Symbiomate expenditure

Yes.

"If the Sakiel had suffered a successful Attack with a weapon loaded with PARA Ammunition, and with the Non-Lethal Trait, he will not make the Saving Roll, thanks to the Immunity (Total) Special Skill. However, his player must remove the SymbioMate from the game table at the end of that Order. "

There's no functional difference between Para Ammunition (with Non Lethal Trait) and Stun Ammunition (with Non Lethal Trait) from the POV of Immunity (Total).

 

Actually, this brings up an interesting question:

What happens if a model with a symbiomate is hit by Spotlight?

If I’m reading these rules right, the Mate would be expended (as it now functions vs Comms attacks) but the model would still enter targeted state (as Immunity doesn’t work vs. Comms attacks).

 

Spotlight is not an attack requiring a saving throw; the requirement of Symniomates is not met:

"The SymbioMate must be used when suffering a successful Attackor being affected by any weapon or rule that requires a Saving Roll."

Ergo, you can't use Symbiomates vs Spotlight - (or Forward Observation).

 

I'm not sure how precise the grammatical editing was, but if you wanted the former I believe you'd need to have a comma before the "or".

 

That is, sadly, not a thing. Saying "a car or truck that's red" is wonderfully ambiguous as to whether you mean ANY car OR a red truck, or you meant a red car OR a red truck.

That said, I do believe that your interpretation is correct in that attacks that don't require saving rolls (spotlight, forward observer) won't strip the symbiomate.

 

Not entirely true. I'm not going to deep dive into syntax because I might get flashbacks from English Studies, but suffice to say that:

a) [a CAR] or [ ? TRUCK ] > that [ is RED ]
is incorrect (missing article)

b) [a CAR] or [a TRUCK] > that [ is RED ]
indicates any car or specifically any red truck

c) | [a CAR] or [a TRUCK] | > that [ are RED ]
indicates that either the car or the truck have to specifically be red

 

C is not correct English, as the subject "a car or a truck" is not plural. Hence the ambiguity.

Regardless, this is why the rule should've just been written as "When you would make a saving throw from a successful attack, weapon, or rule." No ambiguity, same meaning, and timing doesn't matter because the Total Immunity and ARM/BTS 9 would kick in before you actually make the roll. Or they could've just put in a rules block that explains the edge cases like Forward Observer.

 

Don't be silly. "A man and a fish are nothing alike" is a perfectly correct English sentence. Swapping conjuctions from AND to OR and making the fish additionally red changes nothing. "A man and a fish are red" means they both are red. Change the articles to "the" if those are specific man and fish who are red.

Ergo, after the conjunction swap to "OR", in example C either the car OR the truck are red.

 

https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/25/either-are-either-is/#:~:text=As a subject, “either” is singular.

Nope.

 

The original text doesn't contain "either". Non-sequitur and a mere nitpick that I used "either" colloquially, fine. Has no bearing on the merits of the original phrase.

 

Since you persist, here: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_... two or more singular,that is nearer the verb.

 

Turns out it's the former. Here's what it says on effects:

"When a Trooper with a SymbioMate suffers a successful Attack–or is affected by any weapon or rule that requires any Saving Rolls–she... "

That makes it clear that Symbiomates are used vs "a successful Attack" not just "a successful Attack that requires any Saving Rolls".

@Mahtamori can you add this to the unresolved questions as "partially resolved" because while it's personally good for my team, I can't see why that would be intended. Unless @ijw you want to weigh in re: intent?

 

Dear Grammar-Nazi-Person, to my dismay thine disconnect from the living language is of gargantuan proportion, thus henceforth I dub thee the foulest sort of a prescriptivist and I spit at thee. Good day.



























You're technically correct, which reportedly is the best sort of correct. However the document you've linked to is a mere style guidebook, not a syntax rulebook. I'd be very surprised to see this rule followed to any real extent in the usus.

 

Hey, I tried to tell you earlier mate. Just do a quick Google search next time before continuing to argue a lost position.

As for the implication of Grammar Nazi, I take the greatest of offense sir. I am a Grammar-GESTAPO.

... also I think we may have gotten slightly derailed from the topic at hand, and from inane.imp's post, seems like Spotlight DOES actually strip Symbiomates. Lovely.

 

No. A SymbioMate BTS is used and applied vs Comms Attacks.

There is no requirement to change how TI works for Symbiomates to be useful vs Comms Attacks.