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.

If you treat "all" to mean al lthe attacks from the unit and not all the attacks which fall under the group of matching stats and which you wish to roll in a group, then it is impossible to fast roll any unit with multiple profiles or weapons, as "all " the attacks do not match.


In the case of this bizarre "Infinite attacks" business; A: It's clearly not intended, and anyone who actually tries to use it needs dreadsocking (and my dreads are still metal, young whippersnappers!). Secondly, why roll? infinite attacks will remove finite wounds. the Infinite dice situation negates the need to roll at all. Though I feel anyone who tries it deserves to get stuck in a loop. I would insist that they roll, and write down, every dice. until the time limit. Let's see them do it again.

It's just a thought exercise. I doubt anyone is actually planning to do "infinite attacks". The main reason I believe he's arguing that it has to be all that attacks is because he wants to argue that "infinite attacks" would lock the game in a stalemate. For the purposes of the hypothetical situation in which "infinite attacks" exist, seems that most folks are in disagreement with him.

U02dah4 wrote:
As a native speaker it makes gramatical sense to me

In order to make several attacks at
once, all of the attacks must
have the same Ballistic Skill
(if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if
it’s a close combat attack).
They must also have the
same Strength, Armour
Penetration and Damage
characteristics, and they
must be directed at the
same unit."

In order to X all the attacks must have the same A B C. Thats gramatically clear.

Under Raw you cannot do anything without permission

And yes it clearly provides restrictions your attacks must have the same charactistics you may not accept theae restrictions but they are stated RAW. Furthermore if those characteristics are met you must roll all to hit rolls and then all.

"All" refers to "all" cases that meet the restrictions on several attacks (same Ws/BS /S/AP/DAM etc.)

I cannot show you because you clearly don't understand English grammar. I could repost the entire block of text but you don't accept what it says and when i paraphrase it into a simple form missing out no text because the short lines are a litteral summary you can copy and paste tge original text over and it still makes sense. (The wording and meaning hasn't been changed).

I'm a native English speaker also, and I still say you're reading it wrong. "All" refers to the previous sentence where you are grouping "several" attacks, the restriction is only that for the attacks you group you meet the criteria they describe. "all" in no way is a limitation that "all the weapons meeting the requirements of the "all" statement must be fired, you are only required to fire "several" if you are grouping them. And there you default to English language, where "several" would be more than one. "Several" does not mean "all".

Removed - Rule #1 please

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:
If you treat "all" to mean al lthe attacks from the unit and not all the attacks which fall under the group of matching stats and which you wish to roll in a group, then it is impossible to fast roll any unit with multiple profiles or weapons, as "all " the attacks do not match.


In the case of this bizarre "Infinite attacks" business; A: It's clearly not intended, and anyone who actually tries to use it needs dreadsocking (and my dreads are still metal, young whippersnappers!). Secondly, why roll? infinite attacks will remove finite wounds. the Infinite dice situation negates the need to roll at all. Though I feel anyone who tries it deserves to get stuck in a loop. I would insist that they roll, and write down, every dice. until the time limit. Let's see them do it again.

The point was whether you could force someone to fast roll infinite dice as we both agree or if they could fast roll just enough to kill the model.

Hey folks, general reminder that Rule #1, to stay polite at all times, is not optional. Kindly play nice.

U02dah4 wrote:
Removed - Rule #1 please

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:
If you treat "all" to mean al lthe attacks from the unit and not all the attacks which fall under the group of matching stats and which you wish to roll in a group, then it is impossible to fast roll any unit with multiple profiles or weapons, as "all " the attacks do not match.


In the case of this bizarre "Infinite attacks" business; A: It's clearly not intended, and anyone who actually tries to use it needs dreadsocking (and my dreads are still metal, young whippersnappers!). Secondly, why roll? infinite attacks will remove finite wounds. the Infinite dice situation negates the need to roll at all. Though I feel anyone who tries it deserves to get stuck in a loop. I would insist that they roll, and write down, every dice. until the time limit. Let's see them do it again.

The point was whether you could force someone to fast roll infinite dice as we both agree or if they could fast roll just enough to kill the model.

Lol you couldn't even parse out that @some bloke was disagreeing with you.
lol "as we both agree" when they had just pointed out your interpretation would mean multi-weapon models couldn't fire at all.

Your points about your superior native speaking status giving you superior abilities to parse language (that only a native speaker could possibly begin to understand) are moot.

This discussion is done.

RAW clearly relays that similar attacks may be rolled together in what ever batches you want.
This is done. If anyone wonders why there is plenty of evidence brought up by many people in this thread. There is little evidence of actual full RAW sentences that say otherwise (unless of course you ignore parts of sentences and cut and paste different parts of sentences arround).

U02dah4 wrote:
They begin split your given permission if they meet the criteria to roll all to hit roles and and all to wound rolls together. Where are you explicitly given permission to group/not group except In that exact way.

its explicitly in the word “several” which includes the potential for both all, and less than all. I see you’re about to get spanked because you can’t back up your cherry picking after someone gave you an English lesson. Now would be the time to quit.

Several can indeed mean many different things untill you put it into a clause a sentence and a paragraph at which those other words give it context. Several in isolation means nothing.

when several comes first, it gives the meaning to the follow up, which the English teacher has also told you, but you ignored in order to continue cherry picking your “all”.

You are trying to arbitrarily give it meaning ignore the rest of the paragraph and then reasoning based on your arbitrarily assigned meaning. If you actually had permission you be able to provide a quote - you cannot.

In this case the context says

It is possible to do x.
In order to make several attacks all must have the same a, b, c.
If this is the case
make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls

Several attacks therefore means make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls unless you can quote differently.

Finnally rolling all hit rolls then all wound rolls maintains the process and timing sequence the only way it breaks it is if you are taking BCB levels of litterality. Of course if you want to go into that absurdity I will suggest to you that two dice leaveing your hand a quarter of a second apart from one throw are not at the same time.

In the real world if i roll two lots of 35 hits i have rolled all 70 even if it took me two throws your not breaking the rule as you have made all the hit rolls together. You only break it if you roll 35 to hits then 16 wounds then 35 hits because you havn't rolled all the hits together.

It’s different when YOU don’t roll ALL THE ROLLS at once? You can’t even tell the truth when you’re breaking your own cherrypick.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Again, we are not talking about the core rules, they do not come into play once you decide to fast roll.

Fast rolling IS a core rule. It’s in the core rules section of the book, it’s on the cardstock reference folder. If you can’t even get that right, maybe you shouldn’t be opining on what else Fast Rolling is or isn’t.


Anyone want to guess what’s on the top right of this photo OF THE CORE RULES handout?

I run a Space Wolves army so I don't have a huge number of models like a horde army but I tend to have twenty green dice, ten black dice and ten red dice, I have never had an issue with being able to roll unit by unit.

 Type40 wrote:


RAW clearly relays that similar attacks may be rolled together in what ever batches you want.

This is of course false. As the above clearly ignores the rules.

This is done. If anyone wonders why there is plenty of evidence brought up by many people in this thread. There is little evidence of actual full RAW sentences that say otherwise (unless of course you ignore parts of sentences and cut and paste different parts of sentences arround).

Not sure how you can claim that since your argument is the one ignoring rules.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Again, we are not talking about the core rules, they do not come into play once you decide to fast roll.

Fast rolling IS a core rule.

Again do not ignore the context. Your argument is in bad faith.

You literally said:

Breton wrote:
you mean the default status of the game?

I know fast rolling is in the core rules, You stated that rolling one hit at a time was "the default status of the game" (AKA the core rules, this is what I was referring to when I said core rules. I suspect you know that but are clearly arguing in bad faith).

Stop with the bad faith arguments, it does not get us anywhere.

It’s in the core rules section of the book, it’s on the cardstock reference folder. If you can’t even get that right, maybe you shouldn’t be opining on what else Fast Rolling is or isn’t.

Anyone want to guess what’s on the top right of this photo OF THE CORE RULES handout?

Again, Stop arguing in bad faith. it weakens your position (Not that you have a strong argument to begin with).

But let me be totally clear with you.

You can roll attacks one at a time or you can opt to fast roll.

Once you opt to fast roll, you need to roll all of the attacks that are directed at a single unit at , and have the same Ballistic skill, Strength, etc... you can not roll only some of them, because you need to "make all of the hit rolls at the same time" This clearly means that you can not save some for later, you literally need to make them all at once.

Not sure how you can even fathom the opposite.

This should be done as your side has no rules backing at all.

As others have mentioned, the first sentence states: "In order to roll several attacks at once..." and then it says to make all the hit rolls at the same time. This applies solely to the part allowing you to make several attacks at once.

The entire premise of your argument hinges on placing more importance on one sentence than another, and reading it without the context of the latter. I'll say it again, in the context of the rule as a whole, any and all rules which say "all" only refer to the attacks you've chosen to fast-roll. Otherwise, you could never fast-roll any unit with multiple weapon profiles, because you'd be stuck in a loop between all the attacks needing to be the same and having to "make all hit rolls at the same time".

Therefore, unless you can find a portion of the rule that actually states "all attacks which meet these requirements must be fast-rolled", you cannot use "make all hit rolls at the same time" as a premise for any argument that all attacks have to be fast-rolled.

I'll repeat my analogy from earlier and say "In other words, all lemons must be yellow, but not everything that is yellow must be lemons." Or, in closer terms to the fast-rolling rules: "all attacks to be fast-rolled must meet these requirements and done in this fashion, but not all attacks which meet these requirements need to be fast-rolled."

 flandarz wrote:
As others have mentioned, the first sentence states: "In order to roll several attacks at once..." and then it says to make all the hit rolls at the same time. This applies solely to the part allowing you to make several attacks at once.

They say "In order to roll several attacks at once..." And then they go on to define what that means, bu saying the thing about all having the same BS/STR etc... That group needs to have the hit rolls made at the same time per the RAW.

The entire premise of your argument hinges on placing more importance on one sentence than another, and reading it without the context of the latter. I'll say it again, in the context of the rule as a whole, any and all rules which say "all" only refer to the attacks you've chosen to fast-roll. Otherwise, you could never fast-roll any unit with multiple weapon profiles, because you'd be stuck in a loop between all the attacks needing to be the same and having to "make all hit rolls at the same time".

As shown, this is false.

There is literally no provision to only roll some of the attacks with the same BS/Str etc. (Once you have chosen to fast roll).

Therefore, unless you can find a portion of the rule that actually states "all attacks which meet these requirements must be fast-rolled", you cannot use "make all hit rolls at the same time" as a premise for any argument that all attacks have to be fast-rolled.

There is, the context groups them all together. Do not ignore the context.

I'll repeat my analogy from earlier and say "In other words, all lemons must be yellow, but not everything that is yellow must be lemons." Or, in closer terms to the fast-rolling rules: "all attacks to be fast-rolled must meet these requirements and done in this fashion, but not all attacks which meet these requirements need to be fast-rolled."

Analogies can twist things, like you have done here, they are useless.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


RAW clearly relays that similar attacks may be rolled together in what ever batches you want.

This is of course false. As the above clearly ignores the rules.

This is of course false, as the above clearly ignores the very first instruction of "Several".

This is done. If anyone wonders why there is plenty of evidence brought up by many people in this thread. There is little evidence of actual full RAW sentences that say otherwise (unless of course you ignore parts of sentences and cut and paste different parts of sentences arround).

Not sure how you can claim that since your argument is the one ignoring rules.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Again, we are not talking about the core rules, they do not come into play once you decide to fast roll.

Fast rolling IS a core rule.

Again do not ignore the context. Your argument is in bad faith.

You literally said it wasn't a core rule, when it literally is. The bad faith is yours.

You literally said:

Breton wrote:
you mean the default status of the game?

I know fast rolling is in the core rules, You stated that rolling one hit at a time was "the default status of the game" (AKA the core rules, this is what I was referring to when I said core rules. I suspect you know that but are clearly arguing in bad faith).

Stop with the bad faith arguments, it does not get us anywhere.

It’s in the core rules section of the book, it’s on the cardstock reference folder. If you can’t even get that right, maybe you shouldn’t be opining on what else Fast Rolling is or isn’t.

Anyone want to guess what’s on the top right of this photo OF THE CORE RULES handout?

Again, Stop arguing in bad faith. it weakens your position (Not that you have a strong argument to begin with).

You literally said a discussion of fast rolling wasn't talking about the core rules. Pointing out you don't know what you're talking about is not bad faith. Its not my fault you don't have the ability and/or desire to know what you're talking about to prevent making patently false claims.

But let me be totally clear with you.

You can roll attacks one at a time or you can opt to fast roll.

Once you opt to fast roll, you need to roll all of the attacks that are directed at a single unit at , and have the same Ballistic skill, Strength, etc... you can not roll only some of them, because you need to "make all of the hit rolls at the same time" This clearly means that you can not save some for later, you literally need to make them all at once.

No, and let me be clear with you - The very first sentence instructs you to group "several" attacks together. You must then roll ALL of those SEVERAL attacks together. Several comes before the ALL, so ALL Refers to the Several.

Not sure how you can even fathom the opposite.

Mostly because I read what's there, not what I want to be there.

This should be done as your side has no rules backing at all.

Other than very wording of the Fast Rolling Rules read in the order they're written instead of trying to chop the end onto the beginning.

@DeathReaper,
That's just how sentences/paragraphs work, not sure what to tell you further then that ... You know, if it said "do the following to make several attacks at once. Roll all hit dice with the same characteristics together. " Then you'd totally be right.... but that's not what it says. I know the words are similar, I know that the phrase "all hit dice" is in there. But the way that these words are organized, into sentences and a paragraph, it is quite effectively and clearly conveying a different message.
I suggest to read it out loud, pause at every piece of punctuation properly, and maybe say it to a friend or someone near by. The meaning should become clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
p.s. that's what I do when a piece of writing either confuses me or others are telling me I am parsing it wrong. This is often true with rules from games. The trick is to pay very close attention to the punctuation while you read it and apply pauses appropriately (i.e. commas, periods, etc).

Usually in the case of rules, I read it out loud to my self, or if my opponent is in the room I read it to them. It then usually becomes clear who is correctly parsing the rule. (sometimes we even read it together XD).

I highly suggest trying this with this set of rules
.

U02dah4 wrote:



"However, it is possible to speed up your battles by
rolling the dice for similar attacks together.
In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

A little hypothetical:

X people graduate from university.

Y graduates are chosen to join MI6 based on the criteria that they must all be able to speak 3 languages. They must also have knowledge of computer programming techniques. If this is the case all graduates must sign a form agreeing to be bound by the official secrets act.

Now, in this scenario, are all the graduates from X who can speak 3 languages and have knowledge of computer programming made to sign the form or only those Y chosen to join MI6?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:



"However, it is possible to speed up your battles by
rolling the dice for similar attacks together.
In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

A little hypothetical:

X people graduate from university.

Y graduates are chosen to join MI6 based on the criteria that they must all be able to speak 3 languages. They must also have knowledge of computer programming techniques. If this is the case all graduates must sign a form agreeing to be bound by the official secrets act.

Now, in this scenario, are all the graduates from X who can speak 3 languages and have knowledge of computer programming made to sign the form or only those Y chosen to join MI6?

Good comparison.

p.s. I love your screen name, that episode scared the bejezus out of me as a kid.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:


RAW clearly relays that similar attacks may be rolled together in what ever batches you want.

This is of course false. As the above clearly ignores the rules.

This is of course false, as the above clearly ignores the very first instruction of "Several".

You do not grasp what the sentence is saying.

It literally defines "Several", in this case "However, it is possible to speed up your battles by rolling the dice for similar attacks together. In order to make several attacks at once..."

It says "rolling the dice" not rolling some of the dice. The dice, this implies ALL of the dice, since it does not say some, so you can not just roll some, you need to roll the dice.

You have no rules backing on this one.

 Type40 wrote:
@DeathReaper,
That's just how sentences/paragraphs work, not sure what to tell you further then that ... You know, if it said "do the following to make several attacks at once. Roll all hit dice with the same characteristics together. " Then you'd totally be right.... but that's not what it says. I know the words are similar, I know that the phrase "all hit dice" is in there. But the way that these words are organized, into sentences and a paragraph, it is quite effectively and clearly conveying a different message.
I suggest to read it out loud, pause at every piece of punctuation properly, and maybe say it to a friend or someone near by. The meaning should become clear.

You are ignoring that it says " by rolling the dice for similar attacks together..."

The dice, not some of the dice.

Breton wrote:
You literally said it wasn't a core rule, when it literally is. The bad faith is yours.

False, you failed to understand what I was talking about, you ignored the context of what I was saying (seemingly willfully). The bad faith is not mine.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
This should be done as your side has no rules backing at all.

Other than very wording of the Fast Rolling Rules read in the order they're written instead of trying to chop the end onto the beginning.

It seriously does not say what you think it says, you are ignoring the context.

Deathreaper, you might do well to stow the “you have no backup” when your interpretation is based on misreading the English. Let’s take the “you do not grasp” and “you have no rules backing” etc. insinuations down a notch, given grammar is against you here.

Grammatically, you’re completely incorrect. The sentence does not define “several” at all. Rolling “all the dice” refers to the several attacks you’ve chosen - you’re rolling all the dice for those attacks together not one by one. This has been explained by other posters already. This is how grammar works here. There is no compulsion to group ALL similar shots in the RAW, just to roll all the dice for the group of shots you choose at the same time.

As others have also said, if it functioned the way you say then Fast Rolling only works if you you fire all guns at one target. You believe the wording compels you to roll all e.g. Bolters together... hard luck if you wanted to split fire, eh? Luckily that isn’t the case.

The weird tangent about not being able to split things because you have e.g. 30 shots to make and only 10 dice is... well that’s only an internet problem. Jeez, if anyone tried pulling that reading I’d carry on, and if they insisted I’d just laugh and pack up... save myself grief at whatever other lawyering they might be harbouring. Honestly... if you’ve declared you’re grouping shots but don’t have enough dice just roll dice til you’ve rolled enough, or sub-batch them. It really is a non-problem and this forum’s utility is diminished every time a thread falls down a rabbit hole like that. The forum is ultimately about how to play the game, and it’s entirely possible to make more shots than you have dice. End of.

Nope not ignoring it, reading it out loud and quite clearly.

The statement "by rolling the dice for similar attacks together" is a non-specific statement in terms of quantity.
here is the syntax

Do Y with X

This is non-limiting syntax.
For example.
"I have 100 boxes of cream cheese and 200 boxes of crackers"
Insert similar syntax here :
"Party atendees are expected to eat the cream cheese and crackers together"

This does not mean party attendees must each eat ALL the cream cheese and crackers. It doesn't even mean that party attendees are expected to eat ALL the cream cheese and crackers as a whole.
Just that they are expected eat cream cheese and crackers together. They can eat one, two , three, or even 100 sets of these. But the ammount is up to the party members themselves.

Or it could be subject to further instructions by me.
i.e. I can add further instruction by saying "party members can eat several sets of cheese and crackers together and if so they must spread the cream cheese on the crackers. If this is the case each atendee can eat all their crackers and cheese in the same sitting."

That's the syntax, sorry.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Deathreaper, you might do well to stow the “you have no backup” when your interpretation is based on misreading the English.

you can claim that, but it is not true.

I am taking all aspects into account, the other side is ignoring the "by rolling the dice for similar attacks together..." quote. It says the dice, not some of the dice.

Let’s take the “you do not grasp” and “you have no rules backing” etc. insinuations down a notch, given grammar is against you here.

It is not an insinuation, it is a fact, and grammar is not against me, as I have proven.

Grammatically, you’re completely incorrect. The sentence does not define “several” at all.

False. You need to ignore things for your statement to be true.

Rolling “all the dice” refers to the several attacks you’ve chosen - you’re rolling all the dice for those attacks together not one by one. This has been explained by other posters already. This is how grammar works here. There is no compulsion to group ALL similar shots in the RAW, just to roll all the dice for the group of shots you choose at the same time.

again false, in context, Rolling “all the dice” refers to all the attacks with the same BS/Str etc.

As others have also said, if it functioned the way you say then Fast Rolling only works if you you fire all guns at one target. You believe the wording compels you to roll all e.g. Bolters together... hard luck if you wanted to split fire, eh? Luckily that isn’t the case.

again not true. of the attacks at any given target, with attacks with the same BS/Str etc... need to be rolled together. They literally have a provision for other targets.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Deathreaper, you might do well to stow the “you have no backup” when your interpretation is based on misreading the English.

you can claim that, but it is not true.

I am taking all aspects into account, the other side is ignoring the "by rolling the dice for similar attacks together..." quote. It says the dice, not some of the dice.

Let’s take the “you do not grasp” and “you have no rules backing” etc. insinuations down a notch, given grammar is against you here.

It is not an insinuation, it is a fact, and grammar is not against me, as I have proven.

Grammatically, you’re completely incorrect. The sentence does not define “several” at all.

False. You need to ignore things for your statement to be true.

Rolling “all the dice” refers to the several attacks you’ve chosen - you’re rolling all the dice for those attacks together not one by one. This has been explained by other posters already. This is how grammar works here. There is no compulsion to group ALL similar shots in the RAW, just to roll all the dice for the group of shots you choose at the same time.

again false, in context, Rolling “all the dice” refers to all the attacks with the same BS/Str etc.

As others have also said, if it functioned the way you say then Fast Rolling only works if you you fire all guns at one target. You believe the wording compels you to roll all e.g. Bolters together... hard luck if you wanted to split fire, eh? Luckily that isn’t the case.

again not true. of the attacks at any given target, with attacks with the same BS/Str etc... need to be rolled together. They literally have a provision for other targets.

Please see my previous post. Your interpretation of the syntax is wrong. Grammar is, in fact, not on your side.

This may be a fool's errand, but...

If you change the "several" in that first sentence to read "In order to roll five attacks at once..." then look at the part of the rule instructing you to roll all the dice, it should become clear that "all" refers to the quantity mentioned in the previous sentence. That being the case, it should be clear that "all" does not therefore refer to all of a unit's identical attacks, but only those you've chosen as being the "several" attacks you're rolling at the same time. There's no compulsion there to make "several" all of a unit's attacks.

Slipspace wrote:
This may be a fool's errand, but...

If you change the "several" in that first sentence to read "In order to roll five attacks at once..." then look at the part of the rule instructing you to roll all the dice, it should become clear that "all" refers to the quantity mentioned in the previous sentence. That being the case, it should be clear that "all" does not therefore refer to all of a unit's identical attacks, but only those you've chosen as being the "several" attacks you're rolling at the same time. There's no compulsion there to make "several" all of a unit's attacks.

I brought up the same point 2 pages ago XD... it didn't seem to change any minds.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:



"However, it is possible to speed up your battles by
rolling the dice for similar attacks together.
In order to make several attacks at once, all of the attacks must have the same Ballistic Skill (if it’s a shooting attack) or
the same Weapon Skill (if it’s a close combat attack). They must also have the same Strength, Armour Penetration and Damage characteristics, and they must be directed at the same unit. If this is the case, make all of the hit rolls at the same time, then all of the wound rolls."

A little hypothetical:

X people graduate from university.

Y graduates are chosen to join MI6 based on the criteria that they must all be able to speak 3 languages. They must also have knowledge of computer programming techniques. If this is the case all graduates must sign a form agreeing to be bound by the official secrets act.

Now, in this scenario, are all the graduates from X who can speak 3 languages and have knowledge of computer programming made to sign the form or only those Y chosen to join MI6?

According to these people, it's even the graduates who can't speak 3 languages and/or have no knowledge of computer programming. It's ALL GRADUATES.

 Type40 wrote:
Please see my previous post. Your interpretation of the syntax is wrong. Grammar is, in fact, not on your side.

Your previous post is incorrect. The syntax agrees with my interpretation because your interpretation ignores things.

Grammar is, in fact, on my side.

But since you are not willing to provide quotes. I guess this is finished.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Grammar is, in fact, on my side.

Nope. It really doesn't.

Or are all graduates who can speak 3 languages and have knowledge of programming required to sign up to be bound by the OSA?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Please see my previous post. Your interpretation of the syntax is wrong. Grammar is, in fact, not on your side.

Your previous post is incorrect. The syntax agrees with my interpretation because your interpretation ignores things.

And if anyone knows about ignoring things, its the guy who ignores the fact that Several comes before All, so it's all of several.

Grammar is, in fact, on my side.

Because I said so. To someone who teaches grammar for a living.

But since you are not willing to provide quotes. I guess this is finished.

Someone who is unwilling to provide quotes that several must be all, is declaring victory because an English teacher can't provide quotes from the rules of a game about how English works.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Please see my previous post. Your interpretation of the syntax is wrong. Grammar is, in fact, not on your side.

Your previous post is incorrect. The syntax agrees with my interpretation because your interpretation ignores things.

And if anyone knows about ignoring things, its the guy who ignores the fact that Several comes before All, so it's all of several

Incorrect again.

It says "rolling the dice" not rolling some of the dice.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Type40 wrote:
Please see my previous post. Your interpretation of the syntax is wrong. Grammar is, in fact, not on your side.

Your previous post is incorrect. The syntax agrees with my interpretation because your interpretation ignores things.

And if anyone knows about ignoring things, its the guy who ignores the fact that Several comes before All, so it's all of several

Incorrect again.

It says "rolling the dice" not rolling some of the dice.

Nobody has said rolling some of the dice. This is a strawman, where you lie about what we said to make what you said sound right.

You can put all your wrong in several posts.

This says what you mean. Several of your posts contain all your wrong answers.

Several of your posts are all wrong.

This means what we say. In some but not necessarily all of your posts, you're all wrong.

lol. I did provide quotes,,, and examples,,, what are you even talking about @deathreaper XD . I specifically showed how I was not ignoring what you keep saying I am XD.


Just for clarification, I do not teach grammar. I teach theoretical media sciences. This means myself and my students are expected to have a high level of academic writing (as this field relies highly on technical writing and theoretical writing for publications). So a part of my job is to teach and enforce correct English styles. I am not specifically an English teacher though. Sorry for any confusion there.