Ever Changing form

[Vaporomir]

So the wording on ever changing form isn't as clear as it seems.
It is worded: "A single model may only be targeted by "ever changing form" once per turn.
Because of this extra word it becomes unclear and I can see a RAW vs RAI argument.

A) Because it specifies that a single model it means that whatever model you target with ever changing form is the only model that can be targeted by ever changing for until the end of the turn.
B ) A model may be targeted by "ever changing form" once per turn.

We know that "once per turn" is a subordinating clause (thank you highschool English) so we can put it at the front of the sentence as well.
"Once per turn, a single model may only be targeted by "ever changing form".
This makes it seem more like case A if you really want to play a RAW lawyer. 
Single specifies a model for some reason.  
Without the word Single this would be much clearer. 

 

Maybe it's just late and i've read the sentence too many times and i'm being stupid but....
I know that is is going to be semantics but as it currently stands can someone please explain why it is A or B without any grey area thanks to English grammar? 

[Ludvig]

Maybe you are right per english grammar but come on, most people hadn't picked up on that because it's so obscure. From the other restrictions it seems abundanrly clear that the same model can only be targeted once per turn and that each wisp can only do it once per turn. If each crew couls only evwr do it once, why introduce the other restrictions?

Do you really thi k it should play this way or are you playing devil's advocate? There is a rule in these forums about not playing devil's advocate but only argue actual points you want to play by. 

Edit: Sorry if this sounded harsh, bad morning for me.

[Haagrum]

The wording is the wording, and the order does affect how the rule should be understood. In this case, the "once per turn" text relates to the targeting of any particular model with the Ever-Changing Form action.

Moving it to the front of the sentence - and adding a comma - greatly changes the meaning of the relevant sentence. That's not playing devil's advocate or reading it creatively; it's re-casting the rule entirely to permit an alternate interpretation.

[Vaporomir]

5 hours ago, Ludvig said:

Maybe you are right per english grammar but come on, most people hadn't picked up on that because it's so obscure. From the other restrictions it seems abundanrly clear that the same model can only be targeted once per turn and that each wisp can only do it once per turn. If each crew couls only evwr do it once, why introduce the other restrictions?

Do you really thi k it should play this way or are you playing devil's advocate? There is a rule in these forums about not playing devil's advocate but only argue actual points you want to play by. 

Edit: Sorry if this sounded harsh, bad morning for me.

You would be able to summon 2-3 voodoo dolls a turn this way and it would not be a fun day (which was how I was playing it before I re-read ever changing form)
Wasn't sure if anyone else had read it the same way, but if no one else sees it the same way i'll change over to how it's intended.
You didn't come off harsh at all haha.

 

3 hours ago, Haagrum said:

The wording is the wording, and the order does affect how the rule should be understood. In this case, the "once per turn" text relates to the targeting of any particular model with the Ever-Changing Form action.

Moving it to the front of the sentence - and adding a comma - greatly changes the meaning of the relevant sentence. That's not playing devil's advocate or reading it creatively; it's re-casting the rule entirely to permit an alternate interpretation.

Actually English is fun and you can move it around the sentence and retain the meaning! 
And because once is a subordinating conjunction we can do it in the original sentence.



http://www.englicious.org/lesson/subordinate-clauses-sentences

ie: 
He sat drinking a coke on the bench.
On the bench he sat drinking a coke.
Drinking a coke, he sat on a bench. 

or
"Once per turn, a single model may only be targeted by "ever changing form".
A single model  once per turn may only be targeted by "ever changing form".
A single model may only be targeted by "ever changing form" once per turn.



 

[santaclaws01]

4 hours ago, Vaporomir said:

You would be able to summon 2-3 voodoo dolls a turn this way and it would not be a fun day (which was how I was playing it before I re-read ever changing form)
Wasn't sure if anyone else had read it the same way, but if no one else sees it the same way i'll change over to how it's intended.
You didn't come off harsh at all haha.
 

You would be able to summon 2. Zoraida can summon 1 and a Wisp can summon 1.

[Haagrum]

8 hours ago, Vaporomir said:

Actually English is fun and you can move it around the sentence and retain the meaning! 
And because once is a subordinating conjunction we can do it in the original sentence.



http://www.englicious.org/lesson/subordinate-clauses-sentences

ie: 
He sat drinking a coke on the bench.
On the bench he sat drinking a coke.
Drinking a coke, he sat on a bench. 

or
"Once per turn, a single model may only be targeted by "ever changing form".
A single model  once per turn may only be targeted by "ever changing form".
A single model may only be targeted by "ever changing form" once per turn.



 

English grammar and construction can be a lot of fun (actually, I really do believe that), but here's an example of why it's not helpful in interpreting written rules.

Take the sentence "He told her that he loved her". Add the word "only" wherever you want. Now, move "only" around the sentence a few times and see how the meaning changes.

The "once per turn" part of Ever-Changing Form is not written as a separate clause. It's part of the sentence and needs to be understood in that context. You can't move it without affecting the meaning of the sentence which has presumably been drafted as-is for particular reasons. If you put it first, it becomes the most important part of the sentence as well as a separate clause which requires a comma.

As for commas, consider the following sentences and their drastically different meanings with and without a comma:

1. "Stop clubbing baby seals!" - a perfectly appropriate sentiment if animal cruelty upsets you.

2. "Stop clubbing, baby seals!" -  which suggests the young seals are out partying too much.

Ever-Changing Form is written the way that it is because it's intended to prevent abuse of a single model's (2) tactical actions. You could use it twice in a turn to target two separate models (for example, Zoraida and a Spawn Mother), without bending any rules. You can't target Zoraida with it twice in the one turn, which is clear from the wording used. 3+ Voodoo Dolls per turn would be silly, especially with a Widow Weaver using Handbag nearby.

If, however, the rule was phrased as you've suggested it could be, there's a valid argument that a single model could *only* be targeted by Ever-Changing Form for that turn - which would provide complete immunity for that model to anything but blasts, auras and pulses. That's clearly a ridiculous ability for a 3 SS model to have. It would also potentially allow repeated use of the same target model's 2 AP Tactical action, since it was now a separate operative part of the action. Again, that's clearly not what the rule-as-written permits.

TL; DR - the English language is fun, but we can't change the wording of rules without potentially changing their effects in absurd ways. 

[Adran]

20 hours ago, Vaporomir said:

: 
He sat drinking a coke on the bench.
On the bench he sat drinking a coke.
Drinking a coke, he sat on a bench. 
 

Those sentences don't always mean the same thing. 

If he had a coke on the bench, and he sat on the floor drinking it,  he would sit drinking a coke on a bench, but he would not be drinking a coke while he sat on a bench. 

English is fun. But complex.

[solkan]

I think there's a more important point:  As messy as "normal" English can be, the formalized English used in logic or wargame rules can become completely different in meaning an usage.  Or legal writing, for that matter.

For instance, words like Activate don't have all of their dictionary meanings, and phrases like "enter or end Activation" mean specific things not having to do with entering an Activation.  

[rawshark]

I have a supplementary question/comment. 

 

And I really don't want this to be the case because I just dominated a game by using this. 

 

But doesn't the wording not only restrict a single target to being the target of this once, but also mean that even if you have extra wisps you wouldn't be allowed to use Ever Changing Form in that same turn against any other target? 

 

The whole: this action may only be taken once per turn thing? 

[Ludvig]

1 hour ago, rawshark said:

I have a supplementary question/comment. 

 

And I really don't want this to be the case because I just dominated a game by using this. 

 

But doesn't the wording not only restrict a single target to being the target of this once, but also mean that even if you have extra wisps you wouldn't be allowed to use Ever Changing Form in that same turn against any other target? 

 

The whole: this action may only be taken once per turn thing? 

The rulebook specifies that if something says it can only be taken once per turn that only applies to the specific model. Other models can still take.the action.

[rawshark]

Yeah ok. Thank goodness. Would've felt so guilty if I'd been abusing that awesome move.

 

Was a Zoraida and Spawn mother list 

 

Where abouts is that clarification? 

[WWHSD]

22 minutes ago, rawshark said:

Yeah ok. Thank goodness. Would've felt so guilty if I'd been abusing that awesome move.

 

Was a Zoraida and Spawn mother list 

 

Where abouts is that clarification? 

You’re feeling guilty about actually making the Spawn Mother worthwhile? Being able to summon a 4SS model each turn for 2AP, a zero action, and a 6doesn’t seem out of line for a Henhman that doesn’t do much more than that.

[rawshark]

If it was against the rules I would be. So should you surely...? No? 

I admit I've only brought her in since wisps were released because she was not appealing before that. But if I wasn't allowed to voodoo doll and gupps in the same turn with wisps then hell yeah I'd feel bad. It was a dominant performance and i was worried that playtesting had revealed that and I wasn't supposed to be able to do it... 

[Ludvig]

26 minutes ago, rawshark said:

Yeah ok. Thank goodness. Would've felt so guilty if I'd been abusing that awesome move.

 

Was a Zoraida and Spawn mother list 

 

Where abouts is that clarification? 

Can't recall exactly. Somewhere under actions and how you resolve them. Use the pdf and ctrl+f for "once per turn action".

[Adran]

16 hours ago, rawshark said:

Yeah ok. Thank goodness. Would've felt so guilty if I'd been abusing that awesome move.

 

Was a Zoraida and Spawn mother list 

 

Where abouts is that clarification? 

The main rule book (page 37 of the manual). In its own call out box

Once Per Turn Actions
Some Actions note that they can only be taken “once per Turn.” This
only refers to the individual model. Although the model may only take
the Action once per Turn, other models may still take the Action.