Warptime

[Agrab]

BRB pg 11 ".... a player may move any of his units-all of them if he wishes-...."

By your logic Agrab I would be forced to move all of my units, this is not the case.

The problem with grammar arguments is

A) the rules are written with British 'english' not American 'english' there are many subtle differences.

B ) The rules are not textbooks. They are full of odd wording and poor sentence contruction.

C ) Game mechanics are more important than grammar.

D) When someone uses grammar for a rules argument it usally means they don't have a good rules argument.

 

 

a dash like that serves as a clarification or expansion in english, which means it merely says you can do all, the any is the primary modifier there

 

A) i knew that would come up, two of the PhDs got it at Oxford

:) I know that, however, as this one is not clear, and we are discussing RAI, then it is as written

C) I agree, but the normal game mechanics have other modifiers MOST of the time

D) No, it simply means they are discussing RAI as indicated

[Agrab]

Cale, we are all adults here, so please stop attacking us and insulting us. Normally ad hocs are reserved for those who are knowingly losing their argument, so keep in mind what you show us.

 

I haven't attacked anyone, and the term you're looking for is "ad hominem." Nice try, though. =P

 

I apologize for having the wrong term, but you did use quite insulting language towards both myself, my girlfriends parents, and my mother... and she is a pure woman

 

 

That said, I have three points:

 

1) There is no other instance that I know of where ALL is used without any other modifier, so this is a special case (please let me know if i am wrong)

 

Irrelevant--especially since, in this case, "all" is used with another modifier: "may." That "may" makes all the difference.

 

If the rule said, "the sorcerer re-rolls all of his rolls to hit and rolls to wound," then you'd be almost right. You would have to re-roll them all, but you couldn't opt not to do so.

 

I guess I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, here.

 

My point is that we can not look at precedent which you tried earlier, i address your modifier issue in the next quote

 

 

2) We both admit that all is the first modifier, so that means, based on normal english grammar, that may modifies all rolls. You are reading it as all doesnt matter.

 

It is the first modifier, and it does mean that the may modifies all rolls.

The conclusion that, by the rules of "normal english grammar," the may modifies all rolls as a set is an error. The word "all" doesn't lump all the rolls together into a single set which is modified by the may. It just specifies that all rolls are included as objects.

 

Objects--that's the important part. Though all rolls are included, they are included as individual objects of the sentence. The object of the sentence is not a singular thing. It is not a set which includes all the rolls. It is just all the rolls individually.

 

It is not an error, but the proper order of modifying. You are telling me that big,small box =small,big box, and they don't. The object in this sentence are rolls, the all groups them into one, thus the new object to be modified by may is all rolls

again, if you can give me a grammatical reason how this is not the case, as i already have given you the reasons it is, please do so

 

 

3) all is not any, you are reading 'may reroll ANY...', not the proper wording of 'may reroll ALL'

 

True, but in this case both words would accomplish the same task. Surely, being a student of English, you're aware of plenty of situations in which two different words denote the same situation. ;)

 

Yes, but not in this call. Certain words can result in the same basic meaning or usage (usage for, say, all failed rolls or may reroll any usually have the same usage), but all rolls and any rolls are nowhere near the same in usage or meaning.

 

 

 

now, if you have grammar to beat me please show it to me so i can rectify my position, but, until you show me grammar that agrees with your contention my experts, as well as my grammar, wins.

 

Produced above: the answer is simple and I've already presented it more than once.

 

In order for you to be correct, the object of the sentence would have be singular--it would have to be the set of all rolls to hit and rolls to wound.

 

It is not. Instead, all rolls to hit and rolls to wound are included as individual objects.

That, in turn, means that may applies to each of them individually--not as a set.

That, in turn means that you may choose to re-roll all of them as individuals.

 

If the sentence wanted you to treat them as a set, it would have to be worded differently--worded so that it is clear that they were being grouped together in a singular set. Something like, "the sorcerer may choose to re-roll the the set of all of his rolls to hit and the set of all of his rolls to hit." That wording would support your conclusion.

 

Surely, you can see that the wording which exists is substantially different from that wording.

 

All - ": the whole amount, quantity, or extent of"

I see that as a grouping thing, so try to tell me when the all loses its meaning and becomes something indivdual

[Isiah]

Ok well I've no interest in whether a person has a PhD in English or not. Frankly if the rule needs that amount of brain power to unravel it's meaning then we're all on shaky ground. This is all just going around in circles.

 

This is going into the Grey Area topic. I'll post a summary once I've read back through all the posts :blink: which should be fun.

 

In the meantime - to stop further to-ing and fro-ing and dictionary and grammar machinations to no avail...

 

 

Cheers

I