PDA

View Full Version : Is there a general definition of "and"?



quindraco
03-21-2013, 10:00 AM
Some examples, to start with:

Combo Smite: "On a hit, instead of making a normal damage roll the target model is slammed d6" directly away from this model and suffers a damage roll with POW equal to the STR of this model plus twice the POW of this weapon."

Per this ruling (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?138013-Combo-Smite-Damage-and-quot-Can-t-Be-Slammed-quot-Models&highlight=combo+smite), "is slammed [...] and suffers [..]" both happen or not at all, so immunity to slamming applies to the damage.

Headbutt: "If the attack hits, the target is knocked down and suffers a damage roll with a POW equal to the attacker's current STR."

Per this ruling (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?152503-can-you-headbutt-a-colossal&p=1958444&viewfull=1#post1958444), "is knocked down and suffers [..]" are independent, so immunity to being knocked down does not apply to the damage.

There are numerous examples of this sort of wording; for example, Bob & Weave, the Winter Guard order, says "Affected models make a full advance [...] and gain +2 DEF for one round.", which as I understand it follows the headbutt ruling, so an inability to advance does not affect the +2 DEF. Should we use one of the two definitions above (and if so, which one) until told otherwise, or ask on here every time? For example, the Tornado spell says : "[...] is thrown [...] and suffers [...]." When used on a model which is immune to being thrown, should we assume the slam ruling applies, the headbutt ruling applies, or just ask immediately before attempting to play?

For example, Colossals cannot be slammed, pushed, thrown, knocked down, or made stationary. As a player, I know how to resolve slam immunity against combo smite, because I have a ruling. I also know how to apply knocked down immunity against headbutt, because I have a ruling. These rulings are mutually exclusive when I try to understand how to apply being thrown immunity against Tornado. How should I go about working out how to play? What about Force Hammer against a model which is immune to slams - am I safe applying the Combo Smite ruling, or should I ask about that before trying to use it?

tl;dr How should I deal with rules that use the word "and"?

bitmatic
03-21-2013, 10:15 AM
Good question quin... The recent Combo Smite ruling has left me very confused too.

I have spent lots of time trying to explain to opponents that i do not need to advance to get the +2 def from Bob And Weave; Now imagine me 2 minutes later telling them that their combo-smite on my Conquest doesn't damage him.... Nerd-rage will probability will be 100%

solkan
03-21-2013, 10:47 AM
For Combo Smite: The ability describes a slam and then mentions damage. Coincidentally, slams cause damage.

For Headbutt: The ability describes knock down and then mentions damage. Coincidentally, knock down doesn't cause damage.

Doesn't that suggest a significant reason for the difference to you?

But keep in mind that the rules are written in English (or the derived Rules English). The word "and" servers several different functions in that language and in Rules English. If you feel a particular use of "and" in a rule is ambiguous, the most productive thing you can do is ask about that particular use.

quindraco
03-21-2013, 11:14 AM
For Combo Smite: The ability describes a slam and then mentions damage. Coincidentally, slams cause damage.

For Headbutt: The ability describes knock down and then mentions damage. Coincidentally, knock down doesn't cause damage.

Doesn't that suggest a significant reason for the difference to you?

But keep in mind that the rules are written in English (or the derived Rules English). The word "and" servers several different functions in that language and in Rules English. If you feel a particular use of "and" in a rule is ambiguous, the most productive thing you can do is ask about that particular use.

That's an interesting theory for the difference, but I have not seen any articulation of it by an Infernal, PP staffer, errata, etc. If that's the answer to my question, I think it'll cover most cases, but I'm more than a little hesitant to just take your logic and run with it.

The problem is that they're not actually ambiguous in the slightest, and "and" only really serves one purpose in English. The Combo Smite ruling is the aberration here from a grammar/logic perspective - "a and b" means "a" and "b"; the combo smite ruling is basically that "a and b" means "a then b" or, since Rules English has some interesting overrides for "then", "a then b if and only if a". English grammar/logic is how "and" used to work, for things like Bob and Weave, and still works for Headbutt, but there's this new definition for Combo Smite.

If your answer of "ask about everything" is true, us players need to be much more diligent about tracking Infernal rulings.

Innominandum
03-21-2013, 12:41 PM
I think it is:

and conjunction \ən(d), (ˈ)an(d), usually ən(d) after t, d, s or z, often əm after p or b, sometimes əŋ after k or g\
1
—used as a function word to indicate connection or addition especially of items within the same class or type ; used to join sentence elements of the same grammatical rank or function

Pux
03-21-2013, 02:06 PM
Perhaps only tangentially related but Momentum produces the same "no slam, no damage" effect but has slightly different wording to Combo (and Critical) Smite.

"Momentum - ... is slammed d3" directly away from this model. The POW of the slam damage roll..."

rydiafan
03-21-2013, 02:38 PM
I still have yet to understand the "immune to slam = immune to damage" ruling, so I don't have an answer for you.

loramer
03-21-2013, 03:00 PM
For slams, the ruling makes sense to me because in order to take damage for a slam you must be the target of a slam. If you cannot be slammed, you cannot be declared the target for the slam, therefore, you never get to the damage portion of the slam.

For the headbutt/immunity to knockdown ruling it makes sense to me because the model that is immune to knockdown can still be a legal target of a headbutt, it simply ignores the portion of the headbutt sequence that knocks the model down.

It's not really a matter of both being conjoined with "and". The slam declaration is not legal, therefore none of it happens. The headbutt declaration is legal, but part of the effects are ignored by the targeted model.


As for the tornado vs. colossal interaction, I need to look up the exact wordings and my wife is trying to talk to me right now so I will have to take a look at that later.

loramer
03-21-2013, 03:30 PM
Hmmm...rereading the ruling on the combo-smite and trying to interpolate the ruling on tornado is making my head spin.

Tornado vs. a model that cannot be thrown I would imagine would be ruled the same as the combo smite. It would take no damage because it cannot be the legal target of a throw.

I'm guessing that similar to Vlander's ruling of:



Read Combo Smite like so:
Quote Originally Posted by Combo Smite, Marauder
Make a melee attack. On a hit, instead of making a normal damage roll the target model is slammed d6˝ directly away from this model and suffers a damage roll with POW equal to the STR of this model plus twice the POW of this weapon. The POW of collateral damage is equal to this modelʼs STR.
All of the blue text is the "instead of making a normal damage roll."

That should mean that tornado's wording of:


Tornado:Instead of suffering a normal damage roll, a non-incorporeal model hit by Tornado is thrown d6" directly away from the spell's point of origin regardless of its base size and suffers a POW 13 damage roll. Collateral damage from this throw is POW13.
should be read with the entire blue part instead of a normal damage roll.

As a general rule, I would guess playing it as if a model is immune to something (like throws or slams) and a spell or effect does that something to the model, it is immune to all effects and damage of that something.

Again, this does not confuse the immunity to knock down/headbutt ruling, as the model is not immune to headbutts, it is only immune to the knockdown portion of the headbutt.

Dev Null
03-21-2013, 03:46 PM
I think you're looking for something that isn't there. The ruling for the slam seems to be saying, essentially:

"Oops. What we meant to say was 'is slammed and suffers X as a result of the slam.' But we didn't. Sorry bout that."

The ruling for knocked down follows the rule as written and the definition of and:

if A then B and C

means immunity to B has no effect on C unless otherwise noted, and vice-versa. Immunity to A blocks both. Unless its overruled by errata, thats the definition I'd use.

wazatdingder
03-21-2013, 03:53 PM
I hate 40k.

quindraco
03-21-2013, 04:43 PM
Again, this does not confuse the immunity to knock down/headbutt ruling, as the model is not immune to headbutts, it is only immune to the knockdown portion of the headbutt.

By that logic, Combo Smite would work on Colossals because they have no listed immunity to Combo Smite. We have to delve deeper than the simple name of the ability. Here is a quick recap:

"[...] is slammed [...] and suffers [..]" means the latter only happens if the former does, when the ability is Combo Smite. Do we have a ruling on Force Hammer?
"[...] is knocked down and suffers [...]" means either can happen individually, when the ability is Headbutt. Do we know of another similar ability to ask about?
"[...] is thrown [...] and suffers [...]" has no ruling I know of, when the ability is Tornado. The wording on Critical Devastation is different, in addition to which I believe it's still under "Checking", but that's also a case worth analyzing.

I'm interested in knowing how Tornado works, but that's not what this thread is about, since we're supposed to ask one question per thread. My official question is what "and" means in general - does it even HAVE a definition, or do we need an Infernal ruling every time we see it?

paradox
03-21-2013, 04:59 PM
To be quite frank, PP has repeatedly exploited ambiguities created by "and" and "or".

Example of "or": https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?149237-Sprint-and-Rough-Terrain

The rulings cited in the OP are wholly inconsistent with one another.

Warfrog
03-21-2013, 06:11 PM
Combo smite and critical devastation both say "instead of suffering a normal damage roll" the model is slammed and the model is thrown respectively. So..


Critical Devastation: My Model is not suffering a normal damage roll. It is being thrown. All damage caused is throw damage.

Combo Smite: My Model is not suffering a normal damage roll. It is being slammed. All damage caused is slam damage.

Both Slam damage and Throw damage are defined in Prime and colossals "Massive" rule has been ruled to provide immunity to the slam and throw damage rolls.

Head Butt however never says "instead of suffering a normal damage roll". It says knockdown the model and do a damage roll. Headbutt damage roll and knockdown damage rolls do not exist. So the only type of damage roll it can be is a normal damage roll which colossals have no immunity to.

So it's not that A must happen for B to occur its do A and B. A and B both occur for Combo Smite and Critical Devastation on a colossal. Colossals have been ruled immune to A and B So it appears that B never happens but it actually does just to no effect. For head butts A and B both occur but they are only immune to A so the effects of B are visible.

Just my 2 cents....... 5 cents actually, we don't have pennies anymore.

Valander
03-21-2013, 06:51 PM
"Cannot be knocked down" means exactly that. Suffering damage from a head butt is not contingent on being knocked down; if it was it would read "if knocked down suffer damage equal to..."