HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 New FAQ up

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3
AuthorMessage
Psylynt
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2015-02-04
Location : York Pa

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sat Jun 06 2015, 23:35

I was trying to make it obvious.

You are just reading the the last part,

Immobilized have the jink special rule.

i will capitalize the important parts so you can understand the nuances of the sentence.
Skimmers that are NOT ALSO HEAVY VEHICLES OR ARE IMMOBILIZED have the jink special rule.

Very simple. Skimmers can jink unless it is heavy or becomes immobilized. It's what the sentence says and it's very clear.

It's the same as saying "humans that are not also boys or are girls have the jink special rule.
Back to top Go down
Psylynt
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2015-02-04
Location : York Pa

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sat Jun 06 2015, 23:39

No double posts please. Use the edit function - Count Adhemar
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7226
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sat Jun 06 2015, 23:53

@Psylynt wrote:
i will capitalize the important parts so you can understand the nuances of the sentence.
Skimmers that are NOT ALSO HEAVY VEHICLES OR ARE IMMOBILIZED have the jink special rule.

Very simple. Skimmers can jink unless it is heavy or becomes immobilized. It's what the sentence says and it's very clear.

There are no nuances to that sentence. You have to read the entire sentence and not simply ignore any words that aren't convenient to your interpretation.

Quote :
It's the same as saying "humans that are not also boys or are girls have the jink special rule.

And, in the above case, who do you think would have the jink special rule? Boys, girls, both or neither?

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
Psylynt
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2015-02-04
Location : York Pa

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sun Jun 07 2015, 00:41

Neither would. That's the point.

I understand that you have the opinion that immobilized skimmers cannot jink. But you are having a issue with the wording. I can only go so far the illuminate you on the English language.

As I stated above the RAW is written correctly. The obvious problem for you is you are looking at the sentence in two parts.
As you stated earlier when you broke down the sentence you did it wrong. Without going into writing theory the sentence is stating what two conditions exist that do not allow jinks.

Let's look at what the sentence states.
Skimmers that are not also heavy (so regular skimmers ) or are immobilized ( skimmers that still mobile) have the jink special rule.
I put into brackets what has the jink special rule.
What you are claiming does not make grammatical sense. there are no commas, no breaks in thought. If is makes it even easier I just got this reply from my editor friend, just read the words , NOT, HEAVY, OR, IMMOBILIZED.

The word " are " does nothing to change the meaning of the second part.
Back to top Go down
TCS900
Slave
avatar

Posts : 19
Join date : 2015-06-05

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sun Jun 07 2015, 01:15

Just my 2 cents. I have to agree with Psylynt but the wording of it should.be changed to make it easier to understand.
TCS900
Back to top Go down
thenick18
Hellion


Posts : 76
Join date : 2014-02-01

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sun Jun 07 2015, 02:19

I'm also in agreement with Psylynt. The wording and structure of the sentence is fine, a comma within the sentence could help clarify how the sentence reads but alas, this is GW and they don't use commas.
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7226
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sun Jun 07 2015, 07:35

Sorry, but as I said earlier, you cannot simply ignore words that are inconvenient. However you parse that sentence there is a negative (not heavy) and a positive (immobilised) and no matter how you twist it, you cannot get them both positive or both negative. If that is what was intended then the sentence needs to lose the extra 'are' because, regardless of what your 'editor' friend might tell you, it does change the meaning of the sentence.

To go back to your other example, I think that makes it even clearer. You say that neither boys nor girls can jink. But the sentence applies to "humans that are not also boys" and "humans that are girls". Excluding hermaphrodites, I think we have to assume that 'girls' is the same as 'not boys'. Your example absolutely does not prevent boys from jinking, despite your claims.

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?


Last edited by Count Adhemar on Mon Jun 08 2015, 11:08; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Barking Agatha
Wych
avatar

Posts : 763
Join date : 2012-07-02

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sun Jun 07 2015, 08:54

Be fair. Since GW have couched this as 'errata', the author of the FAQ is forced to alter an already-existing sentence in the basic rulebook to mean more than it did before while changing it as little as possible, which is bound to result in awkward phrasing. They were also probably told to do this at 4:00 pm and to have it ready by the end of the day. Besides, you sussed out the intended meaning in spite of the poor wording, and so did everyone else, so aren't we just being pedantic?

Besides, if GW really did write up rules in language designed to prevent any possibility of willful or accidental misinterpretation, they would end up looking like this:

'WHEREAS the party of the first part, heretofore referred to as the SHOOTING unit, and the party of the second part heretofore referred to as the JINKING unit, shall come to be defined as the two parties involved in the definition of this rule, AD NAUSEAUM, DIES IRAE, ET CETERA, this rule shall require that the JINKING unit, as defined just now, be in possession of the following attributes that will be listed after the end of this sentence that I haven't finished yet, but now I have, and they are: Item a) That the JINKING unit may be a VEHICLE, as defined in Clause XVII, Paragraph Five of this Rule; Item b) That if the JINKING unit be a VEHICLE, as established in Item a), said VEHICLE may not be an IMMOBILISED VEHICLE, as defined in Clause XVII, Paragraph Five, a little further down, unless specifically given permission to do so by another Rule that references this one by Clause, Paragraph, and Item, though it is understood that said permission will apply only to the specific recipient as defined by such a Rule, and not extend to any other JINKING unit in general; Item c) That if the JINKING unit be a VEHICLE, as defined in Clause XVII, Paragraph Five of this Rule, which we've already said but needs to be repeated just in case, said VEHICLE may not be a HEAVY VEHICLE, as defined in Clause CCXII, Paragraph Ten of this Rule, unless specifically given permission to do so by .... '

Is that what we want?
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 7226
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Sun Jun 07 2015, 09:57

@Barking Agatha wrote:
Be fair. Since GW have couched this as 'errata', the author of the FAQ is forced to alter an already-existing sentence in the basic rulebook to mean more than it did before while changing it as little as possible, which is bound to result in awkward phrasing. They were also probably told to do this at 4:00 pm and to have it ready by the end of the day. Besides, you sussed out the intended meaning in spite of the poor wording, and so did everyone else, so aren't we just being pedantic?

I've already said that we can probably all agree on what GW meant to say but I'm happy to argue the toss ad infinitum et nauseum with anyone who tries to tell me that what they wrote actually says that when it doesn't. Very Happy

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
WrackYourBrains
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 50
Join date : 2014-10-07

PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   Tue Jun 09 2015, 10:13

This post is becoming a thoroughly good read.

The Count is spot on.

And his choice of signature is utterly priceless...
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: New FAQ up   

Back to top Go down
 
New FAQ up
Back to top 
Page 3 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

COMMORRAGH TACTICA

 :: Rules: Queries & Questions
-
Jump to: