Stationary vehicles firing Ordnance

[Gleipnir]

If a vehicle does not move and fires an ordinance weapon nothing happens, it is treated as if it is a stationary vehicle firing any weapons, nothing in the rules for Ordinance on pg. 51 or Shooting with a Vehicle while stationary on pg. 71 change that.

[Nabterayl]

... which you're getting because you think "can move and fire with Ordnance weapons, but a vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon" is exactly the same as "can move and fire with Ordnance weapons, but a vehicle that moves and fires an Ordnance weapon," right?

If that's your contention, I think we have reached an impasse. That is not the way conjunctions work.

[Gleipnir]

No my contention is that a conjunction combines two or more clauses into one.

Written grammatically for the proper meaning the rule subset for Vehicles & Ordinance Weapons as they pertain to Moving & Shooting with Vehicles, in the Rules section for Shooting with Vehicles reads thusly;

"Unlike other units, vehicles can move and fire with Ordinance weapons, but a vehicle that fires an Ordinance weapon can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn."

The conjunction applies both clauses into one and taken as a whole based on the context the meaning is not that difficult unless you start taking things out of context. Meaning this is a rule under the subheading of moving and shooting thus that is the context of the rule, not a rule about shooting while stationary and moving, which if that was the intent the rule would not have been made a subset of the rules for moving and shooting (the font size would have been the same as Moving and Shooting)

[Nabterayl]

No my contention is that a conjunction combines two or more clauses into one.

That's ... just not true, unless you mean it in a way I'm not understanding. There are two subjects in your combined sentence ("vehicles" and "vehicle," respectively), and two predicates ("can" and "fires," respectively). There are two clauses, combined into a single sentence. But we still have to take the clauses as we find them. If nothing in clause 2 suggests that it relates to movement, the fact that it is coordinated with a different clause that does relate to movement does not give us warrant to read clause 2 as relating to movement. This is true of all conjunctions, but particularly of "but," whose function is often to present two clauses in contrast to one another.

[Gleipnir]

Maybe you misunderstood what a conjunction is

con·junc·tion [kuhn-juhngk-shuhn]
noun

1. Grammar .

a. any member of a small class of words distinguished in many languages by their function as connectors between words, phrases, clauses, or sentences, as and, because, but, however.

b. any other word or expression of similar function, as in any case.

2. the act of conjoining; combination.

3. the state of being conjoined; union; association: The police, in conjunction with the army, established order.

4. a combination of events or circumstances.

5. Logic.

a. a compound proposition that is true if and only if all of its component propositions are true.

b. the relation among the components of such a proposition, usually expressed by AND or & or

Not trying to be insulting there Nab just offering in case you honestly didn't know the definition

Reading both clauses taken separately and not together is by its definition taking something out of context.

[Nabterayl]

No offense taken. I understand what a conjunction is. What I meant to say with my last post is that a conjunction can express multiple ideas, and to figure out which idea it is expressing, we need to look not just at which conjunction is being used (e.g., and vs. but vs. or), but also the clauses being conjoined. For instance, in the sentences:

Nabterayl makes a number of good points, but Gleipnir has the better answer

and

Nabterayl is wrong, but stubbornly refuses to admit it

and

Nabterayl is right in general, but in this case he is wrong

the conjunction "but" does three different things. In the first case it indicates an unexpected contrast between clause 2 and clause 1. In the second case, it's interchangeable with "and." In the third case, it indicates that clause 2 is an exception to clause 1. My contention is not that we should read the clauses in isolation, but rather that you are arguing that "but" is performing work that, if you look at the content of the two clauses being coordinated, makes no sense.

In the case we have before us, clause 1 indicates if A (a vehicle moves) then B (it can fire Ordnance weapons). Clause 2 indicates if B (a vehicle fires Ordnance weapons), then C (all other weapons can only be fired as Snap Shots). You are arguing that, because they are coordinated by "but," we can conclude if !A, then !C. But of course that does not follow. We know nothing about the consequences of !A.

This fact tells us something about which of "but's" possible meanings it has in this particular case. It should tell us that "but" is not establishing clause 2 as a mere amplification of the point made by clause 1. "But" can establish such a relationship, as a general matter, but in this particular case the content of the two clauses being coordinated tells us that it is not doing so in this case. Rather, as we can see from the logical consequences of clauses 1 and 2, "but" is conjoining the two clauses in a way that indicates that clause 2 is in opposition to clause 1.

[Gleipnir]

Actually my contention is that a conjunction in all three of the examples you provided does the same thing combines two clauses to one fixed meaning.

I could swap the word "and" or "however" for all three examples and still come to the same conclusion that a conjunction is about combining clauses for one meaning.

Yes each clause apart may have very separate meanings, but a conjunction is about taking the two and conjoining their meaning.

[Nabterayl]

... define "conjoining" in the sense that you mean there. It's true that all conjunctions form logical relationships between thoughts. But it is not true that all such logical relationships are the same. A conjunction that causes clause 1 to limit the scope of clause 2 is not performing the same work as a conjunction that makes clause 2 an exception to clause 1. You want the conjunction to cause clause 2 to be about moving and firing, because it is conjoined to a clause that is about moving and firing. But there is nothing inherent in conjunctions that means the relationship between clauses 1 and 2 must be that relationship. There merely has to be a relationship, of some sort.

EDIT: To be clear - I agree that "clause 1 limits the scope of clause 2" is one logical relationship that two clauses can have, and certainly a conjunction could be part of setting up that structure. But you can't just say, "Look, clause 1 and clause 2 are joined by a coordinating conjunction! Clause 1 limits the scope of clause 2, QED."

EDIT 2: That wasn't meant to be snarky. I'm just trying to be sure I'm being clear.

[Gleipnir]

Sure thing

For the puposes of this rule I mean it in the sense that the However(or But as it is being used) is intended to connect two ideas with the meaning of "with the exception of"

The two separate clauses are joined into one statement.

A. A vehicle can move and shoot an ordinance weapon, but(here comes the exception for doing part A.

B. all other weapons fire as Snap Shots.

[Nabterayl]

Sure. But the exception need not be contained entirely within the thing it is excepted from. The fact that clause 2 is set up as an exception to clause 1 does not mean that all of clause 2's subjects must also be clause 1's subjects. You are arguing that the sentence

Vehicles can move and fire with ordnance weapons, but a vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn

requires that all vehicles that fire an Ordnance weapon also be vehicles that move and fire ordnance weapons, because the former are set up as an exception to the latter. But nothing in the sentence actually requires that. Clause 2 can still be an exception to clause 1, even though clause 2 describes a bigger population of vehicles (vehicles that fire ordnance weapons and may or may not move) than the population of vehicles described in clause 1 (vehicles that fire ordnance weapons and definitely move). If all vehicles that move and fire Ordnance weapons have some property (e.g., that they are allowed to do so), and all vehicles that fire Ordnance weapons have some other property that one would not assume given the first clause (e.g., that they can fire other weapons, but only in a limited capacity), then as long as the second set includes all of the first set (which it does), the exception relationship is still preserved.