The rules state a unit has to be within 6" to recieve the 5+ cover save, right? My question is how much of the unit has to be within the 6" range, would a fraction of the models in count the unit as being in? Anyone have any sort of a ruling on this?


Thnx,

Wookie

my understanding is as long as 1 model from a unit is within 6" then the entire unit gets the FF bonus.

Just like anything else in the game, when the rules require something to be within a certain distance as long as part of that thing is within range it is considered within range.

I really think that this is going to be FAQed to have to include at least half of the unit. As the wording for it currently is as other have said, one model only of a unit, its stupidly powerful.

Jayden63 wrote:I really think that this is going to be FAQed to have to include at least half of the unit. As the wording for it currently is as other have said, one model only of a unit, its stupidly powerful.

Really? It more than doubled its points cost from the last codex. If they FAQ'd it as you said frankly it would never be worth taking for the points. You'd only ever see a Mek with a SAG at that point.

I think you'd only see Warbosses on bikes then. Or two weirdboyz.

SAG isn't very good in practice. Quite orky though!

yakface wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:I really think that this is going to be FAQed to have to include at least half of the unit. As the wording for it currently is as other have said, one model only of a unit, its stupidly powerful.

Really? It more than doubled its points cost from the last codex. If they FAQ'd it as you said frankly it would never be worth taking for the points. You'd only ever see a Mek with a SAG at that point.

You don't think that giving 120 models a 5+ cover save from one single piece of wargear is stupidly powerful? Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if you still had to pull models from under blast templates. But unless you have some way of sniping the Mek, that shield is going to be there all day long and there really is no way to break the daisy chain unless you get creative LOS blockers somehow that will allow you to snipe the one or two models that are within 6" of the mek.

The previous Ork codex gave explicit mention of coverage of half the unit to get a benifit. This codex omits that sentence. RAW you only need a piece of one model, like they've said making up for the cost change.

I kinda think they should have put a cap on the number of boys protected by the forcefield but kept the new more generous measurement requirement.

Those things are gonna be golden in APOC games.

Units are composed of models. They are composed of all the models in them. Thus a unit is equal to all of its models.

Therefore if a unit must be within 6" of a Mekboy to receive the benefits of a Kustom Force Field then all of the models in a unit must be within 6" of the Mekboy to receive the benefit of the Kustom Force Field.

This is an orange sitting next to a turd.



The orange is composed of molecules. It is composed of all the molecules in it. Thus the orange is equal to all of its molecules.

The turd is composed of molecules. It is composed of all the molecules in it. Thus the turd is equal to all of its molecules.

There is at least one molecule in the orange that is not within 3" of at least one molecule in the turd, and vice versa.

Therefore the turd and the orange are not actually within 3" of each other.

Nurglitch wrote:Units are composed of models. They are composed of all the models in them. Thus a unit is equal to all of its models.

Therefore if a unit must be within 6" of a Mekboy to receive the benefits of a Kustom Force Field then all of the models in a unit must be within 6" of the Mekboy to receive the benefit of the Kustom Force Field.

This would be fine if there weren't numerous examples of a squad being subject to a rule even though only one member of the squad is touching something. One man in cover, roll for difficult terrain, one man reaches the edge of a board, then the whole unit did remove it.

This codex explicitly left out a sentence in the previous war gear entry.

tegeus-Cromis: If your diagram is correct, then the orange is not within 3" of the turd. It is 3" away. "Within" is inclusive. Even if some of the orange was within 3" of the turd the orange itself would not be because an orange is all of itself.

Dr Phibes: May I request that you list and describe each of these examples? A page number and a sentence would be sufficient.

Strictly speaking, this is true, but it is also common to use "within" more loosely. If I say "one shouldn't build a new city within the limits of harmful radiation from the nuclear disaster of two years ago", I think it will be readily understood that this means that no part of the city should intersect with the fallout zone, not that everything is fine so long as some part of the city extends beyond it. One could perhaps ask for a little more precision in rules, but it is clear that GW has not obliged us. An example: if "within" were being used the way you want us to read it, anything with a base larger than the standard infantry base could contact enemy models freely during the movement phase, since it is impossible for it to be within 1" of another model.

tegeus-Cromis: I don't think it has been established what degree of precision that the GW rules have been written to, although I am currently, in another thread, in the process of demonstrating how such a degree of precision may be judged. That said I believe that it is reasonable to assume that "within" always means something like "inside" when used as a preposition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/within)

I should address your example though, as it does seem problematic at first glance. If 'within' means something like 'inside' then it seems that any model mounted on a base with a diameter greater than 1" would never come within 1" of an enemy model (since models have their area defined as being the area of their base) because some part of their base will lie outside of that 1" radius.

However, that's not what the rules say. The rules say that: "A model cannot be placed so that it touches an enemy model during the movement phase - this is possible only in the Assault phase." It goes on to say: "To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model ([yadda yadda]) during the Movement phase.

So, does the second sentence contradict the first since 'within' would seem to require that the entire model be moved into the 1" zone? No, the second sentence does not contradict the first. It does not contradict the first sentence because 'within' is not being used as a preposition, but as an adverb meaning more like 'into' than 'inside'.

The mistake here is called "amphiboly", the result of an ambiguous grammar construction in which a term can act either as a preposition or an adverb. The mistake is assuming that by a strict reading the term has only one role, and that all instances of it are either one role or another. In formal logic this is avoided by restricting terms to a single role. In natural languages this is avoided by remembering that terms have many uses.

However, that's not what the rules say. The rules say that: "A model cannot be placed so that it touches an enemy model during the movement phase - this is possible only in the Assault phase." It goes on to say: "To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model ([yadda yadda]) during the Movement phase.

So, does the second sentence contradict the first since 'within' would seem to require that the entire model be moved into the 1" zone? No, the second sentence does not contradict the first. It does not contradict the first sentence because 'within' is not being used as a preposition, but as an adverb meaning more like 'into' than 'inside'.

Regardless of how "within" is being used, the second sentence does not contradict the first. Neither meaning of the second sentence is mutually exclusive with that of the first. I was mistaken in saying that a model with a large base would be able to contact enemy models freely; clearly this is not the case.



In any case, from the OED:

7c. Not beyond or outside (a specified distance); at or to a distance of less, or not more, than; nearer or not farther away than.
Often in fig. phrases, as within an ace, a hair's breadth of.

From the dictionary you cite:

9. At or to some point not beyond, as in length or distance; not farther than: within a radius of a mile.

As for the meaning you offer for "within" in the context of the 1" rule, the closest one I could find was this:

{dag}d. (with verb of motion) So as to go in or be inside: = IN prep. 1. Obs. rare.
1297 R. GLOUC. (Rolls) 7951 Hii wi{th}inne turnde a{ygh}en & hom allenome. c1420 Liber Cocorum (1862) 19 Poure hit withinne.

[Edited to remove a serious mistake and make the post less obnoxious.]

Whenever the dictionaries come out, you know it's YMDC.

tegeus-Cromis: How the terms are used is the only way you can tell whether sentences constructed out of them are contradictory (or consistent, or really any property of sentences).

Taken as a preposition the term 'within' in the second sentence definitely contradicts the first sentence because it would allow a model with a base over 2" in diameter to be moved into base-to-base contact with an enemy model, which is prohibited by the first sentence.

Taken as an adverb the term 'within' in the second sentence definitely does not contradict the first sentence because it disallows a model to cross a boundary or limit establishes as 1" away from the base edge of an enemy model, which is consistent with the first sentence.

Whether the term is described as obsolete or rare is irrelevant to how the term is being used, particularly when the use to which it is being put is rare (albeit permissible). How the term is being used is described by the grammar of the text that it is embedded in.

In the case we're concerned with, the Kustom Force Field text, the term 'within' is being used as a preposition. But being a preposition is not what makes it refer to the unit rather than a part of the unit. Being a preposition is what distinguishes it from how the term is used in the rules describing movement, and thus the problem that would have been raised concerning the size of bases. Since we have moved on from that objection, that the movement rules seem to use 'within' to refer to parts of things inside a limit as well as whole things, let us address what relationship the preposition denotes between a noun or pronoun in the sentence and another term.

That noun is "units", modified by the adjective "all" to quantify which units. So what is a unit? The rulebook tells us that a unit is one or more models. That is to say one or more models is all the models in a unit.

So let us apply the term 'unit' in the context of entry 7a of the OED for 'within'

A kustom force field gives all units not beyond or outside 6" of the Mek...

A kustom force field gives all units at or to a distance of not more than 6" of the Mek...

A kustom force field gives all units not farther away than 6" of the Mek...

In each of these cases the 'unit' is what must be within the distance cited. A unit is composed of all of its models.

The sentence in the previous codex, allowing units partially within the range allotted, is not there. The scope of the term 'unit' is thus complete.

As an aside, I'd be interested in knowing which edition and year the OED that you're referring to is, because the dictionary referenced via dictionary.com (which is better to reference since it is publicly available) doesn't mention the use of 'within' to be obsolete or rare. Since English dictionaries are descriptive, rather than prescriptive in the manner of French dictionaries, it's quite possible for them to be wrong when they are out of date or citing a regional dialect, or simply over-generalizing use. That said I suspect your copy of the OED is up to date and appropriate to the regional dialect.

You asked for some examples of where the word unit means any one model in a unit.

Page 49 Under the heading "Leaving the battle."
"Once a unit reaches the table edge it is considered to have left the immediate battle and may not return. Not that there is no need for individual models in the unit to move 'off' the table - once a model reaches the edge that unit is gone!"

They say once a unit reaches a table edge. What they mean is any model in the unit.

They use the same one model = the whole unit convention for night fighting as well. Pg 84.

It seems quite common for GW to apply the convention that they mean any model in a unit when they say unit.

The same convention is used in difficult terrain. Pg 17 They say unit, meaning if any model in the unit wants to enter or leave difficult terrain they whole unit is subject to the terrain test.

Where it is necessary for a given number of models to do something to gain a benefit rather than just a single model in a unit GW usually provides something like how many people have to meet a condition for the benefit or penalty. Fifty percent is a common figure used in this way. GW altered the war gear from a previous codex, specifically omitting a previous qualifier of 50%. If this is a typographical error it will need to be corrected, otherwise KFF stands as an expensive but useful piece of wargear.

Hell, I lose to Orcs all the time and I would feel bad if they had upped the price and still kept the old ruling. Too many codices are filled up with garbage wargear anyhow.

Nurglitch:

A more concise example would be page 62 of the rulebook:

"When the unit disembarks, each model must be deployed within 2" of one of the vehicle's access points, and within unit coherency."

The diagram on page 62 clearly shows that only a portion of a disembarking model must be within 2" of the access point.


Also the rules state on many occasions that models are not allowed to move within 1 inch of an enemy model. If you somehow think that "within" means "entirely within" then you could easily move models with bases larger than 1" into base contact with enemy models.


But more importantly, you are simply wrong about the basic usage of the word. If I say that I live "within" 1 mile of San Francisco that means I live up to a mile away from the outmost edge of San Francisco, it does not mean that my house is within 1 mile of all of San Francisco.

I'd just like to point out that the difficult terrain example is not a good one to use because of the rule that the unit can only move as fast as the slowest model. It actually is just that one model taking the difficult terrain test, but the whole unit can only move as fast as that one guy, so it is the same thing as if the whole model had to make the test.

This really doesn't help anything, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.

I will concede that point. However the rule also uses the word unit and implies any model in the unit when it talks about having to take the test. It says unit however a whole unit doesn't have to be in terrain in order to take the test. It's an example of the interchangeable use of the words.

Nurglitch:

Taken as a preposition the term 'within' in the second sentence definitely contradicts the first sentence because it would allow a model with a base over 2" in diameter to be moved into base-to-base contact with an enemy model, which is prohibited by the first sentence.

No. It merely fails to prevent a model with a base over 1" in diameter from moving into btb with an enemy model. It does not grant premission to break the no btb rule stated previously. There is no "contradiction" of the previous sentence, except insofar as it would then fail to "keep the distinction clear".

-

That aside, I realise now that, by the premises you have stated, you are actually correct, and I am wrong. The real heart of the issue is not what "within" means (for as you've shown, there's a problem whichever definition we use), but what "unit" means. I ought to have started by challenging the claim that a unit is in all cases equal to its constituent models. This is not self-evident. It is not even true. Consider:

Dresden, the city, is composed of all its districts. it is composed of all the districts in it. Therefore it is equal to all of its districts.

I am in Altstadt. I am not in Neustadt. Therefore I am not in Dresden.

Bombs struck some districts during the war. There is at least one district which was not struck (let's assume for this example). Therefore Dresden was not bombed.

The district of Dresden closest to my current position is within an hour's drive from me. The district furthest from my position is not within an hour's drive from me. Therefore Dresden is not within an hour's drive from me. (Basically yakface's example.)

This seems quite out of step with commonly accepted usage, wouldn't you say? In some instances, I submit, a thing is not equal to its constituent parts, but to any one of its constituent parts.

-

My OED is the online edition, for what it's worth.

I agree with T-C, Yak, and Phibes' eloquent and cogent arguments.

GW has used the meaning "at or closer than" for "within" very consistently in (at least) the most recent two editions of the game. Furthermore, they also use the term "completely within" in some circumstances, for example, in the different victory conditions for different missions or levels of missions.

I have the previous codex here, and it is worded any model wholly under the 6" radius gains the benefit. Why would they change the wording and more than double the points cost if they did not intend for it to work this way. Besides they had other armies in mind when designing it as well. Imagine how long 2 30 man ork squads would last against 3 carnifex with barbed stranglers and a hive tyrant or two. Not long enough to matter thats for sure. Its the only way to compete on a fair scale.

Fair? I don't think fairness has anything to do with it. 60 orks is only 360 points. Now for an additional (X) points you get to add an additional 20 wounds to the pile. In most cases thats an extra 30-40 shots that need to come from somewhere.

The game is still only 6 turns long. Now, don't get me wrong, I love my Orks, I want them tough, but I also have 3 other armies that I can field. So I look at the bigger picture, and seriously, I don't see them being able to take down a pure green tide army that have that sort of survivability in the 6 turn game limit. Throw in a Wierd boy and the basic one turn fleet move and those orks will be on you before you really want them to. And it gets even worse with the proposed forced march rules of 5th ed.

Nurglitch wrote:Units are composed of models. They are composed of all the models in them. Thus a unit is equal to all of its models.

Therefore if a unit must be within 6" of a Mekboy to receive the benefits of a Kustom Force Field then all of the models in a unit must be within 6" of the Mekboy to receive the benefit of the Kustom Force Field.

I'm suprised no one has pointed out that the coherency rules use the same 'within' language.

By nurglitch's logic a unit composed of models on 2" bases would always have to be in base with each other.

That was the first thing I looked to, but I was dismayed to find that the coherency rules actually state that coherency exists when 'the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2"'. It's congruent with our interpretation, but it's also congruent with Nurglitch's.

yakface: You could have also mentioned the unit coherency rules where the models in the check-marked diagrams are clearly 2" away from each other rather than within 2" of each other. In fact the entire unit is out of the unit coherency described in the text! In each of these cases there is the curious disagreement between the text and the diagram, which makes it rather difficult to use the diagram to clearly show what the text describes.

All that the diagram on page 62 clearly shows is that a portion of a model is not within 2" of the access point, and that the diagram contradicts the text. Which is unfortunate because it means we can't just solve this disagreement via reference to these diagrams.

Also I've already explained how the term 'within' in the movement rules is an adverb and not a preposition, and that treating them as the same was an error of amphiboly. As such if one thought that the sentence in question indicated that models with bases larger than 1" could come within 1" of enemy models because they could not come within 1" of enemy models, then one would be wrong. Since the 'within' in the sentence in question is an adverb the sentence expresses a rule about approaching limits, not about enclosure as it would if the 'within' in question were a preposition.

Now, if you're going to claim that I'm "simply wrong" about the common ("basic") usage of the term 'within' you should at least note that the term has many common usages, which can be categorized by the grammatical role the term is employed in. That way you can explain to me which common usage you're referring to, and how I am misusing it, and I can learn a lesson if I am indeed wrong about that "basic" usage. I'd like to point out that I explained at least two common usages of the term 'within', that of a preposition and that of an adverb, and how to tell the difference.

Likewise if you're going to explain to me how I am misusing the particular usage, it might help if you employed a better argument. After all, if you say that you live "within" 1 mile of San Francisco, intending to mean in English that you live up to a mile away from the utmost edge of that city, you could be mis-speaking yourself and saying that you live within 1 mile of all of San Francisco when you don't mean it. Merely asserting that you don't use the word that way begs the question of whether you yourself use it correctly.

Think of it like this: Suppose when engage in basic arithmetic I was asked to add 2 and 2 together I wrote down 5. Now, that would be incorrect, assuming the usual terms "2", "+", etc. If you pointed that out to me, and I said that when I write down 5 I mean next natural number after three, then you would be wrote to point out that I should have written down 4. By writing 5 instead of 4 when I mean the next natural number after three I would be making a mistake. The mistake would be assuming that 5 means what I want it to mean, rather than having its meaning fixed by objective mathematical and linguistic structures.

Dr Phibes: Thanks! Hopefully we'll be able to put these examples to good use. However to really make citing these examples worthwhile we really need all of them. In particular we need all references to 'units' that denote not all the models in the unit and which do not have a rider attached pointing out that 'unit' in that particular case refers to some of the unit rather than all of the unit as nouns lacking adjectives like 'some' referring to their parts do.

mauleed: I think there's been some miscommunication here because I've presented an argument showing that the grammatical construction of the sentence containing the 1" limit conclusively shows that the term "within" is being used as an adverb. Since it is being used as an adverb it expresses a logical structure that is entirely consistent with the previous sentence that prohibits models from moving into base contact in the movement phase. It is not only consistent, but it extends the boundary that rule is concerned with so that no model can be moved past a larger boundary line: the 1" boundary. Indeed, I have argued that if we commit the error of amphiboly and misread the term as a preposition as it is used in another rule, then we end up with the contradiction that: although no model can move within 1" of an enemy model in the movement phase, models with bases larger than 1" can move within 1" of an enemy model in the movement phase because

Let me make myself clear:

By Nurglitch's logic a unit composed of models on 2" bases would not always have to be in base to base contact with each other because Nurglitch's logic doesn't make the error of amphiboly in over-generalizing the usage of a term in sentence to a grammatically different sentence.

Are you going to ignore my post? It seems somewhat unkind.

tegeus-Cromis: Sorry, I was hoping you'd see I was addressing your comments along with Yakfaces and mauleeds. To address your post:

When we misread the second sentence in the movement rules, such that the 'within' is mistaken as a preposition, the rule it expresses grants permission to break the rule stated in the first sentence, that models may not move into base to base contact during the movement phase, by failing to prohibit a model with a base over 1" in diameter from crossing the 1" boundary since that model cannot be inside that boundary. Since the first sentence prohibits this and the second sentences grants permission to do this we have a classic bivalent contradiction of A and not A in direct opposition.

As I said to Dr Phibes in the previous post we need to find all of the instances in which the term 'unit' is used to refer to whole units, rather than partial units. Usually an unmodified noun refers to a whole object, but often it can be used to refer to whole or partial objects, and to move ahead it would help matters if we had all of the relevant textual evidence at hand.

Insofar as challenging the claim that a unit is in all cases equal to its constituent models it might be something to consider the scope of the quantifier "all". In the case of Warhammer 40k, regardless of what we might think in other domains, the rulebook states that units are composed of models (P. 8 "Units" and that their models are the unit.

But I should address the argument you put forward, just on principle:

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Dresden, the city, is composed of all its districts. it is composed of all the districts in it. Therefore it is equal to all of its districts.

I'm going to use some symbols so the semantics of Dresden don't distract from the logic of the argument. What you're stating here is that there is some object, call it d for Dresden, which has the property C of being a city. Let's say there's some objects, call them a, b, c (since I don't know Dresden) which have the property of being districts, call that S. So Cd = U[a, b, c] which is to say the City of Dresden is equal to the sum of its districts.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:I am in Altstadt. I am not in Neustadt. Therefore I am not in Dresden.

I'm going to assume Alstadt and Neustadt are districts in Dresden. They'll be a and b, respectively. Let's also say that there's some object with the property of being you, call it i. We'll use the letter M to denote the membership relation. The logical structure of the argument should be: iMa & ~iMb, aMd & iMd, => iMd. Yours is: iMa & ~iMb, aMd & iMd, => ~iMd. So given the assumptions you've made about the membership relation of districts to Dresden, and the assumptions you further make about the membership relation of you to districts, your conclusion ("Therefore I am not in Dresden") is false and the quoted argument is deductively invalid.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Bombs struck some districts during the war. There is at least one district which was not struck (let's assume for this example). Therefore Dresden was not bombed.

Again an unsound argument (an argument in which the truth of the premises is not matched by the truth of the conclusion, usually because it is logically invalid).

tegeus-Cromis wrote:The district of Dresden closest to my current position is within an hour's drive from me. The district furthest from my position is not within an hour's drive from me. Therefore Dresden is not within an hour's drive from me. (Basically yakface's example.)

Here's a new relation, that of within an hour's drive. Let's call that D. So: ~iMd & iDa, aMd, ~iDb, => ~iDd. That's again deductively invalid. What would be valid would be ~iMd & iDa, aMd, ~iDb, => iDd. Note that aMd, that district a is a member of Dresden is a premise given earlier but left out in the specific arguments. Fortunately they fall within the scope of that premise and it can be explicitly reiterated with logical validity to prove validity in sub-arguments.

Each of these argument commits a fallacy of composition which relies on a confusion between Dresden and its components. When you say that in some instances a thing is not equal to all of its constituent parts, but to any of its constituent parts all of the cases I think you need to give examples that do not include the fallacy of composition, and examples from the information contained in the rulebook. Dr Phibes has given us a head-start in that regard.

I would wish it were out of step with common usage, but my experience of being a teaching assistant has left me that it is at least appallingly common with undergraduate university students. That said we're not concerned with undergraduate university students who can't even bother to read their easy-reader textbooks, or even with highly intelligent people who carefully read and analyze much more advanced texts. We're concerned with how the term 'unit' is used to denote objects in the game of Warhammer 40k.

I'll check out the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary. Sounds handy.

Nurglitch wrote:yakface: You could have also mentioned the unit coherency rules where the models in the check-marked diagrams are clearly 2" away from each other rather than within 2" of each other. In fact the entire unit is out of the unit coherency described in the text! In each of these cases there is the curious disagreement between the text and the diagram, which makes it rather difficult to use the diagram to clearly show what the text describes.

All that the diagram on page 62 clearly shows is that a portion of a model is not within 2" of the access point, and that the diagram contradicts the text. Which is unfortunate because it means we can't just solve this disagreement via reference to these diagrams.

. . .

Now, if you're going to claim that I'm "simply wrong" about the common ("basic") usage of the term 'within' you should at least note that the term has many common usages, which can be categorized by the grammatical role the term is employed in. That way you can explain to me which common usage you're referring to, and how I am misusing it, and I can learn a lesson if I am indeed wrong about that "basic" usage. I'd like to point out that I explained at least two common usages of the term 'within', that of a preposition and that of an adverb, and how to tell the difference.

Likewise if you're going to explain to me how I am misusing the particular usage, it might help if you employed a better argument. After all, if you say that you live "within" 1 mile of San Francisco, intending to mean in English that you live up to a mile away from the utmost edge of that city, you could be mis-speaking yourself and saying that you live within 1 mile of all of San Francisco when you don't mean it. Merely asserting that you don't use the word that way begs the question of whether you yourself use it correctly.

Think of it like this: Suppose when engage in basic arithmetic I was asked to add 2 and 2 together I wrote down 5. Now, that would be incorrect, assuming the usual terms "2", "+", etc. If you pointed that out to me, and I said that when I write down 5 I mean next natural number after three, then you would be wrote to point out that I should have written down 4. By writing 5 instead of 4 when I mean the next natural number after three I would be making a mistake. The mistake would be assuming that 5 means what I want it to mean, rather than having its meaning fixed by objective mathematical and linguistic structures.

First, I must state that my education of english grammar extends (barely) to a Bachelor's Degree and even so I will freely admit that I know very little actual knowledge on the subject.

With that admission out of the way I stand by my previous statement that regardless of dictionary definitions that common usage of the word "within" (as a preposition) includes situations where only a fraction of an object is "within" the specified distance.

In my previous reply I mentioned the usage of the word in relation to distance: "I live within 'X' miles of 'XX' city". The term is also used the same way in figurative phrases such as "within arm's length". If I ask you if the "table is set up within arm's length of you" the understanding is that you can touch the very edge of the table, not that the entire table is within reach of your arm.


Now, the writers of 40k are also humans who can be prone to error. The rules of 40k are pretty consistent throughout that any range, coherency distance and even the term "within" (as shown on page 62 in the disembarking diagram) refers to the concept that the object must only be partially within this distance in order to qualify. You have stated that the only thing that we can discern from these diagrams is that they contradict the text but I disagree as they are consistent with the common usage of the word (logically incorrect or otherwise).

In fact, in some cases the rules even differentiate between "within" and "entirely within" when referencing the distance that units need to be in order to achieve a mission objective. The Secure and Control mission (p82) requires units simply to be "within 6 [inches] of it" while the Field of Battle objective (p86) requires that the unit be "entirely within 12 [inches] of the centre point at the end of the game".


I understand that this argument is not logically sound, however when we play a game we are essentially making a contract between two people to play the game as they (both) understand the rules. If the vast, vast majority of players understand the common usage of the word "within" and this usage is consistent with how the rules are written in relation to the diagrams in the rulebook, then it really doesn't matter whether the players are logically correct because that is how the game is going to be played anyway.

Ummm to the OP:

If the debate came up at a tournament I was running, I would have to default to the basic rules governing the "generic" cover save:

If half (or more than half; don't have my BGB to check exactly) of the models in a unit are in cover, the whole unit gets a save. Seems tha fairest way to resolve the dispute.

Lordhat wrote:Ummm to the OP:

If the debate came up at a tournament I was running, I would have to default to the basic rules governing the "generic" cover save:

If half (or more than half; don't have my BGB to check exactly) of the models in a unit are in cover, the whole unit gets a save. Seems tha fairest way to resolve the dispute.

If your idea of 'fair' includes making up rules as you go, then indeed it's fair.

The rules are crystal clear on the point. If you're within 6" at all, you get the save. Not a single point worth further discussion has been brought up to say otherwise.

mauleed wrote:

Lordhat wrote:Ummm to the OP:

If the debate came up at a tournament I was running, I would have to default to the basic rules governing the "generic" cover save:

If half (or more than half; don't have my BGB to check exactly) of the models in a unit are in cover, the whole unit gets a save. Seems tha fairest way to resolve the dispute.

If your idea of 'fair' includes making up rules as you go.....

Yes, sometimes it is. AS a TO there are times when you are called on to make decisions, not covered by the rules. I'll be looking into this a bit more as I havn't had a chance to actually read the Ork codex; but as of now I'll stand my ground. IF this entire dispute comes up during a game in a tournament I'm running (with the whole 'within' debate and all) I would just default to the basic rules. Keeping an event on time is more important than any one or two player's need to be right.

Yakface: Fortunately one does not need a degree in linguistics to have sufficient knowledge of English grammar. Just about anything you need to know can be found in a grammar book. There are grammar primers that can be found online.

Given that I recommend pulling out a grammar and a dictionary and looking at how 'within' can be used. It can be used as a preposition, a word which shows the relationship between a noun or pronoun and another word in the sentence; position, direction, time, manner, means, or agent. It can be used as an adverb, a word that describes a verb, an adjective, or even another adverb; manner, quantity, time, place, and intensity. It can be used as a noun, a word that names things such as persons, animals, places, objects, events, and concepts.

Now the interesting thing about English dictionaries is that they report the common usage, rather than prescribe it in the case of French and Latin dictionaries. What you will find in an up to date English dictionary are colloquial, formal, and specialized uses as well as grammatical usage.

Now a figurative expression is an expression that is not literal. Which is to say that a figurative phrase is not one which directly refers to some persons, animals, places, objects, or events, but a concept or logical statement. If you were to ask me whether "the table was set up within arms' reach of me", the context of the situation giving us the understanding that by such a phrase you meant only part of the table was within my reach rather than all of it, you would not be using a figurative phrase. You would be using a literal phrase, and you would be mispeaking yourself by mis-using the term 'within'. Now, if you used the same phrase figuratively to ask me whether "the table was set up within arms' reach of me", and the context of the situation gave us the understanding that by such a phrase you meant to ask whether I found the table's set up convenient, then you would be speaking figuratively and rightly because the terms including 'within' would not be fixed by the size of the table and its physical relation to me. The meaning of the terms would be fixed by my convenience, rather than a spatial arrangement of objects (although obviously my convenience would involve the spatial arrangement of objects as well as the values I give to those arrangements, etc).

Seeing as the figurative is not the literal and the Kustom Force Field rules with which we are concerned as being phrased literally, about the position of models on the tabletop, rather than figuratively it seems that whether we commonly use the term figuratively is moot and that whether we use the term wrongly is what we're trying to avoid. That is to say it is what we are trying to avoid when we sit in front of our computers and talk about the rules of the game, rather than sit around a gaming table and talk about the game we are playing. In the first case we are concerned with the information found in our rulebooks, and in the second case we are concerned with moving the game forward and not wasting time. So while the meaning of 'within' does not matter to people playing the game, as they can apply whatever rules they want to their game, it does matter to people discussing how the rules should be played were we to sit down and play the game according to the book.

The rule sounds pretty solid to me in it's original form.

Edit: I lowered myself to a level that didn't suit me while trying to combat egotism. You know the old parable: Never try to argue with an idiot, as they will just drag you down to their level and beat you with expierence. The same goes for those who view themselves "more intelligent" than others as well; however, the direction your still drug is down.

I posted this a few days ago and have had such a chuckle to the debate it's created, LOL! Thanx so much for the thought guys. I agree with those who say it's only required to get one model inside the 6" to garner the save.

I've proxied around ten games since snagging a copy of the codex and I've been trying to get around my typical "Speed Freek" list and instead going with a foot slogging army.

The problem I've encountered so far is simply not having a save against guns that typical have cut a unit to a third by the time it get's into the fray. When you look at the results of a shattered squad against a regular squad of marines you'll see that the I3 kills them without numbers (Or maybe it's just been my games)

The KFF is one of the few things to use that gives an Ork a chance to do what he's born to do! I've yet to use one on the table because I wasn't sure of the rulings, so maybe now I'll have a shot at not being mangled marching across the field.

Thanks again for the input, I really enjoyed the responses!


wOOkie

This reminds me a lot of the Tyranid hive mind power Catalyst. In all the games that I've played where this rule has been used, it was always understood to designate that the unit merely had to have at least one model "within" the range. I mean, come on, if you put your foot in someone's doorway, you are technically WITHIN their home, your foot being an extension of yourself while not being the whole. The Rule doesn't state the WHOLE unit, just the unit, in any form. The term "within" mean to designate a limit, and when that limit is met, in any fashion, it is achieved.

Again, the wording for the KFF is exactly worded as that of Catalyst, so if you find the answer for that rule, you make clear KFF.

Lordhat wrote:

mauleed wrote:

Lordhat wrote:Ummm to the OP:

If the debate came up at a tournament I was running, I would have to default to the basic rules governing the "generic" cover save:

If half (or more than half; don't have my BGB to check exactly) of the models in a unit are in cover, the whole unit gets a save. Seems tha fairest way to resolve the dispute.

If your idea of 'fair' includes making up rules as you go.....

Yes, sometimes it is. AS a TO there are times when you are called on to make decisions, not covered by the rules. I'll be looking into this a bit more as I havn't had a chance to actually read the Ork codex; but as of now I'll stand my ground. IF this entire dispute comes up during a game in a tournament I'm running (with the whole 'within' debate and all) I would just default to the basic rules. Keeping an event on time is more important than any one or two player's need to be right.

Seriously, that's mind blowing. You should apply for a job running GW events, you'd fit right in.

Sure, there are times when there are things not covered by the rules, but this clearly isn't one of them. And I notice you're 'ruling as a TO' reflects your own personal bias, not anything based on the rules (which you haven't even read) or fairness. Just your desire to play amatuer game designer.

In other words, you appear to put your own need to be right ahead of everything.

I'd have to agree with DaBoss. The rule does not state that more than half the unit has to be within the range of the KFF. Giving the benefit of the doubt here I'd explain this as having a similiar effect as the Waaagh! or how other orks effect Wierdboyz. My interpertation: If 1 model is within the KFF effect range, the whole unit is covered.

The rule does not state that any portion of the unit needs to be in range of the Kustom Force Field. It states that the unit needs to be in the range given.

DaBoss wrote:This reminds me a lot of the Tyranid hive mind power Catalyst. In all the games that I've played where this rule has been used, it was always understood to designate that the unit merely had to have at least one model "within" the range. I mean, come on, if you put your foot in someone's doorway, you are technically WITHIN their home, your foot being an extension of yourself while not being the whole. The Rule doesn't state the WHOLE unit, just the unit, in any form. The term "within" mean to designate a limit, and when that limit is met, in any fashion, it is achieved.

Again, the wording for the KFF is exactly worded as that of Catalyst, so if you find the answer for that rule, you make clear KFF.

reading this made me double take and go back and read the Tyranid codex.
I think i was leaning away from siding with Nurglitch's (entirely sound/valid but perhaps too much so) response.

The catalyst example threw me onto Nurglitch's side. I think I have always misread Catalyst the same wayDaBoss did until now.
Read "HIVE MIND POWERS" and "CLOSE COMBAT BIOMORPHS" both on page 31 again. Specifically "Catalyst" and "Bonesword".

Catalyst - ". . . the Tyranid player can nominate a single Tyranid unit that is within 24 (inches) of the creature using the power"

Bonesword - ". . . the Hive Tyrant may use the Bonesword to extend the effects of Catalyst to all broods with a model within 6 (inches)"

couple of words go a LONG way there. . . .

exact same as Catalyst, eh?

DaBoss wrote:This reminds me a lot of the Tyranid hive mind power Catalyst. In all the games that I've played where this rule has been used, it was always understood to designate that the unit merely had to have at least one model "within" the range. I mean, come on, if you put your foot in someone's doorway, you are technically WITHIN their home, your foot being an extension of yourself while not being the whole. The Rule doesn't state the WHOLE unit, just the unit, in any form. The term "within" mean to designate a limit, and when that limit is met, in any fashion, it is achieved.

Again, the wording for the KFF is exactly worded as that of Catalyst, so if you find the answer for that rule, you make clear KFF.

DaBoss brings up a strong point. This post officially ends the confusion for me. TY.

strafed: How do you figure? kirsanth has definitively shown that the Kustom Force Field rule is like the Catalyst rule and unlike the Bone Sword rule, and that the difference is significant.

The Kustom Force Field and Catalyst rules say that the unit must be within x". The Bone Sword rule says that the effects of Catalyst may be extended to all units with a model within x".

If we suppose that we should treat Kustom Force Fields like we treat Catalyst, then we cannot treat either like Bone Swords and apply them to units that are only partially within the stated range.

Eldar psychic powers work that way, too. One model from
a unit within x range, all models benefit/get hurt.

If they intended to make the KFF like the old one, then it's
pretty stupid of them not to include the wording in a new
codex. Who wants to carry around BOTH versions of a
codex to use one piece of wargear correctly?

Of the Eldar Psychic Powers Doom requires the unit to be within range, Guide and Fortune requires one model in the unit to be within range, while Eldritch Storm and Mind War are directed at individual models.

GW is certainly consistent about whether whole units must be in range, partial units must be in range, or models must be in range.

I had the thought this morning, how does the KFF wording compare with the Necron ResOrb wording?

I would suspect that the designer's _intention_ was to duplicate that effect, however poorly the actual grammar warped that intention.

The text of Resurrection Orb expresses its rules like the texts of Guide, Fortune, and Bone Swords. Each of these rules state that they affect units with a model within x".

The text of the Kustom Force Field expresses its rules like the texts of Doom and Catalyst. Each of these rules state that they affect units within x".

I kind of forgot to come back to this thread when things got busy at work for a week there.

I still cannot accept the definition of "within" meaning "entirely within" in the case of the 40k rules.

It remains that the term "within" is commonly accepted in many situations to mean that if any part of an object is in the specified distance then the object is "within" that distance.

For example, say I pull a hundred random people and put them in a parking lot and tell them: "If that car over there is within ten feet of you then you now own it."

The front of the car is 9 1/2 feet away from them while the back end is clearly beyond 10 feet (there are measurement markers on the ground so everyone knows the distance just by looking).

How many of those 100 people do you think would say the car is within 10 feet of them even though the back end is clearly beyond?

I'd wager at least 90 of those people would agree with that statement (if not more).

The fact is that no matter what dictionary we cite, the common accepted usage of the word is different.

The fact also remains that the 40k rules have, in two separate places, diagrams that specify a distance and use the term "within" and show models partially in this distance (the 'characters in an assault' diagram on page 52 & the vehicle disembarking diagram on page 62).

These are diagrams specifically made to help illustrate the meaning of the author's words.

I think I can safely say that the rulebook is consistent in its usage of the word "within" in relation to distance. The only visual diagrams in the book that deal with distance and use the word "within" both clearly show portions of models outside of the given range yet still considered "within" the distance specified.


Unless we can find a clear example in the rules of a diagram using the term "within" and showing a model/unit partially in that distance being considered outside, I personally believe it is safe to assume that the authors use the term "within" in the rules as the commonly accepted definition I have presented above.

I think this belief is further backed up by the author's use of the term "entirely within" (pg 86), as the word "entirely" would be completely redundant if the word "within" always meant wholly within.

Yakface: Okay, so why do some rules reference a unit with at least one model within a stated range, and other rules reference a unit within a stated range? Do you mean to say that these are the same?

Also, take a look at the unit coherency diagrams on P.15. Notice anything interesting about them?

Nurglitch wrote:Yakface: Okay, so why do some rules reference a unit with at least one model within a stated range, and other rules reference a unit within a stated range? Do you mean to say that these are the same?

Yes. I think they are two different ways the author says essentially the same thing.

Also, take a look at the unit coherency diagrams on P.15. Notice anything interesting about them?

I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Please fill me in.

Nurglitch wrote:Yakface: Okay, so why do some rules reference a unit with at least one model within a stated range, and other rules reference a unit within a stated range? Do you mean to say that these are the same?

Also, take a look at the unit coherency diagrams on P.15. Notice anything interesting about them?

Well from a rules standpoint you sure like to argue, but what about the huge price increase. It seems to me its intended use is to get footsloggers across the board, as static units can just take up residence in cover. So what use would it be to support a 10 man (or however tiny a squad would have to be) unit across the board. One battlecannon shot would still decimate it, and with a barebones big mek cost more than the unit its supporting if there is no nob with a klaw. So if you take into account its obvious intended use, you can draw the logical conclusion of how a poorly worded rule is meant to be played.

Yakface: Okay, so why do some rules reference a unit with at least one model within a stated range, and other rules reference a unit within a stated range?

As for the unit coherency diagrams, I'd recommend that you keep looking. I don't want to poison the well, so to speak.

Orock: That the points cost of the wargear has increased since the last edition and expression of its rules has change since the last edition does not concern me. What they are now concerns me.

I can't see how it is intended to be used, and since it has been proven that divining intention from text is impossible I'll have to take your word for it. I can only see the text of the rules. However I should like to see the logical derivation by which we can assure ourselves that your conclusion is "logical".

It should be logical in its context. I think we can agree that it seems a good way for a horde army to get across the board with 1/3 less casualties then they would normally suffer without protection. Say you play a 750 point game with horde orks vs mechanized guard. Assume they have 2 leman russ with them. Now in a small points game 2 leman russ could concentrate fire on 2 squads of 20 to 30 orks and send at least one of them packing, and potentially both from the slowdown of moving all those models thru inevitable difficult terrain. Now with the shield at least those kills arent guaranteed, and puts more risk and strategy into the game. You as the imperial guard player have to calculate the higher chance they will make it across the board, and take that into account when target priority comes up.

Without the mob up rules to save orks anymore, any army with 3 pieplates or more could see an ork horde army off with little to no risk. And without the confers a +5 cover save to all models in the unit, it becomes much to combersome and unwieldy to use. Nobody in their right orky brain is going to try and cram 30 orks plus mek into a tight 6" circle for protection, unless they enjoy letting pie plates roll 15 dice for wounds. You cant just take shottily written rules as face value, you have to be impartial and consider the spirit of the wargear, and how it relates to the rest of the army.

Orock: Well that's the thing. The Warhammer 40k rules aren't shoddily written. Perhaps not enough redundancy for the audience they're aimed at, but grammatically and terminologically they seem pretty clear and unambiguous to me, particularly when taken in the context of how the rules are expressed in Warhammer 40k, English grammar, and so on.

Incidentally I have yet to see you cash out the term "logical". You haven't demonstrated that what you are calling "logical" is actually "logical" rather than merely "convincing to you".

Nurglitch wrote:Yakface: Okay, so why do some rules reference a unit with at least one model within a stated range, and other rules reference a unit within a stated range?

As for the unit coherency diagrams, I'd recommend that you keep looking. I don't want to poison the well, so to speak.

Why do they use different terms to describe essentially the same game mechanic? Of course I can only speculate, but it the case of Cayalyst/Boneswords it seems pretty likely that the good old cut-and-paste is to blame. Catalyst in the 3rd edition codex was worded pretty much exactly as it is now (besides the range being less), so I would contend that when it came time to re-write Catalyst they simply cut-and-paste the existing text they had and then altered the range.

The Bonesword, OTOH did not exist in the 3rd edition codex and therefore it was entirely new rules text.

The same is likely true of the KFF. They had existing rules text for the item so he just altered it in such a way as to make it effect units more easily. So the reason, I speculate, that the KFF wording didn't become the "if one model in the unit is within range" is one of laziness. The writer had the existing text and chose to sloppily edit it to change its meaning rather than writing completely new text which would have made it more clear.

Also, it would be pretty unprecedented for a piece of wargear to go up more than double in points and at the same time be reduced dramatically in effectiveness which is exactly what you are arguing has happened.


Last, I'm not going to wrack my brain trying to figure out what you're insinuating about the coherency diagram. If you'd like to share your thoughts with me I'm always open to new points of view. If not, then I suppose your revelation will remain yours alone.

Yakface: I'm not here to speculate. I'm here to talk about what the rules printed on the page say. The rules are curiously consistent on the matter. Some rules indicate the whole unit and some rules indicate partial units, and the difference is that "unit" and "a unit with a model" are different.

The most obvious difference is the grammatical difference in the expression of these units. I've explained the grammar of the term 'within', and I shouldn't have to explain the grammatical difference of these phrases.

Whether the wargear has changed from edition to edition is irrelevant to what the text means.

Now, the reason why I asked you to look at the diagram without telling you what to look for is that I wanted you to figure it out for yourself. Look at the edges denoting the distance between the members of a unit in the check-marked diagrams and then read the text. You will notice that the distance between the models is 2" when the rules require them to be within 2". The rules in the text disagree with that of the diagram.

Nurglitch wrote:Yakface: I'm not here to speculate. I'm here to talk about what the rules printed on the page say. The rules are curiously consistent on the matter. Some rules indicate the whole unit and some rules indicate partial units, and the difference is that "unit" and "a unit with a model" are different.

Now, the reason why I asked you to look at the diagram without telling you what to look for is that I wanted you to figure it out for yourself. Look at the edges denoting the distance between the members of a unit in the check-marked diagrams and then read the text. You will notice that the distance between the models is 2" when the rules require them to be within 2". The rules in the text disagree with that of the diagram.

The coherency rules don't use the word "within". They simply state that the mdoels must not be further than 2" from each other, which the diagram does depict.

More importantly, this diagram is still consistent with all of the other diagrams in the rulebook in that when a distance is specified as long as that distance is enough to reach any part of the model (the edge of its base) then the model is considered within that distance.

As I've pointed out numerous times, this interpetation of the term "within" is also the widely accepted definition of the word. Were you to go poll a random sampling of people around you I guarantee you would find what I say to be the truth.

So ultimately this situation boils down to one of two possibilities:

Either all of the diagrams in the book that relate to distances and the term "within" are incorrect or else your definition of the word "within" does not match the one used by the authors.

Which do you think is more likely?


And as for me speculating, you asked why the designers would use two different phrasing to describe the same game effect and I provided you with a reasonable explanation. Obviously it has to be speculation as we can never truly know the answer without asking the designers ourselves.

Yakface: I wasn't asking you for the motivations or intentions of the designers, I was asking why we should consider these different grammatical constructions to mean the same thing. As in: explain to me why two phrases that say different things somehow state the same thing.

Likewise you may have noticed that I was paraphrasing the coherency rules rather than quoting them, so whether or not they used the term "within" is irrelevant so long as they used an equivalent expression. The expression that they used, and I quote, was "the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2"." In the diagram the edge is labeled 2".

If you subtracted this distance from between two models in the check-marked diagrams you would end up with models adjacent to each other, right? And there's no distance between them then, right? Well, if that is true, then the models in each check-marked diagrams are more than 2" away. If they were no more than 2" away from each other then their bases would overlap where the edges of those bases moved 2" closer to each other.

Let me illustrate.

Suppose we have bases like so [o] and empty distance like so [-] such that [-][-] indicates 2". Remember that although bases have a diameter of less than an inch, we can treat as though they did such that [o] = [-], and [-] is 1, [-][-] is 2, [-][-][-] is 3, etc

This is what those unit coherency diagrams indicate: [o][-][-][o]. It looks right, doesn't it? No more than [-][-] between the two [o].

Now let's take another situation, to illustrate the formal properties indicated by sentences involving "more than".

[o] = [o], 1 is equal to 1. There is no distance between the outer [o] and itself.
[o][o] > [o], 2 is 1 more than 1. There is one distance between the outer [o], the distance between them is 1
[o][-][o] > [o], 3 is 2 more than 1. There are two distances between the outer [], the distance between them is 2
[o][-][-][o] > [o], 4 is 3 more than 1. There are three distances between the outer [], the distance between them is 3.

While there are only [-][-] between the two [o][o], if we subtract [-][-] from [o][-][-][o] we are left with [o][o] the distance between which is 1 and 1 > 0. This should seem counter-intuitive at first, but think about it carefully. If there is no more than 2" between one model and another, then if we subtract 2" from that there should be 0". But the only thing that can have no distance between it is a single thing and itself. Therefore [o][-][-][o] cannot indicate that the [o] have no more than [-][-] between them.

Essentially this is why points, edges, and so on are undefined in geometry, and thus occupy no space themselves because if they are you get stupid like the unit coherency diagram where there is more than 2" between the models in the diagram because the edge naively indicates 2" between the bases, the areas occupied by the models.

Nurglitch wrote:
If you subtracted this distance from between two models in the check-marked diagrams you would end up with models adjacent to each other, right? And there's no distance between them then, right? Well, if that is true, then the models in each check-marked diagrams are more than 2" away. If they were no more than 2" away from each other then their bases would overlap where the edges of those bases moved 2" closer to each other.

You continue to unintentionally reinforce my point. All your post illustrates is that it is undeniably clear that the authors of the game did not write the rules with a clear knowledge of mathematics and geometry. Hell, I'm pretty sure if I wrote a game I'd suffer the same fate.

So while you are correct that there techincally must be more than 2" between the bases in the coherency diagram, that diagram is an illustration to tell players how to play the game the authors wrote. And those illustrations throughout the book show that the authors use terms in a general way as used by the common public.

Again, I would say that if you asked 100 people if there was somethign wrong with the coherency diagram more than 90% of the people would not spot what you refer to. The reason for that is that most people, like myself and clearly like the authors of the game only have a passing understanding of geometry.

So if the authors have taken the time to create diagrams to illustrate their lack of knowledge of mathematics I cannot fathom why it is so hard for you to understand that they have at least done so in a consistent basis across the rules and it is a language that most people can understand.

It really is about consistency. All measuring aspects of the game are shown in both the diagrams and played by everyone I have ever met that if any part of a unit/model is within the specified distance then the entire model/unit is considered within that distance. It applies to coherency, shooting ranges, assault distances, close combat engagement distance, embarking/disembarking passenger range, etc, etc, etc.

As I have pointed out you will find no conclusive visual proof in the rulebook that your definition of "within" is the one shared by the authors, but the definition that I have been promoting is in line with how the rules and the diagrams are written.

You guys are missing a few key points.

The studio design team are English raised and English educated.

This means they do not use American grammar nor do they use our measurement system by default in their heads.

They think English in both ways.

You'll notice they are far more 'gentlemanly' in their games than Americans are, if you ever play them.

They don't really care what the rules say, or don't say, when they play.

Within means to them precisely what yak thinks it does, any part is within. It's common sense applied with a English rub.

Same thing goes for 'entirely within'. That means no part is sticking outside.

Alot of people get confused, especially here in the states.

Don't use Merriam-Webster.

Use the Oxford.

Helps if you've been to the UK and played these guys, but that's not the point--the two kinds of English are different.

You guys are arguing math, and what one definition of the word means but you aren't using the right sources.

Take it for what you will.

Oh and 'game designer' isn't trained in this field. Show me a course at a 4 year University teaching 'game design' that isn't video games, and was around in the 80s and 90s, when the studio grew up. Some have grown immensely, and done well. Others have stagnated, or simply never had talent to begin with. Names unspoken. Phil Kelly is the heir apparent to Andy Chambers in my view.

Nurglitch wrote: While there are only [-][-] between the two [o][o], if we subtract [-][-] from [o][-][-][o] we are left with [o][o] the distance between which is 1

Are you truly attempting to argue that 4-2=3? I have taken my fair share of Geometry and Physics and a plethora of other courses dealing with geometry in a higher learning level while studying Civil Engineering at UTEP, and I can tell you that when dealing with definite spacial objects, such as a model's base, measurements from that object are dictated from the farthest extent of its spacial occupation. Meaning, you measure from the furthest portion of the object. If you have two bases touching one another, there is no distance between the two, save a few microns which I won't even get into. If you move one object exactly 2 inches from the other, there is not a total of TWO inches between them. This is not a difficult concept. Honestly Nurglitch, I attempted to grasp what you were trying to convey and I just didn't understand the logic you were attempting to use here. Taking two inches from between two object where there was only two inches exactly to begin with does not make the two overlap, but merely puts them within contact.

And out of curiosity, what does this have to do with KFF? If you are attempting to define "within", this example is simply moot. If you are hellbent on using word exactitude as the basis of logical argument, then it seems a rather poor practice to use "equivalent expressions" because that is the basis for interpretation. Using one rule bounced off of another as the basis for fact. While I agree this is needed to manage the spirit of the game, everything you have mentioned from this point would suggest you are against this sort of practice.

Yakface: I think you missed my point on the first page where I talked about amphiboly and how in 'within' is used in several different ways in the Warhammer 40k and in accordance with its grammatical uses. Which is to say I haven't proposed a definition of 'within' at all. I've simply pointed out how to figure out how the term is being employed in English and what that use signifies.

Then I pointed out that there are errors in the Warhammer 40k rules, such as the disagreement between the unit coherency diagrams and the unit coherency text. I did so by showing how such an error could be detected so that typos were not used as exemplars of consistency.

I did both of these things because I would like you to answer my question. Let me repeat it:

Why we should consider these different grammatical constructions to mean the same thing. As in: explain to me why two phrases that say different things somehow state the same thing. Why does "unit within [range]" mean the same thing as "unit with a model within [range]"

Nurglitch wrote:Yakface: I think you missed my point on the first page where I talked about amphiboly and how in 'within' is used in several different ways in the Warhammer 40k and in accordance with its grammatical uses. Which is to say I haven't proposed a definition of 'within' at all. I've simply pointed out how to figure out how the term is being employed in English and what that use signifies.

And this is where I believe you continue to make your fundamental mistake by assuming that the definition of the word means one thing when its use in the diagrams throughout the book demonstrate a different definition of the word (a commonly accepted definition).

Then I pointed out that there are errors in the Warhammer 40k rules, such as the disagreement between the unit coherency diagrams and the unit coherency text. I did so by showing how such an error could be detected so that typos were not used as exemplars of consistency.

And again, the only thing this diagram helps to illustrate is not that the diagrams in the book are full of errors and should therefore be disregarded but rather that the authors have a different understanding of language than what you are arguing.

I did both of these things because I would like you to answer my question. Let me repeat it:

Why we should consider these different grammatical constructions to mean the same thing. As in: explain to me why two phrases that say different things somehow state the same thing. Why does "unit within [range]" mean the same thing as "unit with a model within [range]"

Because I disagree that the phrases say different things. I think those two phrases can mean exactly the same thing. The reality is that in real life sometimes "within" is used to mean "entirely within" and other times it is used to mean "partially within". But in the situation we've been discussing it is far more commonly associated as "partially within" (as I've illustrated in my posts above).

Or are you asking why would they would possibly use different terminology to describe the same thing? Because they are imperfect humans who have shown a tendency to use different phrases to describe the same situation.

Various reasons. Human error, different authors, bad word consistency, misconception of how it would interpreted, ect. I agree that it should not be assumed to be a matter of interpreting when the rules are undeniable, but this is an entirely different case, as has been the case with various other rules. The term "within" is very suggestive and open to debate. To some, it signifies a boundary and to others its the furthest reach of a measurement. Both of these cases are supported by various other examples within the rules as many people have pointed out. This alone tells of the inconsistencies within the rules and the way they are written. Again, there are many reasons why one reference can use a word and an entirely seperate reference uses it differently. Last I checked, these Codices were written by various people typically working in teams with not a high amount of proof reading involved.

Take the lately Ork Codex for instance. The leaked version is dated 7/26/07 and has flaws in it, as many have pointed out. As soon as I received the official version of the Codex, one of the first things I checked was the differences between it and the leaked version. There were none that I can detect. Hell, the Stormboyz entry even still has Waaagh! in its unit description page and not in the unit listing. This alone tells me that error is in the nature of GW and that the proofreading process and word exactitude isn't exactly a high priority. If you want to break down the rules as though they were exact and deliberate in their usage, be my guest.

Now, I'm not saying throw the baby out with the bath water here. The rules may have some flaws within them and there is a high need for FAQ's on occasion, but the great part about this fine game is that its meant to be fun. If DakkaDakka has shown me anything, its that there are many ways to see the same thing. Take Yakface's polls on various game questions dealing with obscure rules. Almost all of those polls showed a high degree of diversity in what people would play in their games. Who's right? Again, "right" being a suggestive word. Nurglitch would believe that there is a "right" response, and this is true. If I could sit down all the author's of all the Codices and Rulebooks, I would hammer out a perfect interpretation, and that would be the "right" way to play. But this is impossible and there will always be room for making an educated and wise decision on what you and your group believe it should be played. You may be totally wrong but by the same token, may also be totally right. Fact is based upon the absence of doubt, but while doubt remains and evidence which produces that doubt and contradictory viewpoints, it is not fact, its opinion. So, the moral of the story is please be certain to be humble enough to realize that there is a huge difference between one's facts and opinions.

DaBoss: Of course I'm not arguing that 4-2=3. That would be arithmetical stupid. I simply demonstrated that the check-marked diagrams for unit coherency do not agree with their associated text. I see you followed my point exactly, that when you take away the 2 inches between the models in the diagram they do not overlap, and that if they do not overlap (and hence are 0 inches apart), then they are more than 0" apart. Since in the diagram they are (x > 0) + 2 that means they are more than 2 inches apart (x + 2 inches) when the text says that no more than 2 inches may lie between them.

All this has to do with the Kustom Force Field is to point out to Yakface that at least one diagram in the rulebook is inconsistent with its accompanying text. Since this is the case, suggesting that the disembarkation diagram proves that the term "within" is universally used in the text to mean 'partially within' is false. Indeed, I have also shown that the term "within" is used in several ways in the text, each way conforming to the grammatical employ in which it is found, so this shouldn't even be an issue.

Now, given that "within" is used in all sorts of interesting ways in the text, what is relevant is how it is being used in the Kustom Force Field rule. What is also of relevance is the difference, or lack thereof, of the phrasing "unit within" and the phrasing "unit with a model within".

kirsanth has rightly pointed out that where there is a difference the rules are consistent, and that where there is no difference there is a curious consistency. Fortunately there is an easy way to check to see if these different grammatical constructions mean the same thing or something different and I am waiting for Yakface to demonstrate it.

Stelek: English grammar is English grammar, whichever variations in dialect you care to use. That's what makes it English.

Again, I can't quite grasp what you're attempting to say. If two objects are touching , there is zero distance between them. Two objects do not need to intersect to have null space between them, just the absence of distance which is achieved with contact. Put your thumb and your forefinger together. If they are touching, are you saying that because they do not pass into one another that there is distance between them?

If you have two bases and have a stick that is perfectly two inches long and place it perfectly between them so the stick is making full contact (not on top of or any other form of "overlapping"), and then take that stick away, how can there be more than two inches between the two bases?

This can truly go on for another 50 posts and will come nowhere closer to a consensus. Is is possible for everyone involved with continual sparring viewpoints to agree to disagree and wait for some FAQ and play their own way until that time?

Yakface wrote:And this is where I believe you continue to make your fundamental mistake by assuming that the definition of the word means one thing when its use in the diagrams throughout the book demonstrate a different definition of the word (a commonly accepted definition).

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I am not assuming the definition of the word means one thing. I have point out that the word is being used in more than one way. I have given two examples of different ways in which the term is used as proof.

Yakface wrote:And again, the only thing this diagram helps to illustrate is not that the diagrams in the book are full of errors and should therefore be disregarded but rather that the authors have a different understanding of language than what you are arguing.

Y'know, there's a joke about a kid that got all of the question on his arithmetic test right except for one that asked "5 + 7 = x". He had written "x = 13" and so naturally the teacher had been forced to mark him down. When he saw this error he took the sheet of paper to the teacher's desk and said: "Although I can understand why you marked me down, you shouldn't have." The teacher is naturally intrigued because the child is quite clever, she asks: "Why? Surely you know that 7 + 5 = 12?" The child nods and replies: "Oh certainly when you adults use the sign for 5 you mean [and here he raised his hand with his fingers spread], but I mean [and here he raised both hands, one with fingers spread and one clenched in a fist with the thumbs up]. So you can see that since I mean by 5 what you mean by 6, you should have marked that question correct!"

The funny thing is that the text shows that whatever understanding of the text that the text demonstrates, it demonstrates (so far as I've checked) at least a perfectly good understanding of English grammar. And by 'perfectly good understanding' I naturally mean the correct application of English grammar.

Yakface wrote:Because I disagree that the phrases say different things. I think those two phrases can mean exactly the same thing. The reality is that in real life sometimes "within" is used to mean "entirely within" and other times it is used to mean "partially within". But in the situation we've been discussing it is far more commonly associated as "partially within" (as I've illustrated in my posts above).

Okay, you think that the phrases corresponding in meaning to "partially within" and "wholly within" mean the same thing because sometimes they mean "partially within" and sometimes they mean "wholly within". You do realize that is what is generally known as "begging the question?

Yakface wrote:Or are you asking why would they would possibly use different terminology to describe the same thing? Because they are imperfect humans who have shown a tendency to use different phrases to describe the same situation.

Again, I am not asking for a just-so story or anything about motivation or intention. I am asking that you show us how to read these phrases correctly. It is simple: show us how the grammar and terms of these phrases express the same syntax.

After all, the construction of the sentence expressing the range on the Kustom Force Field Effect is identical to that of the Catalyst Psychic power and the Doom Psychic power, while the Resurrection Orb, the Fortune psychic power, the Guide psychic power, and the Bone Sword all use a different construction that explicitly admit partially covered units.

DaBoss: I'm not breaking down the wording as though it is deliberate and exact. I'm breaking down the text such that we can tell what is deliberate and what is a mistake. My research into logic and the philosophies of language began with being taught that there's a right way to do some things and a wrong way to do some things, and that right and wrong depend upon whatever conditions or restrictions that one might assume. And the wonderful thing was that if you carefully proceeded step by step and logged these steps, then you could tell the difference between what was the result of error and what was simply beyond your own first glance. The best part is that it allows you to do the same for other people's work, and so arrive at objective results. It is the basis for the utility of the pure sciences such as mathematics, statistics, logic, and computer science, and by extension the empirical sciences.

With regard to facts and opinions, the fact is that your opinion about the state of the facts may true or false. Fact are facts; they are neither true nor false, they are what statements/propositions may be about. The arrangement of the text, layout, diagrams, pictures, and whatnot in the Warhammer 40k rulebooks are facts. The statements made by these arrangements are the facts of the game of Warhammer 40k. The grammar and terms employed are facts of the natural language English.

Consensus is pleasantly irrelevant, although I see no point in quitting this discussion until the participants are satisfied that that their opinions are in accordance with the facts. If we agreed to disagreed, well, I can disagree with people from the privacy of my own home. I'm here to discuss the rules and either have the courtesy of having my errors corrected, or correct others in turn.

I've shown you how there is more than no space between adjacent objects. I recommend you return to the proof I gave and check that. I will suggest, however, that you consider the difference between zero and the null set as you do so.

Rule as written must be considered in light of the writer’s linguistic education and circumstances. If the writer’s did not intend a formulistic logical approach to rules interpretation through semantic analysis, then to apply such a regime can produce just as artificial a result as the person who argues from a strict ‘intent’ perspective. Moreover, to insist on such a regime simply because one can ‘see’ it in the structure is not valid, unless it is supposed to be there.

GW has provided little guidance for resolving apparent rules discrepencies apart from the “rule as written” standard. But what does “as writtent” mean? Well, it means “as it appears on the page.” It doesn’t require us to go into detailed semantic analysis, or to compare it to other similar rules to pick out word choice differences. It compels only that we read the rule and understand what it means, what it’s supposed to mean. That’s it.

The problem with Nurglitch’s approach is quite simply that they’re always HIS approach. No one else is advancing as complete or detailed semantic arguments. Surely GW did not intend the user community to be guided the few and far between logic students, but that we could all pick up the books and resolve disputes for ourselves.

All I’m trying to say is that Yak has a point when he says something doesn’t make sense, or that he has a problem accepting a Nurglitch’s semantic interpretation. GW wrote its rules with a mind that people with varying levels of education in varying fields could all play reasonably the same game. (I emphasize “varying fields” because logical, semantic analysis is not utilized everywhere where technical reading and interpretation skills are required. See the field of law. Public policy and legislative intent often trump semantic logic in the field that regulates our rights and freedoms, and I’d be happy to give very specific examples to that fact.) Nurglitch gives these forums a very reasoned and sound perspective, so please don’t take this as an attack, but I think it’s important to remember that’s not the only valid approach to interpretation, nor was it dictated by GW, nor are judges expected to possess any degree of logical training to provide definitive interpretations.

Nuglitch, you offer the forums great perspective, keep it coming. But at the same time, that approach is only one of the valid interpretive methods.

Nurglitch wrote: I've shown you how there is more than no space between adjacent objects. I recommend you return to the proof I gave and check that. I will suggest, however, that you consider the difference between zero and the null set as you do so.

I am suggesting that your "proof" is SERIOUSLY flawed. Understand just because you drew out an idea with symbols and the works and labeled it a proof does not make it a "fact". Like so many other things, please clarify the words you wish to use carefully. To say "Adjacent" objects is just to say they are simply next to each other, not necessarily in physical contact with one another. I challenge you to find any actual educated person in the field of Geometry and Physics, other than myself, to actual admit that there is empty space between two objects which are touching. Hell, I challenge you to find ANYONE on this forum to concur with your reasoning that... and listen closely... there is actual space (meaning empty room which can be measured in distance) between two objects that are in physical contact with one another (they are touching, the atoms of one are in direct contact with atoms of the other). Its madness!

Nurglitch wrote: I'm not breaking down the wording as though it is deliberate and exact. I'm breaking down the text such that we can tell what is deliberate and what is a mistake.

To presume you can identify what was meant as a deliberate meaning and a mistaking in writing is rather much. Again, without the say-so of the actual horse's mouth, you are basing this of personal analysis which is fundamentally flawed in its concept since you neither have the resource of personal clarification from the authors and any actual insight into their intent... all you have is a argument backed up with a personal interpretation which many seem to disagree with. And to say we did not put forth the effort to look at these rules in a "logical" manner if rather an insult. Many other persons than yourself are capable of looking at something in a totally rational and logical way and come up with a very different idea.

deadlygopher wrote:Nuglitch, you offer the forums great perspective, keep it coming. But at the same time, that approach is only one of the valid interpretive methods.

I agree. I welcome good healthy debate, but without the actual clarification from the authors, no rule interpretation is fact. So, what we are left with are peoples opinions and that is good enough for now.

Nurglitch, if you are truly attempting to make everyone like minded on this subject, I'd personally quit while I'm behind. You will NEVER convince everyone of your opinion, no matter how wordy you attempt to make your argument. Its the fault of human perspective and our individual awesome unique design.

I’ve been thinking about RAW, and the underpinnings of this thread. Perhaps this is a little more succinct than my last post…

Rule as written. What does this require us, as interpreters of rules, to do? Quite simply, it requires us to read a rule, and from that alone gauge the meaning. As is clear, that is often insufficient. English words can and often do have different or ambiguous meanings. So what do we do?

Well, we could adopt a semantic approach. We could analyze structure, other rules, basically all the written material we want, and this may very well lead to a logical result. What’s the problem with this approach, or shall I say, what’s the problem with any approach at this point?

Intent. We’re assuming that any interpretive approach we take is the one we ought to take, instead of one of several we might take, and infers we know what the designers wanted us to do. RAW requires us to figure out how RAW is supposed to work. What do we need to do to make a RAW analysis? I don’t think GW has provided any real guidance on this question.

Now, it might be argued that we MUST adopt a semantic, logical approach, but that isn’t true. As I’ve noted, the field of law, that important thing that controls what we do and sometimes can even put us to death, has often rejected a literal semantic approach in favor of finding the intent behind a law. Examples of this are beyond numerous; I’d be happy to share some. I say this only to illustrate there are other interpretive methods. I don’t think GW ever laid out basic resolution principles, or guided us to various intro textbooks to learn the interpretive technique. Saying logic must be used is as much of an assumption as any other.

I, personally, don’t like a purely logical approach. I don’t think it’s what GW intended, even if one can be ‘seen’ to exist. For one, GW wants everyone, the general population, to play their game, and it seems reasonable that GW would want everyone to resolve rules disputes when they arise. Everyone. Not the mathematically or scientifically educated, but those people plus all the others. And how does the average person deal with a rule they don’t understand? Form a comprehensive semantic argument? Not a chance. They go to common sense, first impressions given how they feel the game ought to work, precedent and similar rules, maybe WD articles. All this is fine, it doesn’t violate the RAW standard because the RAW standard doesn’t take us very far. Semantics is fine too, and very persuasive much of the time. But that’s all it is, a possible approach to finding the ‘true’ meaning.

DaBoss: Whether you find my proof compelling is irrelevant. Until you show me a flaw in it, it is correct. I recommend doing so in the Off-topic Forum if you wish to pursue this.

I do not merely presume that I, or anyone applying this method, can distinguish between correct information and typos. It has been proven by better logicians than I. I know that it works in part because the author's motivations and intentions are irrelevant to the fact of what is on the page. That these errors exist is not my opinion, it is a fact that anyone applying this method can identify.

If you are going to tell me that other posters have looked at the rules in "totally rational and logical ways" and come up with different answers then there are at least two given values for "logical" at work here. When I say logical I mean that there is a reproducible and effective method that anyone can apply to arrive at the same answer. Hence if someone is being rational and logical then we should be able to apply their method and thus arrive at the same result. Yet I see no effective and reproducible methods being put forth, although I do see plenty of just-so stories and appeals to credulity, authority, question-begging, and popularity of opinion. I see people confusing the two meanings, much like the confusion over the term "within".

There's the flaky colloquial use of "logical" to mean "something that's persuasive and makes sense at first glance", and then there's the technical and useful use of "logical" to mean "demonstrable, reproducible, and effective." I see plenty of the former, but nearly none of the latter. Being reasonable is using logic and biting the bullet, being unreasonable is denying that there is no objective matter of fact for reasons that are irrelevant, fallacious, or illogical.

As I keep pointing out, apparently in Swahili, I am not attempting to change anyone's opinions. No one can change another's opinion. You can only change your own. Given that my opinion may be wrong I have checked the truth of it using an effective formal methodology that returns a positive. Given that one may miss errors more easily in one's own work than in those of others, and that no one else has bothered to look into the truth of the matter (preferring instead to bandy about opinions and census in the guise of truth), I have put it out there for people to check. Perhaps unsurprisingly I have seen no flaw identified in it, while I have patiently pointed out the errors that my interlocators have made should they deign to notice.

Anyhow, my question stands. Could someone show me how the expression of the Kustom Force Field rule, though different from that of the Resurrection Orb rule, or the Guide rule, or the Bone Sword rule, or the Fortune rule means the same thing? Just lay it out for me, one step at a time.

Nurglitch wrote:
Anyhow, my question stands. Could someone show me how the expression of the Kustom Force Field rule, though different from that of the Resurrection Orb rule, or the Guide rule, or the Bone Sword rule, or the Fortune rule means the same thing? Just lay it out for me, one step at a time.

well it's not swahili, it's german, but it's good enough for me.

http://www.games-workshop.de/home/errata/errata-40k-de.shtm#orks

"Schpezialkraftfeld:
Die Formulierung zur Reichweite des Effekts bei Infanteriemodellen ist nicht ganz eindeutig. Klarer ist:
"Ein Schpezialkraftfeld verleiht allen Einheiten mit Modellen im Umkreis von 6 Zoll um den Mek einen Deckungswurf von 5+."

google translates that to:

"gives all units with models within a radius of 6 inches to the coverage Mek a throw of 5 +."

bad grammar but the meaning should be clear.

Yes, thanks, I know that they've released an Errata that changes it to the correct expression. That doesn't answer my question.

Edit: Speaking of Errata...

something tells me you're not going to get the answer you're looking for. I honestly could care less, I'm just happy to have the whole sordid affair behind us.

it does seems to go against your idea of knowing when the writers have stuffed up a rule accidentally or not. as obviously they didn't mean what you thought they meant, and in fact they intended for it to work the way most everyone else imagined.

gnat: Well, I'm certainly not holding my breathe. Thank Gork for the efficiency of the Germans, eh?

As for going against the identification of error, it might if you misunderstood what I was talking about. I wasn't talking about some magical voodoo that divined the thoughts and intentions of the Design Studio. I was talking about what the printed text indicated.

Given that the indicated rule did not match their intention, GW Germany changed it. Indeed, the fact that it clearly and unambiguously stated that the unit had to be within range is why the rule needed to be changed. I certainly wasn't against playing it the way everybody planned to anyways, I was against the notion that the text stated we should play it that way. Do you see what I'm getting at here? There's reading the rules and there's playing the game, and between the first and the second there's a decision that players have to make about each and every rule that they're going to use. When playing one must not only discard rules in the manual that incorrectly expressed rules rather than blindly follow them, but one may also discard correctly expressed rules if they are unsatisfactory for one's purpose.

It's like baking a cake. The recipe says 40g of sugar where everywhere else in the recipe it says 40mg of sugar. That is an error. Suppose the recipe also mentions adding zested lemon rind, but you don't like zested lemon rind. So you leave it out. You don't keep it in and complain that the recipe is wrong. The recipe is just a guideline to be applied as you see fit. But how you see fit to apply it may not be the recipe, and if you bake such a cake without lemon rind it would be stupid of you to say that the recipe really meant without lemon rind and that the recipe writers intended that lemon rind not be used.

In the case of the Errata, the recipe writers realized that people didn't like lemon rind and decided they'd get more repeat customers by leaving it out!

Nurglitch: A short while back we discussed PK nobz in shoota mobz. A key to your argument was the line “Some unit upgrades depend on whether a character is taken,” and thus, if the unit depends on the character, the character must come first, thereby allowing him to do his exchange before the squad. (I know I’m murdering the argument, bear with me).

That line “Some unit upgrades…” was not with the unit entry, it was not part of the rule. You viewed the codex as a whole to form a comprehensive argument.

But RAW doesn’t mandate you do this. RAW doesn’t even suggest you do this. “Rule as written” mandates you consider the one rule as it is written. It’s not “codex as written.”

Nothing is invalid with your argument, it’s quite insightful in fact. Yet, it wasn’t RAW because you chose to include material beyond the rule itself. Now, the rule itself was insufficient, so something else had to be considered. But it was no more necessary to look to a line on another page that it would have been to find a picture in WD with a PK nob in a shoota squad and say, “Aha, I’ve found the ‘true’ meaning. “

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with your analysis. I’m saying you seem to suggest your method is necessary, but nothing from GW indicates it is, nor is it the only possible one.

Moreover, even if a "logical analysis" produces consistent results, do most people resolve apparent conflicts using that method? I don't think they do. You discuss the difference between what the rule and says and how the rule's played. I contend there's no difference, and if there is a difference, then the former is irrelevant. What is a rule apart from how it's played? If someone has a method for resolving rules disputes, what value does it serve if his opponents and fellow gamers are in complete disagreement? To say "I've found the 'true' meaning of a rule, even though it's not what the designers intended and not how everyone else plays it," then you've in fact found nothing at all.

I'm not about to advocate we follow a 'majority rules' position, or say there's no point to discussing rules. I do contend, however, that there is something to be said for paying heed to what might reasonably be called the most consistent result when looking to the most common methods for dispute resolution, which might include precedent, analogy, etc. And while these methods might not be perfect, or logical, appealing to them (or better yet, to whatever method GW intends us to use), might be the best way to find out what the 'true' rules are.

deadlygopher: As people have mentioned GW isn't staffed by logicians, linguists, philosophers of language, and so on. So it would be surprising had they posted a bibliography in White Dwarf so that GW customers could educate themselves. Quite the contrary, Mr. Johnson instead recommended that people apply RAW.

In the case of the Kustom Force Field the method was necessary to establish that that the text stated what it did. After you know what the rules are, which is what the method is for, then you can go ahead and decide what to do about them. Unfortunately some people get it backwards and believe the rules are how they decide to apply them. Sometimes we even see this in the pages of White Dwarf, where the battle reports are released which are inconsistent with the texts.

It is necessary to use 'conceptual analysis' (that's what it's called) to determine what rules a text relates because the analysis does not confuse irrelevancies (what people want, how people play, what gets published in White Dwarf) with what is relevant: the text, its context (or 'co-text'), its language, layout, and so on.

And of course it's possible to have any number of methods of interpretation. Unfortunately most of them are bad, either because they return false results, or they are not repeatable, or because they are methods in name only (they are not methodical). At least one method of interpretation, which isn't a method of interpretation since it is an analysis, an exploded diagram of the information at issue, works and that is conceptual analysis.

Conceptual analysis is useful for solving disputes because its methodology is objective, repeatable, etc; it puts people on the same page. Once you all know what the text says, and how the rules expressed behave, then you can move on to either talk about the properties of those rules, or talk about how those rules might be applied. Part of the usefulness of employing conceptual analysis is the fact that it appeals to one's reason and thus to one's desire to engage in a co-operative venture. No one can make you agree that, given certain axioms, 2 + 2 = 4, but it's a fact that if you obstinately disagree without demonstrating otherwise that you are in the wrong (and also that you're an idiot).

Of course the application of conceptual analysis only works where participants are interested in co-operating to find the truth of things, but that's partly the beauty of it. In playing a game people have already agreed to engage in a co-operative venture wherein they work together for the advantage of all and knowing the truth of a matter in dispute is to the advantage of all to moving along and never having to repeat the dispute. If one's opponent and fellow gamers are in complete disagreement with using a method that assures that the truth may be found, then they are not one's friends or fellow gamers and they've simply entered into the game contract under false pretences; without the good faith required for the game (and for resolving disagreements in the game) all you have left are the sad bastards that have to win at all costs, be it cheating, degrading the game for all of its participants, or whatnot. That is why I do not have opponents to play against, I have friends that I play with: the former is a contradiction in concepts.

Now, if you wish to mislead people, or to use sophistry to your advantage, to 'lawyer' as it were, then using merely popular methods to bully people into agreeing with you is a very bad way to find out what the text of the rules state. If I wished to derive a theorem from a set of axioms I would not take a poll of people on the street, I would apply the proof theory that allowed people to check my work and to assure ourselves that it was sound and that reasonable people must accept it on pain of being unreasonable.

As for what people wish to do with the rules stated in the text, well, that is a matter for the people who play together to decide. I don't play these games with you people and you don't play them with me, and so how you or I wish to play is irrelevant to one another until such time as we sit down and make plans for a game.

I'm glad you mention a goal is to avoid false results, because here's my point - even though coneptual analysis yields consistent results, the results are still false unless that's what the writers meant the rule to be. A consistent method won't be valid if the method wasn't meant to be applied.

Does this mean I'm arguing for a RAI standpoint? Certainly not. I'm merely pointing out what others in this thread have said, that the writers can use different words to mean the same things, that the writers might not have developed a codex with an eye to a logical layout, etc.

RAW tells us we look to the writing of the rule. It's a stupid standard because it doesn't tell us anything. We know what words mean, in part, by knowing what they're supposed to mean. We might know what words are suppposed to mean via a conceptual analysis, but we also might know what words mean by getting more information from the writers themselves, similar writings in rules, etc. And since it's not the only possibility, it's not necessarily the correct one. That might mean that there are truly ambiguous rules, which is why we have tournament judges and informal FAQs.

However, a method that guarantees consistency but sacrafices accuracy cannot claim to be the valid method if a goal is true results.

The results won't be false. As I've pointed out part of conceptual analysis is identifying where the same words are used to mean different things and different constructions mean the same thing, where the text itself is not consistent etc. The writer's intentions are irrelevant to the results as I've explained. However they meant the game to be played is irrelevant to what the text states and how we decide to play it. The 'methods' that sacrifice accuracy are those methods that supposedly divine the intentions of the writers.

A writing means what the writer intends it to mean, so long as it is written to communicate that. But a writing may be ambiguous or susceptible to multiple interpretations, such is the nature of English.

Assume I wrote a sentence that, on its face, is susceptible to two interpretations, one of which I intended to communicate, the other I did not. You might look to my other writings, and through conceptual analysis, say my sentence means what I did not intend it to mean, but that's only accurate if I wrote my sentence while considering my other writings, if I possessed a knowledge of the conceptual analytical process so that I might ensure the true meaning is conveyed. The alternative is simply that I wrote a sentence susceptible to multiple interpretations.

RAW has no problem with this. "Rule as written," necessitates no more than analysis of the rule in question. Applied to my sentence, there are multiple possible meanings.

Obviously, to resolve the conflict we must do something else, but no method is more likely than another to get to the accurate meaning unless I intended a method to be applied. Therefore, while a conceptual anaylsis may be consistent and certain when viewed with other things, it's not necessarily the right meaning.

deadlygopher wrote:A writing means what the writer intends it to mean, so long as it is written to communicate that. But a writing may be ambiguous or susceptible to multiple interpretations, such is the nature of English.

That's false. I've explained why. I'll explain again: The fact of the matter is that intention-based meaning is an error-theory of language. It begs the question about what connects some mysterious quality of "intention" with the well-known qualities of signs. Don't take my word for it, go do some research. In particular I'd recommend reading about Hilary Putnam's Gedanken experiment about "Twin Earth". Basically it shows that whenever you try to establish a connection between an intention and meaning, you beg the question about what establishes that meaning. For example, suppose I were to say: "Oh, you can tell the intentions of the writers by looking at their other works." But it follows that if you cannot find a connection between intentions and text, then finding more text will simply increase the size of the problem space and not provide a link to intentions; all you will have is more text whose meaning is the result of the writer's intention. The problem, of course, is that the writer's intentions, if intentions define meaning, then those intentions are themselves unknowable. The alternative is far less mysterious: the writer's intentions are irrelevant and meaning is defined by such objective things as the structure, expression, signs, and referents (i.e., the things that conceptual analysis is concerned with) of texts including spoken words, electronically stored information, analog, you name it.

Take, for example, a baseball game. Suppose that a batter steps up to the plate with a .999 batting average (for the sake of argument). He always hits home runs. Now suppose he also strikes out. When the Umpire calls "Out", it would be stupid of this batter to stand up and point out that he had hit a home run and that you can tell that he intended to hit a home run because he had always intended to hit a home run and hit a home run before. It would be equally stupid of the Umpire to retort that the batter had not always hit a home run before, that he had struck out once when meaning to hit a home run, and therefore the batter's most recent swings were thus ambiguous. The intentions of the batter, like those of a writer, are irrelevant to how they act within the rules of their specific game.

deadlygopher wrote:Assume I wrote a sentence that, on its face, is susceptible to two interpretations, one of which I intended to communicate, the other I did not. You might look to my other writings, and through conceptual analysis, say my sentence means what I did not intend it to mean, but that's only accurate if I wrote my sentence while considering my other writings, if I possessed a knowledge of the conceptual analytical process so that I might ensure the true meaning is conveyed. The alternative is simply that I wrote a sentence susceptible to multiple interpretations.

Actually I wouldn't need to look at your other writings. I would take that sentence and apply it. When you protest and say that's not what you meant to say then I can point out to you that you obviously mispeak yourself (technically I would give you the conceptual analysis of your sentence, and upon noticing that all was in order you realize that you mispeak yourself). Likewise if I take your sentence and misapply it, then you could protest and point out to me in the same manner that you spoke well and truly and that I misunderstood. If you write an ambiguous sentence, and you think I misunderstood while I think you mispeak, then by checking the sentence via conceptual analysis we would notice that you mispeak and I misunderstood. Either way the conflict is resolved.

Nurglitch wrote:
Actually I wouldn't need to look at your other writings. I would take that sentence and apply it. When you protest and say that's not what you meant to say then I can point out to you that you obviously mispeak yourself (technically I would give you the conceptual analysis of your sentence, and upon noticing that all was in order you realize that you mispeak yourself). Likewise if I take your sentence and misapply it, then you could protest and point out to me in the same manner that you spoke well and truly and that I misunderstood. If you write an ambiguous sentence, and you think I misunderstood while I think you mispeak, then by checking the sentence via conceptual analysis we would notice that you mispeak and I misunderstood. Either way the conflict is resolved.

I'll return then to the shoota boy/pk nob issue. What is the resolution to problem of the order of option application if you're not going to look at "Some unit upgrades depend on whether a character is taken." Would you resolve for me the problem using nothing else but the rule itself?

On your first point, I believe it is you who are missing the point. I'm not arguing that true conflicts don't exist if one were to adopt my approach, but I am arguing the importance of intent.

Take, for instance, two rules, rule A and B. A, on its face, is susceptible to two meanings, although the designers meant one meaning to apply and the other not. Rule B was written after rule A, and interacts with it. Under the intended meaning of rule A, the game flows harmoniously, balance is protected, all is well with the world. If the unintended meaning of rule A is applied, total chaos. The game breaks down, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. If this were to happen, how can it be said the intent is meaningless?

Now, you've of course argued that there is a difference between the rule as played and the rule as actually written. That's a useless distinction. The rules exist for the game alone, only to be read and understood for the purpose of playing the game. If one interpretation were to wreak havoc and destroy the game, that interpretation would be discarded. And if asked, "what does the rule mean," a person would tell you the one the designers meant.

If this were to happen, would you still argue up and down the forum that no, you have the true meaning? And if you did, would you be serving any other purpose than intellectual egotism?

Nurglitch wrote:

deadlygopher wrote:A writing means what the writer intends it to mean, so long as it is written to communicate that. But a writing may be ambiguous or susceptible to multiple interpretations, such is the nature of English.

That's false. I've explained why. I'll explain again: The fact of the matter is that intention-based meaning is an error-theory of language. It begs the question about what connects some mysterious quality of "intention" with the well-known qualities of signs. Don't take my word for it, go do some research. In particular I'd recommend reading about Hilary Putnam's Gedanken experiment about "Twin Earth". Basically it shows that whenever you try to establish a connection between an intention and meaning, you beg the question about what establishes that meaning. For example, suppose I were to say: "Oh, you can tell the intentions of the writers by looking at their other works." But it follows that if you cannot find a connection between intentions and text, then finding more text will simply increase the size of the problem space and not provide a link to intentions; all you will have is more text whose meaning is the result of the writer's intention. The problem, of course, is that the writer's intentions, if intentions define meaning, then those intentions are themselves unknowable. The alternative is far less mysterious: the writer's intentions are irrelevant and meaning is defined by such objective things as the structure, expression, signs, and referents (i.e., the things that conceptual analysis is concerned with) of texts including spoken words, electronically stored information, analog, you name it.

No, it's not false. There's nothing illogical by saying a writing might be ambiguous. What you're doing is advocating an interpretive method. That's fine. I'm not challenging conceptual analysis.

Nurglitch wrote:Take, for example, a baseball game. Suppose that a batter steps up to the plate with a .999 batting average (for the sake of argument). He always hits home runs. Now suppose he also strikes out. When the Umpire calls "Out", it would be stupid of this batter to stand up and point out that he had hit a home run and that you can tell that he intended to hit a home run because he had always intended to hit a home run and hit a home run before. It would be equally stupid of the Umpire to retort that the batter had not always hit a home run before, that he had struck out once when meaning to hit a home run, and therefore the batter's most recent swings were thus ambiguous. The intentions of the batter, like those of a writer, are irrelevant to how they act within the rules of their specific game.

I like your analogy. Who imposed the rules of baseball? Not GW, "rule as written" is too limited. Well, if no one chose to impose the rules but yourself, then it's not so stupid if the batter and the umpire have different meanings. Now, of course you're going to argue that the rules are a necessity, and must be there, and will always be there, but that's not necessarily true. A writer may write a thought, and each sentence will bear the meaning she gave to it, though to another it's meaning might be different.

This is why conceptual analysis is not universally applied, for writers must be aware of its requirements to ensure they comply. But to be unaware does not mean they've failed to write proper English, and here I'll give you a reading assignment. Larry A. Di Matteo, Contract Theory: The Evolution of Contractual Intent is pretty good, and emphasizes, even in contractual interpretation, a field where precision and specificity is so required, that we look behind the words to get the true meaning. "A restrictive reading of contractual intent is disregarded. The use of surrounding circumstances to find the real intent of the parties is used to make a construction that is fair and reasonable."

deadlygopher wrote:No, it's not false. There's nothing illogical by saying a writing might be ambiguous. What you're doing is advocating an interpretive method. That's fine. I'm not challenging conceptual analysis.

Speaking of ambiguous, you may have noticed that I didn't challenge the fact that texts can be ambiguous. In fact the sentence "that's false" was intended to refer to your sentence: "A writing means what the writer intends it to mean, so long as it is written to communicate that" rather than the entire paragraph. But in not specifying that I mispoke and you misread, as I have explained.

deadlygopher wrote:I like your analogy. Who imposed the rules of baseball? Not GW, "rule as written" is too limited. Well, if no one chose to impose the rules but yourself, then it's not so stupid if the batter and the umpire have different meanings.

That's incorrect because games are not things that are imposed on the participants (not necessarily the same as the players). It's stupid for the player and the umpire to have different understandings of the rule because there is only one rule to understand, and it's especially stupid for the player to disagree with the umpire since there is a rule in baseball to the effect that insofar as the game in progress is concerned the umpire's decision is considered correct.

deadlygopher wrote:Now, of course you're going to argue that the rules are a necessity, and must be there, and will always be there, but that's not necessarily true. A writer may write a thought, and each sentence will bear the meaning she gave to it, though to another it's meaning might be different.

While it's certainly possible for a text to have multiple meanings (though not in the case of rules since rules have the satisfaction level of truth), that fact is that either those meanings are fixed and or they are ambiguous and have no meaning. A sentence will only bear the meaning intended by the writer insofar as that writer can express that meaning correctly. If its meaning is different from what the writer intended, then they have failed to correctly express what they meant. Likewise if the meaning is not understood by a reader, then that reader has failed to correctly comprehend the sentence.

deadlygopher wrote:This is why conceptual analysis is not universally applied, for writers must be aware of its requirements to ensure they comply.

This is another falsehood. Conceptual analysis is restricted in its application because its usefulness is not universally accepted, not because it is not universally applicable. It's not a problem with the problem, it's a problem of sales. It's much like the problem GW faces, wherein they could make a much better gaming system than Warhammer 40k, but they don't want to alienate those customers who like the old version no matter what was wrong with it. Instead they do it the legal way, by building on unsteady foundations until the mess is unworkable and then they tweak a few details to keep business moving and people buying.

deadlygopher wrote:But to be unaware does not mean they've failed to write proper English, and here I'll give you a reading assignment. Larry A. Di Matteo, Contract Theory: The Evolution of Contractual Intent is pretty good, and emphasizes, even in contractual interpretation, a field where precision and specificity is so required, that we look behind the words to get the true meaning. "A restrictive reading of contractual intent is disregarded. The use of surrounding circumstances to find the real intent of the parties is used to make a construction that is fair and reasonable."

I've checked it out. Dr. Di Matteo could do with a remedial course in basic logic, as well as in Kant's theory of law. I don't think I've read that much sophisticated stupid in a while, but that's to be expected from those working in the philosophy of law (particular the common law tradition). If you're going to treat the rules of Warhammer 40k like a matter of law, then I wish you well in your rules-lawyering.

The fact of the matter is we've reached an impass. It is worthwhile to note that the reading I suggested to you is by no means an isolated view, but more accurately is the view held in probably a majority of states.

It's obvious I'll be unable to convince you there's more than one way to interpret a rule, and I'm not so arrogent to conclude so many legal scholars and judges are mere "sophisticated stupid."

Instead, I'll choose to live in a world where terminators wear terminator armor, and I'll let someone bring Zagstuk even when there's no deep strike. So let's put this to rest. I wish you the best in your ivory tower, and I'll enjoy the game. Cheers.

And as I've pointed out, perhaps in this thread or another, argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. A consensus merely means that people agree with each other, and that is irrelevant to whether they agree with the truth.

There is nothing arrogant about supposing legal scholars and judges are capable of producing highly sophisticated stupid. Up here in the "Ivory Tower" it's business as usual. What would be arrogant, and indeed a fallacy in appealing to authority, would be supposing these guys aren't committing highly illogical wrongs simply because they are legal scholars and judges. Applying the methods of law, the application of rules to possibly uncooperative situations, to situations of cooperation such as games would likewise be as foolish as applying the methods of war, the application of rules to necessarily uncooperative situations. Neither rules-lawyering or WAAC gaming is a proper attitude to take to interpreting rules in a gaming situation.

It's interesting that you should imagine I live in a world where Terminators don't wear Terminators armour. The Space Marine Codex certainly states it is so, and the Dark Angel, Blood Angel, and Chaos Marine Codicies certainly state so. Likewise Zagstruck may be used whether Deep Strike is available or not, a unit of Stormboyz lead by him must simply Deep Strike when the option is available. The Ork Codex is quite clear on the matter if you care to check it. You must be mistaking me for some other idiot, one that believes falsehoods on the basis of RAW.

Still, I enjoyed the accusation of arrogance. It put me in my place.

Dr Phibes wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Units are composed of models. They are composed of all the models in them. Thus a unit is equal to all of its models.

Therefore if a unit must be within 6" of a Mekboy to receive the benefits of a Kustom Force Field then all of the models in a unit must be within 6" of the Mekboy to receive the benefit of the Kustom Force Field.

This would be fine if there weren't numerous examples of a squad being subject to a rule even though only one member of the squad is touching something. One man in cover, roll for difficult terrain, one man reaches the edge of a board, then the whole unit did remove it.

This codex explicitly left out a sentence in the previous war gear entry.

New argument, best post in this thread or best post ever?

Regardless of what it is, it is just "right"^^

Proud to say I get my butt kicked by Dr. Phibes on the tabletop regularly, and in intlelectual debates at that O_o.



Solid argument man. Everyone was going about the long way and you just cut straight to the bone.