have done this you will, have proven your case. Until, then - that its hull until shown otherwise - holds.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/25 12:41:40
col_impact wrote:An indefinite article signifies that context is not important. The rule is referring to models generally ("a model") and not specifically ("the target model").
And where is the quote to support this?
Indefinite articles do not ignore context, they just provide for a lack of specifics, such as a boy, a model, etc.
The subjects are regarding a model attempting to target another model, and that visibility must be established from that model's body to the target model's body. For this we ignore Wings, and other decorative items, so one cannot trace Line of Sight from a Flyrant Wing to a Captain's Banner. In all this, an intervening model is never mentioned or referred to.
col_impact wrote:You are having trouble with general logical statements and using language to refer to things generally. If a rule is referring to something specific then it will use specific language.
No, I do not. I just don't take one passage and exclude others to allow a general logic statement to have power where it would not otherwise belong. Hence, the questions I asked.
col_impact wrote:Consider:
Laura adds the numbers 2 and 7 together.
Numbers are important.
Laura determines the result to be 9.
Now, is the passage telling us that 2 and 7 specifically are important (and saying nothing of any other number) or is it saying that all numbers are important?
The answer is that the passage is telling us that all numbers generally are important.
Similarly, the use of "a model" indicates that we are dealing with the general case of models.
Consider: 1) One model must have visibility from its body to any part of the target's body.
2) Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner, ornament, wings, tails, and/or antennae.
3) In these cases, these are ignored and the model is not visible.
4) This is so that models do not get penalised for having impressive items on it.
That is the context of these two paragraphs.
Whose bodies are being considered for Line of Sight?
Where does it state that only intervening models' bodies are to be considered for interfering with Line of Sight?
Why is visibility to an intervening model important, if at all?
Where are intervening models of any kind mentioned at all in these two paragraphs?
Proper rules quotes now,please.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Please prove the rule showing the in game use of the 5 "spines" such that they are thus hull. Page and graph.
Do you need a definition of "body"? And again, you never clarified: are the "spines" the sections that are intended to support the engine and Storm Bolter in the air and the doors fit between, thus providing a structure for the model and Vehicle? I have never built a Drop Pod, so I do not know what their instructions call them.
What is not part of the body, for Line of Sight purposes: weapon, banner, ornaments, wings, tails, and antennae. The Wings restriction is removed for Vehicles.
What is the in-game purpose of a door: function or decoration? Quotes are needed to support the function answer.
nosferatu1001 wrote:I have shown more support, by stating you draw los to hull but you except decorative items etc. As you hsve bern unable to demonstrate a rule stating they are decorative, they retain their role as "hull".
What was the last rule you quoted? Where does it state that anything not defined as "not hull" is "hull"? What is the in-game purpose of a door in the rules?
You have provided zero answers to the last two questions after having been asked numerous times. Quit balking and provide the answers or admit failure.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Please provide the first principles in game rules definition of hull you are using to arbitrarily decide there is a difference between the open and closed state of a drop pods doors, and that landed vs dropping changes this.
Why should I? I am not, nor have not really stated any real difference between a door being open or closed, save that the door follows the hull line when closed. In fact, I have stated numerous times that there isn't.
My case (as I have stated, repeatedly) is that doors, open or closed, have no game function. Doors do not contribute to the structure of the model or Vehicle. They can be left completely off without compromising the Vehicle in game rules. As they have zero gaming function, they are purely decorative, and as such cannot be classed as part of the body/hull of the model.
I cannot provide a rules quote on this for the same reason I cannot provide a rules quote on the purchasing order of Options for a unit or what to do when a gorilla jumps on your table. The rules do not exist. If you can provide rules that doors do have a game purpose (open or closed does not matter), and that it is intrinsic to the body of the Vehicle, then you will be able to properly counter mine.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Once you have done this you will, have proven your case. Until, then - that its hull until shown otherwise - holds.
Again, for the fourth or fifth post now, I am going to need a quote to support this statement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/25 19:57:58
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:An indefinite article signifies that context is not important. The rule is referring to models generally ("a model") and not specifically ("the target model").
And where is the quote to support this?
Indefinite articles do not ignore context, they just provide for a lack of specifics, such as a boy, a model, etc.
The subjects are regarding a model attempting to target another model, and that visibility must be established from that model's body to the target model's body. For this we ignore Wings, and other decorative items, so one cannot trace Line of Sight from a Flyrant Wing to a Captain's Banner. In all this, an intervening model is never mentioned or referred to.
The rule refers to models generally ("a model"). It covers all cases of models in determining line of sight (e.g. viewing model, target model, intervening model)
Spoiler:
we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
If GW wanted to specify some subset of models not including generally all models, the rule would have specified "the target model" and/or some other specification.
The rule makes no specification and you are not allowed to add a specification.
Whenever we are dealing with models "we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model's body"
col_impact wrote: The rule refers to models generally ("a model"). It covers all cases of models in determining line of sight (e.g. viewing model, target model, intervening model)
Incorrect. The rule is a continuation of the first sentence of the paragraph. This is why it states, "Similiarly".
For a full quote with translation of the adverb:
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. In a similar way, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
Or:
Spoiler:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. In a similar event, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
The more interesting part is how much time you spent a few months ago accusing me of unnecessarily conflating and truncating a rule, yet you have been consistently doing this for all your posts in this thread. Case in point:
we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
If GW wanted to specify some subset of models not including generally all models, the rule would have specified "the target model" and/or some other specification.
There are two types of models being referenced in this paragraph as introduced by the paragraph before it. using an indefinite article is not allowing you to ignore context, it is being used because there are two types of models being used, the model seeking Line of Sight and the target model (the model we are trying to establish Line of Sight with). And you would know this if you bothered to recognize the context of the sentences and include the sentence adverb which ties this above quote in with the first and second sentence of the paragraph.
col_impact wrote: The rule makes no specification and you are not allowed to add a specification.
Sure it specifies, just in the sections of the rule you deliberately ignore, as have I pointed out. But I think that this is a case of a horse preferring his sewer water to the trough water I keep trying to lead him to, since you keep doing the same thing you always do: ignore what the other person says, continue repeating the same thing over and over again as if it had the same relevance before the response, and ignore any further requests for information. This is the second time you have ignored my requests in this thread, and the third time you have repeated yourself, almost verbatim.
In the second and third paragraphs of Line of Sight:
Whose bodies are being considered for Line of Sight?
Where does it state that only intervening models' bodies are to be considered for interfering with Line of Sight?
Why is visibility to an intervening model important, if at all?
Where are intervening models of any kind mentioned at all in these two paragraphs?
Proper rules quotes now,please.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/26 04:27:40
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.
"we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body."
So we ignore wings, tails and antennae for any and all models.
That's what making a general statement means and using an indefinite article means. The rule generally and indefinitely applies.
The rule applies to all cases of "a model". That includes models on the moon, models on a boat, models that are viewing models, models with 3 shoes, models that like bacon, models that are target models, and models that are intervening models.
All cases of "a model".
The rule makes a general statement that is binding for all cases of "a model".
It does not matter whether 'intervening' is even mentioned in the whole section we are discussing. It only needs to be asserted that an intervening model is "a model". Which it obviously is.
Now if you can somehow present a BRB that reads . . .
"we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of the target model’s body"
. . . you would win the argument. But obviously the BRB does not read that way.
Whenever we are talking about "a model" "we ignore wings, tails and antennae" and an intervening model is obviously "a model".
The other way you could win the argument is to show how an intervening model is not "a model". Good luck with that!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/26 05:06:20
Two of these paragraphs that you quoted in your spoiler are specifically talking about obtaining Line of Sight TO the model. Nothing in there is defining Line of Sight THROUGH the model any more than normal. In fact, nothing in the basic rules is ever stated about things being ignored when it is blocking Line of Sight to something else.
I quoted the full rule and its context. The very first sentence describes the scenario of a viewing model, a target model, and the possibilities of intervening models.
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)
You are failing to adhere to the switch from target model to 'a model' in the rule provided.
The rule refers to "a model" so it refers to the viewing model, the target model, and any intervening model.
Spoiler:
we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
We do not draw line of sight from the top of a banner.
We do not count banners when tracing line of sight through intervening models.
We do not count banners when determining if we can see a target model.
You misrepresent this. It is talking about drawing a line TO a model. The only mention of other models is that there might be models in the way of the model you are drawing a line of sight to. All of their talk about wings, decorative banners, etc. is on the target model itself you are trying to draw a line of sight to. There is no mention at all in that of banners, wings, etc not blocking line of sight to a model behind it.
The rule clearly states that FOR THE TARGET MODEL. It doesn't say that in relation to intervening models.
Incorrect.
The rule does not read this way.
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of the target model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of the target model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that targeted models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
If the rule read that way then your interpretation would be correct.
However, here is the actual rule.
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
The last paragraph is dealing with visibility and in fact makes no mention at all of "target".
The paragraph states generally that in any case where all that is visible of A MODEL is a banner, that model (whether targeted or intervening or on the moon) is not visible. Similarly, wings, tails, and antennae are ignored on anything that is A MODEL.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/26 17:51:10
The rule clearly states that FOR THE TARGET MODEL. It doesn't say that in relation to intervening models.
Incorrect.
The rule does not read this way.
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of the target model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of the target model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that targeted models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
If the rule read that way then your interpretation would be correct.
However, here is the actual rule.
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
The last paragraph is dealing with visibility and in fact makes no mention at all of "target".
The paragraph states generally that in any case where all that is visible of A MODEL is a banner, that model (whether targeted or intervening or on the moon) is not visible. Similarly, wings, tails, and antennae are ignored on anything that is A MODEL.
Not incorrect at all: Let's break this down:
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Okay, let's look at the boldfaced parts. Take the first part - sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament. That model is not visible. That's obviously referring to the TARGET model. How could you possibly interpret it as talking about an intervening model? Do you seriously think they're talking about all that's being visible of an intervening model being a weapon, banner or some ornament? It doesn't make sense to think that they're trying to include intervening models in that statement - if all that's seen of an intervening model is a weapon, etc, etc , nobody cares if that model's not visible - all that matters is whether the target model behind them is visible. They wouldn't reference an intervening model that way. Trying to extrapolate a statement obviously being made about the target model to include all intervening models is trying to stretch their statement beyond all credulity; it's taking the statement completely out of context and trying to apply it to something else. You're parsing the statements down so that you're not reading them in the context they are given, Your interpretation is parsing things down to the level of "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/26 18:48:51
Okay, let's look at the boldfaced parts. Take the first part - sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament. That model is not visible. That's obviously referring to the TARGET model.
The paragraph is literally referring to the visibility of A MODEL.
You are not permitted to add TARGET. The statement is more inclusive than merely target models. The visibility of anything that is considered "a model" is what is being discussed in this paragraph.
Let's stick with the rules as they are written.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/26 18:56:55
Okay, let's look at the boldfaced parts. Take the first part - sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament. That model is not visible. That's obviously referring to the TARGET model.
The paragraph is literally referring to the visibility of A MODEL.
A model THAT YOU ARE DRAWING LINE OF SIGHT TO.
col_impact wrote: You are not permitted to add TARGET. The statement is more inclusive than merely target models. The visibility of anything that is considered "a model" is what is being discussed in this paragraph.
Let's stick with the rules as they are written.
Yes, I am permitted to add TARGET when they are referring to a target. Your "rebuttal" did not address my points. Pretending that they're talking about all that's visible on an intervening model is a banner and then it's invisible is ludicrous. And, I am sticking with the rules as they are written. I'm not responsible that you cannot comprehend the rules because you do not know how to read them in context.
Judging solely from the assembly instructions that are supplied with the SM Drop Pod model, it would appear that the doors are indeed intended to open and intended to be opened. Would that mean that any Drop Pod model with its doors glued shut is without a doubt "modelling for advantage"?
The reason I ask is that rules are intended to be consistent. There does not seem to be the case here of the argument being made that Drop Pods are an exception to the normal rules, that Drop Pod hulls are exceptions to the standard vehicle hull rules and rulings. By logical extension, the conclusion must be drawn that either the doors ARE or ARE NOT purely decorative. By logical extension, this principle should apply to all other vehicle models as well unless SM Drop Pods are.an exception to normal rules.
The Door argument then has vast implications for anyone wishing to avoid "messy" situations and wishing to apply the same rules to their vehicle models as are being applied to Drop Pods. Where is the line then as to "modeling for advantage"? Has it been eliminated completely by the full logical extension of the 'doors as ornamental' argument?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/26 19:42:19
Yes, I am permitted to add TARGET when they are referring to a target. Your "rebuttal" did not address my points. Pretending that they're talking about all that's visible on an intervening model is a banner and then it's invisible is ludicrous. And, I am sticking with the rules as they are written. I'm not responsible that you cannot comprehend the rules because you do not know how to read them in context.
I know how to read a general statement and not read into it more than what is there. The paragraph is discussing the visibility of models, which is certainly relevant to the prior separate paragraph on drawing line of sight to target models, but the statement is more general than specifically target models. The visibility of "a model" generally is stated. Until you can find the word "target" in that paragraph, your argument has no merit. The paragraph is stating exactly what it is stating, namely it is making a statement about the visibility of "a model".
If you cannot tell the difference between specific and general statements then you are not able to stick to the rules as written.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/26 19:19:31
Where does it say that in that paragraph? The statement is talking about visibility in general.
And is also in context with the bold faced statement the paragraph before:
"For one model to have line of sight to another model, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body(the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target's body."
By ignoring that, you are ignoring the fact that they are talking about the target model and not intervening models. Hence my comments about reading in context and parsing. The statements you are talking about are them elaborating on the statement above. Ignoring that, you have taken it out of context. The statement in the paragraph is not independent of what is said before about drawing a line of sight to the target.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/26 19:27:22
Where does it say that in that paragraph? The statement is talking about visibility in general.
And is also in context with the bold faced statement the paragraph before:
"For one model to have line of sight to another model, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body(the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target's body."
By ignoring that, you are ignoring the fact that they are talking about the target model and not intervening models. Hence my comments about reading in context and parsing. The statements you are talking about are them elaborating on the statement above. Ignoring that, you have taken it out of context. The statement in the paragraph is not independent of what is said before about drawing a line of sight to the target.
It's a new paragraph. If the writers meant "the target model" they would have written "the target model". Instead they wrote "a model". This is because the statement they are making in this new paragraph applies to the visibility of models generally. That's how reference in English works.
English requires that you:
(1) use the definite article when you refer to a specific thing (ie target model)
(2) restate the full subject for new paragraphs
The best you could argue is that GW is showing bad writing/bad referencing here and even though they wrote "a model" they really meant "the target model". However, that is making a RAI argument that begins with the premise (that is impossible to prove) that GW made two separate mistakes in their writing (failure to use the definite article and to restate the full subject for new paragraphs).
If you take the rule as RAW, the paragraph is making a general statement of visibility in models that is not specific to target models. That is the literal interpretaion of the rule which makes no RAI argument.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/26 20:32:46
Where does it say that in that paragraph? The statement is talking about visibility in general.
And is also in context with the bold faced statement the paragraph before:
"For one model to have line of sight to another model, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body(the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target's body."
By ignoring that, you are ignoring the fact that they are talking about the target model and not intervening models. Hence my comments about reading in context and parsing. The statements you are talking about are them elaborating on the statement above. Ignoring that, you have taken it out of context. The statement in the paragraph is not independent of what is said before about drawing a line of sight to the target.
It's a new paragraph. If the writers meant "target model" they would have written "target model". Instead they wrote "a model". This is because the statement they are making in this new paragraph applies to the visibility of models generally. That's how reference in English works.
The best you could argue is that GW is showing bad writing/bad referencing here and even though they wrote "a model" they really meant "target model". However, that is making a RAI argument that begins with the premise (that is impossible to prove) that GW made a mistake in their writing.
If you take the rule as RAW, the paragraph is making a general statement of visibility in models that is not specific to target models.
The paragraph makes no sense at points reading it as you say. Ignoring the previous paragraph and the point of what they're writing makes no sense at all. You might think the best I can argue is BW having bad writing/bad referencing, but what I am seeing is blinkered reading comprehension on your part, to be honest. The parts of the statements that don't make sense reading it as RAW indicate that you aren't applying the context they have it written in, and that context must be applied. That's also part of RAW, making sure you've looked at all of the rules in the section you're quoting from and not selectively editing it down to twist something by taking it out of context.
The paragraph makes no sense at points reading it as you say. Ignoring the previous paragraph and the point of what they're writing makes no sense at all. You might think the best I can argue is BW having bad writing/bad referencing, but what I am seeing is blinkered reading comprehension on your part, to be honest. The parts of the statements that don't make sense reading it as RAW indicate that you aren't applying the context they have it written in, and that context must be applied. That's also part of RAW, making sure you've looked at all of the rules in the section you're quoting from and not selectively editing it down to twist something by taking it out of context.
The paragraph makes perfect sense reading it as the BRB has written it. The use of the indefinite article means that the rule statements applies generally to models. And there really is no problem with this. The rule in fact makes perfect sense.
In order for the statement to apply specifically to the target model from the prior paragraph, as you claim, the statement must implement a definite article and restate the subject.
col_impact wrote:The rule clearly states that . . .
"we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body."
So we ignore wings, tails and antennae for any and all models.
You keep leaving out, "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly," You also ignore the context which applies to this statement provided by the previous paragraph, but more on that later
Why are you not pointing out those parts as well, especially since, "ornaments" would be practical to the discussion and not so much "wings, tails, and antennae"?
Does it not fit in to your narrative as well?
col_impact wrote:That's what making a general statement means and using an indefinite article means. The rule generally and indefinitely applies.
I'm going to need a rules quote on that one.
col_impact wrote:The rule applies to all cases of "a model". That includes models on the moon, models on a boat, models that are viewing models, models with 3 shoes, models that like bacon, models that are target models, and models that are intervening models.
All cases of "a model".
The rule makes a general statement that is binding for all cases of "a model".
It does not matter whether 'intervening' is even mentioned in the whole section we are discussing. It only needs to be asserted that an intervening model is "a model". Which it obviously is.
Incorrect. The subject matter of the paragraph is establishing visibility to a model, which is in the part you have consistently left out for the last three or four posts.
I have asked this before and will ask again, what is the rules-defined purpose of establishing visibility to (or even from) an intervening model? That is the only context in which intervening models can be included as "a model" for this sentence.
col_impact wrote:It's a new paragraph. If the writers meant "target model" they would have written "target model". Instead they wrote "a model". This is because the statement they are making in this new paragraph applies to the visibility of models generally. That's how reference in English works.
Just because it is a new paragraph, does not mean we get to ignore the context of the previous one. Indeed it is common practice to start a new paragraph when the subject sufficiently changes.
In this case:
Paragraph 2: Establishes the base requirement and rule for a model to have Line of Sight to another via the body.
Paragraph 3: Defines what cannot be used as part of the body to determine Line of Sight visibility.
The key terms are "visible", "In these cases", and "Similarly", which you are consistently ignoring both for context and in quotes after your original post in this thread.
col_impact wrote:The best you could argue is that GW is showing bad writing/bad referencing here and even though they wrote "a model" they really meant "target model". However, that is making a RAI argument that begins with the premise (that is impossible to prove) that GW made a mistake in their writing.
If you take the rule as RAW, the paragraph is making a general statement of visibility in models that is not specific to target models.
As bad as GW writing is, and how much it can be improved, it gets far worse when you disassociate phrases from the rest of its paragraph and from preceeding ones to ignore the context in which those phrases are presented.
Again, answer these questions, from the second and third paragraphs of Line of Sight:
Whose bodies are being considered for Line of Sight?
Where does it state that only intervening models' bodies are to be considered for interfering with Line of Sight?
Why is visibility to an intervening model important, if at all?
Where are intervening models of any kind mentioned at all in these two paragraphs?
Proper rules quotes now,please.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: The paragraph makes perfect sense reading it as the BRB has written it.
Indeed it does. When will you start using the entire paragraph, though? The sentence you keep quoting is not an independent statement.
The actual sentence you quote would also work as its own paragraph, but it is not its own paragraph, and is tied in to other sentences by the use of "Similarly" to start its sentence, and "Sometimes" to start the paragraph.
col_impact wrote: In order for the statement to apply specifically to the target model from the prior paragraph, as you claim, the statement must implement a definite article and restate the subject.
No, it does not. A proper context can be provided which narrows the purview of the statement, i.e. "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model", tied in with, "Similarly".
It is only by ignoring these two parts does the partial quote you provide become a universal statement, and not a refined one.
Visibility to an intervening model is not in question or a requirement. This paragraph does not apply to anything in which visibility (to or from) is required, nor the previous one.
Unless you can properly demonstrate that line you keep quoting is completely independent from other statements, you are incredibly wrong or deliberately lying.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/26 20:59:12
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.
The paragraph makes no sense at points reading it as you say. Ignoring the previous paragraph and the point of what they're writing makes no sense at all. You might think the best I can argue is BW having bad writing/bad referencing, but what I am seeing is blinkered reading comprehension on your part, to be honest. The parts of the statements that don't make sense reading it as RAW indicate that you aren't applying the context they have it written in, and that context must be applied. That's also part of RAW, making sure you've looked at all of the rules in the section you're quoting from and not selectively editing it down to twist something by taking it out of context.
The paragraph makes perfect sense reading it as the BRB has written it.
Only when don't think about what they're saying. Saying a model is not visible if all you can see is a weapon, banner or orther ornament and thinking they're talking about intervening models and not just the target model is using a completely different definition of "sense" than is used by most people.
col_impact wrote: The use of the indefinite article means that the rule statements applies generally to models. And there really is no problem with this. The rule in fact makes perfect sense.
That depends on what your definition of "perfect sense" is. The use of the indefinite article means that it applies to models in the subject being discussed, which - as is highlighted by the previous paragraph - is drawing line of sight between the shooter and the target. If isn't discussing intervening models in this case.
col_impact wrote: In order for the statement to apply specifically to the target model from the prior paragraph, as you claim, the statement must implement a definite article and restate the subject.
No, not in the slightest. It just requires reading everything there including what come before and after, comprehending the context (which is highlighted by making sure there isn't anything that doesn't make sense when reading it one way - which is where your interpretation fails)
col_impact wrote:The rule clearly states that . . .
"we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body."
So we ignore wings, tails and antennae for any and all models.
You keep leaving out, "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly," You also ignore the context which applies to this statement provided by the previous paragraph, but more on that later
Why are you not pointing out those parts as well, especially since, "ornaments" would be practical to the discussion and not so much "wings, tails, and antennae"?
col_impact wrote:The rule clearly states that . . .
"we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body."
So we ignore wings, tails and antennae for any and all models.
You keep leaving out, "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly," You also ignore the context which applies to this statement provided by the previous paragraph, but more on that later
Why are you not pointing out those parts as well, especially since, "ornaments" would be practical to the discussion and not so much "wings, tails, and antennae"?
Just a problem with understanding that there's there is dysfunction with your interpretation of the "entiretly" of the rule (which, given the paragraph before, isn't actually the entirety), with parts of the statement actually not making sense. This gets back to your not realizing the "entirety" of the rules being discussed in that section of the book.
col_impact wrote:That's what making a general statement means and using an indefinite article means. The rule generally and indefinitely applies.
I'm going to need a rules quote on that one.
The rules are bound by grammar and logic.
The definite article is used when the noun is known by the reader and/or has been priorly specified. The indefinite article is used when the noun is being discussed generally, is not specified, and/or is new information.
In fact, it is a grammatical error to use the indefinite article to refer to a noun that has been specified.
By choosing to use the indefinite article, GW has intentionally broken "a model" from the prior context and signalled that "a model" is new information.
Feel free to google up the use of Indefinite vs Definite Articles if you want to discuss this further. Otherwise I will just assume you needed me to just jostle your memory on this 6th grade grammar topic and the matter settled.
col_impact wrote:The rule applies to all cases of "a model". That includes models on the moon, models on a boat, models that are viewing models, models with 3 shoes, models that like bacon, models that are target models, and models that are intervening models.
All cases of "a model".
The rule makes a general statement that is binding for all cases of "a model".
It does not matter whether 'intervening' is even mentioned in the whole section we are discussing. It only needs to be asserted that an intervening model is "a model". Which it obviously is.
Incorrect. The subject matter of the paragraph is establishing visibility to a model, which is in the part you have consistently left out for the last three or four posts.
I have asked this before and will ask again, what is the rules-defined purpose of establishing visibility to (or even from) an intervening model? That is the only context in which intervening models can be included as "a model" for this sentence.
I agree that "the subject matter of the paragraph is establishing visibility to a model [emphasis mine]". Importantly, I should point out that since GW did not use the definite article, we are not talking about "the target model" from the prior statement.
If a model or part of a model (intervening or otherwise) is invisible or ignored or treated as if not there then it does not block line of sight.
Note the first part of the rule section
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
Note the last part of the rule section.
Spoiler:
Own Unit
There is one important exception to the rules for line of sight. Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit just as if they were not there. This assumes that the models shift their stances to open firing lanes in order to
maximise their own unit’s firepower.
The rules for line of sight have very much to do with drawing line of sight through models and knowing what counts as visible or not visible for models generally.
col_impact wrote: The paragraph makes perfect sense reading it as the BRB has written it.
Indeed it does. When will you start using the entire paragraph, though? The sentence you keep quoting is not an independent statement.
The actual sentence you quote would also work as its own paragraph, but it is not its own paragraph, and is tied in to other sentences by the use of "Similarly" to start its sentence, and "Sometimes" to start the paragraph.
col_impact wrote: In order for the statement to apply specifically to the target model from the prior paragraph, as you claim, the statement must implement a definite article and restate the subject.
No, it does not. A proper context can be provided which narrows the purview of the statement, i.e. "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model", tied in with, "Similarly".
It is only by ignoring these two parts does the partial quote you provide become a universal statement, and not a refined one.
Visibility to an intervening model is not in question or a requirement. This paragraph does not apply to anything in which visibility (to or from) is required, nor the previous one.
Unless you can properly demonstrate that line you keep quoting is completely independent from other statements, you are incredibly wrong or deliberately lying.
Try to keep up. We have been discussing the entire section of the rule. Make sure not to skip the first paragraph. Also take note of the use of any indefinite articles. If you do not know the difference between indefinite and definite articles then you have no business commenting on this thread since you are wholly unable to parse the grammar of the rules in question.
So in light of the entirety of the rule what does "a model" refer to . . .
Spoiler:
LINE OF SIGHT
Line of sight determines what a model can ‘see’. Many situations call for you to determine whether or not a model has line of sight. A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, whether with power sword, gun or psychic power. Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
Naturally, you can’t ask your models what they can see – they’re plastic and resin, which is always a barrier to effective communication – therefore, you’ll have to work it out on their behalf. In many cases, this will be obvious – if there’s a hill, building or monster in the way, the enemy might be blatantly out of sight. In other cases, two units will be clearly in view of each other as there is nothing at all in the way. On those other occasions, where it’s not entirely obvious whether or not one unit can see another, the
player will have to stoop over the battlefield and look from behind the model’s head for a ‘model’s eye view’. This means getting down to the level of your warriors and taking in the battlefield from their perspective to ‘see what they can see’. You will find that you can spot lurking enemies through the windows of ruined buildings, catch a glimpse of a model’s legs under tree branches and see that high vantage points become very useful for the increased line of sight that they offer.
Own Unit
There is one important exception to the rules for line of sight. Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit just as if they were not there. This assumes that the models shift their stances to open firing lanes in order to maximise their own unit’s firepower.
To repeat, in the passage above, what does "a model" refer to?
The answer can be nothing but models generally unless you want to claim that GW is committing a couple of grammatical mistakes (improper use of indefinite article, failure to restate the specified "target model" for a new paragraph).
If you read the rule as it is written, then you have to accept my interpretation as correct. Otherwise, you need to prove that GW made a grammatical/logical mistake and did not intend what they actually wrote. The improper use of an indefinite article changes the logic of the surrounding statement completely.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/09/26 22:30:06
col_impact wrote:The rule clearly states that . . .
"we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body."
So we ignore wings, tails and antennae for any and all models.
You keep leaving out, "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible. Similarly," You also ignore the context which applies to this statement provided by the previous paragraph, but more on that later
Why are you not pointing out those parts as well, especially since, "ornaments" would be practical to the discussion and not so much "wings, tails, and antennae"?
In fact, one could point out your reluctance to discuss paragraph one. Does that not fit into your narrative?
Then why do you insist on quoting only part of a sentence for the last three or four times? Why do you consistently disconnect the sentence adverb of "Similarly" the last three or four times? Why do you not bother to represent the other items which are ignored?
Even when you quoted those sections, you completely ignored the portions which defined the context we insist you keep missing, namely regarding visibility and what it is all about.
I do not have a reluctance to discuss the first paragraph. It is an introduction. The second paragraph starts getting specific as to what it is addressing, being bolded for emphasis. The third paragraph starts with "Sometimes" to link it with the previous paragraph. This paragraph then defines what cannot be used on the body to establish visibility. The third sentence is linked to first by the term, "Similarly".
Considering you keep avoiding them like the plague and not addressing the questions that come up regarding them indicates that you are deliberately blinding yourself or lying regarding your assessment.
I also note that you still cannot address a single post at once, but must do so piece meal. Get organized, please.
col_impact wrote:That's what making a general statement means and using an indefinite article means. The rule generally and indefinitely applies.
I'm going to need a rules quote on that one.
Feel free to google up the use of Indefinite vs Definite Articles if you want to discuss this further. Otherwise I will just assume you needed me to just jostle your memory on this 6th grade grammar topic and the matter settled.
Provide the link yourself. This is YOUR case, not mine. Tenet #1: Don't make a statement without backing it up. Remember you must demonstrate that an indefinite article allows you to ignore all other context of a paragraph to be pertinent. Be careful not to spam your assertion alone again as proof.
col_impact wrote:I agree that "the subject matter of the paragraph is establishing visibility to a model [emphasis mine]". Importantly, I should point out that since GW did not use the definite article, we are not talking about "the target model" from the prior statement.
And you ignore context again. It is about establishing visibility TO a model. Why are you ignoring the subject matter of the sentence? Why is it important to have visibility TO an intervening model when you are establishing Line of Sight to another model?
col_impact wrote:If a model or part of a model (intervening or otherwise) is invisible or ignored or treated as if not there then it does not block line of sight.
Note the first part of the rule section
Spoiler:
Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).
Yes, it talks about "through, under or over" other models, not "to" other models. The term "to" is not synonymous with "through". In this statement, you are trying to conflate the two terms. Therefore, any concept of including "intervening models" with "a model" in the next two paragraphs is wholly within your imagination or strange ill-defined use of English grammar.
col_impact wrote:Note the last part of the rule section.
Spoiler:
Own Unit
There is one important exception to the rules for line of sight. Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit just as if they were not there. This assumes that the models shift their stances to open firing lanes in order to
maximise their own unit’s firepower.
The rules for line of sight have very much to do with drawing line of sight through models and knowing what counts as visible or not visible for models generally.
Yes, they DO have to do with drawing Line of Sight THROUGH models, but not much is addressed and only really in the case of "Own unit". However, the statements that are for drawing Line of Sight TO models are the ones you are using to justify the situation. Remember to not conflate "through" and "to".
col_impact wrote:Try to keep up. We have been discussing the entire section of the rule. Make sure not to skip the first paragraph. Also take note of the use of any indefinite articles. If you do not know the difference between indefinite and definite articles then you have no business commenting on this thread since you are wholly unable to parse the grammar of the rules in question.
That is ironic. For three or four posts, you have only quoted one portion of one sentence and you tell ME to keep up? Stop projecting your own failures as others, please.
col_impact wrote:To repeat, in the passage above, what does "a model" refer to?
There are many cases of "a model" in that section, and often refer to different things as we go on. Let's review:
Line of sight determines what a model can ‘see’.
This is general. It is not being associated with any other statement or concept.
Many situations call for you to determine whether or not a model has line of sight.
Pretty general, but getting more specific. It is looking for "a model" that has need of Line of Sight. Any other model is ignored for the purposes of this statement.
A model normally needs line of sight whenever it wishes to attack an enemy, whether with power sword, gun or psychic power.
This is definitely specific as defining "a model" as to one that is attacking.
The next paragraph never states, "a model", but is about one model trying to gain Line of Sight to another model.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.
"Sometimes" links its sentence to the previous thoughts being used. We are then looking for the visibility of "a model". The question then is, do we need visibility of anything besides a target model? The answer being no, we then associate "a model" with anything that is being targeted.
Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body.
A sentence adverb of "Similarly" now links this sentence to the previous concept and idea, which is "In these cases, the model is not visible". "The model" in this case is the one we are trying to establish Line of Sight/visibility to.
Should we go on?
col_impact wrote:The answer can be nothing but models generally unless you want to claim that GW is committing a couple of grammatical mistakes (improper use of indefinite article, failure to restate the specified "target model" for a new paragraph).
No, the only person here committing grammatical mistakes is you. It is proper use of indefinite articles when a definite and limiting form of the article is already established.
col_impact wrote:If you read the rule as it is written, then you have to accept my interpretation as correct. Otherwise, you need to prove that GW made a grammatical/logical mistake and did not intend what they actually wrote. The improper use of an indefinite article changes the logic of the surrounding statement completely.
No, I do not have to accept your interpretation because you have yet to prove that any use of an indefinite article removes the following noun from any and all context of the sentence and/or paragraph. You have only asserted this through your own authority of the English language, which has been found spotty before and is found spotty now as you continue to ignore numerous terms and phrases in the rules.
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.
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.
"Sometimes" links its sentence to the previous thoughts being used. We are then looking for the visibility of "a model". The question then is, do we need visibility of anything besides a target model? The answer being no, we then associate "a model" with anything that is being targeted.
Incorrect.
We can trace line of sight through models the rules consider invisible, ignored, or not there for line of sight purposes.
The answer then is yes we are concerned about visibility for models that are not the target model.
Since you are being willfully obtuse with regards to indefinite vs definite articles allow me to school you on your presumably less than 6th grade command of the English language. Again, you have no business commenting on rule interactions if you cannot grammatically/logically parse them. The information on the use of definite vs indefinite articles is freely available on the the internet and is not esoteric and is knowledge that a speaker of English is assumed to have.
So failure on your part to handle the differences between definite and indefinite articles invalidates your argument.
Definite Article - The definite article (the) is used before a noun to indicate that the identity of the noun is known to the reader. A "definite" article is used to give specific reference to a noun and to refer to something known to both the writer/speaker and the reader/listener.
Indefinite Article - The indefinite article (a, an) is used before a noun that is general or when its identity is not known. The indefinite article is used when the noun that we wish to refer to is unknown to our listener/reader or is not part of the common ground that we share. It is most often used to introduce new information.
By using the indefinite article, GW is making a general statement about visibility and models and not a statement about visibility as it pertains to specifically the target model.
Therefore, all models "ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body".
If you think otherwise, you need to prove your argument using proper grammar/logic. An improper use of indefinite vs definite article instantly invalidates your argument.
No, I do not have to accept your interpretation because you have yet to prove that any use of an indefinite article removes the following noun from any and all context of the sentence and/or paragraph. You have only asserted this through your own authority of the English language, which has been found spotty before and is found spotty now as you continue to ignore numerous terms and phrases in the rules.
The difference between indefinite and definite articles is not esoteric. It is incumbent upon you to show that you have a passable knowledge on the subject or else you are simply parsing the sentence wrong. Feel free to quickly refresh your understanding of the matter via google search or whatever and come back to the thread when you have an informed opinion on the matter.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/09/27 00:53:37
Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.
"Sometimes" links its sentence to the previous thoughts being used. We are then looking for the visibility of "a model". The question then is, do we need visibility of anything besides a target model? The answer being no, we then associate "a model" with anything that is being targeted.
Incorrect.
We can trace line of sight through models the rules consider invisible, ignored, or not there for line of sight purposes.
The answer then is yes we are concerned about visibility for models that are not the target model.
And you did not answer the question. The question is "what do we need to consider visible", but rather, "do we need to visibility of something besides the target model"?
You went off on visibility THROUGH a model (not really addressed in Line of Sight as a factor until "Own Unit"), not TO or OF a model. Do not conflate the terms.
col_impact wrote: Since you are being willfully obtuse with regards to indefinite vs definite articles allow me to school you on your presumably less than 6th grade command of the English language. Again, you have no business commenting on rule interactions if you cannot grammatically/logically parse them. The information on the use of definite vs indefinite articles is freely available on the the internet and is not esoteric and is knowledge that a speaker of English is assumed to have.
Wow, insults to go. My English comprehension was tested higher than college sophomores when I was a high school sophomore. Just because I do not bother to keep such otherwise unnecessary terms in my head does not mean I have a low command of it, I just do not specialize in it. And considering your batting average with some of these terms, I don't imagine it is much of your specialty, either.
And this just sounds like an excuse to not properly cite, reference, and link to a proper answer.
col_impact wrote: So failure on your part to handle the differences between definite and indefinite articles invalidates your argument.
Definite Article - The definite article (the) is used before a noun to indicate that the identity of the noun is known to the reader. A "definite" article is used to give specific reference to a noun and to refer to something known to both the writer/speaker and the reader/listener.
Indefinite Article - The indefinite article (a, an) is used before a noun that is general or when its identity is not known. The indefinite article is used when the noun that we wish to refer to is unknown to our listener/reader or is not part of the common ground that we share. It is most often used to introduce new information.
No reference or link means that you could be making this up.
Nor does it state we are to ignore all context in the sentence/paragraph in which the indefinite article is used.
col_impact wrote: By using the indefinite article, GW is making a general statement about visibility and models and not a statement about visibility as it pertains to specifically the target model.
Therefore, all models "ignore wings, tails and antennae even though they are technically part of a model’s body".
If you think otherwise, you need to prove your argument using proper grammar/logic. An improper use of indefinite vs definite article instantly invalidates your argument.
And you do not bother to address the reason and purpose behind using "Sometimes," and "Similarly" that being the sentences these indefinite articles show up. If the statement was as stand alone as you have quoted most often in this thread, you would be correct. It is not, though, and I cannot ignore the connections the words used to start these sentences.
Charistoph wrote: No, I do not have to accept your interpretation because you have yet to prove that any use of an indefinite article removes the following noun from any and all context of the sentence and/or paragraph. You have only asserted this through your own authority of the English language, which has been found spotty before and is found spotty now as you continue to ignore numerous terms and phrases in the rules.
The difference between indefinite and definite articles is not esoteric. It is incumbent upon you to show that you have a passable knowledge on the subject or else you are simply parsing the sentence wrong. Feel free to quickly refresh your understanding of the matter via google search or whatever and come back to the thread when you have an informed opinion on the matter.
And yet, you are the only person who has responded to this thread who believes this. So, either this definition and application of the definite and indefinite article is so properly esoteric and foreign only you are aware of it and cannot properly reference it, or you're making crap up and applying it to situations in which it does not apply.
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.
I'm REALLY going to need EVERYONE to follow RULE #1 here, IMMEDIATELY and CONTINUOUSLY going forward, or certain users will find their ability to post on Dakka Dakka severely curtailed for a while.
