PDA

View Full Version : argus vs warjacks



jack frost
12-08-2010, 06:43 PM
it seems like the doppler bark is composed of 2 parts...is a warjack affected by the ability at all? it seems like it would ignore the first part but still not be able to charge or whatever...

any help?

TheUnknownMercenary
12-08-2010, 06:49 PM
A warjack will not suffer the drop in defense but it will suffer the cannot run or charge.

tsochung
12-08-2010, 07:12 PM
i think the word " it " is refer to the word " living model " in the first part of the description

vintersbastard
12-09-2010, 01:48 AM
I agree with tsochung. Any other reference wouldn't make sense semantically, so warjacks don't suffer any detrimental effects. (Elemental constructs neither, by the way)

jack frost
12-09-2010, 03:42 AM
hrmm that's hardly a solid ruling...can I get an infernal on this?

Scalpel
12-09-2010, 04:31 AM
I'm sure this was asked before as the Skorne Krea has the same ranged attack. I'm 99% sure it was confirmed that it only effects Living Models.

Try a Search looking for Krea.

tsochung
12-09-2010, 06:01 AM
i just check my book , and found that wording on paralysis has changed since the hordes field test final.
the second part of description does not say " it " anymore, instead it say " the model hit " now.
with the new wording, i would say non living models do suffer the 2nd part of the effect now.

Brandubh
12-09-2010, 06:58 AM
Simple English lesson people:
"The base DEF of a living model hit by this attack becomes 7, and the model hit cannot run or charge for one round."

This is a compound sentence. Having ",and" means that there are two different clauses here. The rule for Doppler Bark can be broken down as follows:

Clause 1 ) The base DEF for a living model hit by this attack becomes 7.
Clause 2 ) The model hit cannot run or charge for one round.

The clauses are completely independent of one another. Because they are independent, the condition from clause 1 does not apply to the effect for clause 2. In fact, nothing about clause 1 and clause 2 interact with each other.

For instance, we could say: "The boy likes to play warmachine, and the girl likes to go shopping." As you can see, even though this is one sentence, the two clauses have nothing to do with one another.

These are very different from a dependent clause which would look like this:
"When this attack hits a living model, its base DEF becomes 7 and it cannot run or charge for one round."

Now clause one creates a condition which applies to both effects. So you need to hit a living model in order to gain the effects in the main sentence.

Obviously this is a long way around to explain that the rule means exactly what it says. If you hit a living model with doppler bark, its base DEF becomes 7. If you hit any model with doppler bark, it cannot run or charge for one round.

Kenton
12-09-2010, 07:22 AM
I have to agree with Brandubh, although the confusion would have been avoided had the clauses been revesed or more clearly separated.

For example.

A model hit can't charge or run for one round. The base DEF of a living model hit by this attack becomes 7.

It takes no more effort or space to describe the rule in this way and it is far less prone to being misread. It is also good practice to describe the most wide-ranging effect and subsequently narrow it than the reverse.

The way the rule is written encourages me to interpret it in the opposite way.

vintersbastard
12-09-2010, 09:05 AM
I retract my argument from above as well.

Dominar Eeyore
12-09-2010, 10:45 AM
A model hit can't charge or run for one round. The base DEF of a living model hit by this attack becomes 7.


I am sorry but this is no more clear or grammatically correct than the way it was worded. As it has been already explained, it's very clear.

Kuarnix
12-09-2010, 02:34 PM
Wow, I can't believe I didn't realize that about the Argus. Looks like a good enough reason to start running one again!

Magx
12-09-2010, 11:34 PM
I am sorry but this is no more clear or grammatically correct than the way it was worded. As it has been already explained, it's very clear.

I disagree it is more clear written that way. If it was written this way, I would have done Doppler Bark SO MANY more times : When you put "base def of a living model " first, you would assume that for the second part of the sentence it would be only for living models. Keep in mind that for a lot of people who are playing, english is NOT our first language and we are not grammatical experts.

jack frost
12-10-2010, 12:49 AM
there was also the fact that apparently it worked the other way during the field test...

Kenton
12-10-2010, 01:27 AM
I am sorry but this is no more clear or grammatically correct than the way it was worded. As it has been already explained, it's very clear.

I wasn't making a point about grammatical correctness. My point was about readability. I value readability highly in rule books.

If it was "very clear" then this thread would not exist. It may be clear to you. It is not clear to others and I see no evidence of wilful misinterpretation here.


there was also the fact that apparently it worked the other way during the field test...

Can you provide a reference for that? If there is some evidence that an alternative interpretation was intended then it should be brought up here.

If not you should avoid making such throwaway remarks in the rules forum. It is not helpful.

lord tyrant watt
12-10-2010, 05:41 AM
Here is the change in wording from the fieldtest to the card.

Field Test:
"Paralysis - The base DEF of a living model hit by this attack becomes 7 and it cannot run or charge for one round."

MK II Card:
"Paralysis - The base DEF of a living model hit by this attack becomes 7, and the model hit cannot run or charge for one round."

blue loki
12-10-2010, 05:50 AM
Unknown is correct, non-living models suffer the second portion of Paralysis.

Thanks for pointing this out. I, like many others, largely dismissed Doppler Bark due to it's wording in the Field Test. Now Argus stock is back on the rise.

legionaires
12-11-2010, 09:00 AM
I guess for clarity, if it does work that way, it might be better to word it like this:

"Paralysis - A model hit by this attack cannot run or charge and if the model hit is living, its base DEF becomes a 7. Paralysis lasts for one round."

Brandubh
12-11-2010, 09:05 AM
I guess for clarity, if it does work that way, it might be better to word it like this:

"Paralysis - A model hit by this attack cannot run or charge and if the model hit is living, its base DEF becomes a 7. Paralysis lasts for one round."

Nope. Still not any better. The original rule is perfectly clear in English.

Mootaz
03-01-2011, 04:08 AM
Answer is:
Both parts of the ability only affect living models.