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.
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.
You heard it here folks. Charistoph thinks the usage of definite versus indefinite articles is esoteric stuff. Wowza. This is basic grammar stuff.
This statement is only justified by ignoring the highlighted phrase. I was speaking of this definition and application of the definite and indefinite article that you are using. Nothing you have "quoted" regarding it nor referenced allows one to ignore all context of the sentence or paragraph it is found.
col_impact wrote: Here you continue with lazy obtuseness. So I will continue on with schooling you about stuff that you are fully capable of researching yourself.
And reported for attacking the poster.
col_impact wrote: The information on the usage of definite versus indefinite articles is not esoteric and is readily available to anyone who can google.
But again, it is not my case to prove, so why should I be expected to do your work?
col_impact wrote: You have so far been unable to discriminate between the two. Therefore you are parsing the rule wrong at a fundamental level. Come back to this thread when you feel you have come up to speed on basic grammar and then we can proceed from there.
A and AN are called indefinite articles. "Indefinite" means "not specific". Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
THE is called a definite article. "Definite" means "specific". Use THE when talking about something which is already known to the listener or which has been previously mentioned, introduced, or discussed.
And nothing about ignoring the context of the sentence and paragraph in which it is used. Just because "a" is being used does not mean we get to ignore "Sometimes", "visible", and "Similarly". It is common to use an indefinite article when the following noun is not a specific type, but still tied in to the context of the statement.
Such as the example in your link:
"Is there a dictionary in your backpack? Asking about the existence of the dictionary"
Are we talking about all or any dictionaries, or just the one that may be in the backpack? The answer is "the one that may be in the backpack". The context of the question is not lost because we are looking for "a" dictionary. The statement does not care about Mister Roger's dictionary on his bookshelf. The statement does not care if the dictionary is a Merriam-Webster Student dictionary or the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary.
That is why I asked you why visibility is important or necessary for any intervening models. The paragraph is talking about what cannot be used to determine proper Line of Sight Visibility, so why is establishing visibility needed for intervening models?
col_impact wrote: Literally you can go to countless websites and they will all tell you that you have been parsing 'a' vs. 'the' wrong.
col_impact wrote: So what does "a model" refer to in the rules quote below?
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?
As stated before, the highlighted "a model" being referred to is one we are trying to establish a visible Line of Sight to. We are informed of this by the use of "Sometimes" and "be visible of" preceding it. The third sentence is also linked to this by the use of "Similarly". It doesn't always have to be a target model we are trying to get Line of Sight to. Many Special Rules in the past have required that a model have Line of Sight to the model with the Special Rule in order to take advantage of it. This is not a "target model", so such specifics would declassify a "model with this special rule". That is why an indefinite article is used. It is covering all possible uses of Line of Sight.
To rewrite up the two paragraphs in context.
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. If all that will be seen of a model is a weapon, banner, wings, tails, antennae, or other ornament he is carrying, the model is not visible. These rules are intended to ensure that models don’t get penalised for having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
The reason the third sentence is separated from the first is that the first deals with things that are not of the body, while the third sentence deals with the body. We do not ignore these details unless we are trying to establish a visible Line of Sight to the model in question. The reason for an indefinite article is that there are different reasons why Line of Sight may be obtained, and so nailing it down to one or the other is pointless. It could also include the observer in this, too, but nothing else is indicated as being included in this concept.
Using an indefinite article does not remove the noun from the context of the situation in play. Just as we only consider dictionaries in the person's backpack and not outside of the backpack in the quoted example from the link, we only consider models we are trying to establish Line of Sight between or the visibility of, nothing else. Intervening models by definition do not fit in either category. Yes, other rules can remove them from Visibility, such as Own Unit or their own Special Rules, but neither are in play here or in the Drop Pod question.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/27 15:27:38
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.
And nothing about ignoring the context of the sentence and paragraph in which it is used. Just because "a" is being used does not mean we get to ignore "Sometimes", "visible", and "Similarly". It is common to use an indefinite article when the following noun is not a specific type, but still tied in to the context of the statement.
Such as the example in your link:
"Is there a dictionary in your backpack? Asking about the existence of the dictionary"
Are we talking about all or any dictionaries, or just the one that may be in the backpack? The answer is "the one that may be in the backpack". The context of the question is not lost because we are looking for "a" dictionary. The statement does not care about Mister Roger's dictionary on his bookshelf. The statement does not care if the dictionary is a Merriam-Webster Student dictionary or the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary.
The counter example you bring up of the dictionary is actually the use of the indefinite article according to what I mark in red below.
From the website - Use A(AN) when talking about a thing which is new, unknown, or introduced to a listener for the first time. Also use A(AN) when you are asking about the existence of something.
The indefinite article is a polite/indirect way of inquiring about whether something exists. "Is that a joint in your pocket?"
I think it's pretty safe to assume that GW is not indirectly asking about the existence of a model in this sentence --> "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying."
Rather, the indefinite article is obviously being used for this reason . . .
From the website - Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
The BRB chose not to use the definite article since it is no longer talking specifically about the prior mentioned target model but models in general.
That is why I asked you why visibility is important or necessary for any intervening models. The paragraph is talking about what cannot be used to determine proper Line of Sight Visibility, so why is establishing visibility needed for intervening models?
Let's look at the paragraph. The paragraph is about visibility and makes no mention of drawing line of sight.
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. 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.
Of course visibility is relevant to drawing line of sight discussed in the prior paragraphs, ie you can only draw line of sight to things that are visible and you can only draw line of sight through things that are invisible/ignored or count as not being there. But the third paragraph itself is concerned about advancing its own points about determining visibility in models generally. Each paragraph is a distinct section of writing and each makes a distinct point.
OED - Paragraph: A distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering.
The 3rd paragraph is not tied to the situation of the 2nd paragraph - it's a separate paragraph altogether and is free to advance its own distinct points. The only connection required between paragraphs is relevance. What the 3rd paragraph asserts about general model visibility will be relevant for drawing lines of sight not only to models but also through models since general model visibility is of course relevant to both those things.
As has already been proven, since the indefinite article was used in the 3rd paragraph, we know that wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items are ignored on models generally for the purpose of visibility.
Therefore ---> If my firing model is trying shoot at a target model that is blocked by the wings of a model in between the two, he can do so as if the wings were not there, since wings are ignored on models generally. [except in the case of wings on a vehicle due to a more advanced rule overriding the rules discussed]
Of course all this fits into the larger point --> As per the Draft FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
This message was edited 17 times. Last update was at 2016/09/27 20:30:00
col_impact wrote: The counter example you bring up of the dictionary is actually the use of the indefinite article according to what I mark in red below.
From the website - Use A(AN) when talking about a thing which is new, unknown, or introduced to a listener for the first time. Also use A(AN) when you are asking about the existence of something.
The indefinite article is a polite/indirect way of inquiring about whether something exists. "Is that a joint in your pocket?"
I think it's pretty safe to assume that GW is not indirectly asking about the existence of a model in this sentence --> "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying."
Rather, the indefinite article is obviously being used for this reason . . .
From the website - Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
The BRB chose not to use the definite article since it is no longer talking specifically about the prior mentioned target model but models in general.
All this says to me is that you do not recognize the similarity between the example I quoted and the sentences in question. I do not know if this is deliberate or not, but you always seem to be very picky as to when rules apply to you, and so you just wave them away.
If these sentences which describe articles we do not use to see if a model is visible to Line of Sight were alone and did not start with terms specifically used to link the current sentence with previous once for context, you would be correct. But they do, and you ignore them.
How about this for a counter from here:
The indefinite article is used to refer to something for the first time or to refer to a particular member of a group or class.
Use a to refer to an example of something.
Use a meaning 'one', referring to a single object or person, or a single unit of measure. In these sentences using "one" instead of the indefinite article is grammatically correct. It will add emphasis to the number, and contrast with other numbers.
And no where on this page does it state that we get to ignore the context of everything around the indefinite article.
And then we look at OED for the word "a" here:
1) Used when mentioning someone or something for the first time in a text or conversation.
2) Used to indicate membership of a class of people or things.
3) In, to, or for each; per (used when expressing rates or ratios)
For myself, I see it being used as definition 2, and the class of models are defined in the previous paragraph, i.e. the models we are trying to connect a Line of Sight between.
And this is one of the reasons why quoting an internet source has problems and Tenet #6 of this forum is not to use dictionary terms. Interpretations run the gambit, and the internet lies or is misinformed. And that doesn't even bother with taking sometime completely out of context and giving it authority the document itself does not provide.
col_impact wrote: Let's look at the paragraph. The paragraph is about visibility and makes no mention of drawing line of sight.
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. 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.
Of course visibility is relevant to drawing line of sight discussed in the prior paragraphs, ie you can only draw line of sight to things that are visible and you can only draw line of sight through things that are invisible/ignored or count as not being there. But the third paragraph itself is concerned about advancing its own points about determining visibility in models generally. Each paragraph is a distinct section of writing and each makes a distinct point.
Incorrect on a couple points. You ignore the conjunctive nature of starting off with "Sometimes", again. The third paragraph is tied in to the second paragraph by this. And the pertinence and relevance of determing how visible something is, aka "how well it can be seen". Why do we care about how well we can see an intervening model? The answer is, we do not. We care about establishing a straight unblocked line from one model to another. It is to this standard it is addressing.
OED - Paragraph: A distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering.
The 3rd paragraph is not tied to the situation of the 2nd paragraph - it's a separate paragraph altogether and is free to advance its own distinct points. The only connection required between paragraphs is relevance. What the 3rd paragraph asserts about general model visibility will be relevant for drawing lines of sight not only to models but also through models since general model visibility is of course relevant to both those things.
Then the purpose of "sometimes" and "similarly" are?
What would the penalty be to an intervening model if it has an impressive banner, weapon, or so on?
Your judgment lacks continuity with the ideas being presented in the paragraph.
You quote the definition of paragraph, but are misapplying it. Paragraphs are for distinct sections of writing, but that does not make them alone, especially in a set of instructions. Paragraph 2 distinctly states the base line of the rule. Paragraph 3 states the distinct limits what cannot be used for Paragraph 2. Paragraph 4 is about how to help you make this determination, with a little humor tied in.
If it was for all models, it would be written as follows:
For the purposes of drawing Line of Sight, ignore any weapon, banner or other ornament a model is
carrying, even if it is an intervening model. Similarly, we ignore wings, tails and antennae, even though they are part of a model's body. These rules are intended to ensure that models do not get penalized or take advantage of having impressive banners, weaponry, and so on.
However, the current paragraph is only considering how well we can see a model, and we don't care if we are seeing other models, just the one we need Line of Sight ot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/27 22:51:05
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.
And this is one of the reasons why quoting an internet source has problems and Tenet #6 of this forum is not to use dictionary terms. Interpretations run the gambit, and the internet lies or is misinformed. And that doesn't even bother with taking sometime completely out of context and giving it authority the document itself does not provide.
I have not been quoting dictionaries with regards to definite versus indefinite articles. I have been referring you to resources on Basic Grammar. If you do not have a passable understanding of grammar when grammar is relevant (as it is here) then you cannot provide a valid argument. I.E., if your argument rests on an invalid understanding of indefinite articles then it is wholly invalid as it cannot represent a correct reading of the rule.
So having discarded your dictionary example in your post above, you are now claiming that "a model" is being "used to indicate membership of a class of people or things" . . .
And then we look at OED for the word "a" here:
1) Used when mentioning someone or something for the first time in a text or conversation.
2) Used to indicate membership of a class of people or things.
3) In, to, or for each; per (used when expressing rates or ratios)
For myself, I see it being used as definition 2, and the class of models are defined in the previous paragraph, i.e. the models we are trying to connect a Line of Sight between.
Your understanding of definition 2 is backwards. In definition 2, the class comes after the indefinite article.
Here are examples of the use of the indefinite article according to definition 2 . ..
‘he is a lawyer’
‘this car is a BMW’
Basically you have a pairing of a noun with a class and the class being preceded by the indefinite article
So according to this usage 'model' would be the class. However, there is no noun present in the sentence that is being assigned to that class. You would need the sentence to read thusly . . .
"A Drop Pod is a model and sometimes all that will be visible is a weapon, banner or other ornament." ['Drop Pod' is member of class 'model']
So basically Definition 2 doesn't fit.
So let's revisit the paragraph . . .
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. 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.
What does fit is the most common usage of an indefinite article --> "Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing."
This usage fits perfectly with the sentence.
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying." <-- model here refers to models in general and not any specific model or models.
Since the indefinite article was used in the 3rd paragraph and we have identified how the indefinite article is being used, we know that wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items are ignored on models generally for the purpose of visibility.
Therefore, if I am trying to draw line of sight from a viewing model to a target model through some blocking models, I can ignore wings, tails, antennae, decorative items, etc. on the blocking models.
Once again, this all fits into the larger point -- As per the Draft FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/28 01:46:34
col_impact wrote: I have not been quoting dictionaries with regards to definite versus indefinite articles. I have been referring you to resources on Basic Grammar. If you do not have a passable understanding of grammar when grammar is relevant (as it is here) then you cannot provide a valid argument. I.E., if your argument rests on an invalid understanding of indefinite articles then it is wholly invalid as it cannot represent a correct reading of the rule.
My position does not involve an invalid understanding of indefinite articles. It just doesn't recognize giving it more weight than it has. I can also explain my position without using terms only English Majors, Teachers, and Professors are required to know, and are then looked up and misjudged in importance by others trying to sound like they are a genius.
You have not properly explained why we need visibility of or to a model that we are not concerned with. You have addressed the visibility through the models we are not concerned with, but that is not the point of this paragraph that limits what can be used to establish visibility.
And you still have not bothered to address why they used "Sometimes" and "Similarly"...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/28 04:05:14
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: I have not been quoting dictionaries with regards to definite versus indefinite articles. I have been referring you to resources on Basic Grammar. If you do not have a passable understanding of grammar when grammar is relevant (as it is here) then you cannot provide a valid argument. I.E., if your argument rests on an invalid understanding of indefinite articles then it is wholly invalid as it cannot represent a correct reading of the rule.
My position does not involve an invalid understanding of indefinite articles. It just doesn't recognize giving it more weight than it has. I can also explain my position without using terms only English Majors, Teachers, and Professors are required to know, and are then looked up and misjudged in importance by others trying to sound like they are a genius.
You have not properly explained why we need visibility of or to a model that we are not concerned with. You have addressed the visibility through the models we are not concerned with, but that is not the point of this paragraph that limits what can be used to establish visibility.
And you still have not bothered to address why they used "Sometimes" and "Similarly"...
If the difference between definite and indefinite article has no weight, then why are you fighting against basic grammatical knowledge with regards to the use of "a, an" versus "the"?
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. 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.
So then do you agree that in above paragraph that "a model" is referring to a model in a general and non-specified sense, in accordance with the most common usage of indefinite articles (i.e. Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) ??
We really need to come to agreement on this point or your argument is easily dismissed as a misread of the rule in question at a basic grammatical/logical level.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/28 04:31:25
You know, I have played with a house rule such that the user of the DP and his/her opponent can generally agree upon as fair. When it is time to deepstrike the DP, the controlling player chooses ONE of the two options, and this cannot be changed later:
1) Roll for scatter with the DP doors open, which will count as part of the hull, which means that the doors landing over the board edge/impassable terrain/enemy models, etc. is a mishap. However, if it lands without mishap, the unit inside can use the doors as the hull with the Open Topped rule for extra deployment range, if desired.
2) Roll for scatter with the DP doors closed, which will remain closed for the entirety of the game. This decreases the footprint, reducing the chance of mishaps at the expense of deployment range being reduced.
I've only played against DPs once or twice, but we generally opt for the second option as most of my opponents and I agree that the "toe in cover" is a BS exploit, and generally makes one appear like a WAAC player. Especially when said "cover" (in this case the lowered doors) hardly even covers the base of the model, let alone much, if any, of the body.
Now YMMV, but that's how opponents and I have done it for a gaming experience more enjoyable for both parties (i.e. fewer delays due to rules arguments).
KommissarKiln wrote: You know, I have played with a house rule such that the user of the DP and his/her opponent can generally agree upon as fair. When it is time to deepstrike the DP, the controlling player chooses ONE of the two options, and this cannot be changed later:
1) Roll for scatter with the DP doors open, which will count as part of the hull, which means that the doors landing over the board edge/impassable terrain/enemy models, etc. is a mishap. However, if it lands without mishap, the unit inside can use the doors as the hull with the Open Topped rule for extra deployment range, if desired.
2) Roll for scatter with the DP doors closed, which will remain closed for the entirety of the game. This decreases the footprint, reducing the chance of mishaps at the expense of deployment range being reduced.
I've only played against DPs once or twice, but we generally opt for the second option as most of my opponents and I agree that the "toe in cover" is a BS exploit, and generally makes one appear like a WAAC player. Especially when said "cover" (in this case the lowered doors) hardly even covers the base of the model, let alone much, if any, of the body.
Now YMMV, but that's how opponents and I have done it for a gaming experience more enjoyable for both parties (i.e. fewer delays due to rules arguments).
On addenum I'd make to your rule 2-It comes down with the doors closed, but you then open them once it lands. They're purely decorative, but it looks nicer with the doors open.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
KommissarKiln wrote: You know, I have played with a house rule such that the user of the DP and his/her opponent can generally agree upon as fair. When it is time to deepstrike the DP, the controlling player chooses ONE of the two options, and this cannot be changed later:
1) Roll for scatter with the DP doors open, which will count as part of the hull, which means that the doors landing over the board edge/impassable terrain/enemy models, etc. is a mishap. However, if it lands without mishap, the unit inside can use the doors as the hull with the Open Topped rule for extra deployment range, if desired.
2) Roll for scatter with the DP doors closed, which will remain closed for the entirety of the game. This decreases the footprint, reducing the chance of mishaps at the expense of deployment range being reduced.
I've only played against DPs once or twice, but we generally opt for the second option as most of my opponents and I agree that the "toe in cover" is a BS exploit, and generally makes one appear like a WAAC player. Especially when said "cover" (in this case the lowered doors) hardly even covers the base of the model, let alone much, if any, of the body.
Now YMMV, but that's how opponents and I have done it for a gaming experience more enjoyable for both parties (i.e. fewer delays due to rules arguments).
This sounds like a good solution to the problem of the rules not providing well for models with significant moving parts e.g. drop pod doors. Either DS with the doors open to treat them as hull and be able to disembark all your marines from the tip of the door, or DS with them closed to reduce the chance of mishap at the cost of disembarkation range.
putting the GW Draft FAQ to the side for a moment I fail to understand the issue here.
The BrBs only mention of doors is in what an access point is. Nothing suggests that they are defined as Hull.
In the case of an opened topped vehicle the entire model (ignoring decorative elements) is an access point.
-Hull blocks LoS , gives cover.
- Doors only provide a location for access in and out of a vehicle.
- Opened topped vehicles (regardless of the doors that "might" be modeled on them) are completely an access point.
- Pods open up to allow us to view the structure inside the pod which very closely defines its hull area. Opened or closed the Pods footprint is pretty well defined...I will concede that when the doors are closed it makes defining that footprint all that much easier.
- It is pretty clear that the doors on a drop pod should have no bearing to the game whatsoever unless a special rule is given to them such as the case in the Lucius Pod.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/28 13:17:57
col_impact wrote: I have not been quoting dictionaries with regards to definite versus indefinite articles. I have been referring you to resources on Basic Grammar. If you do not have a passable understanding of grammar when grammar is relevant (as it is here) then you cannot provide a valid argument. I.E., if your argument rests on an invalid understanding of indefinite articles then it is wholly invalid as it cannot represent a correct reading of the rule.
My position does not involve an invalid understanding of indefinite articles. It just doesn't recognize giving it more weight than it has. I can also explain my position without using terms only English Majors, Teachers, and Professors are required to know, and are then looked up and misjudged in importance by others trying to sound like they are a genius.
You have not properly explained why we need visibility of or to a model that we are not concerned with. You have addressed the visibility through the models we are not concerned with, but that is not the point of this paragraph that limits what can be used to establish visibility.
And you still have not bothered to address why they used "Sometimes" and "Similarly"...
If the difference between definite and indefinite article has no weight, then why are you fighting against basic grammatical knowledge with regards to the use of "a, an" versus "the"?
You need to recognize the difference between "no weight" and "less weight" in order to understand.
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.
So then do you agree that in above paragraph that "a model" is referring to a model in a general and non-specified sense, in accordance with the most common usage of indefinite articles (i.e. Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) ??
We really need to come to agreement on this point or your argument is easily dismissed as a misread of the rule in question at a basic grammatical/logical level.
We won't come to an agreement because, as usual, you take one tiny part and give it more authority than it deserves while ignoring the rest for your convenience.
I also note that you have changed which sentence you keep highlighting the indefinite article is not the one you were partially quoting. Was there a problem with that sentence?
And no, I do not agree that it is referring to every model (which is how you are translating it), but only ones we are trying to see are visible, per the adjective right before, which establishes the context of the situation as being connected to the previous paragraph along with "Sometimes".
For example, what would be the difference if the paragraph was written, thusly?
Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to 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.
And I do not mean the literal difference I underlined, I mean how you view the importance of this indefinite article.
Here is another concept that didn't seem to register as a possibility to either of us. The word "a" is also used as a quantitative aspect, in other words, another way of saying "one"
Sometimes, all that will be visible of one 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.
What difference in your reading does that make if read in this manner?
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.
zedsdead wrote: putting the GW Draft FAQ to the side for a moment I fail to understand the issue here.
The BrBs only mention of doors is in what an access point is. Nothing suggests that they are defined as Hull.
In the case of an opened topped vehicle the entire model (ignoring decorative elements) is an access point.
-Hull blocks LoS , gives cover.
- Doors only provide a location for access in and out of a vehicle.
- Opened topped vehicles (regardless of the doors that "might" be modeled on them) are completely an access point.
- Pods open up to allow us to view the structure inside the pod which very closely defines its hull area. Opened or closed the Pods footprint is pretty well defined...I will concede that when the doors are closed it makes defining that footprint all that much easier.
- It is pretty clear that the doors on a drop pod should have no bearing to the game whatsoever unless a special rule is given to them such as the case in the Lucius Pod.
To make a slight distinction, it's not the physical door that provides a location for access, but it's the hole that the door hides that provides the access. Picayune detailm but possibly important for saying whether the door is the hull. I do agree with your statements here, though.
And, I do want to thank you and the others who just jumped in on the discussion here.
I really fail to see why a door shouldn't be part of the hull. It's an essential part of the hulls integrity in the case of the Drop Pod, and it provides a decent change to many models. If i leave the side doors of a Rhino open you can shoot through it. Same with the Drop Pod.
Doors are part of a structure and part of a vehicle. They can change the model significantly (see: Drop Pod) and are nowhere classified as "not part of the hull". Isn't the "decorative stuff" list a list of stuff that isn't part of the hull? Therefore, all things not listed and not mentioned elsewhere in that context must be part of the hull.
I think there's simply the issue of there not being a rule for changing how your model looks - specifically "am I even allowed to open or close doors?". AFAIK there is no rule that allows you to change your models. theres a rule for turrets and weapons, but that's it. so whichever way you want to build your model - you have to use a fixed state when playing. Doors are up or down, and they never change. it's not modelling for advantage as - at least in the case of the Drop Pod - it's exactly what the Games assembly instructions tell you to do.
Just don't change your models setup during the game. There is no rule for it, therefore it is not allowed.
and before someone feels threatened by that or something: I've never played it like that nor will I ever as I use the probably most common house rule of "just ignore the doors, they're like a terrain feature or something."
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/28 19:47:28
We won't come to an agreement because, as usual, you take one tiny part and give it more authority than it deserves while ignoring the rest for your convenience.
Grammar is not a tiny part. Grammar is fundamental to the correct logical parsing of a statement. If your grammar is flawed then your argument is flawed and we can simply ignore it until you correct your grammatical understanding.
I also note that you have changed which sentence you keep highlighting the indefinite article is not the one you were partially quoting. Was there a problem with that sentence?
To keep the argument focused I have settled on the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph as a key case in point. But we can discuss any portion of the rule since grammar/logic applies to the whole rule.
Let's look at the whole rule . . .
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.
In red I have marked the indefinite articles (a, an) and in yellow I have marked the definite article. In all cases the indefinite article is being used in the most common way (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing). If you feel there is a better place for us to focus our discussion then feel free to point it out.
And no, I do not agree that it is referring to every model (which is how you are translating it), but only ones we are trying to see are visible, per the adjective right before, which establishes the context of the situation as being connected to the previous paragraph along with "Sometimes".
Then you are disagreeing with grammar/logic as I have shown and not me personally. The BRB does not continue to specify 'the target model' from the 2nd paragraph in the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph, which it would have to do in order for the sentence to read in the way you wish it to. The BRB chooses to generally and non-specifically refer to 'a model' and so we ignore wings, antennae, tails, and decorative items on models generally for the purpose of visibility. If a wing is considered ignored for line of sight then it cannot block line of sight and this will "sometimes" be the case.
For example, what would be the difference if the paragraph was written, thusly?
Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to 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.
And I do not mean the literal difference I underlined, I mean how you view the importance of this indefinite article.
The underlined portion does not fit. The sentence reads non-sensically. Also, you are trying to transpose 'line of sight' with 'visible' and the two are obviously not equivalent. Further, the indefinite article would still refer to models generally and not specifically.
The 3rd paragraph distinctly advances a point about models and visibility generally and what can be ignored on models, which is a point that is sometimes relevant.
Here is another concept that didn't seem to register as a possibility to either of us. The word "a" is also used as a quantitative aspect, in other words, another way of saying "one"
Sometimes, all that will be visible of one 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.
What difference in your reading does that make if read in this manner?
That would add odd quantitative contrast to something ("a single X" ) while that something is still not specified and still spoken of generally ('still just one of the general 'model' category') so this really does nothing for your argument. I think it's fairly safe to say at any rate that the BRB here is not saying "exactly one model" or "one model and not any other" since the "sometimes" clause can easily apply to more than one model on the battlefield.
I suggest you simply accept how the indefinite article is obviously being used here (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing) and accept the fact that the BRB did not specify "the target model".
All of this ties into the subject of the thread . . .
Spoiler:
"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying." <-- model here refers to models in general and not any specific model or models.
Since the indefinite article was used in the 3rd paragraph and we have identified how the indefinite article is being used, we know that wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items are ignored on models generally for the purpose of visibility.
Therefore, if I am trying to draw line of sight from a viewing model to a target model through some blocking models, I can ignore wings, tails, antennae, decorative items, etc. on the blocking models.
Once again, this all fits into the larger point -- As per the Draft FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/28 20:42:20
col_impact wrote: Once again, this all fits into the larger point -- As per the Draft FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
Land raiders block line of sight too - does that make the doors land raiders because they block line of sight? Just because they block LoS doesn't mean they aren't decorative - except in your highly parsed reading. You still haven't satisfactorily addressed the issue of "sometimes" clearly linking it to the previous paragraph where it is about drawing line of sight to a target.,or why they would talk about an intervening model being invisible if all you can see is the banner, wings, etc. It makes sense if you are talking about a target model, it doesn't make sense to be saying that if talking about an intervening model. If you go with the following statement about wings, etc not counting, we don't care if an intervening model is invisible, and it doesn't make sense to discuss invisible models if they aren't the target model.
col_impact wrote: Once again, this all fits into the larger point -- As per the Draft FAQ, drop pod doors DO block LoS, therefore they cannot be decorative.
Land raiders block line of sight too - does that make the doors land raiders because they block line of sight? Just because they block LoS doesn't mean they aren't decorative - except in your highly parsed reading.
It means that Land Raiders are not decorative and the antennae on the Land Raider are decorative.
doctortom wrote: You still haven't satisfactorily addressed the issue of "sometimes" clearly linking it to the previous paragraph where it is about drawing line of sight to a target.,or why they would talk about an intervening model being invisible if all you can see is the banner, wings, etc. It makes sense if you are talking about a target model, it doesn't make sense to be saying that if talking about an intervening model. If you go with the following statement about wings, etc not counting, we don't care if an intervening model is invisible, and it doesn't make sense to discuss invisible models if they aren't the target model.
What the 3rd paragraph asserts about general model visibility is sometimes relevant for drawing lines of sight not only to models but also through models since general model visibility is of course relevant to both those things. You can only draw line of sight to things that are visible and you can only draw line of sight through things that are invisible/ignored or count as not being there.
As has already been proven, since the indefinite article was used in the 3rd paragraph, we know that wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items are ignored on models generally for the purpose of visibility.
What the 3rd paragraph asserts about general model visibility is sometimes relevant for drawing lines of sight not only to models but also through models since general model visibility is of course relevant to both those things. You can only draw line of sight to things that are visible and you can only draw line of sight through things that are invisible/ignored or count as not being there./quote]
That's a poor rationalization - saying they don't count means you don't need to talk about the intervening model being invisible if that's all you see. It's highly relevant to it meaning the target is invisible. And still, you want to ignore that the "sometimes" is linking us back to the previous paragraph.
col_impact wrote: As has already been proven, since the indefinite article was used in the 3rd paragraph, we know that wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items are ignored on models generally for the purpose of visibility.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. It's ignored on models when drawing a line of sight to them, as shown by the entire section and the links between the paragraphs.
What the 3rd paragraph asserts about general model visibility is sometimes relevant for drawing lines of sight not only to models but also through models since general model visibility is of course relevant to both those things. You can only draw line of sight to things that are visible and you can only draw line of sight through things that are invisible/ignored or count as not being there.
That's a poor rationalization - saying they don't count means you don't need to talk about the intervening model being invisible if that's all you see. It's highly relevant to it meaning the target is invisible. And still, you want to ignore that the "sometimes" is linking us back to the previous paragraph.
col_impact wrote: As has already been proven, since the indefinite article was used in the 3rd paragraph, we know that wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items are ignored on models generally for the purpose of visibility.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. It's ignored on models when drawing a line of sight to them, as shown by the entire section and the links between the paragraphs.
That's not what the paragraph says.
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. 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 paragraph advances general points about models and invisibility that are sometimes relevant to the task of drawing line of sight through models to a target model.
It simply does not say "sometimes, all that will be visible of the target model is a weapon".
Until you accept what the rules actually say, your argument will remain invalid.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/28 21:53:39
nekooni wrote:I really fail to see why a door shouldn't be part of the hull. It's an essential part of the hulls integrity in the case of the Drop Pod, and it provides a decent change to many models. If i leave the side doors of a Rhino open you can shoot through it. Same with the Drop Pod.
Doors are part of a structure and part of a vehicle. They can change the model significantly (see: Drop Pod) and are nowhere classified as "not part of the hull". Isn't the "decorative stuff" list a list of stuff that isn't part of the hull? Therefore, all things not listed and not mentioned elsewhere in that context must be part of the hull.
If it is vital to the integrity of the of the Drop Pod, then they would have to be modeled up and could not be opened. During the Drop when it is theoretically needed (again, only theory, Space Marine armor is pretty tough and designed to handle most of the environment they would be exposed to on the Drop) is insufficient, as that is only fluff.
If they are Hull, then that means it creates a HUGE amount of square inchage which cannot be approached by an enemy model (or non-Battle Brother Allies) without Charging.
If they are Hull, then they are an Entry Point all the way to the end.
If they are Hull, then even though all I can establish Line of Sight to a sliver of the door, it is in full visibility as if I can establish Line of Sight to its central base.
If they are Hull, where is a door defined as such? Nosferatu still has not provided a quote to support, "if it isn't listed as not hull, it is hull".
We won't come to an agreement because, as usual, you take one tiny part and give it more authority than it deserves while ignoring the rest for your convenience.
Grammar is not a tiny part. Grammar is fundamental to the correct logical parsing of a statement. If your grammar is flawed then your argument is flawed and we can simply ignore it until you correct your grammatical understanding.
Your response is unrelated to what you quoted. I never have stated that grammar is a tiny part. I have stated, and still stating, that the importance you levy to this aspect of grammar is beyond the scope which grammar actually applies to it. There is a significant difference. And I do not appreciate the slander your misrepresentations of my statements engender. Do you deliberately seek to lie and misrepresent others who disagree with you?
Grammar is a complex concept made up of big things and little things. It allows the weight of things to be determined by the reader via context. Using an indefinite article does not allow one to ignore context provided by other parts of the sentence or that the sentence may bring in to it via conjunctive words. You have quoted nothing which allows the word "a" to ignore the context of the situation being described. Indeed, many of the examples used in what you did link indicate quite the opposite.
I also note that you have changed which sentence you keep highlighting the indefinite article is not the one you were partially quoting. Was there a problem with that sentence?
To keep the argument focused I have settled on the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph as a key case in point. But we can discuss any portion of the rule since grammar/logic applies to the whole rule.
So, you change mid-stream without justifying it till after you are called out on it? Interesting, and par for your argumentative "technique".
col_impact wrote:In red I have marked the indefinite articles (a, an) and in yellow I have marked the definite article. In all cases the indefinite article is being used in the most common way (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing). If you feel there is a better place for us to focus our discussion then feel free to point it out.
And the words used around it provide context you have chosen to ignore.
For example, "Light of sight determines what a model can 'see'." While the article is trying to approach a general concept, the rest of the sentence is establishing a definition of what it can see. When do we need or care about what any model can see? Only when we need to establish Line of Sight from any model. This is the context you are ignoring by granting a "general thing" use of indefinite article greater weight then the rest of the sentence.
To repeat, the use of an indefinite article does not automatically allow one to ignore the context of the sentence, paragraph, or section of the instructions. The only grammar expert who would agree with you is one who expects compensation greater then their professional integrity will allow them to ignore.
col_impact wrote:Then you are disagreeing with grammar/logic as I have shown and not me personally. The BRB does not continue to specify 'the target model' from the 2nd paragraph in the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph, which it would have to do in order for the sentence to read in the way you wish it to. The BRB chooses to generally and non-specifically refer to 'a model' and so we ignore wings, antennae, tails, and decorative items on models generally for the purpose of visibility. If a wing is considered ignored for line of sight then it cannot block line of sight and this will "sometimes" be the case.
No, I am not disagreeing with the grammar and logic of the paragraph, just your assertion. The BRB does not need to continue to specify because of the context of the situation and the objectives of the statements.
This is why I keep asking you what is the relevance and context of identifying why we need to establish the visibility TO an intervening model. The only reason to establish visibility to any model is because we are trying to establish a Line of Sight.
Keep in mind also, that Line of Sight is not just needed for checking to see "target models", but it can be, and has been, used for for checking to see if a model can see a model with a certain Special Rule. And no, the indefinite article at the end of that sentence is not to separate "model" from "with a certain Special Rule". It is also used in using the Infiltrate Special Rule where no targeting is being done.
Spoiler:
Infiltrators can be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any enemy unit, as long as no deployed enemy unit can draw line of sight to them. This includes in a building, as long as the building is more than 12" from any enemy unit. Alternatively, they can be set up anywhere on the table more than 18" from any enemy unit, even in plain sight.
For example, what would be the difference if the paragraph was written, thusly?
Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to 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.
And I do not mean the literal difference I underlined, I mean how you view the importance of this indefinite article.
The underlined portion does not fit. The sentence reads non-sensically. Also, you are trying to transpose 'line of sight' with 'visible' and the two are obviously not equivalent. Further, the indefinite article would still refer to models generally and not specifically.
The 3rd paragraph distinctly advances a point about models and visibility generally and what can be ignored on models, which is a point that is sometimes relevant.
It does read sensically, and is a properly written sentence. I deliberately did the transposition to emphasize the context of which I have been referring to and to demonstrate just how much you are giving a priority to the indefinite article over the context the rest of the sentence is providing and referring to.
Does that paragraph allow you to ignore the items in question if it is an intervening model?
Here is another concept that didn't seem to register as a possibility to either of us. The word "a" is also used as a quantitative aspect, in other words, another way of saying "one"
Sometimes, all that will be visible of one 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.
What difference in your reading does that make if read in this manner?
That would add odd quantitative contrast to something ("a single X" ) while that something is still not specified and still spoken of generally ('still just one of the general 'model' category') so this really does nothing for your argument. I think it's fairly safe to say at any rate that the BRB here is not saying "exactly one model" or "one model and not any other" since the "sometimes" clause can easily apply to more than one model on the battlefield.
In order for it to be applying to more than one model on the battlefield, relevance needs to be established. Why would you need to be trying to see multiple models at the same time? Name one time that this is necessary. Note, that seeing past or through models does not apply to this situation. We are looking for an end result, as that is all the BRB is looking for.
col_impact wrote:I suggest you simply accept how the indefinite article is obviously being used here (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing) and accept the fact that the BRB did not specify "the target model".
Again, it is not the use of the indefinite article being used that I have a problem with. It is the unproven, irrelevant, and undemonstrated priority you are giving it to allow it to override any and all context and relevance in the sentence and the context of the section in question, that I have a problem with.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/28 22:48:02
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.
Grammar is not a tiny part. Grammar is fundamental to the correct logical parsing of a statement. If your grammar is flawed then your argument is flawed and we can simply ignore it until you correct your grammatical understanding.
Your response is unrelated to what you quoted. I never have stated that grammar is a tiny part. I have stated, and still stating, that the importance you levy to this aspect of grammar is beyond the scope which grammar actually applies to it. There is a significant difference. And I do not appreciate the slander your misrepresentations of my statements engender. Do you deliberately seek to lie and misrepresent others who disagree with you?
Grammar is a complex concept made up of big things and little things. It allows the weight of things to be determined by the reader via context. Using an indefinite article does not allow one to ignore context provided by other parts of the sentence or that the sentence may bring in to it via conjunctive words. You have quoted nothing which allows the word "a" to ignore the context of the situation being described. Indeed, many of the examples used in what you did link indicate quite the opposite.
The BRB chose to use an indefinite article as opposed to a definite article. This is because the BRB deliberately wanted to speak about models in a general, non-specific way. The prior sentence spoke directly about "the target model". In order for that specific reference to be maintained, the writing cannot switch to an indefinite article. By switching back to an indefinite article, the BRB intends to make general statements about models and visibility.
In other words, for your argument to be plausible at all, you have to argue that the writers of the BRB made a grammatical error by using the indefinite article when they should have used the definite article. However, that cannot be proven, obviously. And I will choose to stick with the rules as they are written.
I also note that you have changed which sentence you keep highlighting the indefinite article is not the one you were partially quoting. Was there a problem with that sentence?
To keep the argument focused I have settled on the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph as a key case in point. But we can discuss any portion of the rule since grammar/logic applies to the whole rule.
So, you change mid-stream without justifying it till after you are called out on it? Interesting, and par for your argumentative "technique".
Not sure why you are being combative here. If you want to focus on some other portion of the rule now is the time to come forward and make your preference known. My argument is built around a solid foundation of grammar and logic so it doesn't matter where in the rule you want to focus, although I think our current place of focus is the best.
col_impact wrote:In red I have marked the indefinite articles (a, an) and in yellow I have marked the definite article. In all cases the indefinite article is being used in the most common way (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing). If you feel there is a better place for us to focus our discussion then feel free to point it out.
And the words used around it provide context you have chosen to ignore.
For example, "Light of sight determines what a model can 'see'." While the article is trying to approach a general concept, the rest of the sentence is establishing a definition of what it can see. When do we need or care about what any model can see? Only when we need to establish Line of Sight from any model. This is the context you are ignoring by granting a "general thing" use of indefinite article greater weight then the rest of the sentence.
To repeat, the use of an indefinite article does not automatically allow one to ignore the context of the sentence, paragraph, or section of the instructions. The only grammar expert who would agree with you is one who expects compensation greater then their professional integrity will allow them to ignore.
No context is being ignored on my part. You are deliberately ignoring the use of an indefinite article where the use of a definite article would be required for you interpretation to make sense. You want to claim the BRB is speaking specifically of "the target model" when the BRB is intentionally saying "a model". The 3rd paragraph advances its distinct points about visibility and models generally and what parts of a model are generally ignored when dealing with what a model can see. These points are relevant to the prior discussion of line of sight drawn through models to a target model. Line of sight cannot be blocked by what is ignored by the viewing model.
col_impact wrote:Then you are disagreeing with grammar/logic as I have shown and not me personally. The BRB does not continue to specify 'the target model' from the 2nd paragraph in the first sentence of the 3rd paragraph, which it would have to do in order for the sentence to read in the way you wish it to. The BRB chooses to generally and non-specifically refer to 'a model' and so we ignore wings, antennae, tails, and decorative items on models generally for the purpose of visibility. If a wing is considered ignored for line of sight then it cannot block line of sight and this will "sometimes" be the case.
No, I am not disagreeing with the grammar and logic of the paragraph, just your assertion. The BRB does not need to continue to specify because of the context of the situation and the objectives of the statements.
Basic grammar disagrees with you. Trying to continue the reference from a specified, known "the target model" to generally "a model" is grammatically incorrect.
As already noted --> Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing. So the BRB makes an intentional switch from talking specifically about "the target model" to talking generally and nonspecifically about "a model".
Again, feel free to argue that the BRB has made a grammatical mistake. I will take the rules as they are written.
This is why I keep asking you what is the relevance and context of identifying why we need to establish the visibility TO an intervening model. The only reason to establish visibility to any model is because we are trying to establish a Line of Sight.
Keep in mind also, that Line of Sight is not just needed for checking to see "target models", but it can be, and has been, used for for checking to see if a model can see a model with a certain Special Rule. And no, the indefinite article at the end of that sentence is not to separate "model" from "with a certain Special Rule". It is also used in using the Infiltrate Special Rule where no targeting is being done.
Spoiler:
Infiltrators can be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any enemy unit, as long as no deployed enemy unit can draw line of sight to them. This includes in a building, as long as the building is more than 12" from any enemy unit. Alternatively, they can be set up anywhere on the table more than 18" from any enemy unit, even in plain sight.
The 3rd paragraph deals with what constitutes "visible" and what is ignored on models generally for the purposes of visibility.
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. 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.
That's it. The 3rd paragraph discusses what is visible on models in general. As stated before, when you are drawing line of sight to a target model that line will not be blocked by the parts the rules tell us to ignore on models.
For example, what would be the difference if the paragraph was written, thusly?
Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to 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.
And I do not mean the literal difference I underlined, I mean how you view the importance of this indefinite article.
The underlined portion does not fit. The sentence reads non-sensically. Also, you are trying to transpose 'line of sight' with 'visible' and the two are obviously not equivalent. Further, the indefinite article would still refer to models generally and not specifically.
The 3rd paragraph distinctly advances a point about models and visibility generally and what can be ignored on models, which is a point that is sometimes relevant.
It does read sensically, and is a properly written sentence. I deliberately did the transposition to emphasize the context of which I have been referring to and to demonstrate just how much you are giving a priority to the indefinite article over the context the rest of the sentence is providing and referring to.
Does that paragraph allow you to ignore the items in question if it is an intervening model?
Try again. It's non-sensical.
"Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to a model is a weapon, ..."
"unblocked line to a model is a weapon" is gibberish
Do you mean "Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to is a weapon, ..."? Or do you mean "Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to is a model ..."?
You cannot transpose "you can trace a straight, unblocked line to" onto "will be visible of".
This just underscores a key thing that you keep missing. The 3rd paragraph is dealing with visibility generally and the BRB has intentionally made that shift by talking about "visibility" and "a model".
Here is another concept that didn't seem to register as a possibility to either of us. The word "a" is also used as a quantitative aspect, in other words, another way of saying "one"
Sometimes, all that will be visible of one 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.
What difference in your reading does that make if read in this manner?
That would add odd quantitative contrast to something ("a single X" ) while that something is still not specified and still spoken of generally ('still just one of the general 'model' category') so this really does nothing for your argument. I think it's fairly safe to say at any rate that the BRB here is not saying "exactly one model" or "one model and not any other" since the "sometimes" clause can easily apply to more than one model on the battlefield.
In order for it to be applying to more than one model on the battlefield, relevance needs to be established. Why would you need to be trying to see multiple models at the same time? Name one time that this is necessary. Note, that seeing past or through models does not apply to this situation. We are looking for an end result, as that is all the BRB is looking for.
That's exactly the point and why I mention that using the indefinite article for quantitative contrast would make no sense. There is no quantitative measure being undertaken in the paragraph so it's obvious that the most common use of the indefinite article is being called upon here instead --> Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
col_impact wrote:I suggest you simply accept how the indefinite article is obviously being used here (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing) and accept the fact that the BRB did not specify "the target model".
Again, it is not the use of the indefinite article being used that I have a problem with. It is the unproven, irrelevant, and undemonstrated priority you are giving it to allow it to override any and all context and relevance in the sentence and the context of the section in question, that I have a problem with.
Grammar is fundamental to the reading of the rules. I have shown that you are reading indefinite articles wrong. If you get that wrong then we can't really proceed any further.
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.
So are you willing to accept that "a model" in the 3rd paragraph is being used in this way (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing)? If you cannot, then you are not adhering to English grammar and your argument is invalid.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/09/29 00:38:50
col_impact wrote: The BRB chose to use an indefinite article as opposed to a definite article. This is because the BRB deliberately wanted to speak about models in a general, non-specific way. The prior sentence spoke directly about "the target model". In order for that specific reference to be maintained, the writing cannot switch to an indefinite article. By switching back to an indefinite article, the BRB intends to make general statements about models and visibility.
In other words, for your argument to be plausible at all, you have to argue that the writers of the BRB made a grammatical error by using the indefinite article when they should have used the definite article. However, that cannot be proven, obviously. And I will choose to stick with the rules as they are written.
Not at all. There are many ways that are much, much better and clearer to make it so that this applies to all models in general, and I provided at least one version of it a while back. They deliberately used words which provide connections to previous statements and provide context to what "a model" is. The use of an indefinite article does not and cannot override this.
col_impact wrote: Not sure why you are being combative here. If you want to focus on some other portion of the rule now is the time to come forward and make your preference known. My argument is built around a solid foundation of grammar and logic so it doesn't matter where in the rule you want to focus, although I think our current place of focus is the best.
I was pointing out that when your argument is demonstrated to be flat, you change course as if nothing was addressed at all, not acknowledging you changed course, nor a reason for changing course. Sometimes you bring it up as if it was your own idea after someone mentions it. It is a poor way to have an intelligent rules debate.
col_impact wrote: No context is being ignored on my part. You are deliberately ignoring the use of an indefinite article where the use of a definite article would be required for you interpretation to make sense. You want to claim the BRB is speaking specifically of "the target model" when the BRB is intentionally saying "a model". The 3rd paragraph advances its distinct points about visibility and models generally and what parts of a model are generally ignored when dealing with what a model can see. These points are relevant to the prior discussion of line of sight drawn through models to a target model. Line of sight cannot be blocked by what is ignored by the viewing model.
I am not and have not ignored the use of the indefinite article. I repeat, I do not give it the same weight that you do. I do not agree, nor have you demonstrated, that the indefinite article allows you to ignore the "Sometimes" that starts the sentence and joins this paragraph to the preceding in concept, nor the relevance of determining how well you can actually see a model that is not needing attention.
col_impact wrote: Basic grammar disagrees with you. Trying to continue the reference from a specified, known "the target model" to generally "a model" is grammatically incorrect.
As already noted --> Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing. So the BRB makes an intentional switch from talking specifically about "the target model" to talking generally and nonspecifically about "a model".
Again, feel free to argue that the BRB has made a grammatical mistake. I will take the rules as they are written.
Again, quit misrepresenting what I am saying. I have not stated anything about a "target model". "Target models" are not the only thing we need to establish Line of Sight with. This is a fabricated construct you use to generate a strawman. The indefinite article does not allow you to ignore the context surrounding the word. It is used because there are different types of models one needs to establish visibility with. Yes, "target models" are one, and the most common, but not the only one as demonstrated by the reference to Line of Sight in Infiltrate (among other rarer codex rules).
The BRB is not making a grammatical mistake. You are by taking one tiny portion of a phrase and granting it more power and authority than it has and more than you can prove.
col_impact wrote: The 3rd paragraph deals with what constitutes "visible" and what is ignored on models generally for the purposes of visibility.
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. 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.
That's it. The 3rd paragraph discusses what is visible on models in general. As stated before, when you are drawing line of sight to a target model that line will not be blocked by the parts the rules tell us to ignore on models.
Again, you ignore the point of the question. Why should we care if all that is visible of an intervening model we are not attempting to address is a wing, weapon, or a tail? Relevance, please?
For example, what would be the difference if the paragraph was written, thusly?
Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to 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.
And I do not mean the literal difference I underlined, I mean how you view the importance of this indefinite article.
The underlined portion does not fit. The sentence reads non-sensically. Also, you are trying to transpose 'line of sight' with 'visible' and the two are obviously not equivalent. Further, the indefinite article would still refer to models generally and not specifically.
The 3rd paragraph distinctly advances a point about models and visibility generally and what can be ignored on models, which is a point that is sometimes relevant.
It does read sensically, and is a properly written sentence. I deliberately did the transposition to emphasize the context of which I have been referring to and to demonstrate just how much you are giving a priority to the indefinite article over the context the rest of the sentence is providing and referring to.
Does that paragraph allow you to ignore the items in question if it is an intervening model?
Try again. It's non-sensical.
"Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to a model is a weapon, ..."
"unblocked line to a model is a weapon" is gibberish
Do you mean "Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to is a weapon, ..."? Or do you mean "Sometimes, all that you can trace a straight, unblocked line to is a model ..."?
You cannot transpose "you can trace a straight, unblocked line to" onto "will be visible of".
This just underscores a key thing that you keep missing. The 3rd paragraph is dealing with visibility generally and the BRB has intentionally made that shift by talking about "visibility" and "a model".
I may have missed a word or two in there for those whose reading comprehension stalls in complex concepts.
Sometimes, the only point you can trace a straight, unblocked line to on 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.
Is that better and easier for you to understand the concept?
And yes, I can transpose the concept of tracing a straight, unblocked line with visibility, since that is the whole point of "Line of Sight".
col_impact wrote: That's exactly the point and why I mention that using the indefinite article for quantitative contrast would make no sense. There is no quantitative measure being undertaken in the paragraph so it's obvious that the most common use of the indefinite article is being called upon here instead --> Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
But we are talking about a specific thing. We are talking about a model we are trying to see. "Sometimes, all that is visible of a model is...". Why do you think we are trying to see multiple models in this sentence? Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?
col_impact wrote:I suggest you simply accept how the indefinite article is obviously being used here (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing) and accept the fact that the BRB did not specify "the target model".
Again, it is not the use of the indefinite article being used that I have a problem with. It is the unproven, irrelevant, and undemonstrated priority you are giving it to allow it to override any and all context and relevance in the sentence and the context of the section in question, that I have a problem with.
Grammar is fundamental to the reading of the rules. I have shown that you are reading indefinite articles wrong. If you get that wrong then we can't really proceed any further.
Despite your insults of insinuations and misrepresentations, I do agree grammar is fundamental to reading the rules. What you do not seem to comprehend, after many statements to the contrary, is not that I have a poor grasp or lack of desire to recognize grammar, it is that I do not and cannot accept your assertions regarding them as they fly in the face of every other recognized author's use of it that I have read and it would be something I would be taken to task for by every English teacher I've had since 2nd Grade. Even more so when you quote one thing and claim it states another.
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.
And you are back to spamming again. Repeating the same quote over and over again as if it would change anything.
col_impact wrote: So are you willing to accept that "a model" in the 3rd paragraph is being used in this way (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing)? If you cannot, then you are not adhering to English grammar and your argument is invalid.
Yes, and no. It is a general thing, in that it is not restricted to one type of a thing ("a model" versus "target model"), but it IS a specific thing as it is something we are trying to see ("all that is visible of a model is..." versus "any/all model(s) on the table"). Context and relevance are the key things you are ignoring for the sake of making this a generalized rule. Two things grammar will not allow me to ignore.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2016/09/29 12:35:00
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.
nekooni wrote:I really fail to see why a door shouldn't be part of the hull. It's an essential part of the hulls integrity in the case of the Drop Pod, and it provides a decent change to many models. If i leave the side doors of a Rhino open you can shoot through it. Same with the Drop Pod.
Doors are part of a structure and part of a vehicle. They can change the model significantly (see: Drop Pod) and are nowhere classified as "not part of the hull". Isn't the "decorative stuff" list a list of stuff that isn't part of the hull? Therefore, all things not listed and not mentioned elsewhere in that context must be part of the hull.
If it is vital to the integrity of the of the Drop Pod, then they would have to be modeled up and could not be opened. During the Drop when it is theoretically needed (again, only theory, Space Marine armor is pretty tough and designed to handle most of the environment they would be exposed to on the Drop) is insufficient, as that is only fluff.
If they are Hull, then that means it creates a HUGE amount of square inchage which cannot be approached by an enemy model (or non-Battle Brother Allies) without Charging.
If they are Hull, then they are an Entry Point all the way to the end.
If they are Hull, then even though all I can establish Line of Sight to a sliver of the door, it is in full visibility as if I can establish Line of Sight to its central base.
All of these are logical (rules-wise) consequences, yes. It's why I use a houserule instead.
If they are Hull, where is a door defined as such? Nosferatu still has not provided a quote to support, "if it isn't listed as not hull, it is hull".
Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements. When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle’s gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.) If a Walker does not have a base (like the Defiler), measure to and from its hull (including any legs or other limbs), as normal for vehicles. Each vehicle capable of carrying passengers will have a number of Access Points defined in its entry. These are the doors, ramps and hatches that passengers use to get in and out of the vehicle (see below for more details). Open-topped vehicles do not have specific Access Points. Instead, all of the vehicle is considered to be an Access Point (regardless of any base they may have). These rules are pretty much all there is in the BRB that might help us.
What was the exact wording of the FAQ on the doors? they're part of the model(=vehicle) ? So any counter-arguments to them being an Access Point and allowing Marines to disembark from the tip of the door?
And regarding LoS - the hull is never properly defined anywhere. The best we can come up with is that it's the entire model minus " ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements".
I think decorative elements are stuff that you'd consider decorative in real life - skulls, sticky bits of your enemy, spikes, your Chapter Icon, foxtails, KONY2012 stickers and so on. Doors aren't decorative, they're a functional part of whatever they're build into. In 40k they usually represent Access Points, so even 40k doesn't treat them as decorative. Sure, Open Topped makes them redundant mostly and they're not listed as "door" as that isn't a thing in the rulebook, but the basic concept still holds true.
And what about the Rhino - do you allow folks to shoot through the doors? There's no other part of the model in the way, you could just shoot through the Rhino.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/29 14:24:10
What the 3rd paragraph asserts about general model visibility is sometimes relevant for drawing lines of sight not only to models but also through models since general model visibility is of course relevant to both those things. You can only draw line of sight to things that are visible and you can only draw line of sight through things that are invisible/ignored or count as not being there.
That's a poor rationalization - saying they don't count means you don't need to talk about the intervening model being invisible if that's all you see. It's highly relevant to it meaning the target is invisible. And still, you want to ignore that the "sometimes" is linking us back to the previous paragraph.
col_impact wrote: As has already been proven, since the indefinite article was used in the 3rd paragraph, we know that wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items are ignored on models generally for the purpose of visibility.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. It's ignored on models when drawing a line of sight to them, as shown by the entire section and the links between the paragraphs.
That's not what the paragraph says.
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. 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 paragraph advances general points about models and invisibility that are sometimes relevant to the task of drawing line of sight through models to a target model.
It simply does not say "sometimes, all that will be visible of the target model is a weapon".
Until you accept what the rules actually say, your argument will remain invalid.
Perhaps you should look at the rest of the section to see that it's still discussing drawing line of sight to a target so that you can understand you're ignoring the context entirely. Then perhaps you might understand what the rules actually say. I'm not going to bet that you'd accept it, though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/29 16:15:04
Charistoph wrote: If they are Hull, where is a door defined as such? Nosferatu still has not provided a quote to support, "if it isn't listed as not hull, it is hull".
Instead, for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from their hull, ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements. When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle’s gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.) If a Walker does not have a base (like the Defiler), measure to and from its hull (including any legs or other limbs), as normal for vehicles. Each vehicle capable of carrying passengers will have a number of Access Points defined in its entry. These are the doors, ramps and hatches that passengers use to get in and out of the vehicle (see below for more details). Open-topped vehicles do not have specific Access Points. Instead, all of the vehicle is considered to be an Access Point (regardless of any base they may have). These rules are pretty much all there is in the BRB that might help us.
Exactly. There is nothing to say they are Hull and nothing to say they aren't. Aside from defining Access Points, doors do not really serve a purpose. And even then, the door itself will not needed for this, as the doorway does the job just fine in defining it. When open, it really is only decoration, in my estimation.
nekooni wrote: What was the exact wording of the FAQ on the doors? they're part of the model(=vehicle) ? So any counter-arguments to them being an Access Point and allowing Marines to disembark from the tip of the door?
It is very very ambiguous and not really explanatory.
Q. Are Drop Pod Doors ignored for game purposes once deployed?
A. No - they are still part of the model.
Neither question or answer really define which or all game purposes they are not ignored for.
nekooni wrote: And regarding LoS - the hull is never properly defined anywhere. The best we can come up with is that it's the entire model minus " ignore gun barrels, dozer blades, antennas, banners and other decorative elements".
Yeah, it pretty much matches the same thing as "body" for non-Vehicle models (and interestingly enough, one of the dictionary definitions of "hull").
nekooni wrote: I think decorative elements are stuff that you'd consider decorative in real life - skulls, sticky bits of your enemy, spikes, your Chapter Icon, foxtails, KONY2012 stickers and so on. Doors aren't decorative, they're a functional part of whatever they're build into. In 40k they usually represent Access Points, so even 40k doesn't treat them as decorative. Sure, Open Topped makes them redundant mostly and they're not listed as "door" as that isn't a thing in the rulebook, but the basic concept still holds true.
It considers "gun barrels, dozer blades, [and] antennas" in the same grouping, and I am pretty sure that the engineers and crew of a "real life" Vehicle would not count them as "decorative" but either "rather useful" or "downright necessary" just like they would a door.
nekooni wrote: And what about the Rhino - do you allow folks to shoot through the doors? There's no other part of the model in the way, you could just shoot through the Rhino.
So long as the side doors are open, it IS possible, just as if all Drop Pod doors are down and you have the right angle. If they are closed, you really are not drawing a straight, unblocked line through it, are you?
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 may have missed a word or two in there for those whose reading comprehension stalls in complex concepts.
Sometimes, the only point you can trace a straight, unblocked line to on 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.
Is that better and easier for you to understand the concept?
And yes, I can transpose the concept of tracing a straight, unblocked line with visibility, since that is the whole point of "Line of Sight".
Again, this just underscores a key thing that you keep missing. The 3rd paragraph is dealing with "the visibility of a model" generally and not specifically and the BRB has intentionally made that shift by talking about "visibility" and "a model" and no longer drawing a line of sight to a target model. We are dealing with what a model can "see" and per the language of the 3rd paragraph this involves anything that counts as "a model". For a model to be in the way of some other model it must be visibly blocking the view to that model and not some other way such as a top-down 2d projection for example. Because the 3rd paragraph advances general points about visibility and anything that counts as "a model" to the effect that we ignore wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items, those parts of any model do not factor in to visibility.
col_impact wrote: That's exactly the point and why I mention that using the indefinite article for quantitative contrast would make no sense. There is no quantitative measure being undertaken in the paragraph so it's obvious that the most common use of the indefinite article is being called upon here instead --> Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.
But we are talking about a specific thing. We are talking about a model we are trying to see. "Sometimes, all that is visible of a model is...". Why do you think we are trying to see multiple models in this sentence? Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?
We aren't talking about a specific model. If we were, the BRB would use the definite article. As proven, we are talking about the visibility of a non-specific model - anything that fits into the general category of "a model" - per the usage of the indefinite article (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) So the points of the 3rd paragraph affect anything that counts as a model from the perspective of viewing model. On anything that counts as "a model" we ignore wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items.
Despite your insults of insinuations and misrepresentations, I do agree grammar is fundamental to reading the rules. What you do not seem to comprehend, after many statements to the contrary, is not that I have a poor grasp or lack of desire to recognize grammar, it is that I do not and cannot accept your assertions regarding them as they fly in the face of every other recognized author's use of it that I have read and it would be something I would be taken to task for by every English teacher I've had since 2nd Grade. Even more so when you quote one thing and claim it states another.
If you agree that grammar is fundamental to reading the rules then start adhering to the correct usage of indefinite articles. Until you do that, your argument is dismissed as invalid.
col_impact wrote: So are you willing to accept that "a model" in the 3rd paragraph is being used in this way (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing)? If you cannot, then you are not adhering to English grammar and your argument is invalid.
Yes, and no. It is a general thing, in that it is not restricted to one type of a thing ("a model" versus "target model"), but it IS a specific thing as it is something we are trying to see ("all that is visible of a model is..." versus "any/all model(s) on the table"). Context and relevance are the key things you are ignoring for the sake of making this a generalized rule. Two things grammar will not allow me to ignore.
Actually the difference you are failing to attend to is the difference between "a model" and "the model we are trying to see". The 3rd paragraph uses the former and you are using the latter. It goes without saying that you are not allowed to read into the rules. I will stick to what the BRB actually says because doing otherwise would render my argument invalid.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/29 21:00:33
col_impact wrote: Again, this just underscores a key thing that you keep missing. The 3rd paragraph is dealing with "the visibility of a model" generally and not specifically and the BRB has intentionally made that shift by talking about "visibility" and "a model" and no longer drawing a line of sight to a target model. We are dealing with what a model can "see" and per the language of the 3rd paragraph this involves anything that counts as "a model". For a model to be in the way of some other model it must be visibly blocking the view to that model and not some other way such as a top-down 2d projection for example. Because the 3rd paragraph advances general points about visibility and anything that counts as "a model" to the effect that we ignore wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items, those parts of any model do not factor in to visibility.
And here we go again. Your unfounded and unsupported belief that an article has more relevance and strength than all the other words in a sentence, sufficient to ignore everything else. Still waiting on support for it. Your quotes didn't have it. Your link did not have it. It didn't work before, repeating it the same way will not convince me, even after the tenth time you've done it. You are stuck on articles when the rest of us are looking at the WHOLE picture shaped by context and relevance.
Nothing in the third paragraph states or represents "anything that counts as 'a model'". If that was the intent, GW has used better ways of doing it and would have used them here. The third paragraph is not dealing with just what a model can see, but what a model is trying to see, i.e. focusing on, i.e. trying to establish a straight, unblockable line to, i.e. the whole point of Line of Sight. Nothing in the third paragraph indicates any of the subsequent nouns getting in the way. It is saying that, "(s)ometimes, all that can be seen OF a model is (this)...". Then it says these cannot be used to see the model by these things. When it comes to seeing a model, intervening models are only relevant if they are in the way, but you still are not concerned with your ability to see something in the way.
Charistoph wrote: But we are talking about a specific thing. We are talking about a model we are trying to see. "Sometimes, all that is visible of a model is...". Why do you think we are trying to see multiple models in this sentence? Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?
We aren't talking about a specific model. If we were, the BRB would use the definite article. As proven, we are talking about the visibility of a non-specific model - anything that fits into the general category of "a model" - per the usage of the indefinite article (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) So the points of the 3rd paragraph affect anything that counts as a model from the perspective of viewing model. On anything that counts as "a model" we ignore wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items.
And you ignored the question. Is it because of you have the reading comprehension of a politician or that you are scared to actually address it?
Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?
Notice how I used an indefinite article there, but the sentence was still talking about something rather specific? It is because the rest of the sentence establishes a context of specificity that is not needed for the noun that "a" is attached to. Yet, you are translating it as, "Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
Here they are side by side, what is the difference and how does it affect the sentence?
"Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
"Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
Context, it is a thing, and you are ignoring it. Get out of your tightly focused hole and look around at the entire sentence. Look at how "Sometimes" is being used. Ever think that the reason they use "a" instead of "the" is because:
* it is a new paragraph and it is a new thing to the paragraph
* it is only considering one singular noun, not all of them
* the situations Line of Sight is being used involve many different types of models, not just one type
* and all the above apply
col_impact wrote: So are you willing to accept that "a model" in the 3rd paragraph is being used in this way (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing)? If you cannot, then you are not adhering to English grammar and your argument is invalid.
Yes, and no. It is a general thing, in that it is not restricted to one type of a thing ("a model" versus "target model"), but it IS a specific thing as it is something we are trying to see ("all that is visible of a model is..." versus "any/all model(s) on the table"). Context and relevance are the key things you are ignoring for the sake of making this a generalized rule. Two things grammar will not allow me to ignore.
Actually the difference you are failing to attend to is the difference between "a model" and "the model we are trying to see". The 3rd paragraph uses the former and you are using the latter. It goes without saying that you are not allowed to read into the rules. I will stick to what the BRB actually says because doing otherwise would render my argument invalid.
Incorrect. Your reading comprehension continues to fail you. It is the difference between "a model" and "a model we are trying to see". The third paragraph uses the latter, not the former. The phrase "a model" is not alone in the sentence, but is preceded by "all that is visible of..." or "Similarly". No matter how much you would wish otherwise, other people cannot disassociate the preceding phrase without ignoring proper grammar.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/29 23:43:49
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: Again, this just underscores a key thing that you keep missing. The 3rd paragraph is dealing with "the visibility of a model" generally and not specifically and the BRB has intentionally made that shift by talking about "visibility" and "a model" and no longer drawing a line of sight to a target model. We are dealing with what a model can "see" and per the language of the 3rd paragraph this involves anything that counts as "a model". For a model to be in the way of some other model it must be visibly blocking the view to that model and not some other way such as a top-down 2d projection for example. Because the 3rd paragraph advances general points about visibility and anything that counts as "a model" to the effect that we ignore wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items, those parts of any model do not factor in to visibility.
And here we go again. Your unfounded and unsupported belief that an article has more relevance and strength than all the other words in a sentence, sufficient to ignore everything else. Still waiting on support for it. Your quotes didn't have it. Your link did not have it. It didn't work before, repeating it the same way will not convince me, even after the tenth time you've done it. You are stuck on articles when the rest of us are looking at the WHOLE picture shaped by context and relevance.
Nothing in the third paragraph states or represents "anything that counts as 'a model'". If that was the intent, GW has used better ways of doing it and would have used them here. The third paragraph is not dealing with just what a model can see, but what a model is trying to see, i.e. focusing on, i.e. trying to establish a straight, unblockable line to, i.e. the whole point of Line of Sight. Nothing in the third paragraph indicates any of the subsequent nouns getting in the way. It is saying that, "(s)ometimes, all that can be seen OF a model is (this)...". Then it says these cannot be used to see the model by these things. When it comes to seeing a model, intervening models are only relevant if they are in the way, but you still are not concerned with your ability to see something in the way.
If you don't apply grammar correctly then your argument is invalid. When the 3rd paragraph talks about "a model" it is talking about a model in general, NOT a specific model. Your interpretation has to adhere to the grammatical usage of indefinite articles or it is wrong.
The 3rd paragraph advances points about visibility and anything that counts as "a model". No mention is made in the 3rd paragraph of anything beyond that. Anything you add beyond that is your reading into the paragraph. You are not allowed to do that.
The 3rd paragraph narrows what counts as visible for anything that counts as "a model" to not include wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items.
Since we are dealing with visibility and anything that counts as "a model", what the 3rd paragraph advances applies equally to a model in the way as any other model, and so drawing a line of sight will not be blocked by what is considered invisible/ignored on a model in the way.
In fact, it seems like your argument is more with GW and not me. They choose to have the 3rd paragraph's points about visibility apply generally to anything that counts as "a model", not me. Feel free to fire them an e-mail if you want to take issue with their use of the indefinite article. Me, I will just accept the rule as it is written.
Charistoph wrote: But we are talking about a specific thing. We are talking about a model we are trying to see. "Sometimes, all that is visible of a model is...". Why do you think we are trying to see multiple models in this sentence? Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?
We aren't talking about a specific model. If we were, the BRB would use the definite article. As proven, we are talking about the visibility of a non-specific model - anything that fits into the general category of "a model" - per the usage of the indefinite article (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) So the points of the 3rd paragraph affect anything that counts as a model from the perspective of viewing model. On anything that counts as "a model" we ignore wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items.
And you ignored the question. Is it because of you have the reading comprehension of a politician or that you are scared to actually address it?
Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?
Notice how I used an indefinite article there, but the sentence was still talking about something rather specific? It is because the rest of the sentence establishes a context of specificity that is not needed for the noun that "a" is attached to. Yet, you are translating it as, "Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
Here they are side by side, what is the difference and how does it affect the sentence?
"Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
"Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
The 3rd paragraph advances points GW deems pertinent about the visibility of anything that counts as "a model". Since "a model" refers to a model in the way just it does any other model, we ignore wings, etc on a model in the way. So when you go to trace line of sight to a target model not only do you consider what is ignored on a model in the way you also consider what is ignored on a target model. We care because that's what the rule tells us. Following what the rules actually say is something I care about.
That's how the grammar/logic works. If GW wanted to specify "the target model" then GW would have. You seem to be having trouble accepting their intentional logical choice to be non-specific.
Context, it is a thing, and you are ignoring it. Get out of your tightly focused hole and look around at the entire sentence. Look at how "Sometimes" is being used. Ever think that the reason they use "a" instead of "the" is because:
* it is a new paragraph and it is a new thing to the paragraph
* it is only considering one singular noun, not all of them
* the situations Line of Sight is being used involve many different types of models, not just one type
* and all the above apply
Your grammatical understanding is lacking.
Spoiler:
* it is a new paragraph and it is a new thing to the paragraph
Incorrect. You use it if its new to the reader/listener. Paragraphs have nothing to do with it. ("Use A(AN) when talking about a thing which is new, unknown, or introduced to a listener for the first time." http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm)
Spoiler:
* it is only considering one singular noun, not all of them
Incorrect. "A = one" is a very specialized use of the indefinite article for when you are quantifying something explicitly (recipe, measure, shopping list, etc.).
Spoiler:
* the situations Line of Sight is being used involve many different types of models, not just one type
Incorrect. Model is already a category inclusive of it's types and that does not change by switching to "the". The use of "a" in the 3rd paragraph is instead according to the most common usage of indefinite articles (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm
col_impact wrote: So are you willing to accept that "a model" in the 3rd paragraph is being used in this way (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing)? If you cannot, then you are not adhering to English grammar and your argument is invalid.
Yes, and no. It is a general thing, in that it is not restricted to one type of a thing ("a model" versus "target model"), but it IS a specific thing as it is something we are trying to see ("all that is visible of a model is..." versus "any/all model(s) on the table"). Context and relevance are the key things you are ignoring for the sake of making this a generalized rule. Two things grammar will not allow me to ignore.
Actually the difference you are failing to attend to is the difference between "a model" and "the model we are trying to see". The 3rd paragraph uses the former and you are using the latter. It goes without saying that you are not allowed to read into the rules. I will stick to what the BRB actually says because doing otherwise would render my argument invalid.
Incorrect. Your reading comprehension continues to fail you. It is the difference between "a model" and "a model we are trying to see". The third paragraph uses the latter, not the former. The phrase "a model" is not alone in the sentence, but is preceded by "all that is visible of..." or "Similarly". No matter how much you would wish otherwise, other people cannot disassociate the preceding phrase without ignoring proper grammar.
I have noted in red a major disconnect on your part. Nowhere in that 3rd paragraph is there the phrase "a model we are trying to see".
I suggest you stick to the actual words and the actual grammar.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/09/30 01:45:16
col_impact wrote: The 3rd paragraph advances points about visibility and anything that counts as "a model". No mention is made in the 3rd paragraph of anything beyond that. Anything you add beyond that is your reading into the paragraph. You are not allowed to do that.
No, it does not. It is not "anything that counts as a model", it is just "a model we are trying to see".
And you ignored the question. Is it because of you have the reading comprehension of a politician or that you are scared to actually address it?
Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?
Notice how I used an indefinite article there, but the sentence was still talking about something rather specific? It is because the rest of the sentence establishes a context of specificity that is not needed for the noun that "a" is attached to. Yet, you are translating it as, "Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
Here they are side by side, what is the difference and how does it affect the sentence?
"Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
"Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
The 3rd paragraph advances points GW deems pertinent about the visibility of anything that counts as "a model". Since "a model" refers to a model in the way just it does any other model, we ignore wings, etc on a model in the way. So when you go to trace line of sight to a target model not only do you consider what is ignored on a model in the way you also consider what is ignored on a target model. We care because that's what the rule tells us. Following what the rules actually say is something I care about.
That's how the grammar/logic works. If GW wanted to specify "the target model" then GW would have. You seem to be having trouble accepting their intentional logical choice to be non-specific.
You have demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension. You answered a question you were not asked, by repeating the same irrelevant nonsense you have consistently repeated and presents nothing to properly answer the question.
It says nothing about blocking sight with some of these articles in question, it is talking about using these things to actually see a model. Do you understand the difference between "block" and "visible"?
What is the differences between the context of these sentences?
"Why do we care if a model we are not addressing is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
"Why do we care if any model is only showing a Weapon, Wing, etc?"
* it is a new paragraph and it is a new thing to the paragraph
Incorrect. You use it if its new to the reader/listener. Paragraphs have nothing to do with it. ("Use A(AN) when talking about a thing which is new, unknown, or introduced to a listener for the first time." http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm)
And that is the first time in that the reader sees it in this paragraph, correct? Remember your quote on the definition of paragraph? Did you forget it already?
* it is only considering one singular noun, not all of them
Incorrect. "A = one" is a very specialized use of the indefinite article for when you are quantifying something explicitly (recipe, measure, shopping list, etc.).
And only one model is being referenced here, not multiples, and not all. "All" is quite the multiple term, after all. Its use as a quantitative article is actually not as specialized as you think. Furthermore, the use of the singular "he" later on in the exact same sentence (as opposed to the generic multiple "they") also indicates that the singular use is well within grammar and logic considerations. The following still makes grammatical and logical sense: "Sometimes, all that will be visible of one model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying." So, you are very much indeed incorrect on this point..
* the situations Line of Sight is being used involve many different types of models, not just one type
Incorrect. Model is already a category inclusive of it's types and that does not change by switching to "the". The use of "a" in the 3rd paragraph is instead according to the most common usage of indefinite articles (Use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing.) http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm
And here you do not listen. Your insistence on misattributing my case to being "the target model" shows. Line of Sight is needed when drawing it to a target model for Shooting. It is also used in Infiltrate as the minimum distance between models with this Special Rule and enemy models changes if the enemy models have Line of Sight to the Infiltrators. No targeting involved here. So, in this case "a model" is appropriate to globally include "a target model" and "a model with a Special Rule" without excluding the other.
The interesting thing about English grammar is that it has so many rules, and it is not always air tight on just one aspect of it. It is quite possible, and quite common I might add, that multiple uses of a grammatical concept can be in play at the same time.
"A model" is a generic use of the article, but when we add other words to it, the scope and relevance changes. "Sometimes, all that you can see of a model is a weapon. In this case, the model is not visible." We are not caring about any model or all models at this point, all we care about is what you are trying to see. The definite article used in the second sentence is still referring to a model we can only see the weapon of. And it is that definite article which establishes the invisibility of the weapon.
Charistoph wrote: Yes, and no. It is a general thing, in that it is not restricted to one type of a thing ("a model" versus "target model"), but it IS a specific thing as it is something we are trying to see ("all that is visible of a model is..." versus "any/all model(s) on the table"). Context and relevance are the key things you are ignoring for the sake of making this a generalized rule. Two things grammar will not allow me to ignore.
Actually the difference you are failing to attend to is the difference between "a model" and "the model we are trying to see". The 3rd paragraph uses the former and you are using the latter. It goes without saying that you are not allowed to read into the rules. I will stick to what the BRB actually says because doing otherwise would render my argument invalid.
Incorrect. Your reading comprehension continues to fail you. It is the difference between "a model" and "a model we are trying to see". The third paragraph uses the latter, not the former. The phrase "a model" is not alone in the sentence, but is preceded by "all that is visible of..." or "Similarly". No matter how much you would wish otherwise, other people cannot disassociate the preceding phrase without ignoring proper grammar.
I have noted in red a major disconnect on your part. Nowhere in that 3rd paragraph is there the phrase "a model we are trying to see".
Then look up the term "visible" and its use, master misgrammarizer who mocks other for not doing "proper" google searches he doesn't bother to do first.
It is called "rewording for context". It is a tactic used in literature to get a point across, especially when the original text would not make grammatical sense in its sentence structure. It is actually a common practice, and you use it yourself on occasion. If you bothered to read past the part you highlighted, I provided the context of it. But as usual, you stop when you get what you want and ignore the rest.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/30 06:19:43
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.
