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.

Ditto to the above questions and statements by Cornishman.

 Stux wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The only reason those rules affect all models in the unit is because the rule says "whilst their unit is within".

units whilst their unit is within 6"

v.s.

units that are within 3"

these are synonymous.

They are only synonymous when you snip it out of context like that. With the full sentence it is ambiguous whether the 'units' is what the 'that' is referring to or the models earlier in the sentence.

It is ambiguous.

The syntax of the rest of each ability is identical ... so yes, I only provided snippets lol. So if you really want to argue it's ambiguous, please provide how it is and to further that please provide what makes the Rites of Battle ability non-ambigious v.s. the wulfen stone ability being ambiguous considering they share the same wording and syntax excluding the final snippets I pointed out. "That" can only refer to the subject that it is attached to, because that's how grammar works. In spoken language a linguistic pause between "units" and "that" would change that fact and we represent such pauses with commas when writing. Unless you can provide some grammatical rule that contradicts the fact that a subject is not automatically attached to the immediate predicate ?

At this point I think its pretty conclusive how the ability reads RAW and how it was intended to operate. For those still arguing ambiguity I really suggest revisiting an English grammar class as when written out there is no way to interpret this as ambiguous, or at least, no way of interpreting this as models only,,,, because thats not how written language works. I am sorry it doesn't say what you want it to, but you can't just call every rule you don't like ambiguous because you don't understand how commas and linguistic pauses work when reading a sentence.

I can call it ambiguous when it is though, like this one. You can keep making the same arguments all you like, it doesn't change that there are 2 ways to parse the sentence logically.

They should have used commas or worded it differently, then it wouldn't be ambiguous.

 Stux wrote:
I can call it ambiguous when it is though, like this one. You can keep making the same arguments all you like, it doesn't change that there are 2 ways to parse the sentence logically.

They should have used commas or worded it differently, then it wouldn't be ambiguous.

This would be an example of simply, and only asserting that both interpretations can logically be reached without actually explaining the how and the why behind this statement (i.e. how the sentenced has been correctly parsed such to reach the contested interpretation).

Would it be possible to expand upon this to explain the derivation such that is possible to correctly parse the sentence to ‘models in <applicable> units and within 3” ‘?

I believe the Type40 and I are having to repeat our case over and over again (so allowing it to be dissected and countered where we may be in error) because no one is presenting the explaination/ solution for correctly parsing the sentence to ‘models in <applicable> units and within 3” ‘ more detailed than the description that has just been given (i.e. none, a simple assertion of the results with no workings or justification behind it)

Cornishman wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I can call it ambiguous when it is though, like this one. You can keep making the same arguments all you like, it doesn't change that there are 2 ways to parse the sentence logically.

They should have used commas or worded it differently, then it wouldn't be ambiguous.

This would be an example of simply, and only asserting that both interpretations can logically be reached without actually explaining the how and the why behind this statement (i.e. how the sentenced has been correctly parsed such to reach the contested interpretation).

Would it be possible to expand upon this to explain the derivation such that is possible to correctly parse the sentence to ‘models in <applicable> units and within 3” ‘?

I believe the Type40 and I are having to repeat our case over and over again (so allowing it to be dissected and countered where we may be in error) because no one is presenting the explaination/ solution for correctly parsing the sentence to ‘models in <applicable> units and within 3” ‘ more detailed than the description that has just been given (i.e. none, a simple assertion of the results with no workings or justification behind it)

"You can make 1 additional attack for models in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY,BIKER and CAVALRY units that are within 3" of the bearer when they make their attacks in the Fight phase..."

Some people read "in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY BIKER and CAVALRY units to be a qualifier on what models that are within 3" of the bearer qualify for the additional attack (i.e. a Space Wolves Land Raider does not qualify as it isn't invantry, biker or cavalry). Others have read it to mean that units that are within 3" of the bearer can have any of their models attack.
On the latter side, they could have just said friendly (types of models) models within 3" would have accomplished the same thing and made it clearer. The other side points out that similar abilities such as Rites of Battle say "models in units"..."whilst their unit is within 6", and this does not have the "whilst their unit is within..." language. This means the statement could be parsed either way, hence its being ambiguous. Both sides have a claim that their reading can be the correct one. This does not negate the other interpretation, however. As I said before, talk it over with your oppenent or check with your tournament organizer. as it will not be definitively resolved to be only one interpretation without input from Games Workshop,

 doctortom wrote:
[
"You can make 1 additional attack for models in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY,BIKER and CAVALRY units that are within 3" of the bearer when they make their attacks in the Fight phase..."

Some people read "in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY BIKER and CAVALRY units to be a qualifier on what models that are within 3" of the bearer qualify for the additional attack (i.e. a Space Wolves Land Raider does not qualify as it isn't invantry, biker or cavalry). Others have read it to mean that units that are within 3" of the bearer can have any of their models attack.
On the latter side, they could have just said friendly (types of models) models within 3" would have accomplished the same thing and made it clearer. The other side points out that similar abilities such as Rites of Battle say "models in units"..."whilst their unit is within 6", and this does not have the "whilst their unit is within..." language. This means the statement could be parsed either way, hence its being ambiguous. Both sides have a claim that their reading can be the correct one. This does not negate the other interpretation, however. As I said before, talk it over with your oppenent or check with your tournament organizer. as it will not be definitively resolved to be only one interpretation without input from Games Workshop,

I like this, this is a useful start.

Regarding the recent changes to Codex: Space Marines Rites of Battle/ Tactical Precision. A counter point to this being applicable to determining the interpretation of Wulfen Stone is that
1) GW have changed the wording of all affects. This includes ‘Rites of Battle’, ‘Tactical Precisions’ and critically ‘The Standard of Macragge Invoilate’ (which provides bonus attacks)
2) The wording of ‘Wolfen Stone’ is consistent with the SW equivalents of ‘Rites of Battle’, ‘Tactical Precisions’ as contained within Codex:SW. So is consistent with the wording used for ‘Rites of Battle’ & ‘Tactical Precisions’ like affects at the time the rule was produced.

With respect to ‘This means the statement could be parsed either way, hence its being ambiguous. Both sides have a claim that their reading can be the correct one. This does not negate the other interpretation,’ this is subtly, and significantly different from 'can be grammatically correctly parsed either way ’.

For clarity, by correct I mean in keeping with the established grammatic rules. This does not mean the only correct interpretation is the one I’ve offered.

Just as something can be done one of two ways, this doesn’t mean that both ways of the possible ways may be considered to be correct. For instance, a motorway has two sides, and you can drive down either side of a motorway, as in it is physically possible to do so … however only one side of the motorway would be considered to the correct side to drive on (based on the local road traffic laws).

Which brings me back to the request to explain the grammatic logic behind the derivation of the ‘models in units and within 3” ‘ interpretation. Sharing the rationale is a critical steps to forming a common understanding. Without this explanation it is not possible to check or examine the derivation. By sharing and explaining the logic, and allowing it to be cross examined we should end up in one of these two conditions

1) The cross examination of the logic reveals no errors and agreement is reached that the derivation is indeed grammatically correct - so proving that the RAW is actually ambiguous.

or

2) The cross-examination reveals errors in the derivation . In the absence of any further alternative derivations showing how the ‘models in units and within 3” ‘ interpretation is grammatically correct would proove the postulation that the single interpretation currently accepted as grammatically correct by all parties (all models in <applicable> unit get the bonus whilst their unit is within <distance> of source) is the only correct one, having exhausted the alternatives.

Some people read "in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY BIKER and CAVALRY units to be a qualifier on what models that are within 3"

Grammatically, it simply just does not say that, even if people read it that way,,, it does not say that.

I can call it ambiguous when it is though, like this one. You can keep making the same arguments all you like, it doesn't change that there are 2 ways to parse the sentence logically.

They should have used commas or worded it differently, then it wouldn't be ambiguous.

Except grammatically there is only one way to parse this sentence. And if using formal grammar rules there is only one way to parse it, there is only one logical way to parse it.
Including additional commas can ONLY make it support the meaning of "only models gain the ability" and thus the inclusion of different punctuation is not necessary as it already has a meaning as is. Rewording it is unnecessary as well, as again, it already has a meaning.

Stux, please show us how it can be parsed differently ? How is it possible for a predicate to refer to a former subject when a later subject is included ? using formal grammar rules this is not possible unless commas or other grammatical devices are used to remove the second subject from its refrence point (i.e. directly next to the second predicate).

Thats just how the language works, I don't know what else you want to see.... I can't keep telling you there is only one way to read it, I am sorry you disagree with how written English works, but you have nothing to substantiate that it could mean 2 different things except that it confuses you when you read it. According MLA, Oxford and Harvard grammar systems this is the only way to parse it. Do you have a grammar system that works otherwise ? and do you have a reason why GW would deviate from standard grammar ?

You can keep telling me there's only one way to read it, the problem is that you are wrong. There are two.

Really people were that bored they had to resort to this sentence doesn't mean what 90% of people think it does it's not clear.
Oh yes it is clear
Oh no it's not
Oh yes it is
Oh no it's not
Oh yes it is
Oh no it's not

At times I do wonder if GW needs to do little diagrams for every rule to show exactlly what they mean, then I realise that you lot would probably argue that the diagram only works for those models and is still unclear.

GW changed the wording because RAW layers started the it doesn't say each model, only units get an extra attack so it is only 1 attack per unit nonsence so GW changes the rules.
RAW lawyers it says models so it's only models in range not units.

 Stux wrote:
You can keep telling me there's only one way to read it, the problem is that you are wrong. There are two.

Excellent..

Now if you simply provide the explanation behind how you have arrived at the 2nd (currently contested) interpretation that'd be fantastic.

Why am I asking again for this explanation? As it is what will prove that this interpretation is also is a grammatically correct interpretation. So bringing this discussion to an end.

However, again it is only asserted that it is correct, it has still not yet been shown to be correct.

 Stux wrote:
You can keep telling me there's only one way to read it, the problem is that you are wrong. There are two.

LOL just show us the how you can read it in a different way then XD ?
What I keep saying is "SHOW ME"

Your the one who keeps saying it can mean two things with no explanation.

You understand that the burden of proof lies on the person who is asserting the claim not on the person refuting it right ?

I have demonstrated, over and over again, how the interpretation of units is grammatically correct. You assert that the interpretation of only models is also grammatically correct. Therefor the burden of proof is on you XD. Yet you demand for us to provide proof that it your assertion is false XD ? I am sorry, we can not prove something does not exist. You can only prove something does exists.

For example:
You might say "Big foot exists"
I might say "no he doesn't"

The burden of proof is on you because it is impossible to prove non-existence. It IS possible for you to provide big foot does exist (with evidence). It is NOT possible for someone to prove he doesn't (for there is only a lack of evidence and lack of evidence does not prove non-existence). This is basic argumentation logic.

So stop this null hypothesis argumentation and either show us how it could possibly say something else instead of "It just does, you prove that it doesn't" non-sense.


So either prove it or stop demanding proof of non-existence. Lol, logical fallacies are hilarious.
I guess this rule should be treated like big foot... there may be a grammatical way to have it only mean models, but no one has ever seen it or provided evidence of it XD lol.

Cornishman wrote:

 Stux wrote:
You can keep telling me there's only one way to read it, the problem is that you are wrong. There are two.

Excellent..

Now if you simply provide the explanation behind how you have arrived at the 2nd (currently contested) interpretation that'd be fantastic.

Why am I asking again for this explanation? As it is what will prove that this interpretation is also is a grammatically correct interpretation. So bringing this discussion to an end.

However, again it is only asserted that it is correct, it has still not yet been shown to be correct.

It's already been provided, on page 1 (and probably 2 and 3). The ambiguity is because it's not clear what "that are within" is referring to in the sentence. Some say it refers to units, others to models. In other words, it's read as "You can make 1 additional attack for models that are within 3" of the bearer when they make their attacks in the Fight phase..." with the "in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY,BIKER and CAVALRY units" used as a further qualifier for who is eligible - it's models within 3", but only those in the unit types noted.

The problem is that grammatically it's a messy sentence and should be rewritten for clarity regardless of what they actually meant.

Slipspace wrote:

Cornishman wrote:

 Stux wrote:
You can keep telling me there's only one way to read it, the problem is that you are wrong. There are two.

Excellent..

Now if you simply provide the explanation behind how you have arrived at the 2nd (currently contested) interpretation that'd be fantastic.

Why am I asking again for this explanation? As it is what will prove that this interpretation is also is a grammatically correct interpretation. So bringing this discussion to an end.

However, again it is only asserted that it is correct, it has still not yet been shown to be correct.

It's already been provided, on page 1 (and probably 2 and 3). The ambiguity is because it's not clear what "that are within" is referring to in the sentence. Some say it refers to units, others to models. In other words, it's read as "You can make 1 additional attack for models that are within 3" of the bearer when they make their attacks in the Fight phase..." with the "in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY,BIKER and CAVALRY units" used as a further qualifier for who is eligible - it's models within 3", but only those in the unit types noted.

The problem is that grammatically it's a messy sentence and should be rewritten for clarity regardless of what they actually meant.

Except that is not how grammar works. As shown in above posts. Without a comma a predicate can only refer back to it's most recent subject.
A qualifier can only refer to a previous (of multiple) subjects if interrupter commas are used to remove the most recent subject(s).
That's how the English language works when written.
So where, I think Cornishman and, I agree with you, is that, when read it can be confusing. As the statement is one/two comma(s) off of meaning something else. However, according to grammar rules the lack of comma makes the written statement clear (because we know there is no linguistic pause between "units" and "that are within 3" " as there is no comma to indicate this). Unless someone can show some strange grammar rule that inserts punctuation without punctuation ?

It is not a grammatically messy sentence, it is a linguistically messy sentence. There is a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What we are asking for, is using proper grammar, how does this sentence mean something else ?

We understand that people are confused because the qualifier could refer to two different things if the sentences is read incorrectly with inappropriate punctuation. We would like to know what rule in grammar can make the rule we keep bringing up incorrect ?

We would like to have proof that big foot is in the woods. Not just assertions that he is. We do not accept that the fuzzy picture of him is proof enough as we have already shown that the photo is doctored.
The fact that we keep hearing people say "he is in the woods because he is in the woods" is getting ridiculous.

 Type40 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Cornishman wrote:

 Stux wrote:
You can keep telling me there's only one way to read it, the problem is that you are wrong. There are two.

Excellent..

Now if you simply provide the explanation behind how you have arrived at the 2nd (currently contested) interpretation that'd be fantastic.

Why am I asking again for this explanation? As it is what will prove that this interpretation is also is a grammatically correct interpretation. So bringing this discussion to an end.

However, again it is only asserted that it is correct, it has still not yet been shown to be correct.

It's already been provided, on page 1 (and probably 2 and 3). The ambiguity is because it's not clear what "that are within" is referring to in the sentence. Some say it refers to units, others to models. In other words, it's read as "You can make 1 additional attack for models that are within 3" of the bearer when they make their attacks in the Fight phase..." with the "in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY,BIKER and CAVALRY units" used as a further qualifier for who is eligible - it's models within 3", but only those in the unit types noted.

The problem is that grammatically it's a messy sentence and should be rewritten for clarity regardless of what they actually meant.

Except that is not how grammar works. As shown in above posts. Without a comma a predicate can only refer back to it's most recent subject.
A qualifier can only refer to a previous (of multiple) subjects if interrupter commas are used to remove the most recent subject(s).
That's how the English language works when written.
So where, I think Cornishman and, I agree with you, is that, when read it can be confusing. As the statement is one/two comma(s) off of meaning something else. However, according to grammar rules the lack of comma makes the written statement clear (because we know there is no linguistic pause between "units" and "that are within 3" " as there is no comma to indicate this). Unless someone can show some strange grammar rule that inserts punctuation without punctuation ?

It is not a grammatically messy sentence, it is a linguistically messy sentence. There is a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What we are asking for, is using proper grammar, how does this sentence mean something else ?

We understand that people are confused because the qualifier could refer to two different things if the sentences is read incorrectly with inappropriate punctuation. We would like to know what rule in grammar can make the rule we keep bringing up incorrect ?

We would like to have proof that big foot is in the woods. Not just assertions that he is. We do not accept that the fuzzy picture of him is proof enough as we have already shown that the photo is doctored.
The fact that we keep hearing people say "he is in the woods because he is in the woods" is getting ridiculous.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the ambiguity exists because, unfortunately, people don't actually parse sentences using formal grammar rules. A significant part of the skill of writing clearly is understanding both correct grammar and common usage. You can rail against how things "should be" all you want, but your assertions about where commas should go are not, in fact, universally recognised in common usage. In order for the sentence under discussion here to be as clear as it could be, you need more than just commas. You need to rewrite the whole thing. The problem is you want to use "proper grammar" as your yardstick, when the entire concept of proper grammar is in flux the whole time because languages naturally evolve. Combine that with the fact you don't have to go very far to find sentences that are not grammatically correct but still convey meaning and it should be obvious why there is a problem here.

Slipspace wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Cornishman wrote:

 Stux wrote:
You can keep telling me there's only one way to read it, the problem is that you are wrong. There are two.

Excellent..

Now if you simply provide the explanation behind how you have arrived at the 2nd (currently contested) interpretation that'd be fantastic.

Why am I asking again for this explanation? As it is what will prove that this interpretation is also is a grammatically correct interpretation. So bringing this discussion to an end.

However, again it is only asserted that it is correct, it has still not yet been shown to be correct.

It's already been provided, on page 1 (and probably 2 and 3). The ambiguity is because it's not clear what "that are within" is referring to in the sentence. Some say it refers to units, others to models. In other words, it's read as "You can make 1 additional attack for models that are within 3" of the bearer when they make their attacks in the Fight phase..." with the "in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY,BIKER and CAVALRY units" used as a further qualifier for who is eligible - it's models within 3", but only those in the unit types noted.

The problem is that grammatically it's a messy sentence and should be rewritten for clarity regardless of what they actually meant.

Except that is not how grammar works. As shown in above posts. Without a comma a predicate can only refer back to it's most recent subject.
A qualifier can only refer to a previous (of multiple) subjects if interrupter commas are used to remove the most recent subject(s).
That's how the English language works when written.
So where, I think Cornishman and, I agree with you, is that, when read it can be confusing. As the statement is one/two comma(s) off of meaning something else. However, according to grammar rules the lack of comma makes the written statement clear (because we know there is no linguistic pause between "units" and "that are within 3" " as there is no comma to indicate this). Unless someone can show some strange grammar rule that inserts punctuation without punctuation ?

It is not a grammatically messy sentence, it is a linguistically messy sentence. There is a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What we are asking for, is using proper grammar, how does this sentence mean something else ?

We understand that people are confused because the qualifier could refer to two different things if the sentences is read incorrectly with inappropriate punctuation. We would like to know what rule in grammar can make the rule we keep bringing up incorrect ?

We would like to have proof that big foot is in the woods. Not just assertions that he is. We do not accept that the fuzzy picture of him is proof enough as we have already shown that the photo is doctored.
The fact that we keep hearing people say "he is in the woods because he is in the woods" is getting ridiculous.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the ambiguity exists because, unfortunately, people don't actually parse sentences using formal grammar rules. A significant part of the skill of writing clearly is understanding both correct grammar and common usage. You can rail against how things "should be" all you want, but your assertions about where commas should go are not, in fact, universally recognised in common usage. In order for the sentence under discussion here to be as clear as it could be, you need more than just commas. You need to rewrite the whole thing. The problem is you want to use "proper grammar" as your yardstick, when the entire concept of proper grammar is in flux the whole time because languages naturally evolve. Combine that with the fact you don't have to go very far to find sentences that are not grammatically correct but still convey meaning and it should be obvious why there is a problem here.

So should we assume the entire BRB and other supplements do not follow any grammar rules ?
I am going to have a lot of fun with that, we can pretty much make the rules do what ever we want now
That's a silly argument "we wont use grammar rules unless it suits us."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
p.s. Language is constantly evolving. Agreed.
But we do have official style guides that help us know what a proper written sentences look like. I find it hard to believe that GW would decide to write in common pro's instead of formal writing for their rule books. I am sure when they went to school in Britain they were taught Oxford style, or maybe if they arn't British they were taught Harvard or MLA. Either way, claiming grammar is irrelevant opens up a whole heap of possibilities. Quite literately we can no long ever have RAW just RAI if we decide grammar is irrelevant XD. Just because GW is not always grammatically correct is not a good reason to decide they NEVER are lol. What is it they say when you email the FAQ team "even if you don't like it, follow it as written." Well, why aren't we just doing that XD. Instead of arguing that maybe their grammar was wrong lol.

 Type40 wrote:

But we do have official style guides that help us know what a proper written sentences look like. I find it hard to believe that GW would decide to write in common pro's instead of formal writing for their rule books.

There's your problem right there, making an unwarranted assumption.

The sentence can (and by different people has been) read so that the subject of the sentence is "models" while others read "units" as the subject. Those reading "models" see the subsequent phrase about types of SW units being a qualifier on the types of models. Those reading "units" see the verbiage before it as a qualifier, and assume they mentioned models to indicate that each model in the unit gets an extra attack (without that assumption, there's really no need to have mentioned models at all).

Likewise, Rites of Battle has the phrase."whilst their unit is within 6", a phrase which is lacking here. Despite an assertion earlier, this is not the same as "...units within 3" as was mentioned before (not just because 3 vs 6"), as that was taking an incomplete part of the sentence which may have altered the meeting. It's still dependent on whether "models" or "units" was the key qualifier - if it was "models" then taking that part of the quote is actually a misrepresentation by taking the last part of the qualifying phrase "in SPACE WOLVES YADDA YADDA unit" with what was following, when it would still be referring to models within 3". The phrase "whilst their unit is within 6" " makes it unambiguous as to whether models or units are being referred to; as they used different language here it is ambiguous despite what your claims are.

1) There now seems to be admission that parsing the sentence to the equivalent of ‘models in <applicable> units and within 3”> is grammatically incorrect.
2) There appears to be universal acceptance that interpreting the rule has caused a fair amount of confusion.

Would there be agreement with the notion that this has resulted in the situation where by both

a) there is a single correct reading of the rule,

and that simultaneously

b) the rule is ambiguous.

The rule can be said to be ambiguous not because it could correctly mean two things, but because it is causing a fair amount of confusion. However given that ambigous could alternatively mean 'has two meanings' I think it would be best to avoid using 'ambiguous' as 'confussing' seems to be a more precise description.

The ease of misinterpretation is consistent with the recent changes GW has made to the phrasing (but not the overall affect) of the rules in C:SM (and associated supplements) for Rites of Battles (and similar affects) and things like ‘The Standard of Macragge Inviolate’.
That the affect of the re-phrased rules is hasn’t changed from the non-disputed interpretation of the previously phrasing is consistent with this interpretation being the desired one.
The argument that

 doctortom wrote:

Likewise, Rites of Battle has the phrase."whilst their unit is within 6", a phrase which is lacking here.

is surely rendered null and void on the basis that at the time that the rules for Wulfen Stone (, Wulfren and Tau Fireblade) were published the wording for these rules were entirely consistent with the then current wording ‘Rites of Battle’ (and similar affects). The inconsistency with the updated wording in C:SM is purely a consequence of when they were written, there is no evidence to suggest a change of meaning or intent of the rules, only an increased clarity of their reading.

Cornishman wrote:
1) There now seems to be admission that parsing the sentence to the equivalent of ‘models in <applicable> units and within 3”> is grammatically incorrect.
2) There appears to be universal acceptance that interpreting the rule has caused a fair amount of confusion.

Would there be agreement with the notion that this has resulted in the situation where by both

a) there is a single correct reading of the rule,

and that simultaneously

b) the rule is ambiguous.

No.

Cornishman wrote:
The rule can be said to be ambiguous not because it could correctly mean two things, but because it is causing a fair amount of confusion. However given that ambigous could alternatively mean 'has two meanings' I think it would be best to avoid using 'ambiguous' as 'confussing' seems to be a more precise description.

Depending on how it is read, it would have two possible meanings, therefore it is ambiguous. There isn't proof as of now that there's only one correct reading,so therefore it is condescending as well as incorrect to insist that there's only one interpretation (as you are insisting that your interpretation is the only correct interpretation, and us poor mere confused mortals just haven't realized it yet).

Cornishman wrote:
lThe ease of misinterpretation is consistent with the recent changes GW has made to the phrasing (but not the overall affect) of the rules in C:SM (and associated supplements) for Rites of Battles (and similar affects) and things like ‘The Standard of Macragge Inviolate’.
That the affect of the re-phrased rules is hasn’t changed from the non-disputed interpretation of the previously phrasing is consistent with this interpretation being the desired one.
The argument that

 doctortom wrote:

Likewise, Rites of Battle has the phrase."whilst their unit is within 6", a phrase which is lacking here.

is surely rendered null and void on the basis that at the time that the rules for Wulfen Stone (, Wulfren and Tau Fireblade) were published the wording for these rules were entirely consistent with the then current wording ‘Rites of Battle’ (and similar affects). The inconsistency with the updated wording in C:SM is purely a consequence of when they were written, there is no evidence to suggest a change of meaning or intent of the rules, only an increased clarity of their reading.

It's not an increased clarity of their reading. There was a Space Marines update which covered updates to the non-SM chapters including Space Wolves. They could have used this update to update the Wulfen Stone to match the wording for Rites of Battle to make it unambiguous. They didn't, so it is (evidence: the first few answers coming in on the thread to the question insisted that it was referring to models and not units. According to you, not the correct interpretation, but yet a valid interpretation for what was written,. Hence it's ambiguous.

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

But we do have official style guides that help us know what a proper written sentences look like. I find it hard to believe that GW would decide to write in common pro's instead of formal writing for their rule books.

There's your problem right there, making an unwarranted assumption.

The sentence can (and by different people has been) read so that the subject of the sentence is "models" while others read "units" as the subject. Those reading "models" see the subsequent phrase about types of SW units being a qualifier on the types of models. Those reading "units" see the verbiage before it as a qualifier, and assume they mentioned models to indicate that each model in the unit gets an extra attack (without that assumption, there's really no need to have mentioned models at all).

Likewise, Rites of Battle has the phrase."whilst their unit is within 6", a phrase which is lacking here. Despite an assertion earlier, this is not the same as "...units within 3" as was mentioned before (not just because 3 vs 6"), as that was taking an incomplete part of the sentence which may have altered the meeting. It's still dependent on whether "models" or "units" was the key qualifier - if it was "models" then taking that part of the quote is actually a misrepresentation by taking the last part of the qualifying phrase "in SPACE WOLVES YADDA YADDA unit" with what was following, when it would still be referring to models within 3". The phrase "whilst their unit is within 6" " makes it unambiguous as to whether models or units are being referred to; as they used different language here it is ambiguous despite what your claims are.

No it is not an unwarranted assumption that GW did not in fact write there rule book in dialog form .
Seriously, What ?
Does the rule book go
"So then john, what you do next is, move the model a certain distance by looking at measuring the tape. got that ? great next john, you to roll your attack rolls. Ya know how to roll a dice don't you?"
NO THEY DID NOT WRITE IT IN COMMON PROS.
Rule books by there very format are written in formal language.
Like are you just having a laugh or do you really think you have a point?

They wrote it following formal grammar structure.
How is this an argument. You are really arguing that GW rule books are not bound to grammar ? Are you kidding me ? Shall we just interpret every thing in these books however we want because screw it, grammar doesn't mater anymore. Everything in these books can literally mean anything as long as it has a somewhat related word in the statement!

Yes the statement is confusing.
No it is not ambiguous.
Grammatically it can mean only one thing. Sorry you guys didn't learn enough grammar to know that. Sorry you guys don't like the way the rules of grammar cause this to be written. Sorry GW wrote a rule thinking people would understand how punctuation works. Sorry that the official guidelines are to play the rule AS WRITTEN not as though the concept of punctuation doesn't exist.
You can read it as though it had a comma in it all you want, it does not, in fact, put a comma there.
You can pretend that it could mean more then one thing all you want, but again, you are just confused because the sentence can be read alternatively if there was different punctuation.
I really wish you the best, but if your argument is seriously "it can mean two things because people don't like grammar" then I am completely done with this conversation. If I run into someone making the same argument as you guys at the table, I will buy them a hooked on phonics book and tell them to come back to the big kids war gaming table when they are done with the chapter on commas and punctuation. Either that or tell them they can't fight unless they charged, because why not, another comma in that sentence could make it mean that... why follow any grammar what so ever, lets get rid of some periods while we are at it. I am sure that will make for some interesting rules.

Seriously, this is the dumbest argument I have ever seen on here "people don't like/don't know how grammar works so, ya, it doesn't work that way"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously 10 minutes with a grammar text book from like year 4 should clear this "it can be read two ways" thing up for anyone.

It can be read in ONLY one way due to its current punctuation. You are adding punctuation where there isn't any and thus reading it incorrectly. This causes you to think there are two meanings.
Ambiguous is not synonymous with "I am confused because I never really learned how commas and punctuation works"

 Type40 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:

But we do have official style guides that help us know what a proper written sentences look like. I find it hard to believe that GW would decide to write in common pro's instead of formal writing for their rule books.

There's your problem right there, making an unwarranted assumption.

The sentence can (and by different people has been) read so that the subject of the sentence is "models" while others read "units" as the subject. Those reading "models" see the subsequent phrase about types of SW units being a qualifier on the types of models. Those reading "units" see the verbiage before it as a qualifier, and assume they mentioned models to indicate that each model in the unit gets an extra attack (without that assumption, there's really no need to have mentioned models at all).

Likewise, Rites of Battle has the phrase."whilst their unit is within 6", a phrase which is lacking here. Despite an assertion earlier, this is not the same as "...units within 3" as was mentioned before (not just because 3 vs 6"), as that was taking an incomplete part of the sentence which may have altered the meeting. It's still dependent on whether "models" or "units" was the key qualifier - if it was "models" then taking that part of the quote is actually a misrepresentation by taking the last part of the qualifying phrase "in SPACE WOLVES YADDA YADDA unit" with what was following, when it would still be referring to models within 3". The phrase "whilst their unit is within 6" " makes it unambiguous as to whether models or units are being referred to; as they used different language here it is ambiguous despite what your claims are.

No it is not an unwarranted assumption that GW did not in fact write there rule book in dialog form .
Seriously, What ?
Does the rule book go
"So then john, what you do next is, move the model a certain distance by looking at measuring the tape. got that ? great next john, you to roll your attack rolls. Ya know how to roll a dice don't you?"
NO THEY DID NOT WRITE IT IN COMMON PROS.
Rule books by there very format are written in formal language.
Like are you just having a laugh or do you really think you have a point?

They wrote it following formal grammar structure.
How is this an argument. You are really arguing that GW rule books are not bound to grammar ? Are you kidding me ? Shall we just interpret every thing in these books however we want because screw it, grammar doesn't mater anymore. Everything in these books can literally mean anything as long as it has a somewhat related word in the statement!

Yes the statement is confusing.
No it is not ambiguous.
Grammatically it can mean only one thing. Sorry you guys didn't learn enough grammar to know that. Sorry you guys don't like the way the rules of grammar cause this to be written. Sorry GW wrote a rule thinking people would understand how punctuation works. Sorry that the official guidelines are to play the rule AS WRITTEN not as though the concept of punctuation doesn't exist.
You can read it as though it had a comma in it all you want, it does not, in fact, put a comma there.
You can pretend that it could mean more then one thing all you want, but again, you are just confused because the sentence can be read alternatively if there was different punctuation.
I really wish you the best, but if your argument is seriously "it can mean two things because people don't like grammar" then I am completely done with this conversation. If I run into someone making the same argument as you guys at the table, I will buy them a hooked on phonics book and tell them to come back to the big kids war gaming table when they are done with the chapter on commas and punctuation. Either that or tell them they can't fight unless they charged, because why not, another comma in that sentence could make it mean that... why follow any grammar what so ever, lets get rid of some periods while we are at it. I am sure that will make for some interesting rules.

Seriously, this is the dumbest argument I have ever seen on here "people don't like/don't know how grammar works so, ya, it doesn't work that way"

Well, with the insults from you I can see that there's little reason to continue the argument. Given the number of people who had read the argument the other way, The people who are doing the argument on the other side from you don't need a "hooked on phonics" book; most have been long time players of 40K and have seen GW's writing over the different editions. That you're not willing to accept that their argument can be valid is a flaw of yours, not a flaw of theirs. But, you're right in that there's no need to continue with the conversation.

No I am claiming the people who don't understand this need a "hooked on phonics" book because, although they may be long time players of 40k, have little understanding of things taught in a 4th grade grammar class.

It's not a statement of insult but rather a statement of unfortunate fact.

It's me not accepting their argument can be valid because they wont spend the time to gain a basic understanding of punctuation.
It might be my flaw to assume that people should be able to understand how punctuation works when they try read a rule in a formal rule book, and go on to claim they always use RAW. But if that is my flaw I accept that. I guess I just expect too much from people. They would rather live their lives misinterpreting the written language then take the effort to learn 15 minutes of grammar. Sorry everyone, I didn't mean to assume you all could understand punctuation. You guys go ahead and misread all you'd like, who am I to dare point out that you are inserting non-existing punctuation. Who am I to point out you are reading it "ambiguously" because you assume there should be punctuation where there is none. I am just a flawed person who should accept the people here want to stay confused( or should I say ambiguous) about how a sentence should be read because they never bothered to learn the purpose of commas and concepts of basic sentence structure.

I am quite certain this rule not be FAQed as grammatically it does not need to be. But only time will tell, if enough people email in their confusion about "ambiguity" to GW they may try and simplify there language further so we can have some more arguments about how to read a sentence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
p.s. I have seen their writing across many different editions, GW board games, and GW RPs, as well. It never stopped me from applying basic grammar to the reading of their rules. They don't always have the best grammar, but when it is correctly applied (which in this case it is [although confusing to read]), I see no reason to assume it isn't. That's just ridiculous. Then we can just assume GW never follows proper grammar and make the game rules mean what ever we want. Is it a confusing statement ? Yes, it is one comma away from meaning something else. Is it grammatically incorrect or could it mean two different things? No. It is what it is.

 Type40 wrote:
No I am claiming the people who don't understand this need a "hooked on phonics" book because, although they may be long time players of 40k, have little understanding of things taught in a 4th grade grammar class.

It's not a statement of insult but rather a statement of unfortunate fact.

It's me not accepting their argument can be valid because they wont spend the time to gain a basic understanding of punctuation.
It might be my flaw to assume that people should be able to understand how punctuation works when they try read a rule in a formal rule book, and go on to claim they always use RAW. But if that is my flaw I accept that. I guess I just expect too much from people. They would live their lives misinterpreting the written language then take the effort to learn 15 minutes of grammar. Sorry everyone, I didn't mean to assume you all could understand punctuation. You guys go ahead and misread all you'd like, who am I to dare point out that you are inserting non-existing punctuation. Who am I to point out you are reading it "ambiguously" because you assume there should be punctuation where there is none. I am just a flawed person who should accept the people here want to stay confused( or should I say ambiguous) about how a sentence should be read because they never bother to learn the purpose of commas and basic sentence structure.

I am quite certain this rule not be FAQed as grammatically it does not need to be. But only time will tell, if enough people email in their confusion about "ambiguity" here GW may try and simplify there language further so we can have some more arguments about how to read a sentence.

No, it was an insult. You don't know the people who read it the other way and just want to pretend that they're the ones that are confused. As for myself I got a PhD in a STEM field, so there and at work have had to deal with technical writing, which apparently is closer how most people read/write rules than you have had. From that standpoint, there are certainly multiple interpretations of what GW wrote, and it can be read in two ways. I have pointed out issues that would have made it clear what the rules are referring to when writing the rule (there's some ambiguity both ways). I'm sorry you can't accept that other people might just have a different opinion from you which is valid.

 doctortom wrote:

Cornishman wrote:
lThe ease of misinterpretation is consistent with the recent changes GW has made to the phrasing (but not the overall affect) of the rules in C:SM (and associated supplements) for Rites of Battles (and similar affects) and things like ‘The Standard of Macragge Inviolate’.
That the affect of the re-phrased rules is hasn’t changed from the non-disputed interpretation of the previously phrasing is consistent with this interpretation being the desired one.
The argument that

 doctortom wrote:

Likewise, Rites of Battle has the phrase."whilst their unit is within 6", a phrase which is lacking here.

is surely rendered null and void on the basis that at the time that the rules for Wulfen Stone (, Wulfren and Tau Fireblade) were published the wording for these rules were entirely consistent with the then current wording ‘Rites of Battle’ (and similar affects). The inconsistency with the updated wording in C:SM is purely a consequence of when they were written, there is no evidence to suggest a change of meaning or intent of the rules, only an increased clarity of their reading.

It's not an increased clarity of their reading. There was a Space Marines update which covered updates to the non-SM chapters including Space Wolves. They could have used this update to update the Wulfen Stone to match the wording for Rites of Battle to make it unambiguous. They didn't, so it is (evidence: the first few answers coming in on the thread to the question insisted that it was referring to models and not units. According to you, not the correct interpretation, but yet a valid interpretation for what was written,. Hence it's ambiguous.

But they didn't update all the rules for existing data sheets in the other Codexes, they only added the new data sheets, or included updates where the mechanics of the rules have changed in August update PDFs.
For example: If you are using a regular Wolf Lord, or a Primaris Wolf Lord etc... (i.e. not in Phobos Armour) then their rules are still '...units within...'

As for the general matter of adherence to grammar. The point about that the number of people misinterpreting the rule (i.e. deviating from the grammatically correct answer) doesn’t make the alternative interpretation correct. It simply means that a large number of people aren’t interpreting it correctly. This is entirely consistent with the statements that the sentence is (very) hard to (correctly) read.

That there is only a single correct interpretation is also entirely consistent with how GW has rolled out revisions to the wording and structure a number of the rules. In that when these changes have not resulted in any alterations to the grammatically correct meaning from that provided by the previous wording of those rules, existing datasheets with those rules have not been updated.

Not updating the wording of Rites of Battles/ Jarl of Fenris/ Huskarl to the Jarl/ Wulfen Stone/ Wulfen etc... rules is entirely consistent with the contents of the August Updates/ Errata – Only those things that are either a) entirely new (e.g. Captain in Phobos armour, Shock Assault) or b) have changed in a mechanical way (e.g. all Auto bolt Rifles to Assault 3) are included.

Whilst the wording of ‘Jarl of Fenris’ is now different depending on which kind Wolf Lord the rule is presented on, as the meaning (i.e. the affect) of the rule remains the same it hasn’t been included in any of the update pdfs. On the basis, this would imply that the rules for The Wulfen Stone (or Wulfen etc...) have not changed from the already established gramatically correct meaning based on the current (i.e. original) wording.

 doctortom wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
No I am claiming the people who don't understand this need a "hooked on phonics" book because, although they may be long time players of 40k, have little understanding of things taught in a 4th grade grammar class.

It's not a statement of insult but rather a statement of unfortunate fact.

It's me not accepting their argument can be valid because they wont spend the time to gain a basic understanding of punctuation.
It might be my flaw to assume that people should be able to understand how punctuation works when they try read a rule in a formal rule book, and go on to claim they always use RAW. But if that is my flaw I accept that. I guess I just expect too much from people. They would live their lives misinterpreting the written language then take the effort to learn 15 minutes of grammar. Sorry everyone, I didn't mean to assume you all could understand punctuation. You guys go ahead and misread all you'd like, who am I to dare point out that you are inserting non-existing punctuation. Who am I to point out you are reading it "ambiguously" because you assume there should be punctuation where there is none. I am just a flawed person who should accept the people here want to stay confused( or should I say ambiguous) about how a sentence should be read because they never bother to learn the purpose of commas and basic sentence structure.

I am quite certain this rule not be FAQed as grammatically it does not need to be. But only time will tell, if enough people email in their confusion about "ambiguity" here GW may try and simplify there language further so we can have some more arguments about how to read a sentence.

No, it was an insult. You don't know the people who read it the other way and just want to pretend that they're the ones that are confused. As for myself I got a PhD in a STEM field, so there and at work have had to deal with technical writing, which apparently is closer how most people read/write rules than you have had. From that standpoint, there are certainly multiple interpretations of what GW wrote, and it can be read in two ways. I have pointed out issues that would have made it clear what the rules are referring to when writing the rule (there's some ambiguity both ways). I'm sorry you can't accept that other people might just have a different opinion from you which is valid.

Congrats on your PHD,
I am curious to read your dissertation if you didn't see a need to follow a formal style guide while writing it ? I know my masters thesis would have been tossed out by my supervisor if I took that approach lol. I guess anyone can publish these days XD. p.s. the STEM fields are notorious for their acceptance of less then perfect grammar and writing in lieu of technical documentation needing to act as a catalog v.s. being descriptive. Seriously, I have scoured through some god-awful documentation in my day. Don't think your the only one who works in the STEM fields lol. Throwing your title's and accomplishments at me isn't going to make you anymore correct here.

p.s. I am really curious, please link your dissertation ? where was it published?

 Type40 wrote:

Congrats on your PHD,
I am curious to read your dissertation if you didn't see a need to follow a formal style guide while writing it ? I know my masters thesis would have been tossed out by my supervisor if I took that approach lol. I guess anyone can publish these days XD. p.s. the STEM fields are notorious for their acceptance of less then perfect grammar and writing in lieu of technical documentation needing to act as a catalog v.s. being descriptive. Seriously, I have scoured through some god-awful documentation in my day. Don't think your the only one who works in the STEM fields lol. Throwing your title's and accomplishments at me isn't going to make you anymore correct here.

Can you drip any more condescension in your statements? I only brought it up because you're making the assertion of people not having a 4th grade grammar comprehension. But, you're not going to budge (and just throw more aspersions around, more than likely), and I'm not going to change my mind, so there's no reason to keep going in circles for a few more pages.

Of course, (some) GW writers not having a 4th grade comprehension of grammar would explain a lot...

Your the one who brought up your STEM field phd.
No link to your dissertation then ?

I am not attacking integrity. I am pointing out that this is taught in 4th grade grammar classes. The fact that you are insulted by me pointing that out says more about you then it does about what I am doing here.

How about we stop tossing around our levels of education and insults (veiled, unintentional, or otherwise) and just concentrate on the rules?

Can we all agree that the following two sentences do not mean the same thing?

You can make 1 additional attack for models in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY,BIKER and CAVALRY units and within 3" of the bearer when they make their attacks in the Fight phase..

You can make 1 additional attack for models in friendly SPACE WOLVES INFANTRY,BIKER and CAVALRY units that are within 3" of the bearer when they make their attacks in the Fight phase..

I'm pretty sure that "and" and "that are" don't mean the same thing. "And" and "that are also" do mean the same thing, but not without the "also".

Well, this has certainly gone to silly places.

I shouldn't need to point out the absurdity of starting a thread because you're unsure about how to read a rule, and progressing to insulting people for reading it one particular way, but here we are.


Moving on.