Cleansing Flame

[Brother Valerius]

Soooo...in the context of a multiple assault where the single Purifier squad engages six or more different units in one charge, which unit gets the wound?

 

...

 

The stance that "only one wound is delivered" falls apart there, so I think it's safest to assume they do in fact mean "each model".

 

Thade, you really aren't listening to me if you think I believe that the power only delivers one wound. My point is that unless we interpret the rule to really mean "each model" (not "all models" as is stated), there is only one wound. And if we interpret it to mean "each model", then there is more than one roll. Pick your poison: only one wound, or more than one roll. You can't have multiple wounds with one roll.

[thade]

Thade, you really aren't listening to me if you think I believe that the power only delivers one wound. My point is that unless we interpret the rule to really mean "each model" (not "all models" as is stated), there is only one wound. And if we interpret it to mean "each model", then there is more than one roll. Pick your poison: only one wound, or more than one roll. You can't have multiple wounds with one roll.

Ah, I see. I did miss that. Yes, you both make a good point.

 

Really, no matter which they meant, the word "each" should be included in that rule; one way or another it would clear this up.

[Dan VK]

To begin with, I think everyone needs to take a step back, take a deep breath, and not let this turn into genuine flaming. I am offended by the implication that I am being pedantic. <_< If you feel that I am a pedant please keep it to yourself in the future. :angry: Let me explain my argument in additional detail because I have obviously been unclear, and my point has not been adequately communicated.

 

"All enemy models" means every single enemy model; it is an adjective modifying 'models' and not a mass noun. A mass noun stands for multiple things viewed as a single group, such as 'team', 'squad', and 'unit'. This means the 'wound' referenced is applied to every particular thing, in this case 'models'; every model takes a wound. Unfortunately they wrote "a roll" and 'a' is the singular article, meaning there is a single roll, not a single roll per model. Additionally, in this context 'all' and 'each' are synonymous; replacing 'all' with 'each' has the same effect. (All: Collectively, the whole amount or number of, as individuals or particulars, or the whole number of parts. ALSO Every one of a group of persons. Each: Being one of two or more considered individually. - New Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary, as adjectives)

 

The wording is awful and, as previously stated, I cannot imagine this is how developers intended the rule to be played, and I will not be playing it this way, but there is no other way to correctly read the sentence using English grammar. That is what it says. That is the RAW. It is not unclear. It is, however, stupid. :D

 

Omitting 'a' and pluralizing 'roll' solves the problem: "all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on rolls of 4+"

 

 

[EDIT: Removed flaming. :blush:]

[thade]

Dan, I really appreciate (and envy) your grasp on grammar.

[Dan VK]

Dan, I really appreciate (and envy) your grasp on grammar.

And I very much appreciate your statement and envy your tact, which, if you haven't noticed, I tend to lack. I work as a writer so my grasp of grammar is very important. In the spirit of full disclosure I also live with someone who has a bachelors degree in English with a minor in English education. :D I am very glad she doesn't wargame.

[SeattleDV8]

Ah Dan , yes you are pedantic.

You are also correct.

This is a case of silly RAW.

Every one (with half a brain) can see what the rules say, but no one plays that way.

 

This is something every one should house rule to 'each' model.

[Brother Valerius]

The wording is awful and, as previously stated, I cannot imagine this is how developers intended the rule to be played, and I will not be playing it this way, but there is no other way to correctly read the sentence using English grammar. That is what it says.

 

That is really, really not true. "Each model [outcome] on [singular condition]" does not mean that there is one test which applies to all. The condition is singular, but because it refers to EACH model, there can be more than one evaluation of the condition.

 

I also apologize if I offended you, but I was not insulting you when I said this discussion is pedantic. When you're debating the minutiae of grammar to resolve a rules discussion, there's not really another term to describe the debate except "pedantic". ;)

[thade]

Tact on the Internet is easier than it looks. You already have half of it: proper punctuation, grammar, and good word choices. The only thing you're missing are liberal applications of smilies and winkies.

[Dan VK]

The wording is awful and, as previously stated, I cannot imagine this is how developers intended the rule to be played, and I will not be playing it this way, but there is no other way to correctly read the sentence using English grammar. That is what it says.

 

That is really, really not true. "Each model [outcome] on [singular condition]" does not mean that there is one test which applies to all. The condition is singular, but because it refers to EACH model, there can be more than one evaluation of the condition.

I do not understand; I am obviously missing something. Are you saying there must be multiple die rolls because there are multiple models that are effected?

 

I also apologize if I offended you, but I was not insulting you when I said this discussion is pedantic. When you're debating the minutiae of grammar to resolve a rules discussion, there's not really another term to describe the debate except "pedantic". ;)

I am touchy and tend to misread statements because they are in cold text instead of easily discernible speech. Thade can vouch for this, hence his quote in my signature. To refer to my signature again, I apologize for being cranky. In retrospect it is very clear that the debate is pedantic, and my last rules post was definitely pedantic. :wacko:

[Brother Valerius]

The wording is awful and, as previously stated, I cannot imagine this is how developers intended the rule to be played, and I will not be playing it this way, but there is no other way to correctly read the sentence using English grammar. That is what it says.

 

That is really, really not true. "Each model [outcome] on [singular condition]" does not mean that there is one test which applies to all. The condition is singular, but because it refers to EACH model, there can be more than one evaluation of the condition.

I do not understand; I am obviously missing something. Are you saying there must be multiple die rolls because there are multiple models that are effected?

 

Kind of. Like I said, because "a roll of 4+" is applied to each model, that opens the door for interpretation on our part as to whether there is one or multiple.

 

Let me try another way to explain myself, to see if that makes things clearer. You can parse the sentence into a couple of different phrases which work together differently, so I'll demonstrate the two ways I see to read it:

 

"(Each model suffers a wound) on a roll of 4+" [this is what you're arguing for, of course]

"Each model (suffers a wound on a roll of 4+)" [this is what I see as an equally correct way to read the sentence]

 

It depends on where you place the parentheses, but both are correct ways to read it.

[Jacinda]

"all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound" - If it said "all enemy units" I could understand where you are coming from- being one wound for each unit. However, it says all models- one wound for each model.

Ond wound for ALL, not one wound for EACH. If you wish to interpret it as one wound for EACH then it is also one roll for EACH. You can not switch diffinitions mid sentence. That is my point.

 

If we follow your logic I can then also assume that EACH enemy must roll a 4+ for ONE wound to be applied among ALL involved. Well that is just silly. It should be patiently obviouse this is not the way the power works. Yet if one single roll affects every single model, the logical structure is exactly the same as the one we just concluded was silly. Does that not make sense or am I explaining myself wrong?

[thade]

The relationship between the words "each" and "all" is a bit muddied in me, per this discussion. I think I understand what Dan VK has said; if you agree with him, Jacinda, then I agree with you. <3

[Jacinda]

I don't see how it can be any clearer.

 

"the unit suffers a wound" - 1 wound.

"all models suffer a wound" - as many wounds as there are models.

 

 

And by this very logic, all models roll a die - as many dice as there are models.

[Jacinda]

Let me try a little substitution.

 

RAW "all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound on a roll of 4+" (C:GK pg 31)

 

The sentence is simplified to Subject Suffers Effect.

All enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer the effect.

 

Are we good to this point? If the effect were say, -1 Ld how would we think this would go? Certainly not one model from the group taking -1 Ld and everything else standing. All models would take -1 Ld. The Effect affects all models. All of them, not just one. They all take -1 Ld. No one suffers -2 Ld, nor shale they suffer -3; -5 is right out (sorry for the Python slip ... now where was I,? oh yes ...)

 

How about if the effect were "one wound." The period ends the sentence. All would suffer a wound. One wound for each model. Sure. This we agree on, I hope. Even in the original rule, I agree that each modle suffers a wound.

 

Now how about if the effect were "rolls a die." Just that. All models roll a die. Is it just one die when all pervious examples were multiples depending on the number of models involved? There is one singular effect and it is applied to all. No more; no less. One effect on all models is equal to one effect per model.

 

So now we go back to the beginning. Subject Suffers "one wound on a roll of 4+." That is the effect. One wound on a roll of 4+. It is a single effect applied to all. How can it be anything but one effect per model? If there is only one model it is simple enough, if takes a wound on a 4+. If there are two models involved it is also simple. There is one wound on a 4+ per model. The effect has to be taken as a whole. For every model there is a wound. For every model there is a roll. For every model there is a wound on a roll of 4+.

 

I feel that this is the way it works. One die per model. 4+ and they take a wound, normal saves allowed.

The point I am trying make is that there is one wound for one die. The effect can not be broken up and be taken as one single roll for many wounds, nor many roles for a single wound. There is only one effect and that "one wound, one die” is applied to all. The same effect is applied to all. They all roll a die. It is the same as if it stopped at suffer one wound. They all suffer a wound. But because the two are tied together, they all roll a die and suffer a wound on 4+.

 

The "only one wound" argument was of course a silly argument. There is not one single wound applied some where among all models. That's just daft. Anyone can see that. The point was to show that the same line of argument that says there is only one roll can be used to say there is only one wound. It even goes one to say that all models must roll a 4+ for one wound to be applied. That is, of course, completely borked. But it is the same train of thought that breaks the effect into two separate pieces and then determines how each is applied to all. There is only one effect and it applies to all models. All roll one die. All take one wound. All take one wound on a die roll. Simple.

[Dan VK]

[Cut for space]

[Cut for space]

[Cut for space]

 

Kind of. Like I said, because "a roll of 4+" is applied to each model, that opens the door for interpretation on our part as to whether there is one or multiple.

 

Let me try another way to explain myself, to see if that makes things clearer. You can parse the sentence into a couple of different phrases which work together differently, so I'll demonstrate the two ways I see to read it:

 

"(Each model suffers a wound) on a roll of 4+" [this is what you're arguing for, of course]

"Each model (suffers a wound on a roll of 4+)" [this is what I see as an equally correct way to read the sentence]

 

It depends on where you place the parentheses, but both are correct ways to read it.

I understand your point now. Thank you. :D I have a feeling my explanation is going to be as clear as mud. :(

 

There is only one grammatically correct way to read a sentence. There are sentences with multiple meanings, but for the creator to accomplish that they must use words with multiple meanings. The most popular double meaning phrases use incorrect grammar that leave the statement ambiguous. In this case all parts of the sentence correctly correspond to a grammar function and thus have a specific very specific meaning, like the definition for 'all' as an adjective I quoted previously. This is thus not a sentence with multiple meanings. "all enemy models * suffer one wound on a roll of 4+" and "on a roll of 4+ all enemy models * suffer one wound" are identical in meaning. According to this sentence there is only ever one die roll. There is nothing in the original wording modifying "on a roll of 4+" to imply multiple die rolls.

 

* "that are part of the same assault" snipped for clutter.

 

"all enemy models that are part of the same assault suffer one wound" - If it said "all enemy units" I could understand where you are coming from- being one wound for each unit. However, it says all models- one wound for each model.

Ond wound for ALL, not one wound for EACH. If you wish to interpret it as one wound for EACH then it is also one roll for EACH. You can not switch diffinitions mid sentence. That is my point.

 

If we follow your logic I can then also assume that EACH enemy must roll a 4+ for ONE wound to be applied among ALL involved. Well that is just silly. It should be patiently obviouse this is not the way the power works. Yet if one single roll affects every single model, the logical structure is exactly the same as the one we just concluded was silly. Does that not make sense or am I explaining myself wrong?

'All' and 'each' have the same meaning in this context; both words mean, "every individual in a group." Also, there is no logical double standard. The meaning is different because the language is different. "all enemy models" means every model that qualifies and is not synonymous with 'unit'. "a roll" means a single roll, even if the outcome of the roll has multiple effects or effects multiple things. Their meanings are unconnected.

 

[Cut for space]

 

So now we go back to the beginning. Subject Suffers "one wound on a roll of 4+." That is the effect. One wound on a roll of 4+. It is a single effect applied to all. How can it be anything but one effect per model? If there is only one model it is simple enough, if takes a wound on a 4+. If there are two models involved it is also simple. There is one wound on a 4+ per model. The effect has to be taken as a whole. For every model there is a wound. For every model there is a roll. For every model there is a wound on a roll of 4+.

 

I feel that this is the way it works. One die per model. 4+ and they take a wound, normal saves allowed.

The point I am trying make is that there is one wound for one die. The effect can not be broken up and be taken as one single roll for many wounds, nor many roles for a single wound. There is only one effect and that "one wound, one die” is applied to all. The same effect is applied to all. They all roll a die. It is the same as if it stopped at suffer one wound. They all suffer a wound. But because the two are tied together, they all roll a die and suffer a wound on 4+.

 

The "only one wound" argument was of course a silly argument. There is not one single wound applied some where among all models. That's just daft. Anyone can see that. The point was to show that the same line of argument that says there is only one roll can be used to say there is only one wound. It even goes one to say that all models must roll a 4+ for one wound to be applied. That is, of course, completely borked. But it is the same train of thought that breaks the effect into two separate pieces and then determines how each is applied to all. There is only one effect and it applies to all models. All roll one die. All take one wound. All take one wound on a die roll. Simple.

You are correct that all enemy models suffer the same effect, "one wound", and that the effect is caused by "a roll", but unfortunately for the models (and my respect for GW rules) they are not entitled to individual causes because they are targeted individually by the effect. There is nothing implying a single die per possible wound in the statement. If the rule read something like "roll to wound as normal but on a 4+..." it would reference the BRB which states a single die roll per model hit.

 

No one suffers -2 Ld, nor shale they suffer -3; -5 is right out (sorry for the Python slip ... now where was I,? oh yes ...)

:mellow:

I wish there was a subforum for discussing rules solely with comedy references.

 

 

[EDIT: Snipped some things for space.]

[Brother Valerius]

I understand your point now. Thank you. :mellow: I have a feeling my explanation is going to be as clear as mud. :D

 

There is only one grammatically correct way to read a sentence. There are sentences with multiple meanings, but for the creator to accomplish that they must use words with multiple meanings. The most popular double meaning phrases use incorrect grammar that leave the statement ambiguous. In this case all parts of the sentence correctly correspond to a grammar function and thus have a specific very specific meaning, like the definition for 'all' as an adjective I quoted previously. This is thus not a sentence with multiple meanings. "all enemy models * suffer one wound on a roll of 4+" and "on a roll of 4+ all enemy models * suffer one wound" are identical in meaning. According to this sentence there is only ever one die roll. There is nothing in the original wording modifying "on a roll of 4+" to imply multiple die rolls.

 

* "that are part of the same assault" snipped for clutter.

 

Your explanation is quite clear, but I still do not agree. The sentence is ambiguous, because it is unclear whether "on a roll of 4+" is part of the event that happens to each model, or if it is the singular condition that must be met before the result happens to each model. There is nothing to indicate whether this is the case, and I still maintain that the sentence can be correctly read either way.

 

You clearly understand me, so I'm glad I have made myself clear. We're going to have to agree to disagree here, because I steadfastly maintain that it is not true that there is only one way to correctly read the sentence. Nothing you can say will convince me on that point, and obviously you are unswayed by my arguments.

[thade]

Honestly, I'm moved by Dan's credentials alone in this matter; they seem validated by the way he's posed his responses this far. I feel like an underclassman arguing with a department chair at this point. His knowledge of grammar to my knowledge of grammar is akin to a CS professor's knowledge of NP compared to a first-year's knowledge of NP.

 

So...I think I'm still justified in supporting "roll a die per model". I'll go with that.

[dswanick]

Honestly, I'm moved by Dan's credentials alone in this matter; they seem validated by the way he's posed his responses this far. I feel like an underclassman arguing with a department chair at this point. His knowledge of grammar to my knowledge of grammar is akin to a CS professor's knowledge of NP compared to a first-year's knowledge of NP.

 

So...I think I'm still justified in supporting "roll a die per model". :lol: I'll go with that.

Which would be useful if the rules writers at GW also had an equal knowledge of grammar. ;) Not to dismiss your excellent post Dan, but I doubt the guys at GW have advanced degrees related to english grammar and writing so they may not have made a conscious decision to write the sentence in exactly the correct way to reflect the way they wanted the rule used.

[thade]

Not to dismiss your excellent post Dan, but I doubt the guys at GW have advanced degrees related to english grammar and writing so they may not have made a conscious decision to write the sentence in exactly the correct way to reflect the way they wanted the rule used.

He definitely seems aware of that; I agree as well. Hence, where I've settled.

[Dan VK]

Your explanation is quite clear, but I still do not agree. The sentence is ambiguous, because it is unclear whether "on a roll of 4+" is part of the event that happens to each model, or if it is the singular condition that must be met before the result happens to each model. There is nothing to indicate whether this is the case, and I still maintain that the sentence can be correctly read either way. You clearly understand me, so I'm glad I have made myself clear. We're going to have to agree to disagree here, because I steadfastly maintain that it is not true that there is only one way to correctly read the sentence. Nothing you can say will convince me on that point, and obviously you are unswayed by my arguments.

If "on a roll of 4+" is part of the event there is no longer anything in the rule to trigger the event. The syntax indicates that for the first clause to occur the second clause must be satisfied and that the second clause is not part of the first clause. "all enemy models *suffer one wound" is dependent on "on a roll of 4" because that is how grammar works. I wish I could explain it more, but it would be easier to link to a textbook on games-workshop, and that seems over the top to me.

 

Honestly, I'm moved by Dan's credentials alone in this matter; they seem validated by the way he's posed his responses this far. I feel like an underclassman arguing with a department chair at this point. His knowledge of grammar to my knowledge of grammar is akin to a CS professor's knowledge of NP compared to a first-year's knowledge of NP.

 

So...I think I'm still justified in supporting "roll a die per model". :P I'll go with that.

Which would be useful if the rules writers at GW also had an equal knowledge of grammar. ^_^ Not to dismiss your excellent post Dan, but I doubt the guys at GW have advanced degrees related to english grammar and writing so they may not have made a conscious decision to write the sentence in exactly the correct way to reflect the way they wanted the rule used.

Thanks for the knowledge support everyone. :lol: I feel all :lol: now. But what they meant to convey does not matter when compared to what they did write. It is clear how we will all be playing the rule, and how we will be suggesting the rule be played, but that is not what the rule literally states. ;) Almost all other rules stand up to this level of scrutiny, and the ones that do not tend to end up in the Grey Area Rules section.

 

I agree with Brother Valerius that we seem to be at an impasse. If we are not accepting each other's arguments then we are no longer having a discussion. At least the interpretation I do not agree with is identical to how I think the rule should be FAQ'd. ;)

 

 

[EDIT: Added additional responses because I am a slowpoke.]

[Isiah]

One for an errata for sure. Undoubtedly there is ambiguity if/where the meaning isn't totally clear. I expect the meaning was very clear to the Matt Ward – unfortunately he hasn't conveyed it that well.

 

If we argue grammar the cause is lost I think, as most players / gamers just don't have that degree of understanding other than reading things at face value. A simple rewording is all that's required to sort this out.

 

Cheers

I

[Jacinda]

"all enemy models * suffer one wound on a roll of 4+" and "on a roll of 4+ all enemy models * suffer one wound" are identical in meaning.

No, "one wound on a 4+ is suffered by all enemies involved in the assault" is the equivalent of the RAW. If you do not take the whole effect into consideration, you may as well say "all suffer one wound on an enemy model roll of 4+."

 

If we can rearrange the sentence to fit our needs then "suffer one wound, all enemy models roll on a 4+" is also correct. So the attacker takes one wound if all defenders roll a 4+.

 

I am saying that you are taking a single effect and breaking it in two parts. "suffer one wound on a 4+" is all one complete and whole effect.

The roll of 4+ is tied to the one wound. If you seperate them you are inviting misinterpritation. If the the sentence had indeed been "on a roll of 4+, all enemys involved in the assualt take one wound" it would be easy to see that one roll is made. But it is not the object nor the prefix of the action. It is a sufix and happens to all models. It happens to all models just as sure as the wound happens to all models because of where it is placed.

 

Of course, I do understand what you are saying and there is no way I will change your mind any more than you will change mine. I am sure you are shaking your head saying "why can she not understand this?" Perhaps I am just stubborn.

 

It would be nice to have a poll option and just take a vote at points like this. And there are so many points like this :)

Anyway, we are to the point of banging our heads and rehasing the same points.

 

Thank you for the debate.

[thade]

I think Isiah's point is the most salient one. Jacinda and Dan, both of your arguments have served one solid purpose: to show that the wording of the sentence is terrible. We need an FAQ.

[Isiah]

It would be nice to have a poll option and just take a vote at points like this.

 

It would but our vote wouldn't count for anything other than 'fun' :).

[Dan VK]

I think Isiah's point is the most salient one. Jacinda and Dan, both of your arguments have served one solid purpose: to show that the wording of the sentence is terrible. We need an FAQ.

:)