Page 1 of 1
Clarification for Second Row Firing
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 11:31 pm
by nickj
From the QRS:
Medium foot with bow, crossbow
or longbow (not bow*)
1 dice per base of 1st shooting rank in effective range
1 dice per 2 bases of 2nd shooting rank or outside effective range
Is "or" really meant? That is for outside effective range does the second shooting rank get 1 dice per 2 bases? Does it fire at all?
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 11:45 pm
by philqw78
It means that in effective range the second rank count half, at long range all bases count half
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 11:46 pm
by philqw78
P.S. Don't rely on QR's
Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 4:42 am
by nickj
philqw78 wrote:P.S. Don't rely on QR's
You answer exactly matches the QRS. I would also hope that the current one has the errata included. Thanks for the answer.
Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 7:45 am
by shall
1 dice per base of 1st shooting rank in effective range
1 dice per 2 bases of 2nd shooting rank or outside effective range
Remember a QRS is that - a memory jogger.
It means you get
1 dice per base for any 1st rank in effective
1 per 2 for any 2nd rank
1 per 2 in any case if outside effective range
hence the or is real and as drafted (2 distinct options for 1 per 2).... add (any) before outside if it helps
Si
Re: Clarification for Second Row Firing
Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 10:58 am
by sagji
nickj wrote:From the QRS:
Medium foot with bow, crossbow
or longbow (not bow*)
1 dice per base of 1st shooting rank in effective range
1 dice per 2 bases of 2nd shooting rank or outside effective range
Is "or" really meant? That is for outside effective range does the second shooting rank get 1 dice per 2 bases? Does it fire at all?
Yes the or is really ment, this is also the wording in the rules.
This is an English or which is inclusive - includes both parts being true, rather than an American or which appears to be exclusive - only one part may be true.
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 1:07 am
by Draka
That is the crux - as an American I would have read it as an exclusive, thus allowing only one outcome.
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 1:42 am
by CrazyHarborc
Well, my little group read it as it is written. It is also a statement about shooters outside of close range.
You could print above the "or" word, "and or".....Perhaps it will help to remind you of the complete/two parts to the rule.
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 7:25 am
by rbodleyscott
Draka wrote:That is the crux - as an American I would have read it as an exclusive, thus allowing only one outcome.
It has often be stated that this is how Americans read "or". I must admit that I didn't know this when I co-wrote DBM and FOG and some grief might have been saved had we done so.
However, I find it odd as "or" is certainly not exclusive in computer languages (you need an "xor" for that) - yet weren't many computer languages developed by Americans? Or were they?
"or" is not exclusive in Boolean logic either.
Which makes me wonder whether assuming "or" to be exclusive is in fact correct American useage, or merely a common misapprehension. I would be interested in seeing an American grammar text which does in fact indicate that "or" is meant to be assumed to be exclusive. Can anybody point to one on the net?
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 10:58 am
by peterrjohnston
rbodleyscott wrote:Draka wrote:That is the crux - as an American I would have read it as an exclusive, thus allowing only one outcome.
It has often be stated that this is how Americans read "or". I must admit that I didn't know this when I co-wrote DBM and FOG and some grief might have been saved had we done so.
However, I find it odd as "or" is certainly not exclusive in computer languages (you need an "xor" for that) - yet weren't many computer languages developed by Americans? Or were they?
"or" is not exclusive in Boolean logic either.
Which makes me wonder whether assuming "or" to be exclusive is in fact correct American useage, or merely a common misapprehension. I would be interested in seeing an American grammar text which does in fact indicate that "or" is meant to be assumed to be exclusive. Can anybody point to one on the net?
Perhaps a characteristic to see everything in black xor white when it's not actually the case:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disjunction/
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 11:23 am
by philqw78
3. Proof Theory
Much as we would understand the conversational significance of vocabulary more generally if we had a complete set of instructions for initiating its use in a conversation, and for suitable responses to its introduction by an interlocutor, we give the proof-theoretic significance of a connective by providing rules for its introduction into a proof and for its elimination. In the case of ∨, these might be the following:
[∨-introduction] For any wffs α and β, a proof having a subproof of α from an ensemble Σ of wffs, can be extended to a proof of α ∨ β from Σ.
[∨-elimination] For any wffs α, β, γ, a proof that includes
a subproof of α ∨ β from an ensemble of wffs Σ,
a subproof of γ from an ensemble Δ ∪ {α}, and
a subproof of γ from an ensemble Θ ∪ {β},
can be extended to a proof of γ from Σ ∪ Δ ∪ Θ
Clear as mud now,
or is it?
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 12:01 pm
by peterrjohnston
philqw78 wrote:
Clear as mud now, or is it?
Looks crystal clear to me, obviously being an exclusive disjunction...
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 12:30 pm
by BillMc
An exclusive "or" is not an american thing.
According to Yahoo dictionary (based on the American Heritage Dictionary), "or" is "Used to indicate an alternative..."
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/di ... fxqFOsgMMF
Bill
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 12:49 pm
by sagji
rbodleyscott wrote:However, I find it odd as "or" is certainly not exclusive in computer languages (you need an "xor" for that) - yet weren't many computer languages developed by Americans? Or were they?
I suspect the origin here is from boolean logic - directly or though logic gates. Also one of the most influential languages ALGOL was a joint venture.
"or" is not exclusive in Boolean logic either.
George Boole was Engilsh.
Which makes me wonder whether assuming "or" to be exclusive is in fact correct American useage, or merely a common misapprehension. I would be interested in seeing an American grammar text which does in fact indicate that "or" is meant to be assumed to be exclusive. Can anybody point to one on the net?
I haven't seen anything - the closest is is that in American English if both parts are singular then the verb must be singular, whereas the OED says that the verb may be plural if the exclusion is not emphasised.
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 12:59 pm
by sagji
You are quoting an American dictionary with an Americian Dictionary as a source, and you claim makes the unemphasised or begin exclusive not an American thing.
Also it says it indicates an alternative - not that it indicates a mutually exclusive alternative.
The wording is the same in the AHD as in the OED.
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 2:21 pm
by BillMc
Right.
I agree that the use of "or" indicates an alternative.
My statement of: "An exclusive "or" is not an american thing." Is meant to indicate that Americans do NOT believe that "or" is meant to indicate an exclusive. Contrary to the earlier poster's general statement about how Americans define/use the word.
Thanks,
Bill
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 4:12 pm
by rbodleyscott
BillMc wrote:Right.
I agree that the use of "or" indicates an alternative.
My statement of: "An exclusive "or" is not an american thing." Is meant to indicate that Americans do NOT believe that "or" is meant to indicate an exclusive. Contrary to the earlier poster's general statement about how Americans define/use the word.
As I suspected.