Which would be fine, but highly unusual ;) In both cases all statements are satisfied. more than 1/3 of the model is covered and a single piece of terrain covers more than 1/3 silhouette width and height.
Except that it is taking the rule out of context. If we break the rule down in to it's three parts. Model must be 1/3 covered At least 1/3 width covered At least 1/3 height covered Having just one ninth covered does not satisfy the requirements of step 1, even if it satisfies step two. It's perfectly fine written as the sentence The second sentence is not contradicting the first, but clarifying. If the two bolded bits were missing, then it would contradict, but since they are not it simply clarifies that a single piece of terrain must cover at least 1/3 width and 1/3 height and that you can't make it up from multiple pieces.
It's not written as a list with 3 items, each being a requirement. It's written as the first point, then the rest, and this two units being equal in meaning. Model must be 1/3 covered Isn't equal At least 1/3 width covered At least 1/3 height covered Let's get back to my awesome ascii art: OOO OOO OOX Does this mean, that the 2nd and 3rd points are satisfied? It may not seem like, but I'm not nit picking. Really.
.. We are doing exactly what I'm asking. Modify the way the rule is written. This is the demonstration that as it is isn't perfectly fine written. By the way, to be really fine written, I think it need a little more effort than break down into three parts. Are you sure you can't? Afaik this is another thing that needs to be clarified. On top of that I'm sure that the used terms "this means" have a universal meaning far far away from the one you are suggesting. Mask
I know you're not nit picking. And you're right that points 2 and 3 isn't equal to point 1. However, the part where the misunderstanding is thinking that "This means that" means "This is equivalent to". It's not, it's a clarification of point 1, not a re-phrasing or equivalence of point 1. Point 1 still has to be satisfied, but it has to be satisfied by points 2 and 3 as well. So going for your ascii art. Yes, it does. But does it satisfy point 1?. How about OOO _______ OOX _______ OOO OOO __ or __ OOX __ or __ OXX X X X _______ OOX _______ OXX ? All of those examples satisfy points 1, 2, and 3. See? :) (I'm still sticking with english is a stupid language ;) )
It does not. "This means that" is a drawing of conclusions, not an equivalency. (see #2 for meanings of thus http://sana.aalto.fi/awe/cohesion/signposts/cause/sentence/thus.html ) The conclusions for point 1 are that points 2 and 3 must be satisfied (see earlier conversations about points 2 and 3 referring to a single piece of terrain)
Could a conclusion be extrapolated from the originary statement? I still not getting your point but probably is my fault. English is not my first language (I know you already know that ;) By the way splitting that statement into three bullet points is indeed a modification. Am I wrong? Mask
Yes. In this case, the conclusion that can be drawn from the first sentence is the second sentence xD. There is no way to gain 1/3 coverage (first sentence) without satisfying both the points in the second sentence. xD It's actually a very obvious conclusion when you think about it, kind of like saying Start with 9 Marbles in a 3 x 3 grid. Sentence 1 Remove at least 3 marbles. Sentence 2. This means that you will have removed 1 marble from at least 1 column and removed 1 marble from at least 1 row.
You're right. In fact nobody (I think .. Not me for sure) is asking to change the way the rule was intended ... It's indeed very important to change the way it's written. That is the request and the intent of this thread. Mask
Yeah, it's more like an implication. A=> B meaning If A is true, then B has to be true. If A is not, nobody cares about B, so the whole sentence is true, no matter B's value. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1823168/boolean-implication But if this is an implication, we don't care about the second part of the sentence, since we don't have to check it in order to decide if there's cover, you only need to cover one third of the full silhouette, and you are done (if you cover one third, that means you satisfy the other two sentences, and you have cover. if you don't cover one third, that means you don't have cover, no matter what). From the Finnish site, "middle of the sentence part" , this is a Result->Means thing. If this is true, that means in order to cover the third of the S, which is the requirement of having cover, you have to satisfy the last part of the sentence, covering one third of the height, and covering one third of the base: (one third height AND one third base ) ==> one third target is covered ==> you have cover which means the following: OOO OOO OOX Which is one ninth of the whole. Which is really likely not RAI. Also anyone can think of a situation, where one third of the S is covered, while one third of the width or height is not covered. So the rule is badly written, and it doesn't mean anything. Covering one third of the whole area of the target, and also covering one third of it's base makes the most sense, so I'll try to stick with it.
Actually... no, I tried as a counter to one of the above posts. You can cover a third by doing the following, but it still kinda satisfies the 1/3 height/width reqs... just wonkily. But possibly what was intended for the second two sentences.
How is this still going? It’s 1/3. The next sentences are examples of how to fulfil that requirement making it clear that it can be fulfilled vertically or horizontally. It’s classic CB Rules writing: it’s absolutely clear unless you try to read it in extreme detail.
How can this be a bad thing? If something works fine "in extreme detail" ...works fine! Period. If something works fine "with less attention to the details" it's not sure to be working fine "in detail". The first case means you have reached perfection. The second means you could improve. If you don't care... It's seems a very big problem to my eyes... Mask
I think there's a language barrier. In Germany we have a word called "korintenkacker" for those people. But what he wanted to say: (unless you try ...) to break the rules
I agree that it's clear but it's confusing IMO to call them examples when they are actually requirements. Sequentially, checking for cover should go: 1.) Is 1/3 of my base covered? - If no, no cover. If yes go to 2 2.) Is 1/3 of my height covered - If no, no cover. If yes go to 3 3.) Is the total amount of my volume covered equal to 1/3? - If no, no cover. If yes, Cover is granted.
Are you reading 'base' as base or SIL? Because otherwise you're saying that a model behind an obstruction that starts at 4mm above the table but otherwise obscures the entirely of the trooper does not provide cover. This is why I say that the second sentence is an example and unnecessary to the understanding. The simple reading of "One third" is easiest, clearest and matches how it is generally understood (at least in my meta).
But does base mean base or silhouette outside of base to base concept which was what was FAQed? If it literally means base, then the second sentence makes perfect sense because it would require you to be able to cover your feet when taking cover - in a universe where troopers are able to shoot through head size openings with no negative impact to their accuracy.
