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.

Does the "Killshot" stratagem buff one Predator or all 3?

broo wrote:
Does the "Killshot" stratagem buff one Predator or all 3?

The stratagem has Predators'. Apostrophe at the end is plural. So long as they target the qualifying units.

It buffs all three, due to the apostrophe being at the end of the word instead of before the s.

Predators' means all, Predator's would mean just the one.

Interesting that GWs choice of words is usually ridiculous when it comes to ruling, but everyone thinks the apostrophe is in the right spot.

 p5freak wrote:
Interesting that GWs choice of words is usually ridiculous when it comes to ruling, but everyone thinks the apostrophe is in the right spot.

Until GW says otherwise, it is.

 p5freak wrote:
Interesting that GWs choice of words is usually ridiculous when it comes to ruling, but everyone thinks the apostrophe is in the right spot.

Is it, though? I had the impression that it's usually, as in "most of the time", just fine.

nekooni wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Interesting that GWs choice of words is usually ridiculous when it comes to ruling, but everyone thinks the apostrophe is in the right spot.

Is it, though? I had the impression that it's usually, as in "most of the time", just fine.

It's one of those cases where the RaI crowd immediately latch onto it and cry "Loophole abuse it's not intended reeeeee", but completely ignore a) The rule is clear (so long as you know the convoluted rules of English Grammar, which aren't so much rules as a set of vague guidelines stolen from German, French, Latin, Greek, Norse and Manperor knows what else) and b) The fact that it requires you to take 3 Predators (an expensive investment), have them bunched up together (easily multicharged) and cannot be used if you alpha one of the Predators to death.

nekooni wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Interesting that GWs choice of words is usually ridiculous when it comes to ruling, but everyone thinks the apostrophe is in the right spot.

Is it, though? I had the impression that it's usually, as in "most of the time", just fine.

You literally cannot PLAY the game RAW so anybody claiming to do so is flat out lying...GW writing is horrible. They are incapable of writing good clear rules systematically so you need to think hard on what's the RAI behind what they have randomly gobbled.

I'm half convinced GW is trying to prove the idea that monkeys could write shakespeare given time.

nekooni wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Interesting that GWs choice of words is usually ridiculous when it comes to ruling, but everyone thinks the apostrophe is in the right spot.

Is it, though? I had the impression that it's usually, as in "most of the time", just fine.

No, generally speaking its quite the opposite. Most of the time its ridiculous.

 p5freak wrote:
Interesting that GWs choice of words is usually ridiculous when it comes to ruling, but everyone thinks the apostrophe is in the right spot.

Why wouldn't it be? Is there actually any reason to doubt the RAW interpretation of the rule besides "I don't like it" or "I don't understand how plural possessives work in English"?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Interesting that GWs choice of words is usually ridiculous when it comes to ruling, but everyone thinks the apostrophe is in the right spot.

Is it, though? I had the impression that it's usually, as in "most of the time", just fine.

It's one of those cases where the RaI crowd immediately latch onto it and cry "Loophole abuse it's not intended reeeeee", but completely ignore a) The rule is clear (so long as you know the convoluted rules of English Grammar, which aren't so much rules as a set of vague guidelines stolen from German, French, Latin, Greek, Norse and Manperor knows what else) and b) The fact that it requires you to take 3 Predators (an expensive investment), have them bunched up together (easily multicharged) and cannot be used if you alpha one of the Predators to death.

Great strawman, coupled with a bit of insult. 5/7.

I agree that it's supposed to buff all three predators, just to be clear.

And to the people claiming all that GW writes is broken/the game is unplayable: I'd guess it's like 10 rules that could be considered "truly broken", and they're mostly down to being overly pedantic where the intent is pretty obvious - just look at BCBs sig.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Interesting that GWs choice of words is usually ridiculous when it comes to ruling, but everyone thinks the apostrophe is in the right spot.

Is it, though? I had the impression that it's usually, as in "most of the time", just fine.

You literally cannot PLAY the game RAW so anybody claiming to do so is flat out lying...GW writing is horrible. They are incapable of writing good clear rules systematically so you need to think hard on what's the RAI behind what they have randomly gobbled.

I'm half convinced GW is trying to prove the idea that monkeys could write shakespeare given time.

Again: decent strawman. I've not said I play "purely RAW" nor have I claimed that 40k is flawless.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Interesting that GWs choice of words is usually ridiculous when it comes to ruling, but everyone thinks the apostrophe is in the right spot.

Is it, though? I had the impression that it's usually, as in "most of the time", just fine.

It's one of those cases where the RaI crowd immediately latch onto it and cry "Loophole abuse it's not intended reeeeee", but completely ignore a) The rule is clear (so long as you know the convoluted rules of English Grammar, which aren't so much rules as a set of vague guidelines stolen from German, French, Latin, Greek, Norse and Manperor knows what else) and b) The fact that it requires you to take 3 Predators (an expensive investment), have them bunched up together (easily multicharged) and cannot be used if you alpha one of the Predators to death.

Given I’m normally the “RAI crowd” you’re pre-insulting, and that I agree the grammar is clear and buffs shots from all three Preds, I’m unsure who you’re trying to needle there!

It’s very clear from the apostrophe’s location that this affects all three Predators’ shots, and as you say the Stratagem is situational to the point of nigh-on uselessness (deploy three tanks near each other and pray all three survive). Even the fluff text supports buffing all of the shots. I don’t see any intent case at all for claiming otherwise. YMMV.

Omg have I been playing this wrong since the codex came out?...hahaha