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.

 Nilok wrote:
Charistoph, I need to ask, are you trying to argue that the word "behind" cannot be used to describe something intervening in relative to another object?

I am more questioning its use in regards to this instance.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
Charistoph, I need to ask, are you trying to argue that the word "behind" cannot be used to describe something intervening in relative to another object?

I am more questioning its use in regards to this instance.

No, you are arguing for the sake of argument. This has no substance and the rule is clear.

Fragile wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
Charistoph, I need to ask, are you trying to argue that the word "behind" cannot be used to describe something intervening in relative to another object?

I am more questioning its use in regards to this instance.

No, you are arguing for the sake of argument. This has no substance and the rule is clear.

No, I am not. I am trying to apply definitions as I understand them in the context provided. Either what was being presented as the definition is correct, at which point you get behind the model then see, or it is not and the proper reference needs to be provided so they can be taken in the proper context.

It is rather rude to just assume that I am arguing for my own shiggles instead of actually providing the required information.

What proper reference are you talking about I really am confused by your comment? I take a skeptical approach to things, that is I start from the null hypothesis and then test claims one at a time. I would point out that the first claim made has no special status and does not hold simply because no counterclaim can be proven, or even if no counterclaim is made.

So you make the claim that you have to be positioned to the rear of the model. Your support for this is that that is one of the meanings of behind, however, you do not go further than this (unless I missed it). I grant that this is one of the meanings of behind and a possible reading, however in this context I feel the grammatical structure is such that the secondary meaning prevails.

I made the claim that behind has a secondary common meaning of intervening with respect to. I then demonstrated this to be the case with objects with facings. When you didn't like the examples I used I substituted nouns into your own quote, which demonstrate my point. Your response was to say:

"So, what is the actual sentence if the one provided is not the proper one? Are we going to bother addressing it at all?"

And you have followed this up by asking for a "proper reference".

Could you please clarify what you mean as I really don't understand what you are saying and so cannot engage with it. Perhaps if you could rephrase?

Just drop it the two of you.

 Nilok wrote:
Charistoph, I need to ask, are you trying to argue that the word "behind" cannot be used to describe something intervening in relative to another object?

I assume you wouid want to add the qualifier that for the case you describe, "behind" is not being used as a noun. Otherwise, it certainly could be something intervening.

Drager wrote:What proper reference are you talking about I really am confused by your comment? I take a skeptical approach to things, that is I start from the null hypothesis and then test claims one at a time. I would point out that the first claim made has no special status and does not hold simply because no counterclaim can be proven, or even if no counterclaim is made.

Well, the one I originally quoted and then referenced with italices in a later post:

yakface wrote:

Throc wrote:hat is my question two. It hints at the answer being no when it says "for the purposes of determining visibility, a model can see through other models in its own unit." But you would think if that were the case their would be a rule saying so. Also units are suppose to be moving around and stuff and not standing their like its the 1700s so in that case units should be able to fire through another unit.

There doesn't need to be a rule saying so because its true, real line of sight. You get down behind the firing model and if you can see the enemy model then it is 'visible' and can be shot at. The only thing you're allowed to ignore are other models in the firing unit.

So yes, other friendly units do indeed block line of sight, but only if they 100%, completely, totally block line of sight when looking behind absolutely any portion of the firing model. Even the teeniest-tiny gap through a friendly model means you can shoot through them.

In practice, it means you can always fire at your target unless they are completely and totally blocked to the point where you can't see anything at all of them (not even wings, base, etc).

Drager wrote:So you make the claim that you have to be positioned to the rear of the model. Your support for this is that that is one of the meanings of behind, however, you do not go further than this (unless I missed it). I grant that this is one of the meanings of behind and a possible reading, however in this context I feel the grammatical structure is such that the secondary meaning prevails.

And I disagree because of how Yakface used it. The use of 'behind' is a location which is not immediately referencing the model you get behind as being an intervening object, but in relation to the object alone.

Drager wrote:I made the claim that behind has a secondary common meaning of intervening with respect to. I then demonstrated this to be the case with objects with facings. When you didn't like the examples I used I substituted nouns into your own quote, which demonstrate my point. Your response was to say:

"So, what is the actual sentence if the one provided is not the proper one? Are we going to bother addressing it at all?"

And you have followed this up by asking for a "proper reference".

Could you please clarify what you mean as I really don't understand what you are saying and so cannot engage with it. Perhaps if you could rephrase?

I am seeking accuracy to see if the one used by Yakface is the actual quote or how accurate his restate is. I asked for that proper reference before your comment, and would like to have that properly addressed before delving further in to the semantics of the sentence. I'm sorry if that is too complex a concept for you to understand from that perspective.

I see what you mean now! I was assuming you could see the rules like most other people, so that was what was confusing me! I was also combing through my sentences and yours trying to identify 'the one provided' I didn't realise you would be referring to a third party. Makes sense now.

As an aside: I should also clarify that the concept isn't complex at all, however, I didn't understand your phrasing, likely due to the implied knowledge that I didn't have, but that you obviously did and, reasonably, thought I would have. It's a great example of a simple concept being obfuscated by language use actually, a common problem with rules and for the same reason, a lack of shared understanding between the writer and reader.



There you go. It's page 179, bottom right. Thanks for clarifying!

Drager wrote:
I see what you mean now! I was assuming you could see the rules like most other people, so that was what was confusing me! I was also combing through my sentences and yours trying to identify 'the one provided' I didn't realise you would be referring to a third party. Makes sense now.

That's what happens when you start in the middle of a thread without following the train of thought.

Drager wrote:
As an aside: I should also clarify that the concept isn't complex at all, however, I didn't understand your phrasing, likely due to the implied knowledge that I didn't have, but that you obviously did and, reasonably, thought I would have. It's a great example of a simple concept being obfuscated by language use actually, a common problem with rules and for the same reason, a lack of shared understanding between the writer and reader.



There you go. It's page 179, bottom right. Thanks for clarifying!

So Yakface's summation indicates a different relationship with "behind" if you are not already familiar with the original text.

Keep in mind that some people do not like to look up the spoilers nor have access in their stores. Indeed, I have a hard time accepting them especially after what has become known as "The Pancake Edition" on Warseer. "The Pancake Edition" was a series of rumors with what looked like official pages were presented as to what 6th Edition would be. It was very well received and used by some groups for a season because of how well they were written. Some of my local people were also calling it as existing rules, as well. Instead, 6th Edition turned out to be rather different from this rumored ruleset. So, until I can completely confirm from the book, I take some things with salt and ask for confirmation.

I read through the thread before posting, however, my train of thought is naturally different from yours and I didn't have the same focus on yakface's comment. This is, of course, for the same reason I couldn't understand your comment, but in reverse. In that case, I was (reasonably, but inaccurately) assuming a level of knowledge on your part that was absent, much like happened later, but the other way round.

Thanks for keeping this discussion civil, have an exalt for that.

Says nothing about line of sight for charging. Can we at least agree on that? Feel like you guys should stick to 7th where those arguments belong.

No line of sight needed for charging as far as I can tell.

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Just drop it the two of you.

this is the Master Quote all MODs should use on most of these threads