Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

At least when it comes to Open-Topped and Access Points it couldn't be clearer. The entire model (the word hull is not used in that rule!) is an access point, doors are part of the model.

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?

So to sum it up:

Drop Pod doors
* are an access point
* block line of sight to other models
* are not part of the hull when it comes to targeting the Drop Pod

But can you move within 1 inch of the doors of an opposing pod without charging it? Can you move on top of the doors of any pod?

If theyre part of the model, you cannot move on top of them, as yo uhave no rule allowuing you to do so.

 Charistoph wrote:

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".

The BRB uses the indefinite article. "A model" refers to a non-specific model per rules of English already cited.

No where in the 3rd paragraph does it mention "model we are trying to see".



The 3rd paragraph concerns itself with the visibility of what counts as "a model". 'Visible' means "able to be seen", not "we are trying to see". Anything you add beyond "able to be seen" is your reading into the paragraph. You are not allowed to do that. Reading into the paragraph makes your argument invalid.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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"?

The 3rd paragraph makes it very clear what counts as visible on a model. Since we ignore wings, tails, antennae, and decorative items on a model, the 3rd paragraph changes what blocks lines of sight on a model in the way. If the antennae is ignored, it cannot block line of sight.

 Charistoph wrote:

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?"

The 3rd paragraph discusses what is 'able to be seen' of "a model" and addresses a non-specific model generally, per the choice to use an indefinite article (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. What is 'able to be seen of a model' affects what the viewing model can 'see'. The viewing model can't have its line of sight obstructed by parts the BRB has deemed ignored or invisible on a model. An invisible or ignored part of a model is something you can see right through after all.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
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)

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 needs to be new to the reader/listener. "Use A(AN) when talking about a thing which is new, unknown, or introduced to a listener for the first time."

If it's been introduced to the reader before and just new to the paragraph then that does not count. "Use A(AN) when talking about a thing which is new, unknown, or introduced to a listener for the first time."

It looks like you need to do more reading on grammar --> http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If theyre part of the model, you cannot move on top of them, as yo uhave no rule allowuing you to do so.

Yeah, I was thinking in the context of "decorative items" and the like - do you ignore those when trying to get into base/hull contact? How do you get into base contact if decorative crap is in the way and you are not allowed to ignore it for movement purposes?

nekooni wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If theyre part of the model, you cannot move on top of them, as yo uhave no rule allowuing you to do so.

Yeah, I was thinking in the context of "decorative items" and the like - do you ignore those when trying to get into base/hull contact? How do you get into base contact if decorative crap is in the way and you are not allowed to ignore it for movement purposes?

We usually invoke a variation of "Wobbly Model Syndrome" and say "This model is actually here". I keep a few empty bases on hand just in case we need to measure exactly how far something would be if it was actually in the space.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I will stick to what I think the BRB actually says because doing otherwise would render my argument invalid.

Fixed that for you.

You might want to review Tenet 1 and 1a of YMDC since this post is in violation.



It's not just what I think. All you need to do is read the BRB.

Which statement is actually in the BRB?

"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying."

"Sometimes, all that will be visible of the model we are trying to see is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying."

Actually, I have followed Tenet 1 and 1a of YMDC. This was pointing out an opinion of yours, and making it clear it was an opinion and not fact as you are stating it. I have backed it up in all the discussions by pointing out the context of the paragraph, with the links to the previous paragraph and that the subsequent paragraph is still discussing line of sight to a target model. As Charistoph says, the context for this is line of sight to a model, not just whether a model, intervening or not, is invisible. You still haven't given a satisfactory answer on why they would try to address an intervening model being invisible when all you see is the banner, etc. Making a point of the model being invisible makes perfect sense when it is a target model, there's absolutely no need to bring that up for an intervening model. I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Charistoph that it is your reading comprehension skills that are at issue here, and that has clouded your arguments. Refusing to read the rules in context can end up twisting a rule beyond where it should be applied. Charistoph's point about the rules paragraph you cite saying you can't see the model but saying nothing about blocking or not blocking line of sight is a valid point that should help you realize that your interpretation is not correct. But, since you are not reading the section that it in and want to focus on the one statement while ignoring that there are references back to paragraphs that in context mean something other than what you believe, I doubt you'll realize it.

But, there is one side question I have to ask you - since you say the banners don't block line of sight, are you ignoring the decorative items when it comes time to determine if something has 25% cover from the intervening model as well? If you're going to play it wrong, I would hope that you are at least playing it consistently.

nekooni wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

At least when it comes to Open-Topped and Access Points it couldn't be clearer. The entire model (the word hull is not used in that rule!) is an access point, doors are part of the model.

Good point. I misremembered that point.

col_impact wrote:The BRB uses the indefinite article. "A model" refers to a non-specific model per rules of English already cited.

No where in the 3rd paragraph does it mention "model we are trying to see".

The first and third sentence only talks about how much of one model can be seen. Visibility or invisibility of only these specific portions of the model are not ever stated. It is the second sentence with the definite article which removes visibility, and that of the model as a whole.

At best, the only way this paragraph would apply to an intervening model is if only the wings, weapons, tails, decorative items, etc., is visible.

Or in other words, if a Bloodthirster's wing was between my shooter and his target, I only get to ignore the Bloodthirster if all the shooter can see of the Bloodthirster is his wing/weapon/tail, etc.

Carrying that along, the only time I get to ignore the Drop Pod door for Line of Sight is if the only thing I can see of the Drop Pod is said door or its Storm Bolter.

And that is only if one can justify why we are bothering to focus any attention on seeing an intervening model. Context and relevance cannot be ignored. When we are trying to see one model (per the "a" in "a model"), no other model is being referenced. We are only looking to see if one model is visible, not any or all. And it is only that model's bits were are referenced to address, no one else's.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
One other point. There is no order of operations stated or insinuated with Paragraph 3 of Line of Sight. We are not told to consider visibility in any order (consider visibility of intervening models, first, at the same time, etc). In addition, as soon as we are done considering the visibility of one model, we are not told to consider its visibility when being applied to other models.

The context for that operation comes from the previous paragraph which is about making a straight, unblocked line from one model's body to another and the third paragraph starting with, "Sometimes".

So, by considering the visibility of one model when trying to consider another model, you are adding conditions and considerations to the rules of Line of Sight which are not written.

Previously included in Post:
I have attached two files to help explain the difference. Yes, the artistry sucks (speed and a dying mouse do not help things) but that is not the point. The situation is where we are trying to shoot at a banner carrier.

Example 1: is the situation where we would ignore the wing if other model's decorative items mattered to "a model". The one model we are trying to see is blocked by another model's bits whose main body is also hidden.

Example 2: is the situation where it does not matter what "a model" is applying to, the Banner holder is blocked and the only one showing only bits, and we can fully see the main body of the Bloodthirster.

Incorrect. The extent of the view is the view of the enemy model.

So if all that is visible of a model is a weapon, banner, wings, etc then the model is invisible/ignored and the model drawing line of sight can see right through it.

Below are images illustrating how this works.

In the image representing the line of sight situation, the extent of the viewing models view is the space marine body outlined.

So the viewing model sees a wing.

However, if all that is viewed of a model is a wing then the model is invisible/ignored.

Line of sight is established to the space marine as per the second image - the line of sight result.

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. The extent of the view is the view of the enemy model.

So if all that is visible of a model is a weapon, banner, wings, etc then the model is invisible/ignored and the model drawing line of sight can see right through it.

That is adding to what it is saying. Other models' visibility is never addressed in the third paragraph. You are only to consider one model's visibility, as denoted by the singular "a model".

col_impact wrote:
Below are images illustrating how this works.

In the image representing the line of sight situation, the extent of the viewing models view is the space marine body outlined.

So the viewing model sees a wing.

However, if all that is viewed of a model is a wing then the model is invisible/ignored.

Where does it state to consider the actual visibility of other models in the third paragraph? In any of Line of Sight?

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. The extent of the view is the view of the enemy model.

So if all that is visible of a model is a weapon, banner, wings, etc then the model is invisible/ignored and the model drawing line of sight can see right through it.

That is adding to what it is saying. Other models' visibility is never addressed in the third paragraph. You are only to consider one model's visibility, as denoted by the singular "a model".

You are the one reading into the 3rd paragraph. There is no mention of "one model". The paragraph explicitly uses "a model" and we "use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing." See --> http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm

So the 3rd paragraph applies to things that are considered "a model" which of course includes the Bloodthirster.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Below are images illustrating how this works.

In the image representing the line of sight situation, the extent of the viewing models view is the space marine body outlined.

So the viewing model sees a wing.

However, if all that is viewed of a model is a wing then the model is invisible/ignored.

Where does it state to consider the actual visibility of other models in the third paragraph? In any of Line of Sight?

col_impact wrote:
You are the one reading into the 3rd paragraph. There is no mention of "one model". The paragraph explicitly uses "a model" and we "use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing." See --> http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm

So the 3rd paragraph applies to things that are considered "a model" which of course includes the Bloodthirster.

Lack of reading comprehension will not save your argument. The "a model" is indicating non-specific noun, but it also indicating a numerical as well as indicated by the later, singular "he" in the same sentence. No multiple form of a noun is used in this sentence which are used as would be the case for a truly general, global statement. This is further indicated by the use of single definite use of "the model" in the following paragraph.

Do not forget that in grammar, one is not always required to be limited to one aspect of a concept. Multiple aspects can (and often are) in play. Does your fancy googling tell you that you can only use one aspect of "a" at a time?

The concept that "a model" is including all models at the same time is deeply flawed by the lack of other terms in use in the same sentence to support it.

You are using your end desires to justify what grammatical concepts can be used. That is used when you are writing, not when reading.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Where does it state to consider the actual visibility of other models in the third paragraph? In any of Line of Sight?

In the 3rd paragraph itself.

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.

"A model" is not restricted to "a target model" or "an enemy model" or any other restriction.

And yet, it is still used in the singular form which denies your presumption. We are only considering one model at a time when this judgement is being made, not any model nor all models. No other models are mentioned at all when we are considering what we cannot use to see a model.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You are the one reading into the 3rd paragraph. There is no mention of "one model". The paragraph explicitly uses "a model" and we "use A(AN) when you are talking about a thing in general, NOT a specific thing." See --> http://www.englishpage.com/articles/a-an-vs-the.htm

So the 3rd paragraph applies to things that are considered "a model" which of course includes the Bloodthirster.

Lack of reading comprehension will not save your argument. The "a model" is indicating non-specific noun, but it also indicating a numerical as well as indicated by the later, singular "he" in the same sentence. No multiple form of a noun is used in this sentence which are used as would be the case for a truly general, global statement. This is further indicated by the use of single definite use of "the model" in the following paragraph.

Do not forget that in grammar, one is not always required to be limited to one aspect of a concept. Multiple aspects can (and often are) in play. Does your fancy googling tell you that you can only use one aspect of "a" at a time?

The concept that "a model" is including all models at the same time is deeply flawed by the lack of other terms in use in the same sentence to support it.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Where does it state to consider the actual visibility of other models in the third paragraph? In any of Line of Sight?

In the 3rd paragraph itself.

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.

"A model" is not restricted to "a target model" or "an enemy model" or any other restriction.

And yet, it is still used in the singular form which denies your presumption. We are only considering one model at a time when this judgement is being made, not any model. No other models are mentioned at all when we are considering what we cannot use to see a model.

No quantitative measure is being made at all in the paragraph so your insistence on transposing "a" with "one" is incorrect and does not follow English grammar. If the BRB meant "one" they would have stated "one". They did not state "one model" so we use "a model". You have read into the rule. Therefore your argument is invalid.

I will continue to follow English grammar and "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:
No quantitative measure is being made at all in the paragraph so your insistence on transposing "a" with "one" is incorrect and does not follow English grammar. If the BRB meant "one" they would have stated "one". They did not state "one model" so we use "a model". You have read into the rule. Therefore your argument is invalid.

I will continue to follow English grammar and "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

Prove it. Your link does not state this. You have a belief that only this one aspect of using the word "a" can only be referring to this. That is because that is all you want it to be. You then reject out of hand every other aspect of it.

Latter terminology in the sentence and the following sentence afterwards indicate the singular use is being used. How many does "he" refer to? How many does "the model is not visible" refer to?

To quote the page you linked on its fourth point of Use 9:

REMEMBER: You cannot use A(AN) with plural nouns because A(AN) means "one" or "a single".

It does not indicate this as an exclusive aspect. Indeed, none of them are stated as exclusive from the rest.

For proper reading comprehension to work, read beyond the moment of what you want and confirm with things around it.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
No quantitative measure is being made at all in the paragraph so your insistence on transposing "a" with "one" is incorrect and does not follow English grammar. If the BRB meant "one" they would have stated "one". They did not state "one model" so we use "a model". You have read into the rule. Therefore your argument is invalid.

I will continue to follow English grammar and "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

Prove it. Your link does not state this. You have a belief that only this one aspect of using the word "a" can only be referring to this. That is because that is all you want it to be. You then reject out of hand every other aspect of it.

Latter terminology in the sentence and the following sentence afterwards indicate the singular use is being used. How many does "he" refer to? How many does "the model is not visible" refer to?

To quote the page you linked on its fourth point of Use 9:

REMEMBER: You cannot use A(AN) with plural nouns because A(AN) means "one" or "a single".

It does not indicate this as an exclusive aspect. Indeed, none of them are stated as exclusive from the rest.

For proper reading comprehension to work, read beyond the moment of what you want and confirm with things around it.

I don't have to prove anything. I have been adhering to by far the most common use of the indefinite article and there is absolutely no quantitative measure being made at all in the paragraph so we are really only dealing with points being advanced about "a model" in a general and non-specific way which can be relevant to a model in the way or a target model or to the situation multiple times (in other words "sometimes").

In fact we could be dealing with the possibility of cases where the only thing on a model that is visible are 2 banners and 3 weapons which would break your rigid paradigm. Does having 2 weapons as the only thing visible on a model suddenly make the whole model visible where just one weapon visible would have rendered the whole model invisible? Obviously "a weapon" is not being quantitatively restricted.

The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.

col_impact wrote:
I don't have to prove anything. I have been adhering to by far the most common use of the indefinite article and there is absolutely no quantitative measure being made at all in the paragraph so we are really only dealing with points being advanced about "a model" in a general and non-specific way which can be relevant to a model in the way or a target model or to the situation multiple times (in other words "sometimes").

In fact we could be dealing with the possibility of cases where the only thing on a model that is visible are 2 banners and 3 weapons which would break your rigid paradigm. Does having 2 weapons as the only thing visible on a model suddenly make the whole model visible where just one weapon visible would have rendered the whole model invisible? Obviously "a weapon" is not being quantitatively restricted.

The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.

I am not the one with a rigid paradigm, here. You are the one taking only one aspect of the page they reference and only adhering to that while ignoring all other aspects of the page they referenced. You are the one who are only looking at a two word phrase and ignoring everything else in the sentence, paragraph, and section. You are the one who are confusing "a model" with "any model" and/or "all models". You are the one ignoring that "a model" is referred later on in the sentence and paragraph as the singular uses of "he" and "the model".

I am not ignoring the aspect that "a model" is referencing a non-specific aspect, and I have also addressed that several times, and to which you have not properly countered at all (Models are not targeted when they are trying to Infiltrate). The difference is that I am not locked in to only using that use of "a".

As for the Weapons and banners question, apparently so. It is only when all that can be seen is "a weapon, banner, or other ornament", not "any weapon, banner, or other ornament". Also remember, that this is the base rules, and a majority of models on the table will only have 1 Weapon or 1 Banner on the model anyway. The base rules are always written for consideration of the most common model on the table. The later sentence does state that , "wings, tails, and antennae" are also ignored for these purposes, which indicate a plurality, and could be classed as precedence to allow for multiple weapons, banners, etc, to be ignored, but that aspect is not locked in print.

The first time the plurality of models is addressed is in the final sentence which gives a reason for this ruling, "to ensure that models don't get penalized for having impressive...". Now for a relevance question: if the "a model" is referring to "any model" or "all models", how does an intervening model get penalized if it is visible only by its banner, weapon, wing, etc?

Remember, modelling for advantage is a house/tournament rule and not a rule in the rulebook any more. The only time any model would get penalized for visibility of an impressive banner/weapon/etc, is if we were trying to actually see it for some purpose (targetting, possessing special rule, etc), not go around/through it.

I know this is YMDC and all, but why not just agree that the RAW are vague and may not even match the RAI. If a rules argument is going on back and forth this long, it's clearly not a well written rule, and at this point, if I saw you two in a game, I'd ask you to just D6 it or to agree on a house rule (e.g. my previous proposal, or similar). It's getting rather drawn out and certainly too heated.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
I know this is YMDC and all, but why not just agree that the RAW are vague and may not even match the RAI. If a rules argument is going on back and forth this long, it's clearly not a well written rule, and at this point, if I saw you two in a game, I'd ask you to just D6 it or to agree on a house rule (e.g. my previous proposal, or similar). It's getting rather drawn out and certainly too heated.

He will not agree. He thinks that it is perfectly clear in his narrow interpretation, as he has stated numerous times already.

I will not agree, because I need to see the in-game relevance of including something not in context. In that respect, I believe that it is clear that it is only speaking of a model we are trying to see, not one we are not addressing.

It is doubtful that he and I will ever have a game, for many reasons. But also remember the Tenets, "7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates."

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I don't have to prove anything. I have been adhering to by far the most common use of the indefinite article and there is absolutely no quantitative measure being made at all in the paragraph so we are really only dealing with points being advanced about "a model" in a general and non-specific way which can be relevant to a model in the way or a target model or to the situation multiple times (in other words "sometimes").

In fact we could be dealing with the possibility of cases where the only thing on a model that is visible are 2 banners and 3 weapons which would break your rigid paradigm. Does having 2 weapons as the only thing visible on a model suddenly make the whole model visible where just one weapon visible would have rendered the whole model invisible? Obviously "a weapon" is not being quantitatively restricted.

The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.

I am not the one with a rigid paradigm, here. You are the one taking only one aspect of the page they reference and only adhering to that while ignoring all other aspects of the page they referenced. You are the one who are only looking at a two word phrase and ignoring everything else in the sentence, paragraph, and section. You are the one who are confusing "a model" with "any model" and/or "all models". You are the one ignoring that "a model" is referred later on in the sentence and paragraph as the singular uses of "he" and "the model".

I am not ignoring the aspect that "a model" is referencing a non-specific aspect, and I have also addressed that several times, and to which you have not properly countered at all (Models are not targeted when they are trying to Infiltrate). The difference is that I am not locked in to only using that use of "a".

As for the Weapons and banners question, apparently so. It is only when all that can be seen is "a weapon, banner, or other ornament", not "any weapon, banner, or other ornament". Also remember, that this is the base rules, and a majority of models on the table will only have 1 Weapon or 1 Banner on the model anyway. The base rules are always written for consideration of the most common model on the table. The later sentence does state that , "wings, tails, and antennae" are also ignored for these purposes, which indicate a plurality, and could be classed as precedence to allow for multiple weapons, banners, etc, to be ignored, but that aspect is not locked in print.

The first time the plurality of models is addressed is in the final sentence which gives a reason for this ruling, "to ensure that models don't get penalized for having impressive...". Now for a relevance question: if the "a model" is referring to "any model" or "all models", how does an intervening model get penalized if it is visible only by its banner, weapon, wing, etc?

Remember, modelling for advantage is a house/tournament rule and not a rule in the rulebook any more. The only time any model would get penalized for visibility of an impressive banner/weapon/etc, is if we were trying to actually see it for some purpose (targetting, possessing special rule, etc), not go around/through it.

Incorrect. The rule of the 3rd paragraph applies itself for each instance of "a model" or "a weapon" and this is patently obvious.

For example,

"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal."

now does that mean the same as . . .

"During one soccer match, one player is allowed to score one goal"

or to put it even more clearly according to your argument . . .

"During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal"

I guess you don't allow the scoring of goals in any soccer match after the first one of the season, or any player to score any goal after the first player scores the only goal that can be scored for that critical first game of the season. This underscores that you are really transposing "a" with "only one" which as my example clearly shows is specialized usage.



So to recap, your argument is . . .

"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal." = "During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal"

whereas actually . . .

"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal." = "During soccer matches, players are allowed to score goals." (the sentences are identical in meaning and differ only stylistically - the writer chose to express the idea with the plural instead of the singular in the second sentence)


I hope this shows to you that the burden of proof is squarely on you to show a quantitative measure or restriction is being explicitly required by the rule.

I know at this point anyone reading this thread knows the burden of proof is on you on this point. You have literally dug your yourself into a hole with your latest posts.

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. The rule of the 3rd paragraph applies itself for each instance of "a model" or "a weapon" and this is patently obvious.

For example,

"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal."

now does that mean the same as . . .

"During one soccer match, one player is allowed to score one goal"

or to put it even more clearly according to your argument . . .

"During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal"

I guess you don't allow the scoring of goals in any soccer match after the first one of the season, or any player to score any goal after the first player scores the only goal that can be scored for that critical first game of the season. This underscores that you are really transposing "a" with "only one" which as my example clearly shows is specialized usage.



So to recap, your argument is . . .

"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal." = "During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal"

whereas actually . . .

"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal." = "During soccer matches, players are allowed to score goals." (the sentences are identical in meaning and differ only stylistically - the writer chose to express the idea with the plural instead of the singular in the second sentence)


I hope this shows to you that the burden of proof is squarely on you to show a quantitative measure or restriction is being explicitly required by the rule.

I know at this point anyone reading this thread knows the burden of proof is on you on this point. You have literally dug your yourself into a hole with your latest posts.

And you ignore my points, again, and then make assumptions as to what others are thinking. Awesome. Only a lack of reading comprehension supports your statements, as well as ignoring the reminders of your own source.

You did not address the context provided by the rest of the paragraph, but continued to focus on the one phrase to the exclusion of all else. Quantitative measure is applied by the applying the context of "he" and "the model". This leads you to present strawmen which do not properly relate to the situation as described in the related section.

Your example is also interesting, since, only one player can actually score one goal at a time. It is difficult for two players to kick the ball at the same time, after all. In addition, how would you propose that a player be able to score multiple goals at the same time? Context and relevance are still being applied in these situations here. I'm sure that you've also removed all other context from the soccer rules that actually state these things just as you continue to ignore and "remove" the everything from the Line of Sight rules which provides the context and relevance to your assumptions.

You did not address the lack of timing or lack of stated inclusion of intervening models. You want it to be that way, so you only look at grammatical rules which support your statements and ignore all others. Where does it state in the rules that we consider the visibility of intervening models? Not IF they are visible, but that we are to actually apply it?

 Charistoph wrote:

And you ignore my points, again, and then make assumptions as to what others are thinking. Awesome. Only a lack of reading comprehension supports your statements, as well as ignoring the reminders of your own source.

You did not address the context provided by the rest of the paragraph, but continued to focus on the one phrase to the exclusion of all else. Quantitative measure is applied by the applying the context of "he" and "the model". This leads you to present strawmen which do not properly relate to the situation as described in the related section.

Your example is also interesting, since, only one player can actually score one goal at a time. It is difficult for two players to kick the ball at the same time, after all. In addition, how would you propose that a player be able to score multiple goals at the same time? Context and relevance are still being applied in these situations here. I'm sure that you've also removed all other context from the soccer rules that actually state these things just as you continue to ignore and "remove" the everything from the Line of Sight rules which provides the context and relevance to your assumptions.

Sigh.

"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal" reads fine as is and is equivalent in meaning to "during soccer matches, players are allowed to score goals" as I have already shown.

"During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal" has had its sense all butchered up. Are we talking about only one soccer match on this day or in the season? Are we talking about only one player being allowed to score? Do other players get to score at all or are they unrestricted and able to score more than one goal? Are we talking about only the ability to score over the entire game or are we going to add to the sentence "at a time" to try make sense of it. Transposing "a" for "only one" introduces all sorts of ambiguity and logical problems. If you have to start adding things to the sentence to untangle the mess you have made of it by transposing then obviously you changed the meaning.

"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal" reads clearly and requires no such untangling. All you have to do is not transpose "a" for "only one".

I proved you wrong on your use of the indefinite article. Still need more proof?

1) "A man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."

2) "Only one man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."

These two sets of sentences obviously mean two very different things. In fact, the second set of sentences is logically impossible.


1) "A girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"

2) "Only one girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"

These two sets of sentences obviously mean two very different things. In fact, the second set of sentences is logically impossible.

"A" only transposes to "only one" in specialized uses of the indefinite article.

You are failing to accept the obvious.. This is fine by me. It only broadcasts loudly to the thread how problematic your line of reasoning is.

 Charistoph wrote:

You did not address the lack of timing or lack of stated inclusion of intervening models. You want it to be that way, so you only look at grammatical rules which support your statements and ignore all others. Where does it state in the rules that we consider the visibility of intervening models? Not IF they are visible, but that we are to actually apply it?

"Sometimes all that will be visible of a model will be. . ."

"Sometimes" is the timing of the rule which can happen any number of times obviously.

Also the 3rd paragraph discusses "a model" which obviously would include a model in the way as well as a target model. The rule is not being specific.

col_impact wrote:
Sigh.

"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal" reads fine as is and is equivalent in meaning to "during soccer matches, players are allowed to score goals" as I have already shown.

"During only one soccer match, only one player is allowed to score only one goal" has had its sense all butchered up. Are we talking about only one soccer match on this day or in the season? Are we talking about only one player being allowed to score? Do other players get to score at all or are they unrestricted and able to score more than one goal? Are we talking about only the ability to score over the entire game or are we going to add to the sentence "at a time" to try make sense of it. Transposing "a" for "only one" introduces all sorts of ambiguity and logical problems. If you have to start adding things to the sentence to untangle the mess you have made of it by transposing then obviously you changed the meaning.

"During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal" reads clearly and requires no such untangling. All you have to do is not transpose "a" for "only one".

I proved you wrong on your use of the indefinite article. Still need more proof?

1) "A man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."

2) "Only one man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."

These two sets of sentences obviously mean two very different things. In fact, the second set of sentences is logically impossible.


1) "A girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"

2) "Only one girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"

These two sets of sentences obviously mean two very different things. In fact, the second set of sentences is logically impossible.

"A" only transposes to "only one" in specialized uses of the indefinite article.

You are failing to accept the obvious.. This is fine by me. It only broadcasts loudly to the thread how problematic your line of reasoning is.

Ah, so your reading incomprehension kicks in and causes you to misrepresent things again.

Who stated "a" means "only one"? That's only been you just now as a strawman. I stated that "since, only one player can actually score one goal at a time. It is difficult for two players to kick the ball at the same time, after all. In addition, how would propose that a player be able to score multiple goals at the same time?" You took what I stated out of context, thinking I was doing a rewrite (I wasn't), just like you have taken this "a model" out of context.

Did you forget the reference in the source you linked, again?

REMEMBER: You cannot use A(AN) with plural nouns because A(AN) means "one" or "a single"

I do not recall ever stating, transposing, or referencing "a" as being "only one", that is an addition you fabricated. To properly write your counter-examples:
1) "A man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."
2) "One man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."

1) "A girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"
2) "One girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"

Those number 2's are reading far more sensibly now, aren't they?

Not to mention, the rules in the third paragraph are providing a standard of determination, not a base line of rules. So, "During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal.", would be in the introduction. The portion we're talking about is about the player's eligibility to score a goal in the first place, such as from out of bounds, such as "Sometimes, a player that is out of bounds will kick the ball in to a goal. In these instances, this is not a scoring goal".

So, again, the quantitative aspect is still in use, not just because of "a", but also because of "he" and "the". The concept of "a" being interpreted as "any" or "all" is just a creation in your mind, and counter to what is actually written via the grammar of the entire paragraph.

col_impact wrote:
"Sometimes all that will be visible of a model will be. . ."

"Sometimes" is the timing of the rule which can happen any number of times obviously.

Also the 3rd paragraph discusses "a model" which obviously would include a model in the way as well as a target model. The rule is not being specific.

Why? Where is the rule that we would we consider an intervening model first or at the same time for this determination? Where does it state to not consider models invisible by this standard for other models?

This is the timing I am speaking of, when to be considering any other model besides the one we are trying to see.

For context and relevance, the timing of this paragraph is right after the section of drawing a straight, unblocked line from the body of one model to another. The next paragraph does not remove this context from the instructions. Admittedly, it does not specifically address it, either. The concept of relevance comes in to play to bring it all together, though, if you believe in that kind of thing.

 Charistoph wrote:

I do not recall ever stating, transposing, or referencing "a" as being "only one", that is an addition you fabricated. To properly write your counter-examples:
1) "A man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."
2) "One man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."

1) "A girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"
2) "One girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"

Those number 2's are reading far more sensibly now, aren't they?

Not to mention, the rules in the third paragraph are providing a standard of determination, not a base line of rules. So, "During a soccer match, a player is allowed to score a goal.", would be in the introduction. The portion we're talking about is about the player's eligibility to score a goal in the first place, such as from out of bounds, such as "Sometimes, a player that is out of bounds will kick the ball in to a goal. In these instances, this is not a scoring goal".

So, again, the quantitative aspect is still in use, not just because of "a", but also because of "he" and "the". The concept of "a" being interpreted as "any" or "all" is just a creation in your mind, and counter to what is actually written via the grammar of the entire paragraph.

Cool, so you admit there is no quantitative restriction (i.e. no sense of "only one"), so we are simply referring to however many instances of "a model" there are at the bar so to speak, and we are speaking of "a model" non-specifically in a general way as I have been saying all along. You have basically flip-flopped since your argument got backed into a hole, but I will go ahead and take that as the closest thing you will give me as a concession on the point.

So we resolve the 3rd paragraph dealing with each instance of "a model" and each instance of "a weapon".

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
"Sometimes all that will be visible of a model will be. . ."

"Sometimes" is the timing of the rule which can happen any number of times obviously.

Also the 3rd paragraph discusses "a model" which obviously would include a model in the way as well as a target model. The rule is not being specific.

Why? Where is the rule that we would we consider an intervening model first or at the same time for this determination? Where does it state to not consider models invisible by this standard for other models?

This is the timing I am speaking of, when to be considering any other model besides the one we are trying to see.

For context and relevance, the timing of this paragraph is right after the section of drawing a straight, unblocked line from the body of one model to another. The next paragraph does not remove this context from the instructions. Admittedly, it does not specifically address it, either. The concept of relevance comes in to play to bring it all together, though, if you believe in that kind of thing.

As you admit, the 3rd paragraph is completely non-specific as to what "a model" is, therefore it applies generally, unless you are claiming there is a grammatical or logical flaw on GWs part (possible but not provable and you would then be arguing RAI)

So you check line of sight. The extent of that view is the extent of the enemy model. The line of sight will see "a model". Whether its a target model or a model in the way the 3rd paragraph adjusts what is visible or ignored just the same.

That is literally what the rule tells us to do. I don't know if following the rules as they are written is your kind of thing, but it is definitely my kind of thing.

The fact that this argument is still going on is proof that GW writes gak rules.

Might I suggest X-Wing or Infinity.

Mitochondria wrote:
The fact that this argument is still going on is proof that GW writes gak rules.

Might I suggest X-Wing or Infinity.

Exactly. Why not go play a good old round of rugby instead!

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
So, again, the quantitative aspect is still in use, not just because of "a", but also because of "he" and "the". The concept of "a" being interpreted as "any" or "all" is just a creation in your mind, and counter to what is actually written via the grammar of the entire paragraph.

Cool, so you admit there is no quantitative restriction (i.e. no sense of "only one"), so we are simply referring to however many instances of "a model" there are at the bar so to speak, and we are speaking of "a model" non-specifically in a general way as I have been saying all along. You have basically flip-flopped since your argument got backed into a hole, but I will go ahead and take that as the closest thing you will give me as a concession on the point.

So we resolve the 3rd paragraph dealing with each instance of "a model" and each instance of "a weapon".

Your failure at reading comprehension continues or you have deliberately ignored what I have said, which leads your lies to continue. I did not flip-flop. I corrected.

The quantitative aspect has never been referred to as "only one". The problem is that by using quantitative indicators in the paragraph does not tell us to consider beyond the one. We are not told to consider this standard for other models while doing it for one. We are not told to consider all models when we are considering this standard for one.

col_impact wrote:
As you admit, the 3rd paragraph is completely non-specific as to what "a model" is, therefore it applies generally, unless you are claiming there is a grammatical or logical flaw on GWs part (possible but not provable and you would then be arguing RAI)

Taking what I said out of context does not prove you correct. Taking only a portion of what I said as all I said does not prove you correct. All it demonstrates either your lack of reading comprehension or your deliberate decision to only consider what what you want and ignore the rest.

Nothing in "a model" is to be considered as "any and all models". If it is to be considered "any model", "any model" would be used. If it is to be considered "all models", then the singular aspect of "a", "he", and "the" would not have been used and "all models" would have been used.

All we are to consider is one model, and this after having been instructed to create a straight, unblocked line between one model and another.

col_impact wrote:
So you check line of sight. The extent of that view is the extent of the enemy model. The line of sight will see "a model". Whether its a target model or a model in the way the 3rd paragraph adjusts what is visible or ignored just the same.

That is literally what the rule tells us to do. I don't know if following the rules as they are written is your kind of thing, but it is definitely my kind of thing.

Why? Where is the rule that we would we consider an intervening model first or at the same time for this determination? Where does it state to not consider models invisible by this standard for other models?

You have quoted nothing, but have only used your own limited interpretation of grammar of two words while ignoring everything else. This is supposed to be a permissive ruleset. You need rules to enact these steps. These rules are not as you have suggested. The third paragraph is only concerned with one model's visibility, not any, and not all.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
So, again, the quantitative aspect is still in use, not just because of "a", but also because of "he" and "the". The concept of "a" being interpreted as "any" or "all" is just a creation in your mind, and counter to what is actually written via the grammar of the entire paragraph.

Cool, so you admit there is no quantitative restriction (i.e. no sense of "only one"), so we are simply referring to however many instances of "a model" there are at the bar so to speak, and we are speaking of "a model" non-specifically in a general way as I have been saying all along. You have basically flip-flopped since your argument got backed into a hole, but I will go ahead and take that as the closest thing you will give me as a concession on the point.

So we resolve the 3rd paragraph dealing with each instance of "a model" and each instance of "a weapon".

Your failure at reading comprehension continues or you have deliberately ignored what I have said, which leads your lies to continue. I did not flip-flop. I corrected.

The quantitative aspect has never been referred to as "only one". The problem is that by using quantitative indicators in the paragraph does not tell us to consider beyond the one. We are not told to consider this standard for other models while doing it for one. We are not told to consider all models when we are considering this standard for one.

My bad. You really didn't flip-flop. You just never stopped with the "only one" meaning of "a" even though you led on that you did. If you are 'not considering beyond the one' then you are considering "only one" or "just one" or "exactly one" which are all quantitative restrictions.

Are you adding a restriction (ie "only one" or "not considering beyond the one") or not? The BRB is required to explicitly state a restriction or else there is no restriction. And you are not allowed to read in a restriction where there is none.

Remember, it has already been proven that the 3rd paragraph is dealing with "a model" generally and not specifically.



When someone asks you . . . "Do you have a gun on your person, yes or no?" . . . the answer is "yes" if you have 3 guns. That's because the question is being asked generally and you have 3 instances of "a gun" on your person.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
As you admit, the 3rd paragraph is completely non-specific as to what "a model" is, therefore it applies generally, unless you are claiming there is a grammatical or logical flaw on GWs part (possible but not provable and you would then be arguing RAI)

Taking what I said out of context does not prove you correct. Taking only a portion of what I said as all I said does not prove you correct. All it demonstrates either your lack of reading comprehension or your deliberate decision to only consider what what you want and ignore the rest.

Nothing in "a model" is to be considered as "any and all models". If it is to be considered "any model", "any model" would be used. If it is to be considered "all models", then the singular aspect of "a", "he", and "the" would not have been used and "all models" would have been used.

All we are to consider is one model, and this after having been instructed to create a straight, unblocked line between one model and another.

The 3rd paragraph uses "a model" in a general and non-specific way so the use of "a model" applies to any instance of "a model" as has already been shown. You have to show that the 3rd paragraph is specifically talking about a particular model already mentioned. However you won't be able to show that since what can be shown is the opposite. The BRB deliberately switches from "the target's body" to "a model" since the BRB explicitly wants to advance points that apply non-specifically to any instance of "a model"

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
So you check line of sight. The extent of that view is the extent of the enemy model. The line of sight will see "a model". Whether its a target model or a model in the way the 3rd paragraph adjusts what is visible or ignored just the same.

That is literally what the rule tells us to do. I don't know if following the rules as they are written is your kind of thing, but it is definitely my kind of thing.

Why? Where is the rule that we would we consider an intervening model first or at the same time for this determination? Where does it state to not consider models invisible by this standard for other models?

You have quoted nothing, but have only used your own limited interpretation of grammar of two words while ignoring everything else. This is supposed to be a permissive ruleset. You need rules to enact these steps. These rules are not as you have suggested. The third paragraph is only concerned with one model's visibility, not any, and not all.

The rule in the 3rd paragraph deals with "a model" non-specifically and generally and so gives permission to each instance of "a model" generally. You are the one who has no permission to implement the rule in a more specific way than that. The 3rd paragraph makes no mention of any quantitative restriction on "a model" or anything more specific than "a model".

col_impact wrote:
My bad. You really didn't flip-flop. You just never stopped with the "only one" meaning of "a" even though you led on that you did. If you are 'not considering beyond the one' then you are considering "only one" or "just one" or "exactly one" which are all quantitative restrictions.

Incorrect. I never added "only" for this paragraph, that was purely your invention. I am referring to where are we told to consider beyond "one" at a time in this paragraph. Update your reading comprehension.

col_impact wrote:
Are you adding a restriction (ie "only one" or "not considering beyond the one") or not? The BRB is required to explicitly state a restriction or else there is no restriction. And you are not allowed to read in a restriction where there is none.

I am not adding a restriction. I am asking where we are informed to extend this beyond one at a time. Remember, under a permissive ruleset, lack of permission is as much a restriction as being told you cannot do something. I have stated this numerous times now. Do you understand this?

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

Spamming the same thing over and over again that I did not accept as sufficient before does nothing to convince me. It hasn't before, it will not do so now.

col_impact wrote:
The 3rd paragraph uses "a model" in a general and non-specific way so the use of "a model" applies to any instance of "a model" as has already been shown. You have to show that the 3rd paragraph is specifically talking about a particular model already mentioned. However you won't be able to show that since what can be shown is the opposite. The BRB deliberately switches from "the target's body" to "a model" since the BRB explicitly wants to advance points that apply non-specifically to any instance of "a model"

It is only your assumption that it is this and only this. You have ignored everything else from your own source.

Context is provided by the previous paragraph (as is standard in instruction sets), but if you don't look beyond the only phrase you are looking at, you wouldn't know that. Relevance and additional instructions are needed in order to apply this to all models at the same time. You do not have them.

col_impact wrote:
The rule in the 3rd paragraph deals with "a model" non-specifically and generally and so gives permission to each instance of "a model" generally. You are the one who has no permission to implement the rule in a more specific way than that. The 3rd paragraph makes no mention of any quantitative restriction on "a model" or anything more specific than "a model".

Yes, "a model", which is still singular, as in only the model we are considering. It also refers to "the model", which is still singular. In this, we still are not told to consider OTHER models' visibility in this context. Lack of instruction means lack of permission, which means it is restricted.

These questions do not have a quotable answer:
Where is the rule that we would we consider an intervening model first or at the same time for this determination?

Where does it state to not consider models invisible by this standard for other models?

Remember, at the point of this set of instructions, we were just told to consider a straight, unbroken line between one model and another. The instructions at this point then tells you what to consider as visible. The instructions following it tell you to consider things from the model's PoV if needed.

Instructions are usually a little different from normal English. You go from one step to another, and they are often new paragraphs for each new step or concept being introduced associated with the previous set of instructions. This is prevalent throughout the rulebook. If you notice, the rulebook does not follow approved paragraph format of several sentences.

At the point we are told to consider the visibility of "a model" it is right after making an attempt at making a connection between two models. This is the context of which we are to consider visibility. No other model is mentioned in considering this visibility, and it is just one at a time.

[quote=col_impact 703020 8935715 null
No quantitative measure is being made at all in the paragraph so your insistence on transposing "a" with "one" is incorrect and does not follow English grammar. If the BRB meant "one" they would have stated "one". They did not state "one model" so we use "a model". You have read into the rule. Therefore your argument is invalid.

I will continue to follow English grammar and "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

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
My bad. You really didn't flip-flop. You just never stopped with the "only one" meaning of "a" even though you led on that you did. If you are 'not considering beyond the one' then you are considering "only one" or "just one" or "exactly one" which are all quantitative restrictions.

Incorrect. I never added "only" for this paragraph, that was purely your invention. I am referring to where are we told to consider beyond "one" at a time in this paragraph. Update your reading comprehension.

col_impact wrote:
Are you adding a restriction (ie "only one" or "not considering beyond the one") or not? The BRB is required to explicitly state a restriction or else there is no restriction. And you are not allowed to read in a restriction where there is none.

I am not adding a restriction. I am asking where we are informed to extend this beyond one at a time. Remember, under a permissive ruleset, lack of permission is as much a restriction as being told you cannot do something. I have stated this numerous times now. Do you understand this?

The 3rd paragraph says "a model" which is not restricted. You are reading a restriction into the 3rd paragraph. You are saying that using "a" means "not extending beyond one" or "not more than one" or really "only one". This is a specialized use of "a" and not the common use and you have failed to prove that the 3rd paragraph is using the specialized use.

1) "A man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."
2) "Not more than one man was sitting at the bar. He shook the hand of the man sitting next to him at the bar."

Those sentences obviously mean different things. In fact the second sentence is logically impossible. If you add a restriction to "a" you have deviated from the common use of "a" and are using a specialized case of "a"

Similarly,

1) "A girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"
2) "Not more than one girl was at the party. Her name was Theresa. She went over and talked to the 3 other girls at the party"

Those sentences obviously mean different things. In fact the second sentence is logically impossible. If you add a restriction to "a" you have deviated from the common use of "a" and are using a specialized case of "a"

Consider:

You have 3 weapons on your person.

A computer terminal asks you "do you have a weapon on your person? select yes or no".
The answer is yes. There are 3 instances of "a model" on your person.
The answer is not no since the computer terminal did not refer to "only one weapon" just "a weapon"

There are any number of instances of "a model" for a line of sight check. The BRB has intentionally told us that "a model" is to be generally and non-specifically understood, so "all that will be visible of a model" could refer to a model in the way or a target model.

As I have already proven, the use of "a" does not restrict the number of instances of "a model" the rule can affect. Each instance of "a model" in the situation is considered.

Not sure why you are reading "at a time" into the rule when the rule actually reads "sometimes" which can be any number of times and "these cases" rather than "this case". In fact the use of "these cases" debunks your "a=restricted to one" read entirely since your read would only produce a single case and not multiple cases.

Stop reading restrictions where there are none and stop adding stuff to the rules that is not there. Until your stop doing that, your argument is invalid.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The 3rd paragraph uses "a model" in a general and non-specific way so the use of "a model" applies to any instance of "a model" as has already been shown. You have to show that the 3rd paragraph is specifically talking about a particular model already mentioned. However you won't be able to show that since what can be shown is the opposite. The BRB deliberately switches from "the target's body" to "a model" since the BRB explicitly wants to advance points that apply non-specifically to any instance of "a model"

It is only your assumption that it is this and only this. You have ignored everything else from your own source.

Context is provided by the previous paragraph (as is standard in instruction sets), but if you don't look beyond the only phrase you are looking at, you wouldn't know that. Relevance and additional instructions are needed in order to apply this to all models at the same time. You do not have them.

I don't have a problem with context. The context is drawing a line of sight from a viewing model through any number of models in the way to a target model. In the 3rd paragraph, the BRB deliberately chooses to advance points about the visibility of "a model" and not "a target model". The only model we can exclude at that point is the viewing model and that is by virtue of the logic of the situation and not grammar.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rule in the 3rd paragraph deals with "a model" non-specifically and generally and so gives permission to each instance of "a model" generally. You are the one who has no permission to implement the rule in a more specific way than that. The 3rd paragraph makes no mention of any quantitative restriction on "a model" or anything more specific than "a model".

Yes, "a model", which is still singular, as in only the model we are considering. It also refers to "the model", which is still singular. In this, we still are not told to consider OTHER models' visibility in this context. Lack of instruction means lack of permission, which means it is restricted.

Incorrect.



Visibility is discussed in the 3rd paragraph. It refers to "a model" and so can refer to any model pertinent to the situation. A model in the way is a model that is visibly in the way. Similarly, proximity or direction alone does not allow a model to block line of sight, a model must visibly block line of sight.

 Charistoph wrote:

These questions do not have a quotable answer:
Where is the rule that we would we consider an intervening model first or at the same time for this determination?

The 3rd paragraph says "a model" so no distinction between a model in the way or a target model. Do you see a distinction being made in the 3rd paragraph? Why do you keep insisting on adding your own words to the sentences in the BRB? As long as you keep adding your own words to the rules your argument will be invalid.

 Charistoph wrote:

Where does it state to not consider models invisible by this standard for other models?

The extent of the view is the view of the enemy of model. The rule is only concerned sorting out the visibility of models that are along that view. And in fact, any models not along that view might as well be considered invisible for the line of sight check since they are simply not relevant.

 Charistoph wrote:

Remember, at the point of this set of instructions, we were just told to consider a straight, unbroken line between one model and another. The instructions at this point then tells you what to consider as visible. The instructions following it tell you to consider things from the model's PoV if needed.

Instructions are usually a little different from normal English. You go from one step to another, and they are often new paragraphs for each new step or concept being introduced associated with the previous set of instructions. This is prevalent throughout the rulebook. If you notice, the rulebook does not follow approved paragraph format of several sentences.

At the point we are told to consider the visibility of "a model" it is right after making an attempt at making a connection between two models. This is the context of which we are to consider visibility. No other model is mentioned in considering this visibility, and it is just one at a time.

Incorrect.

There is no mention of "at a time". The rule actually says "sometimes" and "these cases" so there can be any number of times and any number of cases.

Also . . .



There is quite obviously more than two models in the situation. And the BRB deliberately chose to use "a model" rather than "the target model".

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect.

Spoiler:

Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of the enemy – they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy).

For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.

Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying.

Visibility is discussed in the 3rd paragraph. It refers to "a model" and so can refer to any model pertinent to the situation. A model in the way is a model that is visibly in the way. Similarly, proximity or direction alone does not allow a model to block line of sight, a model must visibly block line of sight.

If it was "any model", it would say, "any model". If it was every model, it would say, "every model". It is only "a model", singular, though, so this interpretation that we are to consider any and all models at the same time puts a lie to the singular use.

Other models in this situation are classed in the same group as battlefield terrain. We are not told to consider those other models' visibility at the time of the 3rd Paragraph. Other models need to be considered, but only the same way as battlefield terrain, as indicated by the "and" preceding "other models". Again, you focus on two words when there is so much more to be considered in all of this.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

These questions do not have a quotable answer:
Where is the rule that we would we consider an intervening model first or at the same time for this determination?

The 3rd paragraph says "a model" so no distinction between a model in the way or a target model. Do you see a distinction being made in the 3rd paragraph? Why do you keep insisting on adding your own words to the sentences in the BRB? As long as you keep adding your own words to the rules your argument will be invalid.

I am not adding words in this, I am asking where words are that would support your statement. This is an exercise in considering context and relevance of the words surrounding the question. You are the on asking us to consider multiple models at the same time when we are only told to consider "a model".

"A model" does not always mean "any model", context must still be considered. "A model" definitely does not mean "all models" or "every model". We are told to consider one model at the time. So, where does it state to consider other models in this? It does not.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Where does it state to not consider models invisible by this standard for other models?

The extent of the view is the view of the enemy of model. The rule is only concerned sorting out the visibility of models that are along that view. And in fact, any models not along that view might as well be considered invisible for the line of sight check since they are simply not relevant.

"Enemy model" is not stated. One is not always looking for a view of an "enemy model". As stated before, we could be looking at a possessor of a Special Rule which affects all models who can draw Line of Sight to it. In these cases, a significant portion of them are actually friendly models.

If the rule was "only concerned (with) sorting out the visibility of models that are along that view", then, as stated before, words like "any" and "all" would have been used rather than "a". The third paragraph is only considering one model at a time. The inclusion of other models in this is beyond its constructed paradigm.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Remember, at the point of this set of instructions, we were just told to consider a straight, unbroken line between one model and another. The instructions at this point then tells you what to consider as visible. The instructions following it tell you to consider things from the model's PoV if needed.

Instructions are usually a little different from normal English. You go from one step to another, and they are often new paragraphs for each new step or concept being introduced associated with the previous set of instructions. This is prevalent throughout the rulebook. If you notice, the rulebook does not follow approved paragraph format of several sentences.

At the point we are told to consider the visibility of "a model" it is right after making an attempt at making a connection between two models. This is the context of which we are to consider visibility. No other model is mentioned in considering this visibility, and it is just one at a time.

Incorrect.

There is no mention of "at a time". The rule actually says "sometimes" and "these cases" so there can be any number of times and any number of cases.

Only if one chooses to ignore the context presented earlier in the section. We are only told to be considering "a model" at this point in the writing of the rules, not "all models", nor "any models".

Sometimes is including the differences between "Hey, you're out in the open" and "Hey, all I can see is your gun!". Remember, context and and relevance. I know these are advanced concepts for some, and it is just easier to focus on one or two words to make a judgement on it, but it actually flows better when all such things are brought together instead of piecemeal or just picking and choosing what you will pay attention to.