A funny thing I noticed while reading a ruling.

Under the terminator armour rules.

Terminators cannot sweeping advance.

Notice everywhere else in the rules for the armor it states "models wearing terminator armor".

However in the rule it just states terminators cannot.

Now a librarian can be given terminator armor but never becomes a terminator.


I checked the Dark angels codex also and it has the same wording, meaning Belial (Captain useless) can also sweeping advance.


If you wish to contradict me, please quote me the page that states a model wearing terminator armor is considered a terminator.

Space Marine 5th Edition Codex p102 wrote: Armour..
Terminator Armour
....cannot perform a Sweeping Advance

I think its pretty clear cut and your argument is a perfect example of rules laywering.

By the same logic (the reasoning the OP used) we can start transporting IC in terminator armor via the description of p102 yet that brings it into direct conflict with other entries (Rhino & Razorback Descriptions) in the codex.

So do we go by your reasoning, which obviously sounds sketchy and is flawed (as the exact same reasoning bring more conflict into play)

Or do we go by the standard status quo & assuming everything under the Armour section refers to models wearing the appropriate type of armor?

I dunno, tough call.

Face + palm.

Razerous wrote:

Space Marine 5th Edition Codex p102 wrote: Armour..
Terminator Armour
....cannot perform a Sweeping Advance

I think its pretty clear cut and your argument is a perfect example of rules laywering.

By the same logic (the reasoning the OP used) we can start transporting IC in terminator armor via the description of p102 yet that brings it into direct conflict with other entries (Rhino & Razorback Descriptions) in the codex.

So do we go by your reasoning, which obviously sounds sketchy and is flawed (as the exact same reasoning bring more conflict into play)

Or do we go by the standard status quo & assuming everything under the Armour section refers to models wearing the appropriate type of armor?

I dunno, tough call.

Face + palm.

No, actually rhinos and razorbacks clarify that they cannot transport models in terminator armor.

Timmah wrote:
I checked the Dark angels codex also and it has the same wording, meaning Belial (Captain useless) can also sweeping advance.


If you wish to contradict me, please quote me the page that states a model wearing terminator armor is considered a terminator.

rules are permissive, if it doesn't state he can he can not and while i am at it in one of the codi (i believe it was the CSM codex wargear section) clearly states that models IN teminator armour may NEVER perform a sweeping advance.

Regardless, it's still rules lawyering. Just leave it alone...

just checked the page it's page 86


it doesn't say he is a terminator but it does say that if he weas termi armour he cannot sweeping advance

You cannot sweeping advance with only part of a unit. If the entire unit can't do it, nobody does it.

Any model wearing Terminator Armour may not sweeping advance.

Is this like the previous edition where people claimed Terminators weren't wearing Terminator Armor because it didn't say so in their unit profile?

Kaaihn wrote:You cannot sweeping advance with only part of a unit. If the entire unit can't do it, nobody does it.

Any model wearing Terminator Armour may not sweeping advance.

Where does it say models in terminator armor can't sweeping advance?


Btw Codex CSM doesn't count because rules for wargear don't transfer between armies. (see wargear from dark angels to regular space marines)


On a side note: why do things that have unpopular answers thru RAW always make the person citing said rule a "rules lawyer". Maybe you guys are the rules lawyers claiming models that wear certain wargear always count as a type of unit.

Congratulations, Timmah. You have found a pourly written rule in a GW book. Truly this is a monumentous occasion. I never thought this day would come.

Now, just try it in your next game, but remember rule zero: I don't want to play with you. (in this case because you abuse rule-lawyering)

GW has actually disappointed me a little here.
I was hoping to point out that the wording was an archaic relic, and that the majority of codices DO state models in terminator armor can't sweeping advance.

Sadly,the break-down is as such:
Models: Chaos Space Marines
"Terminators": Black Templar, Dark Angels, Both the newest and second newest SM codex, Space Wolves (they say "see SM")
Other: Daemonhunters. Models in Terminator armor "may only consolidate, not advance."
Blood Angels. "May not sweeping advance" (Blood Angel wargear is listed as effects.)

So, bravo, my good sir, you have found a fiddly little word choice that is (humorously) most opposed by older Codices.

Deffgob wrote:Congratulations, Timmah. You have found a pourly written rule in a GW book. Truly this is a monumentous occasion. I never thought this day would come.

Now, just try it in your next game, but remember rule zero: I don't want to play with you. (in this case because you abuse rule-lawyering)

wow its just a little joke and loophole in the rules. I love how I am somehow a rules lawyer because of a loophole in RAW.
Actually since I am following RAW I would have to assume that you are the one rules lawyering.

Btw there are tons of loopholes in the rules especially with the new 5ed and old codex's. (for example old apothecaries saving failed cover saves on vehicles) However very few, if any of these mark the user as a rules lawyer.

No he can't

The face is now palming the hand.

Timmah wrote:No, actually rhinos and razorbacks clarify that they cannot transport models in terminator armor.

Ok. Um. Read.

Razerous wrote:
By the same logic (the reasoning the OP used) we can start transporting IC in terminator armor via the description of p102 yet that brings it into direct conflict with other entries (Rhino & Razorback Descriptions) in the codex.

Just quoting what ive already written. I stand by my original post. Which option would you now take Timmah?

Razerous wrote:

Razerous wrote:
By the same logic (the reasoning the OP used) we can start transporting IC in terminator armor via the description of p102 yet that brings it into direct conflict with other entries (Rhino & Razorback Descriptions) in the codex.

Just quoting what ive already written. I stand by my original post. Which option would you now take Timmah?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. If in fact an IC wearing terminator armor did count as a terminator, then there would be no need for the extra entry under rhinos and razorbacks. In fact it would be redundant as it already states terminators can't ride in them.

So, you have proven that there must be some type of unit that can wear terminator armor but is not considered a terminator that GW doesn't want riding in a rhino/razorback.
Otherwise there would be no need for the extra rules in the rhino/razorback entry.

I would say you have strengthened my argument if anything.

I'm pretty sure there's an entry that says

"Models wearing terminator armor can't sweeping advance"

and another that says

"Models wearing terminator armor can't ride in a rhino/razorback"

How can you say that if the Libby is wearing terminator armor, that he can do either of these things, when it's awfully specific that you can't.

There is no loophole in the rules. Timmah is simply misreading the rules. A Terminator is whoeverso wears Terminator Armour, as so defined on p.102 of Codex: Space Marines.

It is listed in every codex that has Terminator Armour in the wargear section, under the heading of Terminator Armour. The wargear Terminator Armour prevents a model that takes said wargear from being able to sweeping advance.

Kaaihn:

Yes, it does say that, but Timmah is trying to argue that models equipped with Terminator Armour are not Terminators, since the term used to describe the prohibition against Sweeping Advance is "Terminators".

This can rightfully be called "rules lawyering" because it attempts to distract from what the rules actually state, which is that models in Terminator Armour are Terminators, and hence models in Terminator Armour cannot make Sweeping Advances.

Its funny because I do not see where it states models in terminator armor are terminators. Could you link me the text?

Wargear on different units can function differently.
(check heavy weapons used by terminators vs heavy weapons used by regular space marines or any tyranid weapon biomorph)

Anyways its just kinda a quirk, much like in 4th ed rules terminators didn't actually wear terminator armor. No real reason to get upset over it.

I understand what he is trying, and I am saying he is simply wrong.

Again Timmah, you are cherry picking and ignoring other relevant pieces, the same as the warp spiders thread. The entire section of rules listed under Terminator Armour in the wargear list of various codexes are rules specific to Terminator Armour as wargear. Any references contained therein under similar names (i.e. "Terminators", "Space Marine Terminators", etc.) all apply to the item the rules are specifically for.

As all wargear entries of Teminator Armour in every codex say that sweeping advance is not allowed with that piece of wargear, the result is that any model that possesses said wargear is bound by the limitations of it. Hence any model equipped with the wargear Terminator Armour cannot sweeping assault.

Terminators in 4th edition were wearing Terminator Armour. Much like you've supposedly found a loophole, but simply misread the rules, many players misread the rules during the 4th edition. Of course, much like the players during 4th edition were bind to the fact that the rules stated Terminators wore Terminator Armour, you will be blind to any text I quote stating that Terminators wear Terminator Armour.

Terminator Armour, Armour, Wargear, Codex: Space Marines p.102 wrote:Due to the powerful exoskeleton and power sources built into their armour, models in Terminator armour have the relentless universal special rule.

On the other hand, this armour is somewhat cumbersome, so Space Marine Terminators are not able to purse a more lightly armoured foe when they flee. Terminators cannot perform a Sweeping Advance.

So what does "this armour" refer to? The armour referenced in the previous paragraph, Terminator Armour. What are Space Marine Terminators armoured in? Terminator Armour. What are the quoted rules describing? A piece of Armour classed Wargear called "Terminator Armour".

Finally, there is a picture at the bottom of the page of a Terminator labeled "Terminator Armour".

Incidentally, wargear only functions differently for different units when some other rules specifies a difference. The example of Terminators using Heavy Weapons, for example, is because they have the Relentless rule, unlike Tactical Space Marines. The Librarian would need a similar rule to excuse him from ignoring any restrictions on the Terminator Armour that he would be equipped with.

Nurglitch wrote:

On the other hand, this armour is somewhat cumbersome, so Space Marine Terminators are not able to purse a more lightly armoured foe when they flee. Terminators cannot perform a Sweeping Advance.

So what does "this armour" refer to? The armour referenced in the previous paragraph, Terminator Armour. What are Space Marine Terminators armoured in? Terminator Armour. What are the quoted rules describing? A piece of Armour classed Wargear called "Terminator Armour".

So what would you accept as proof?

The passage that states all models wearing terminator armor are considered to be terminators

Or

Models in terminator armor can not make sweeping advances

Either must be drawn from the SM codex.

Okay. I will provide it only on one condition: that you provide to me the passage in Codex: Space Marines, that states Tactical Marines move 6". Do we have a deal?

Timmah wrote:Its funny because I do not see where it states models in terminator armor are terminators. Could you link me the text?

While it doesn't so as much explicitly, they do use the two terms interchangably throughout the Terminator Armour entry... and have done the same thing in pretty much every previous codex.

Timmah, you are still cherry picking a single sentence out of a large subset of rules and then apply it in a vacuum. This is entirely incorrect; you are quite simply doing it wrong.

Within the subset of rules of Wargear: Terminator Armour, the descriptive phrase of "Space Marine Terminator" and "Terminator" are both describing Wargear: Terminator Armour.

In full context with all the rules of Wargear: Terminator Armour, no model equipped with Terminator Armour may make a sweeping advance. There is no cause whatsoever to go looking for some snippet of rules saying specifically that models in Terminator Armour are Terminators. The distinction has no relevance to the sweeping advance discussion.

You simply cannot grab one sentence out of a six paragraph section of rules on one piece of wargear and hold it up as it's own rule independent of the rest of the game.

I think its funny how people pounce on him for this, but will rules lawyer til theyre blue in tjhe face about force weapons killing eternal warriors.

So this guy is a rules lawyer because hes stringently following RAW instead of RAI, yet you clearly ignore RAI and cling to RAW for force wep vs eternal warrior.

Its pretty obvious when they say all types of instant death they mean anything that will kill a multiple wound mini in a single wound, force weapons cause a "type" of instant death, just because you rules lawyer and say oh no its not instant death, its slain outright are just kidding yourselves ....

On topic tho, more gw incompetance lol, but clearly RAI means no sweeping advance, as well as RAW in the wargear section describing the armor.

Kaaihn wrote:Timmah, you are still cherry picking a single sentence out of a large subset of rules and then apply it in a vacuum. This is entirely incorrect; you are quite simply doing it wrong.

Within the subset of rules of Wargear: Terminator Armour, the descriptive phrase of "Space Marine Terminator" and "Terminator" are both describing Wargear: Terminator Armour.

In full context with all the rules of Wargear: Terminator Armour, no model equipped with Terminator Armour may make a sweeping advance. There is no cause whatsoever to go looking for some snippet of rules saying specifically that models in Terminator Armour are Terminators. The distinction has no relevance to the sweeping advance discussion.

You simply cannot grab one sentence out of a six paragraph section of rules on one piece of wargear and hold it up as it's own rule independent of the rest of the game.

as I said, all terminators wear terminator armour. However just because its in the rules subset doesn't mean it applies to all units wearing terminator armor. It only applies to terminators wearing said armor. As stated in the description.

Why would they say terminator armor for everything but this one entry?
Maybe my Librarian is so heroic he is not hindered by the armour.

Timmah;

- Your continued efforts in this thread proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your are showing rules laywering behaviour.

- 99% Of people understand that the stuff written under the Terminator Armor section relates to rules to do with models wearing terminator armor.

- Again 99% of people will understand that stuff written under the Terminator Squad unit entry relates to rules to do with Terminator Squads.


Its all really simple and easy to understand. Aslong as you dont rules laywer. This thread should be sticky'ed as a prime example there of.

Razerous wrote:Timmah;

- Your continued efforts in this thread proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your are showing rules laywering behaviour.

- 99% Of people understand that the stuff written under the Terminator Armor section relates to rules to do with models wearing terminator armor.

- Again 99% of people will understand that stuff written under the Terminator Squad unit entry relates to rules to do with Terminator Squads.


Its all really simple and easy to understand. Aslong as you dont rules laywer. This thread should be sticky'ed as a prime example there of.

You will notice this is a discussion board not a game. I love how I can't bring up a topic and defend my position without being called a rules lawyer.

Obviously the popular answer MUST be correct and I am a filthy rules lawyer for even bring this up on a forum.

I'll make sure and keep my topics to well known and accepted rules questions from now on.

I think you are missing the point. I also agree that the Librarian cannot sweeping advance, seeing as it is the terminator armour that stops him, not him suddenly becoming particularily dense when he is in terminator armour.

What's most irritating is that WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS.

UNFORTUNATELY, as written, Timnah's argument is logically sound. (It isn't logically valid, but that's another argument. Also, I may have those two terms backwards.)

HOWEVER, no one wishes to play that way, indeed, from the tone of some of Timnah's posts, HE doesn't intend to play that way.

SO, why are we still here?

RAW a Librarian in terminator can sweeping advance. However Im fairly sure he cant sweeping advance if he is with a unit of terminators. Its not fair he is being called a rules lawyer. That term has a negative meaning associated with it. He simply pointed something out, wanted clarification and you guys ripped him a new one? Why? You make the call is not about RAI, its about RAW, intentions are not set in stone. Terminator Armor only stops Terminators from sweeping advance. Librarians are not Terminators. They can wear Terminator armor which grants them relentless and a 2/5save.

Okay.

Guys in terminator armor = Terminators.

RAW. Now this may not be, one-word-leads-to-next-word RAW but it is RAW when viewed within the entire context of the Armour section and the subsequent discription. If you want a quote, read the entire section headed "terminator armour".

5 Terminator Space marines = Terminator Squad.

Also RAW.

Thats all there is to it. All other arguments (when disagreeing with the above) are wrong. Yes, you may read it one way, but your still wrong. Disagree with me? No-one else, in a game situation, will agree with you. I apologise for my brashness but its such a uncontestable rule...

P.s I have noticed this is a discussion thread. Which is why I tried discussing it with you. You can do whatever you want but im afraid (as you quite perceptively noted) this discussion board and its various posters may disagree with you. If you bring topics like these with arguments like you have, I think thats rules laywering. But then I may be wrong, just goes to show.

I agree. People pretend like "Rules as Written" allows them to ignore what the rules - as written - are actually referring to and instead apply some sort of secondary ruleset that has no grounding in the actual rules.

A terminator is a model that is wearing terminator armor, because that's what the author meant by terminator. That much is clear to a reader who is genuinely trying to read the passage for what it is. Context is a part of language.

AllWillFall2Me wrote:What's most irritating is that WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS.

UNFORTUNATELY, as written, Timnah's argument is logically sound. (It isn't logically valid, but that's another argument. Also, I may have those two terms backwards.)

HOWEVER, no one wishes to play that way, indeed, from the tone of some of Timnah's posts, HE doesn't intend to play that way.

SO, why are we still here?

His argument is not logically sound as it relies on taking single sentences out of context. You can't remove sentences from a paragraph or section of the rules and try to build an argument upon it anymore then you can isolate individual parts of a sentence to prove a point. Written language is made up of more than just sentences.

All the quotes that he has provided in this section are found in the rules description for "Terminator Armor" and therefore apply to all models wearing it, regardless of whether the author describes the armor in its full name, "Terminator Armor" or uses something else like "Terminators" or even a bizarro abbreviation like "Termies". It doesn't matter, because that entire passage are rules for Terminator Armor as highlighted by the TITLE of the section.

This is further reinforced by the description for the "Terminator Squad" on page 64 of the codex which highlights that the terms used to describe marines fighting in Terminator armor varies, and is often simply "Terminators".


But none of this matters, nor does the fact that if we put a poll in this thread that 99% of people would call the OP crazy for trying to stand by his argument.

This thread was clearly created to get a reaction. Even the title of the thread proclaims what the OP is going to do and then dares people to prove him wrong.

There is no interest in truly being proven wrong. He wants people to argue with him about this and likely about "rules lawyering" in general and many have risen to give him exactly what he was looking for.

It's obvious that librarian from the vanilla dex can't, but has a mistake been made in the alternative ones?

Emperors Faithful wrote:It's obvious that librarian from the vanilla dex can't, but has a mistake been made in the alternative ones?

Nope. The DA and BT codexes are exactly the same. They have rules in the "Terminator Armor" section that say Terminators cannot sweeping advance.

Blood Angels is even more succinct (since it just has that one summary page for its wargear) which just says "May not Sweeping Advance" in the rules for Terminator Armor.

So no, there isn't any mistake in any of the sub-codexes.

The problem with your argument here is that you think:

All terminators wear terminator armor

so

All models wearing terminator armor are terminators

This is not correct. (breaks a logical fallacy)

No where in the entry does it state this. It might allude to this or hint at it, but it does not say it.

The rules in terminator armor state that terminators cannot do some action. So a given unit with a certain piece of wargear cannot do something however others with said wargear can.

Think of the relentless special rule. Units with this special rule can ignore part of the rule for heavy weapons. Rules can and do function differently for different units/characters.


Btw this thread was not meant to get a reaction. I noticed this quirk in the rules and I was wondering if it was written somewhere that I was missing it. Hence, asking for people to show me where I was wrong.

I honestly don't know how I cannot bring up a grey issue in the rules forum without getting flamed. This is the rules forum, we should be able to discuss grey areas without everyone calling me a rules lawyer or something similar.

Timmah - You start your thread not by asking a question but by making a statement. Furthermore, you do it in an inflammatory way.

It certainly looks like you're looking for a reaction.


The special rules under Terminator Armour apply to Terminator Armour. If they were to apply to Terminator squads only then they'd be in that section. Furthermore, the Terminator squad section says that marines fighting in Terminator Armour are often referred to as Terminators. A librarian in TDA is a marine fighting in terminator armour.

Sorry to shoot down everybody on the logic front, but Timmah's argument is logically sound (which by definition makes it also logically valid btw).

P1 "When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance." (p40)
P2 A librarian in Terminator armor who wins close combat is a victor
C: When a unit falls back from combat, a librarian in terminator armor makes a sweeping advance.

Valid & sound. In fact, by the RAW, a librarian in terminator armor *must* make a sweeping advance (unless he's part of a unit of terminators).

The only premises you might insert here to try to make an exception do not change the RAW argument.

P40 "Some troops, as detailed in their entries, are not allowed to make a sweeping advance." The restriction is not specified anywhere in the librarian's entry.

C:SM p 102 "Terminators cannot perform a sweeping advance." By the RAW, a librarian in terminator armor is *not* a terminator. To claim that he is is a fallacy of equivocation--like claiming that Dark Eldar "Warriors" get WBB rolls because they have the same word in their name that Necron "Warriors" do.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:Okay. I will provide it only on one condition: that you provide to me the passage in Codex: Space Marines, that states Tactical Marines move 6". Do we have a deal?

BGB p 11 "Infantry move up to 6" in the movement phase."
C:SM p 134 Tactical marine unit type = "Infantry"

Therefore, Tactical marines move up to 6"

Now it's your turn to quote your rules that prove your argument, Nurg

Models wearing terminator armor are terminators. Dress it up however the hell you want, but your Librarian is a terminator when he puts on that terminator armor. And people are calling you a Rules Lawyer because you're trying to convince us that a Librarian in Terminator armor is not a terminator. A terminator Librarian, perhaps, but a terminator all the same.

As to your remark about Apothecaries affecting vehicle cover saves, I pity those who play with you. If you use these rules in a real game you'll lose people to play with faster than you can say "Why?".

Rico...

Labeling Timmah a "rules lawyer" doesn't change the truth or validity of his argument. It's just an ad hominem attack/fallacy.

I think it's extremely valuable for people to find these kinds of loopholes in the rules because history has proven that this kind of "rules lawyering" actually leads to improvement in the rules.

Or did nobody else notice that after the whole "terminators don't wear terminator armor" argument became huge, the entry for terminators was clarified to specify that they do--removing all doubt?

Yeah, in this case the intention of the rules seems pretty clear. But in many cases the intention is not so clear, so we're all better off if we keep GW on their toes trying to minimize the ambiguous rules. Finding flaws like this one, I believe, is a vital part of that ongoing improvement process.

(edit) Hostile posts and threats that nobody's going to play against Timmah are just ad baculum fallacies. Back off from your emotions for a minute and look at it objectively, guys. Nobody has recommended that anybody actually play it this way. The rules really don't say that librarians in terminator armor become terminators.

Rico wrote:Models wearing terminator armor are terminators. Dress it up however the hell you want, but your Librarian is a terminator when he puts on that terminator armor. And people are calling you a Rules Lawyer because you're trying to convince us that a Librarian in Terminator armor is not a terminator. A terminator Librarian, perhaps, but a terminator all the same.

As to your remark about Apothecaries affecting vehicle cover saves, I pity those who play with you. If you use these rules in a real game you'll lose people to play with faster than you can say "Why?".

Rico...

Its funny because I have quoted rules and you not. You keep telling me the same thing over and over and yet you have nothing to back it up. Flavius did a very good job of highlighting my position and the RAW for it.


(also DA apothecaries let you ignore the result of 1 failed save a turn. So a failed cover save can be ignored. Nothing says it can't be a vehicle cover save, so you are wrong here also but thats the topic for another thread)

Flavius Infernus wrote:P1 "When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance." (p40)
P2 A librarian in Terminator armor who wins close combat is a victor
C: When a unit falls back from combat, a librarian in terminator armor makes a sweeping advance.

Valid & sound. In fact, by the RAW, a librarian in terminator armor *must* make a sweeping advance (unless he's part of a unit of terminators).

The only premises you might insert here to try to make an exception do not change the RAW argument.

P40 "Some troops, as detailed in their entries, are not allowed to make a sweeping advance." The restriction is not specified anywhere in the librarian's entry.

C:SM p 102 "Terminators cannot perform a sweeping advance." By the RAW, a librarian in terminator armor is *not* a terminator. To claim that he is is a fallacy of equivocation--like claiming that Dark Eldar "Warriors" get WBB rolls because they have the same word in their name that Necron "Warriors" do.

The single point that makes all of what you wrote here worthless is that you are cherry picking one sentence out of a six paragraph subset of rules.

Using the entire subset of rules that covers terminator armour, a Librarian equipped with Wargear: Terminator Armour is restricted from making a sweeping advance by the rules in the Wargear: Terminator Armour section. You cannot ignore the rest of the page to make something work how you want. Use all the rules.

Any descriptive term used in the rules governing Wargear: Terminator Armour (i.e. "Space Marine Terminator", "Terminator", etc.) are specifically referring to Wargear: Terminator Armour. Any restrictions or bonuses contained within that rules subset apply to any model equipped with that piece of wargear.

The problem you and Timmah are running into is that you seem to think that RAW does not include context and language rules. It does. You cannot cherry pick one sentence out of the book and ignore everything else related to it and make a RAW argument around just that sentence in a vacuum.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Sorry to shoot down everybody on the logic front, but Timmah's argument is logically sound (which by definition makes it also logically valid btw).

Yakface wrote:His argument is not logically sound as it relies on taking single sentences out of context. You can't remove sentences from a paragraph or section of the rules and try to build an argument upon it anymore then you can isolate individual parts of a sentence to prove a point. Written language is made up of more than just sentences.

Already went over this.

@Timmah: Hehehe. You're telling me that the Apothecary, armed with his geneseed-ejection-hardware and basically field dressings of the far future, will affect a lascannon shots' aim?

As to whether or not people are playing or will play with this rule... Why the hell are we discussing it then? Are we discussing this rule just for trolling's sake? Are we all just people who own the rulebook, every codex, and not a single model, who spend our time pouring over said books and looking for discrepancies? I think GW already has a paying position for that...

So it is valid to bring up the fact opponents will think you're a douche as you tell them your Predator in cover didn't get touched because an Apothecary was there with his trusty Narthecium and that your model wearing TDA can sweeping advance because the Librarian (wearing TDA) is not a terminator, but is rather a Librarian... With Terminator armor! He gives up his chance to sweeping advance when he dons Terminator armor.

Terminators are called Terminators because they wear TERMINATOR armor. This isn't deciding if the square is a rectangle but the rectangle isn't a square. This is just a waste of time. Power armor marines are called as such (a less formal term, perhaps, but valid all the same) because they wear POWER ARMOR. Hell, you could probably call the Techmarine an Artificer Armor marine, but there's not very much you could differentiate a Techmarine from to begin with so people don't call it that.

Rico...

Edit: Why are we still discussing this?

Kaaihn wrote:Any descriptive term used in the rules governing Wargear: Terminator Armour (i.e. "Space Marine Terminator", "Terminator", etc.) are specifically referring to Wargear: Terminator Armour. Any restrictions or bonuses contained within that rules subset apply to any model equipped with that piece of wargear.

How do you know this?

There is other equipment that functions in different ways depending on the model carrying it. (see pretty much any biomorph in the tyranid codex, I'm sure there are other examples but this is the easiest.)

Kaaihn wrote:
The single point that makes all of what you wrote here worthless is that you are cherry picking one sentence out of a six paragraph subset of rules.

Using the entire subset of rules that covers terminator armour, a Librarian equipped with Wargear: Terminator Armour is restricted from making a sweeping advance by the rules in the Wargear: Terminator Armour section. You cannot ignore the rest of the page to make something work how you want. Use all the rules.

Any descriptive term used in the rules governing Wargear: Terminator Armour (i.e. "Space Marine Terminator", "Terminator", etc.) are specifically referring to Wargear: Terminator Armour. Any restrictions or bonuses contained within that rules subset apply to any model equipped with that piece of wargear.

The problem you and Timmah are running into is that you seem to think that RAW does not include context and language rules. It does. You cannot cherry pick one sentence out of the book and ignore everything else related to it and make a RAW argument around just that sentence in a vacuum.

RAW does not include context. I'm not trying to figure out what the rules authors meant here, I'm trying to figure out what the rules actually literally say.

The label "cherry pick" isn't accurate here because I'm not ignoring any rule that is actually relevant to the argument. I have quoted all the rules that might be used to argue one way or the other with this reading, ignoring nothing.

Think of it this way: if you were going to write the rules in such a way that you *wanted* to allow librarians to sweep but not allow terminators, how would you write the rules? You would write them exactly as they are written here.

Rico wrote:

@Timmah: Hehehe. You're telling me that the Apothecary, armed with his geneseed-ejection-hardware and basically field dressings of the far future, will affect a lascannon shots' aim?

As to whether or not people are playing or will play with this rule... Why the hell are we discussing it then? Are we discussing this rule just for trolling's sake? Are we all just people who own the rulebook, every codex, and not a single model, who spend our time pouring over said books and looking for discrepancies? I think GW already has a paying position for that...

So it is valid to bring up the fact opponents will think you're a douche as you tell them your Predator in cover didn't get touched because an Apothecary was there with his trusty Narthecium and that your model wearing TDA cansweeping advance because the Librarian (wearing TDA) is not a terminator, but is rather a Librarian... With Terminator armor!

Rico...

This:
has proven to me that you are all more interested in RAI than RAW. Yes an apothecary in the DA codex can ignore 1 failed save (of any kind). This is how the rule is worded. So, yes it can ignore a cover save on one of your vehicles. No matter how illogical you may think this to be, it doesn't make the rule not function the way you want it to.

Please find 1 dark angels player that disagrees with my position on this.

Also, yes I own pretty much every codex, I like to be informed of what I am fighting against instead of blindly running against armies. Being well versed on the rules for each army doesn't make me a rule lawyer, it makes me informed. It helps me to know most of the discrepencies in the rules so that I know what situations will arise when playing certain armies.

Rico wrote:
As to whether or not people are playing or will play with this rule... Why the hell are we discussing it then? Are we discussing this rule just for trolling's sake? Are we all just people who own the rulebook, every codex, and not a single model, who spend our time pouring over said books and looking for discrepancies? I think GW already has a paying position for that...

Lol, dream on. GW wouldn't pay for such a person. Actually if rumors are true, GW listens to some of the members of the Dakka community and depends on us to help them find and fix these kinds of errors.

Rico wrote:So it is valid to bring up the fact opponents will think you're a douche as you tell them your Predator in cover didn't get touched because an Apothecary was there with his trusty Narthecium and that your model wearing TDA can sweeping advance because the Librarian (wearing TDA) is not a terminator, but is rather a Librarian... With Terminator armor! He gives up his chance to sweeping advance when he dons Terminator armor.

Nope, actually not valid. It's a combination ad hominem and ad bacculum argument.

Rico wrote:
Terminators are called Terminators because they wear TERMINATOR armor.

Fallacy of equivocation. If I wear a smoking jacket does that make me a smoker?

Rico wrote:
This isn't deciding if the square is a rectangle but the rectangle isn't a square.

False analogy. It's more like deciding if a square dance is by definition a square.

Rico wrote: This is just a waste of time.

Feel free not to participate if you prefer.

Flavius Infernus wrote:RAW does not include context. I'm not trying to figure out what the rules authors meant here, I'm trying to figure out what the rules actually literally say.

RAW absolutely includes context, although we should probably make sure we are referring to the same thing when we say context. Context, in language, is including all the material related to a particular sentence. RAW is about what is printed on the page. That doesn't mean take every individual word and take it separately from every other word, it means to only use the information printed on the page. There are six paragraphs of information printed in the book detailing the rules for Wargear: Terminator Armour. All of those six paragraphs of words are context for each individual sentence contained therein.

Flavius Infernus wrote:The label "cherry pick" isn't accurate here because I'm not ignoring any rule that is actually relevant to the argument. I have quoted all the rules that might be used to argue one way or the other with this reading, ignoring nothing.

Yes, you absolutely are. You are ignoring the rule that the paragraphs as a whole tell you, which is that any model equipped with the Wargear: Terminator Armour is disallowed from performing a sweeping advance.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Think of it this way: if you were going to write the rules in such a way that you *wanted* to allow librarians to sweep but not allow terminators, how would you write the rules? You would write them exactly as they are written here.

No, I would not write them as they are written, because as they are written a Librarian with Wargear: Terminator Armour may not sweeping advance. You have it exactly backwards. As it is written, a standard Librarian (not having Terminator Armour) has no restriction preventing him from performing a sweeping advance. If he then takes Wargear: Terminator Armour, he now has said restriction because the wargear he chose applied it to him.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Rico wrote:
Terminators are called Terminators because they wear TERMINATOR armor.

Fallacy of equivocation. If I wear a smoking jacket does that make me a smoker?

You seem to continue to make this fallacy kaaihn.

Again, different wargear can work differently for different models. (see tyranid codex)

Kaaihn wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:Think of it this way: if you were going to write the rules in such a way that you *wanted* to allow librarians to sweep but not allow terminators, how would you write the rules? You would write them exactly as they are written here.

No, I would not write them as they are written, because as they are written a Librarian with Wargear: Terminator Armour may not sweeping advance. You have it exactly backwards. As it is written, a standard Librarian (not having Terminator Armour) has no restriction preventing him from performing a sweeping advance. If he then takes Wargear: Terminator Armour, he now has said restriction because the wargear he chose applied it to him.

You didn't actually answer this question.

Kaaihn wrote: There are six paragraphs of information printed in the book detailing the rules for Wargear: Terminator Armour. All of those six paragraphs of words are context for each individual sentence contained therein.

Please show me the logically sound argument from those six paragraphs that concludes that librarians in terminator armor can't make a Sweeping Advance. (Here's a hint--unless I'm missing something, you can't. But if I'm missing something, I want to see it.)

Please understand that I'm not arguing that terminator librarians *should* be allowed to sweep and I'm not trying to weasel my way into trying to actually do it in a game. I agree with you that the context, the precedents, all that extra non-literal stuff all points toward terminator librarians being prevented from sweeping.

What I am arguing is that the rules literally printed on the page have a logically sound loophole that allows librarians (almost certainly unintentionally) to make a sweeping advance.

If I'm wrong, again, please show me the sound argument, quoted verbatim from the rules, without any more vague appeals to "context" because I'm already aware of the context.

Timmah: I exactly answered the question. He asked how it should be written for librarians to sweep, but not terminators. As I said, that is what is currently written.

Kaaihn wrote:As a standard, any model equipped with a piece of wargear is bound by the bonuses and penalties contained within the rules of said wargear, unless an exception is granted somewhere.

I agree completely.

The broken part here, that creates the loophole, is that the penalties contained refer specifically to a unit type "Terminators," rather than to "Models in Terminator armor."

Because there is no sound support in the rules for the conclusion "Terminators" = "Models in Terminator Armor" (please show me the rule if I'm wrong) that creates the loophole.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Kaaihn wrote: There are six paragraphs of information printed in the book detailing the rules for Wargear: Terminator Armour. All of those six paragraphs of words are context for each individual sentence contained therein.

Please show me the logically sound argument from those six paragraphs that concludes that librarians in terminator armor can't make a Sweeping Advance. (Here's a hint--unless I'm missing something, you can't. But if I'm missing something, I want to see it.)

If I'm wrong, again, please show me the sound argument, quoted verbatim from the rules, without any more vague appeals to "context" because I'm already aware of the context.

Reading comprehension is part of RAW.

The rules of language are not complex on this one. Under the heading of Wargear: Terminator Armour, any descriptive phrases contained in that section are used interchangeably. "Terminator Armour", "Space Marine Terminator", and "Terminator" are all interchangeable here. All are used to tell you that this piece of wargear prevents sweeping advance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:As a standard, any model equipped with a piece of wargear is bound by the bonuses and penalties contained within the rules of said wargear, unless an exception is granted somewhere.

I agree completely.

The broken part here, that creates the loophole, is that the penalties contained refer specifically to a unit type "Terminators," rather than to "Models in Terminator armor."

Because there is no sound support in the rules for the conclusion "Terminators" = "Models in Terminator Armor" (please show me the rule if I'm wrong) that creates the loophole.

This is where you are cherry picking. As I just said, under the heading of Wargear: Terminator Armour, any descriptive phrases contained in that section are used interchangeably. "Terminator Armour", "Space Marine Terminator", and "Terminator" are all interchangeable here. All are used to tell you that this piece of wargear prevents sweeping advance.

Why would a non-terminator have terminator armor? I think if you get the benefits of having terminator armor you are then considered to be a terminator

Kaaihn wrote:
This is where you are cherry picking. As I just said, under the heading of Wargear: Terminator Armour, any descriptive phrases contained in that section are used interchangeably. "Terminator Armour", "Space Marine Terminator", and "Terminator" are all interchangeable here. All are used to tell you that this piece of wargear prevents sweeping advance.

Where is the proof they are an interchangable term? You continue to sight your beliefs but no actual wording.
Every other use of it states units in terminator armor. Why the sudden switch in terminology for this one rule?

Again, I would probably never try and pull something like this in a game but I think certain things like this should be discussed so that they can be clarified in the next rulebook.

Kaaihn wrote:
Timmah: I exactly answered the question. He asked how it should be written for librarians to sweep, but not terminators. As I said, that is what is currently written..

I'm confused but it sounds like you are agreeing that this is the correct way to write it to allow librarians in terminator armor to sweep but not terminators.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Sorry to shoot down everybody on the logic front, but Timmah's argument is logically sound (which by definition makes it also logically valid btw).

P1 "When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance." (p40)
P2 A librarian in Terminator armor who wins close combat is a victor
C: When a unit falls back from combat, a librarian in terminator armor makes a sweeping advance.

Valid & sound. In fact, by the RAW, a librarian in terminator armor *must* make a sweeping advance (unless he's part of a unit of terminators).

This argument is valid, but unsound. The conclusion follows from the premises, which makes its form valid. Its content of its premises is incomplete and thus the argument is unsound despite its validity, because it is a false conclusion drawn from true premises.

Flavius Infernus wrote:The only premises you might insert here to try to make an exception do not change the RAW argument.

P40 "Some troops, as detailed in their entries, are not allowed to make a sweeping advance." The restriction is not specified anywhere in the librarian's entry.

A Librarian's army list entry details the option of taking Terminator Armour. A model equipped with Terminator Armour cannot make a sweeping advance. This is what makes the conclusion of the above argument false, despite its valid inference from the given premises.

Flavius Infernus wrote:C:SM p 102 "Terminators cannot perform a sweeping advance." By the RAW, a librarian in terminator armor is *not* a terminator. To claim that he is is a fallacy of equivocation--like claiming that Dark Eldar "Warriors" get WBB rolls because they have the same word in their name that Necron "Warriors" do.

Likewise incorrect. The Terminator Armour entry in the Wargear Armour section of Codex: Space Marines specifies that Space Marines equipped with Terminator Armour are Terminators.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Okay. I will provide it only on one condition: that you provide to me the passage in Codex: Space Marines, that states Tactical Marines move 6". Do we have a deal?

BGB p 11 "Infantry move up to 6" in the movement phase."
C:SM p 134 Tactical marine unit type = "Infantry"

Therefore, Tactical marines move up to 6"

Now it's your turn to quote your rules that prove your argument, Nurg

I asked for the specific passage in Codex; Space Marines that states that Tactical Marines move 6". I see no such passage quoted. You have simply taken two passages and made an inference.

Which is good, because that is how most of the Warhammer 40,000 rules work. You have to infer many of the rules and their applications from other rules in the game. Which is why I asked Timmah to cite me the passage that gives explicit permission for Tactical Space Marines to move 6", because there isn't one. There doesn't have to be one, because the only sound inference of two passages you've quoted is that Tactical Space Marines move 6".

The reason I chose this example should be plain: To make the point that not every rule in the game is detailed by the rules, and that even the very basic rules of the game require us to make inference. I wanted to make the point that Timmah's standard of proof for what the rules say is thus not a reasonable standard of proof.

Terminator Armour, Armour, Wargear, Codex: Space Marines, p.102 wrote:Due to the powerful exoskeleton and power sources built into their armour, models in Terminator armour have the relentless universal special rule.

On the other hand, this armour is somewhat cumbersome, so Space Marine Terminators are not able to purse a more lightly armoured foe when they flee. Terminators cannot perform a Sweeping Advance.

Likewise, the only sound inference one can make from the rules governing the wargear Terminator Armour is that all models equipped with Terminator Armour are Terminators. Since they are Terminators, they cannot make sweeping advances.

The fact is that the rulebook has to be a finite size, so it cannot explicitly state every last little rule of the game. It states some general rules about the game, some structural rules about itself, and leaves it to the players to deduce whatever rules apply to any specific situation they may come across.

Even widely used rules like "Tactical Space Marines move 6" in the Movement phase" are actually inferences, which is why what people call "RAW" is stupid. The rules, as they are written, constitute only some of the rules of the game, and beyond the usual illiteracy and lack of actually reading the rules, some rules questions can only be solved by the application of a basic predicate calculus, or classical logic.

Nurglitch wrote:ikewise incorrect. The Terminator Armour entry in the Wargear Armour section of Codex: Space Marines specifies that Space Marines equipped with Terminator Armour are Terminators.

This is what I have asked for from the beginning. Thank you for correcting me.

Now if you could just please site the passage that states "models equipped with terminator armor are terminators".

Thanks

Sure, whenever you cite the passage that states "Tactical Space Marines move 6" in the Movement phase."

Thanks.

Timmah wrote:Again, different wargear can work differently for different models. (see tyranid codex)

The "wargear" in the codex works identically for every model.
If you meant the weapons, the comment is still false.

At most the strength value varies, but the "wargear" works the same - no rules are varied or printed for any specific model in the Tyranid codex.

Perhaps you could say things like Storm Shields work differently between different Codecii, but I am pretty sure that is still irrelevant.

Timmah wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:This is where you are cherry picking. As I just said, under the heading of Wargear: Terminator Armour, any descriptive phrases contained in that section are used interchangeably. "Terminator Armour", "Space Marine Terminator", and "Terminator" are all interchangeable here. All are used to tell you that this piece of wargear prevents sweeping advance.

Where is the proof they are an interchangable term? You continue to sight your beliefs but no actual wording.
Every other use of it states units in terminator armor. Why the sudden switch in terminology for this one rule?

The proof is in the usage of the English language, honestly. I'm not trying to be snarky, but that is the answer to your question. This is a reading comprehension and language barrier at this point.

Kaaihn wrote:Timmah: I exactly answered the question. He asked how it should be written for librarians to sweep, but not terminators. As I said, that is what is currently written..

Timmah wrote:I'm confused but it sounds like you are agreeing that this is the correct way to write it to allow librarians in terminator armor to sweep but not terminators.

Nope. I am saying it is written that a Librarian can sweep, but a model equipped in terminator armour cannot. He didn't ask how it should be written for Librarians in terminator armour to be able to sweep, but non-librarians in terminator armour to not be able to. If I was to answer that question, the answer would be:

Leave the Wargear: Terminator Armour entry exactly as it is written. Add a statement to the Librarian entry that says "Librarians may always perform a sweeping advance, even if a piece of wargear would normally prevent it".

First and foremost, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this discussion so far so thank you to all who have participated and gave me something interesting to read while I was eating breakfast.

Honestly, I don't really have anything stellar to add since greater minds than mine have hashed out most of the possibilities already. However, I have plenty of off-topic comments! Hooray!

First, the 'rules lawyer' thing seems to be a cop-out. It's like saying 'noob' or something similar when you can't really think of anything better to say. Sure it's frustrating to argue with someone who absolutely WILL NOT BACK DOWN, but does that make them a 'rules lawyer' or does that just make them very staunch in their opinion? It is, after all, only an opinion since the game belongs to GW and they can say it means whatever the heck they like (if they ever get out of their giant gold coin swimming pools a la Scrooge McDuck and explain it) whether we think it makes sense or not. To be fair, in certain circumstances I think some people do end up being silly and holding on to a viewpoint that is quite clearly wrong just to cause strife. In other situations, like this one, the OP has a reasonably logical point and while it may be unpopular, I don't think he's just trying to be difficult for the sake of it.

To the people who say things like "ugh, why are we still discussing this?" or "I have better things to do than argue with you" (and then proceed to argue with them for 10 posts) I have to call BS. I would argue that there are really only two reasons for reading and posting on YMDC: 1) you're bored and want something to do, or 2) you're looking for entertainment (okay so if you're a particularly helpful maybe 3) you truly want to help people understand the rules) so why do people insist on making it seem like it's a HUGE chore to come online and argue with a random person on the internet? I seriously doubt anyone is going to be tremendously appreciative that you took time out of your busy day to post an argument about semantics. Especially not if you're complaining about it at the same time.

Oh and Terminators?

Well you know, I know, and the OP knows that anyone wearing Terminator Armour is a Terminator in the grand scheme of things, but there's no real way to prove it. I'd say you can be a Terminator and you can be a Librarian - they're not mutually exclusive - so you don't have to specify what the combined model is capable of unless it's NOT limited by something that would ordinarily limit one of its aspects. Just because he's a Terminator doesn't stop him from being limited to the same Psychic powers as a regular Librarian so why should being a Librarian stop him from being limited in the same way a Terminator is during Sweeping Advances? But, the rules aren't specific enough to squash ANY doubt, so the debate goes on...

Anyway, enough of my nonsense. You may now return to your regularly scheduled debating, thank you for your cooperation.

DoW

Nurglitch wrote:Sure, whenever you cite the passage that states "Tactical Space Marines move 6" in the Movement phase."

Thanks.

A correct inference is still RAW.

All infantry can move up to 6" in the movement phase.
Tactical Space Marines are infantry
Tactical Space Marines can move up to 6" in the movement phase.



The argument for terminator armour goes like this:

All terminators wear terminator armour
All units that wear terminator armour are terminators (fallacy)


See the problem/difference between the two inferences?

Other than you apparently random paranthetical, I do not.

I vote that people start reading the rules for what they are and stop trying to make them something they are NOT!

Timmah:

The difference is that you're mis-presenting the argument for Terminator Armour.

P1. All models equipped with Terminator Armour are Terminators.
P2. Terminators cannot perform sweeping advances.
P3 Librarians can be equipped with Terminator Armour
C. Librarians equipped with Terminator Armour cannot perform sweeping advances.

Wow. Why did they word it like that, did they want for the characters to be able to SA still? Accident?

Who knows, nothing in the errata.

P1. All models equipped with Terminator Armour are Terminators.

Where does it say this?
Its obvious that you believe this to be implied in the entry (which it is). However we play RAW not RAI.
You won't accept this simple fact for some reason.

Anyways Dog of War did a pretty good job of laying out the argument and unless someone comes up with something else I am out of this discussion.

(I might just have to bust out my librarian in terminator armour for fun at our next RTT)

@ Nurglitch, I'm not sure being a Terminator is the same thing as wearing terminator armor. The rule p.102 SM codex words it mostly in "models in terminator armor" but for SA it specifically says Terminators. It does not state any model in terminator armor counts as a terminator. I see it as either an accident or it could have even been intended I guess for characters to keep SA.

The third sentence under Terminator Armor:
". . . on every Terminator's shoulder plate. . ."

So character's in Termie armor get no invuln save?

I feel played now.

Sorry Yakface! I rose and I was silly.

kirsanth wrote:The third sentence under Terminator Armor:
". . . on every Terminator's shoulder plate. . ."

So character's in Termie armor get no invuln save?

very possible. I do not have the rule in front of me atm. But I believe it goes on to say:

..this grants models in terminator armour a 5+ invuln save.

However if it does not say something to this effect and just says terminators then I would agree that terminator armour alone does not give an invuln save.

Can anyone quote the full rule on this?

"Terminator" is used three times in the actual rules.

Exactly the same number of times as "models in Terminator armor"

"Tactical Dreadnaught Armor" is used once, and "Space Marine Terminator" once also.

Which ones do we ignore?

Terminator Armour, Armour, Wargear, Codex: Space Marines, p.102 wrote:Also known as Tactical Dreadnought armour, Terminator armour is the best protection a Space Marine can be equipped with. Designed for close-quarters fighting aboard Space Hulks and other confined areas. Terminator armour is capable of withstanding almost any attack. The ceramite plates can deflect most conventional assaults, whilst the Crux Terminatus on every Terminator's shoulder plate serves as a ward capable of turning aside even attacks from power weapons or melta fire. It is even said that Terminator armour can withstand the titanic energies at a plasma generator's core, and that this was in fact the armour's original purpose.

Due to the powerful exoskeleton and power sources built into their armour, models in Terminator armour have the relentless special rule.

On the other hand, this armour is somewhat cumbersome, so Space Marine Terminators are not able to pursue a more lightly armoured foe when they flee. Terminators cannot perform a Sweep Advance.

The above rules are titled "Terminator Armour". They are in the sub-section entitled "Armour" in the "Wargear" section of the book. Because it is in the Wargear section, it is not unique to Terminators ("where an item is not unique, it is detailed in the wargear seaction").

Let us begin with the first paragraph. It's background material. It gives Terminator Armour an alternate name ("Tactical Dreadnought armour"), and some pseudo-historical data. And it establishes that anyone wearing Terminator armour is a Terminator: "on every Terminator's shoulder plate".

The second paragraph states that the Relentless universal special rule applies to all models "in" Terminator Armour. A model in Terminator Armour is a model that is equipped with Terminator Armour. The text is thus discussing the rules that apply to models equipped with Terminator Armour, such as Terminators, Assault Terminators, and occasionally Librarians.

The third paragraph opens with the expression "On the other hand", so in addition to the advantage of Relentless, models in Terminator armour have a disadvantage. Now we encounter the term "Space Marine Terminators", though not for the first time because the first paragraph has informed us that Space Marines equipped with Terminator Armour are Terminators. The reference to Space Marine Terminators merely reiterates and concatenates what we already know that there are Space Marines who wear Terminator Armour and that are called Terminators. The author then dispenses with such a complex term and shortens the term to Terminators again.

kirsanth wrote:"Terminator" is used three times in the actual rules.

Exactly the same number of times as "models in Terminator armor"

"Tactical Dreadnaught Armor" is used once, and "Space Marine Terminator" once also.

Which ones do we ignore?

You ignore none of them. Any model equipped with Wargear: Terminator Armour is now associated to all the descriptors given to it in the Wargear: Terminator Armour rules.

This means that where a rule states "terminators, "space marine terminators", and "tactical dreadnought armor", it applies to any model that is equipped with the wargear of Terminator Armour.

Simple language tells us that models equipped in Terminator armour are indeed "Terminators", because that descriptor is associated in the rules for that particular wargear. See Nurglitch's nice language lesson above for details.

Nurglitch you have yet to quote anything that shows every unit wearing terminator armor is a terminator.

You keep summarizing and saying it means that.
This is not a good basis for rulings.

I have quoted it repeatedly.

Timmah wrote:Nurglitch you have yet to quote anything that shows every unit wearing terminator armor is a terminator.

You keep summarizing and saying it means that.
This is not a good basis for rulings.

You amaze me...Why are you trying to twist the rules?

Nurglitch wrote:I have quoted it repeatedly.

Well I'm having trouble finding it. Please just quote the entire passage and give a page number that supports your argument once more. (no summary, none of your own thoughts)

ShawnSum wrote:

You amaze me...Why are you trying to twist the rules?

Another attack on me for discussing something in a rules discussion forum.
This is new and interesting.

Terminator Armour, Armour, Wargear, Codex: Space Marines, p.102 wrote:Also known as Tactical Dreadnought armour, Terminator armour is the best protection a Space Marine can be equipped with. Designed for close-quarters fighting aboard Space Hulks and other confined areas. Terminator armour is capable of withstanding almost any attack. The ceramite plates can deflect most conventional assaults, whilst the Crux Terminatus on every Terminator's shoulder plate serves as a ward capable of turning aside even attacks from power weapons or melta fire. It is even said that Terminator armour can withstand the titanic energies at a plasma generator's core, and that this was in fact the armour's original purpose.

Due to the powerful exoskeleton and power sources built into their armour, models in Terminator armour have the relentless special rule.

On the other hand, this armour is somewhat cumbersome, so Space Marine Terminators are not able to pursue a more lightly armoured foe when they flee. Terminators cannot perform a Sweep Advance.

Equipment, Forces of the Space Marines, Codex: Space Marines, p.51 wrote:When an item is unique, it is detailed in the following entry for its owner, and where an item is not unique, it is detailed in the wargear section.

Nurglitch wrote:

Terminator Armour, Armour, Wargear, Codex: Space Marines, p.102 wrote:Also known as Tactical Dreadnought armour, Terminator armour is the best protection a Space Marine can be equipped with. Designed for close-quarters fighting aboard Space Hulks and other confined areas. Terminator armour is capable of withstanding almost any attack. The ceramite plates can deflect most conventional assaults, whilst the Crux Terminatus on every Terminator's shoulder plate serves as a ward capable of turning aside even attacks from power weapons or melta fire. It is even said that Terminator armour can withstand the titanic energies at a plasma generator's core, and that this was in fact the armour's original purpose.

Due to the powerful exoskeleton and power sources built into their armour, models in Terminator armour have the relentless special rule.

On the other hand, this armour is somewhat cumbersome, so Space Marine Terminators are not able to pursue a more lightly armoured foe when they flee. Terminators cannot perform a Sweep Advance.

Equipment, Forces of the Space Marines, Codex: Space Marines, p.51 wrote:When an item is unique, it is detailed in the following entry for its owner, and where an item is not unique, it is detailed in the wargear section.

Again, nothing in there states that all models wearing terminator armor are terminators.
Wargear can have different rules or omitted rules depending on whos using it, nothing says all wargear functions exactly the same no matter who is wearing it.

It does state:
"whilst the Crux Terminatus on every Terminator's shoulder plate serves as a ward capable of turning aside even attacks from power weapons or melta fire."

So you have proven that all terminators have a Crux Terminatus on their shoulders.

Also you have proven:
On the other hand, this armour is somewhat cumbersome, so Space Marine Terminators are not able to pursue a more lightly armoured foe when they flee. Terminators cannot perform a Sweep Advance.

Somewhat cumbersome. How do you know GW didn't intend for IC's to be so great that the armour doesn't hinder their movements? They are remarkable individuals after all.

The fact is, with current wording, its only the actual elite terminators that can't SA.

kirsanth wrote:"Terminator" is used three times in the actual rules.

Exactly the same number of times as "models in Terminator armor"

"Tactical Dreadnaught Armor" is used once, and "Space Marine Terminator" once also.

Which ones do we ignore?

I'm pretty sure my so called "attack" was a question...

kirsanth wrote:

kirsanth wrote:"Terminator" is used three times in the actual rules.

Exactly the same number of times as "models in Terminator armor"

"Tactical Dreadnaught Armor" is used once, and "Space Marine Terminator" once also.

Which ones do we ignore?

You use all 3. Terminator armor refers to any unit wearing said armor.
Terminators refer to the troops named thusly (because there is no defined term for this)
and TDA is not ever used in the actual rules, but only the fluff so it is not important.

Sorry Shawn, I assumed you were trying to insult/attack me.

I raised this point because its an interesting situation with grey area in it. I came across a little harsh in my OP and have tried to refine my argument since then. I believe its good that the community bring these grey area's to light so that GW can write better/clearer rules in the future.

I personally believe a lot of the community tries to sweep these issues under the rug and not deal with them. This should not be happening. GW should write clear rules for this game we play. It's not impossible. I know of plenty of games that have a clearly defined ruleset and interactions never get questions. (for instance, magic the gathering, which is far more complex in its rule system with thousands of different cards ect. Yet rules questions are always swiftly answered and clear cut. There is no grey area.

There were four example names used.

And all were in the same rules section defining Terminator Armor.

Well, I have nothing more to say in this thread then. The rules are clear, and if Timmah is either unwilling or unable to notice that, nothing I can say or do will change his mind.

If you don't find that the rules clearly state that models equipped with Terminator Armour are Terminators, maybe this game just isn't your speed.

Rules seem pretty clear to me. Any unit going out in Terminator Armour CAN NOT USE SWEEPING ADVANCE.

I find it interesting upon reading the codex that everywhere a limitation is placed on terminators, it specifically says, "Terminators" or "Space Marine Terminators," and everywhere it grants abilities to the owner, (a 2+/5++ or relentless) it says "models in terminator armor."

Whether or not you agree with either side of this argument, people should be aware of what follows from BOTH conclusions. (Argument A is pro-sweep, B is against)

If you agree with A, characters upgraded to terminator armor only take up one slot in a transport vehicle. Some space marines that have "combat shields" aren't getting 3+ invulnerables.

If you agree with B, Leman Russ Battle Squadrons can be taken in inquisitorial armies.

How does B follow?

What Orkeosaurus said, and adding: How does A follow?

Also, combat shields confer a Iv6+.

As a purist, this is really wack. I dont even understand how someone could even let their brain wonder enough to even think this would be allowed....*sigh*...

To add to that, if you were to try this in a game against someone...I'm pretty sure you would get laughed at.

ShawnSum wrote:As a purist, this is really wack. I dont even understand how someone could even let their brain wonder enough to even think this would be allowed....*sigh*...

To add to that, if you were to try this in a game against someone...I'm pretty sure you would get laughed at.

Again, I have not ever tried this in a game against someone. This is the rules forum, where we discuss rulings and such.
Unless you want this forum to be 200 posts of what a space marine needs to roll to score a hit.

Again your attacking me by saying you don't understand how anyone could even think this would be allowed. Yet you obviously haven't read any of mine or anyone elses arguments on topic.

If you have nothing constructive to contribute please don't post.

If you think by what I am saying is attacking you, you my friend have a lot to learn. I just dont see how you can take something so simple completely out of context and manipulate it the way you are doing.

The other day I was playing a game, I dropped in my Terminator Assault Squad Supported by my Chaplian in Terminator, I destroyed a group of people and they failed their morale, I was UNABLE to do a sweeping advance BECAUSE THE RULES STATE THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO IN TERMINATOR ARMOUR.

I have read through this entire thread, that is why I am getting envolved now.

Timmah wrote:
Again, I have not ever tried this in a game against someone. This is the rules forum, where we discuss rulings and such.
Unless you want this forum to be 200 posts of what a space marine needs to roll to score a hit.

Again your attacking me by saying you don't understand how anyone could even think this would be allowed. Yet you obviously haven't read any of mine or anyone elses arguments on topic.

If you have nothing constructive to contribute please don't post.

Timmah wrote:
(I might just have to bust out my librarian in terminator armour for fun at our next RTT)

Makes sense to me. . .

ShawnSum wrote:If you think by what I am saying is attacking you, you my friend have a lot to learn. I just dont see how you can take something so simple completely out of context and manipulate it the way you are doing.

I do not see how I have taken anything out of context. Rules exist by themselves in a vaccuum, you cannot take them out of context and change the meaning. Show me one that you can (whole sentences obviously, no cutting and pasting half sentences)

ShawnSum wrote:
BECAUSE THE RULES STATE THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO IN TERMINATOR ARMOUR.

As I have said before the rules never explicitly state this. So we cannot assume this. If you have to assume anything than you are not following RAW.

ShawnSum wrote:The other day I was playing a game, I dropped in my Terminator Assault Squad Supported by my Chaplian in Terminator, I destroyed a group of people and they failed their morale, I was UNABLE to do a sweeping advance BECAUSE THE RULES STATE THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO IN TERMINATOR ARMOUR.

Hah! An actual example of begging the question! (As opposed to how people usually use the term.)

We are currently discussing whether or not Space Marine characters who have upgraded to terminator armor can or cannot sweeping advance. Your statement of cause already assumes that they can't without demonstrating why.

Really, we are discussing whether wearing terminator armor makes you a Terminator, or merely means you are a model/unit wearing terminator armor.


Also, I would point out that you are commiting another fallacy without realizing it, probably because pretty much everyone here does it as well, which is attacking the motive for Timmah bringing this up. Saying that he is twisting the rules is in fact attacking his motives, not his argument.

Wow, WOW, WOW! If you are unable to read the rules about SM Terminator Armour in the SM:C and realize that the "no sweeping advance" rule applies to anyone that is in Terminator Armour then something is wrong man.

On top of all that, if your only reason for debating all of this is because their isn't a few extra sentences in their that explicitly states that this applies to IC wearing Terminator Armour then I would have to assume you are just manipulating the rules for the sake of your own benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wehrkind wrote:Really, we are discussing whether wearing terminator armor makes you a Terminator, or merely means you are a model/unit wearing terminator armor.
.

Whether is makes you a "Terminator" or makes you a "Model wearing Terminator", the rules still apply.

Or "a Terminator" refers to a suit of terminator armor.

"Terminator armour" is never written as "Terminator Armour" so the word "armour" is apparently describing what "a Terminator" can be catagorized as. (Outside of headings which have their own rules of formatting)

Or maybe not.

Not sure that helps, but it seems like I am not in a very helpful mode today. Carry on . . . this is a fun read.

ShawnSum wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wehrkind wrote:Really, we are discussing whether wearing terminator armor makes you a Terminator, or merely means you are a model/unit wearing terminator armor.
.

Whether is makes you a "Terminator" or makes you a "Model wearing Terminator", the rules still apply.

And there is where you make your critical mistake which prevents you from understanding why anyone even cares. The text differentiatess between "Terminator" and "models in Terminator armor". It specifies that Terminators can not sweeping advance, while in other places saying models in Terminator armor do X.

So again, the question really is "Are all models in Terminator armor Terminators in the full titular sense, or are they merely models wearing Terminator armor?"

Also, I play Witch Hunters and can't even take terminator armor on Inquisitors, so it is unfortunate that your assumption that I am manipulating the rules for my own benefit is what you have to assume. It is further unfortunate that you can not look at the rules in a detached manner that allows you to objectively examine how they actually work.

All references to Terminators in the Wargear section are to models wearing/in/equipped with Terminator Armour. If you want the rules for the Terminator unit, you should look in the Forces of the Space Marines section.

Nurglitch wrote:All references to Terminators in the Wargear section are to models wearing/in/equipped with Terminator Armour. If you want the rules for the Terminator unit, you should look in the Forces of the Space Marines section.

which proves that all terminators wear terminator armour.

It however does not prove:

That all things wearing terminator armour are terminators.


In a simple example
All water is wet.
Everything wet is water.
(pretty sure everyone would agree this logic is wrong)

You are unreal. I am done with this thread.

Orkeosaurus wrote:How does B follow?

What Orkeosaurus said, and adding: How does A follow?

B follows because that side of the argument makes the assumption that things that are "close enough" to the actual definition of a term are what they actually mean.

As for Nurglitch, I missed the combat shields thing. I was trying to find an example but accidentally found one that didn't exist.

As for A following, it says that Terminators take up the space of 2 models, not models in terminator armor, so falls right in line with the pro-sweep argument.

Timmah:

No, what proves all Terminators wear Terminator Armour is the wargear reference to Terminator Armour in the Terminator Squad entry in the Army List section of the book.

The Terminator Armour entry in the Wargear section of the book proves that all models wearing Terminator Armour are Terminators for the purpose of the wargear rules.

Nurglitch wrote:
The Terminator Armour entry in the Wargear section of the book proves that all models wearing Terminator Armour are Terminators for the purpose of the wargear rules.

No, it does not. It does not once state that all models wearing terminator armour are terminators.

As my example I gave:
All water is wet
everything wet is water

This is a logical fallacy. You can go read wikipedia on it.
That is what you are trying to argue.

Kaaihn wrote:

kirsanth wrote:"Terminator" is used three times in the actual rules.

Exactly the same number of times as "models in Terminator armor"

"Tactical Dreadnaught Armor" is used once, and "Space Marine Terminator" once also.

Which ones do we ignore?

You ignore none of them. Any model equipped with Wargear: Terminator Armour is now associated to all the descriptors given to it in the Wargear: Terminator Armour rules.

This means that where a rule states "terminators, "space marine terminators", and "tactical dreadnought armor", it applies to any model that is equipped with the wargear of Terminator Armour.

Simple language tells us that models equipped in Terminator armour are indeed "Terminators", because that descriptor is associated in the rules for that particular wargear. See Nurglitch's nice language lesson above for details.

You should just quote yourself too, since changing the text is not happening anyway.

Timmah:

Are you familiar with the predicate calculus?

Timmah is right, even though it is likely no one would ever play it that way successfully in any tournament. ICs in terminator armor are not terminators, or they would be called (insert IC type here) Terminators.

Really it boils down to GW not being clear enough yet again. If they did more entries like the one from the DH codex that defines demons, except for wargear and other options like this, there wouldn't be a problem.

Kitzz wrote:B follows because that side of the argument makes the assumption that things that are "close enough" to the actual definition of a term are what they actually mean.

The B side of the argument isn't saying that something is something else if it's close enough, they're saying that something is something else if the context of where it is written makes it clear that they are the same.

0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank is clearly up to one Leman Russ Battle Tank. There's no implication you get a whole squad. If there was an entry for Leman Russ Battle Tank Squads and it called the tanks "Leman Russes" (which I believe the Imperial Guard codex actually does) that would mean that the Leman Russes are Leman Russ Battle Tanks. This is because it would be clear from the context of the entry.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Kitzz wrote:B follows because that side of the argument makes the assumption that things that are "close enough" to the actual definition of a term are what they actually mean.

The B side of the argument isn't saying that something is something else if it's close enough, they're saying that something is something else if the context of where it is written makes it clear that they are the same.

0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank is clearly up to one Leman Russ Battle Tank. There's no implication you get a whole squad. If there was an entry for Leman Russ Battle Tank Squads and it called the tanks "Leman Russes" (which I believe the Imperial Guard codex actually does) that would mean that the Leman Russes are Leman Russ Battle Tanks. This is because it would be clear from the context of the entry.

But the context doesn't make it clear that they are the same. So that is exactly the sort of thing that they're doing. I know about the 0-1 restriction, I was referring to all the different options and types available to the squadron if the tank is an Exterminator or Punisher for example.

"Terminator" and "Space Marine Terminator" are used specifically in the rules for Wargear: Terminator Armour to describe and provide rules for Wargear: Terminator Armour.

Any model wearing Wargear: Terminator Armour has those specific phrases applied to them via their Terminator Armour. A model wearing Terminator Armour becomes referred to as both a "Terminator" and a "Space Marine Terminator" by the rules for Terminator Armour.

It really is that simple folks.

Kaaihn:

Very well put.

Kitzz wrote:But the context doesn't make it clear that they are the same. So that is exactly the sort of thing that they're doing.

I disagee.

I know about the 0-1 restriction, I was referring to all the different options and types available to the squadron if the tank is an Exterminator or Punisher for example.

Correct me I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure Leman Russ Battle Tank is the full name of the basic, battlecannon carrying Leman Russ.

I would understand if it said "0-1 Leman Russ", where there are many different types of tanks that are Leman Russes.

Kitzz:

Maybe start a new thread about it?

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Kitzz wrote:But the context doesn't make it clear that they are the same. So that is exactly the sort of thing that they're doing.

I disagee.

I know about the 0-1 restriction, I was referring to all the different options and types available to the squadron if the tank is an Exterminator or Punisher for example.

Correct me I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure Leman Russ Battle Tank is the full name of the basic, battlecannon carrying Leman Russ.

I would understand if it said "0-1 Leman Russ", where there are many different types of tanks that are Leman Russes.

You are correct, there is a Leman Russ Battle Tank. But there are also other tanks listed in the codex entry for Leman Russ Battle Tank (the Punisher, for example). If we are saying that Terminator Armor = Tactical Dreadnought Armor = Terminator = Space Marine Terminator, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to say Leman Russ Battle Tank = Leman Russ Exterminator = Leman Russ Demolisher etc.

@ Timmah: If you want to use the IG LRMBT as an example then we need to look at the IG Codex. IIRC the Heavy Support title is for a LRBT Squadron (be it 1, 2, or 3 tanks). If we're going to waive our RAW E-penises about then Daemonhunters cannot even use LRMBT because the LRMBT is a secondary option of the Squadron main selection.

This is rules-lawyering in the extreme. To me this is along the lines of Digital Lasers and Drop Pod and Rhino for one squad of Tact marines. Not trying to be jerk, but there is some major stretching going on in this thread.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kitzz wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Kitzz wrote:But the context doesn't make it clear that they are the same. So that is exactly the sort of thing that they're doing.

I disagee.

I know about the 0-1 restriction, I was referring to all the different options and types available to the squadron if the tank is an Exterminator or Punisher for example.

Correct me I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure Leman Russ Battle Tank is the full name of the basic, battlecannon carrying Leman Russ.

I would understand if it said "0-1 Leman Russ", where there are many different types of tanks that are Leman Russes.

You are correct, there is a Leman Russ Battle Tank. But there are also other tanks listed in the codex entry for Leman Russ Battle Tank (the Punisher, for example). If we are saying that Terminator Armor = Tactical Dreadnought Armor = Terminator = Space Marine Terminator, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to say Leman Russ Battle Tank = Leman Russ Exterminator = Leman Russ Demolisher etc.

No, you can't claim that LRBT equals the Exterminator. If were going hardcore RAW then LRBT cannot equal an Exterminator or Demolisher. Personally I would be down with that, but since we are in a thread that argues that an IC in Termie armor can sweeping advance then we are dividing by 0 anyways.

Barlio,

THANK YOU!!!

barlio wrote:No, you can't claim that LRBT equals the Exterminator. If were going hardcore RAW then LRBT cannot equal an Exterminator or Demolisher. Personally I would be down with that, but since we are in a thread that argues that an IC in Termie armor can sweeping advance then we are dividing by 0 anyways.

Uh, that was my point exaclty. Take a gander at the entire conversation we had.

Yeah ignore me on this one then.

Kitzz wrote:You are correct, there is a Leman Russ Battle Tank. But there are also other tanks listed in the codex entry for Leman Russ Battle Tank (the Punisher, for example). If we are saying that Terminator Armor = Tactical Dreadnought Armor = Terminator = Space Marine Terminator, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to say Leman Russ Battle Tank = Leman Russ Exterminator = Leman Russ Demolisher etc.

Ah, I see.

However, this train of logic is once again devoid of context; it's merely applying a different (secondary) set of rules to the Warhammer 40k ruleset than was being applied before. That is to say, whereas before it was "it must be explicitly stated to be the same for it to mean the same thing", it is now "if they are under the same entry they are the same thing".

The difference in this case is that Leman Russ Battle Tanks are a specific model with different stats and weaponry from the other tanks available in a Leman Russ squadron. There's no implication in the Inquisitorial codices that Leman Russ Battle Tank is anything other than the literal tank it specifies.

However, "On the other hand, this armour is somewhat cumbersome, so Space Marine Terminators are not able to purse a more lightly armoured foe when they flee. Terminators cannot perform a Sweeping Advance." tells you what both "Terminators" and "Space Marine Terminators" are referring to; models wearing the Terminator Armor that is "somewhat cumbersome". It refers to "this armor" (Terminator armor, obviously) and then gives the armor as the reason that (Space Marine) Terminators cannot pursue their enemy. The fact that this is in the entry for Terminator armor (and is thus applicable to all models wearing Terminator armor unless it's otherwise specified) only solidifies the position that Terminator refers to models equipped with the armor.

Furthermore, the models for Librarians in Terminator armor are, officially, called both "Librarian in Terminator Armor" and "Terminator Librarian". (And, it would additionally seem that the one labeled "Terminator Librarian" is the more recent model.

Actually, I think it can be read to delineate abilities not granted to Terminators vs models in Terminator armor. I think it is perfectly reasonable to read that, as written, the rules for the wargear item apply differently to different units.

As for the "Terminator Librarian" being a unit, that is simply the designation for the model as it is sold. There is no such reference in the codex.

And...hey...look at your location...weird...

I don't think that's reasonable, because there's no further distinction between the two. The passage goes from the wargear and models equipped with it to the term "Terminator" without any sort of change of subject. This is consistent with the subject remaining the same thing, but jarring for a change of subject.

Both the designation for the selling of the model and the codex were written by the company. In the rules for Warhammer, Terminator is a term that only has meaning in the context Games Workshop uses it. It's whatever they want it to be, and they want it to mean a model that has the armor; regular Terminators are regular marines who wear Terminator armor, Terminator Librarians are Librarians who wear Terminator armor, etc.

(Hmm, both in Minnesota. Cool!)

There's even a picture on the bottom of p.102 to help people figure out which models are wearing Terminator Armour. Here's a hint, it's the guy on the right.

Nurglitch wrote:There's even a picture on the bottom of p.102 to help people figure out which models are wearing Terminator Armour. Here's a hint, it's the guy on the right.

Yeah but he's wearing a helmet. What character in terminator armor ever wears a helmet? That's right none of them. /sarcasm

Your honor I would like to close with the bald and screaming argument. As you can see only characters don't wear helmets. You can't tell that they are bald and screaming if they are wearing their helmuts. Therefore characters are different than Terminators.

So what all of you are trying to say is that IC in Terminator Armour do not have to follow the rules stated for it??

It doesn't matter if it is an IC or not, if you are using the rules listed under the wargear Terminator Armour, all the rules for that piece of wargear apply unless said IC has a specific entry in it's profile overriding something.

An IC that has the wargear of Terminator Armour is governed by the abilities contained in Terminator Armour wargear rules, as well as now being governed by rules specifying Space Marine Terminator and Terminator as they are specific descriptions associated to Terminator Armour, which would be conveyed to any model that equips that piece of wargear.

Kaaihn wrote:It doesn't matter if it is an IC or not, if you are using the rules listed under the wargear Terminator Armour, all the rules for that piece of wargear apply unless said IC has a specific entry in it's profile overriding something.

An IC that has the wargear of Terminator Armour is governed by the abilities contained in Terminator Armour wargear rules, as well as now being governed by rules specifying Space Marine Terminator and Terminator as they are specific descriptions associated to Terminator Armour, which would be conveyed to any model that equips that piece of wargear.

I agree with this. For some weird and untelling reason all these other peeps on here can't seem to put that together and think that in some way the IC and all his might can just do WTF ever he wants.

ShawnSum wrote:So what all of you are trying to say is that IC in Terminator Armour do not have to follow the rules stated for it??

That's the crux of the argument (quasi-pun intended). Some people are trying to say that IC that choose Termie armor are not subject to the sweeping advance restriction. I do not believe that (Kaaihn hit the nail on the head).

Nurglitch wrote:There's even a picture on the bottom of p.102 to help people figure out which models are wearing Terminator Armour. Here's a hint, it's the guy on the right.

Uh I never said my model wasn't wearing terminator armor.

Now tell me which of these rules I am breaking if I SA with a librarian in terminator armour.

Models in terminator armor have the relentless special rule

Terminators cannot perform sweeping advances

A model wearing terminator armor has a 2+ armor save and a 5+ invulnerable save

Any model wearing terminator armor can be teleported onto the battlefield.



I am not breaking any of those rules.
No where does the codex define what a terminator is. So we can only apply that line to anything called a terminator.

TERMINATOR - this word is undefined in the space marine codex. If we try and define it we are assuming and implying what it means, thus RAI
So we must take this word at face value and only things specifically called a terminator in their name can be affected by this rule.


ONCE AGAIN FOR YOU GUYS HAVING DIFFICULTY

No where is the word terminator defined. If it is please link the exact quote and page number. If you try and assume what one is you are playing RAI.
Only models that have Terminator in the name can be terminators then per RAW.

Again, outside of fluff, no one has been able to prove that there is such a thing as a terminator librarian.
I do not see a stat line for a terminator librarian, nor a unit entry for one.

Because it doesn't fricken matter what the definition is.

Terminator armor is something you put on a Spehss Mahreen. When you put Terminator armor on Spehss Mahreens he gets stuff and is restricted in a certain way (as you kindly pointed out).

Heck I'll give you a definition:

Terminator - A veteran Spehss Mahreen who (in reward of years of service and for killing Xenos Scum) is given a suit of ancient armor. He then can continue to kill more Xenos scum in a totally more AWESOME WAY .

kirsanth wrote:"Terminator" is used three times in the actual rules.

Exactly the same number of times as "models in Terminator armor"

"Tactical Dreadnaught Armor" is used once, and "Space Marine Terminator" once also.

Which ones do we ignore?

To add one more note, since you did change some text(!). Terminator is defined by example in the same place Terminator armor is defined.
The section everyone has been quoting back and forth.

The rules for using Terminator armor refer to the user of the armor as Terminators. Either that or it refers to the armor itself - either way IC cannot SA in it.

barlio wrote:Because it doesn't fricken matter what the definition is.

Terminator armor is something you put on a Spehss Mahreen. When you put Terminator armor on Spehss Mahreens he gets stuff and is restricted in a certain way (as you kindly pointed out).

Heck I'll give you a definition:

Terminator - A veteran Spehss Mahreen who (in reward of years of service and for killing Xenos Scum) is given a suit of ancient armor. He then can continue to kill more Xenos scum in a totally more AWESOME WAY .

You cannot define it yourself, that is RAI.

kirsanth wrote:

To add one more note, since you did change some text(!). Terminator is defined by example in the same place Terminator armor is defined.
The section everyone has been quoting back and forth.
The rules for using Terminator armor refer to the user of the armor as Terminators. Either that or it refers to the armor itself - either way IC cannot SA in it.

Yes terminators do use the armor.
In fact all terminators use terminator armor.

However it does not say:
All users of terminator armor are terminators.

Must I got back to showing the logical fallacy of this statement?

No. . . that is a house rule.

The ceramite plates can deflect most conventional assaults, whilst the Crux Terminatus on every Terminator's shoulder plate serves as a ward capable of turning aside even attacks from power weapons or melta fire.

I forgot about this one; it is another instance of Terminator referring to anyone wearing the armor. All Terminator armor has a Crux Terminatus, that's what gives it the Invulnerable save. This is further proof that when GW says Terminator it means a model with Terminator armor.

Seriously, that's three instances of it. It's defined by Games Workshop, they have defined it multiple times.

The same place that defines Terminator armor refers to the users of such as Terminator's.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

The ceramite plates can deflect most conventional assaults, whilst the Crux Terminatus on every Terminator's shoulder plate serves as a ward capable of turning aside even attacks from power weapons or melta fire.

I forgot about this one; it is another instance of Terminator referring to anyone wearing the armor. All Terminator armor has a Crux Terminatus, that's what gives it the Invulnerable save. This is further proof that when GW says Terminator it means a model with Terminator armor.

Seriously, that's three instances of it. It's defined by Games Workshop, they have defined it multiple times.

No it says there is a Crux Terminatus on every "Terminator's" shoulder.
So all terminators have a crux terminatus.

I already covered this and it gets us right back to the logical fallacy of:

All terminators have a crux terminatus
so
All things with a crux terminatus are terminators.


By the way, can we please stop using the fluff at the beginning of the entry to make arguments? First off it doesn't even work in your argument
and 2nd
Otherwise, per the fluff of the terminator entry:
"Terminators are invincible, they are unstoppable and they never yield"

Guess you can't kill my terminators.

Timmah wrote:

barlio wrote:Because it doesn't fricken matter what the definition is.

Terminator armor is something you put on a Spehss Mahreen. When you put Terminator armor on Spehss Mahreens he gets stuff and is restricted in a certain way (as you kindly pointed out).

Heck I'll give you a definition:

Terminator - A veteran Spehss Mahreen who (in reward of years of service and for killing Xenos Scum) is given a suit of ancient armor. He then can continue to kill more Xenos scum in a totally more AWESOME WAY .

You cannot define it yourself, that is RAI.

Yes I can. I will define it however I want. Heck the Emperor wasn't even Human. He was in fact a C'Tan dressed as a human (a bisexual-human as well).

Bolters aren't really bolters. I say they are now Soda-Can Sized Ballistic Missiles. Nanana na naaaaa. *Inserts fingers in ears* nananananannanana THE EMPEROR PROETECTS, THE EMPEROR PROTECTS.

Do you get the point? Anybody can say what they want online and it really doesn't matter. You are splitting hairs and you are doing so in such a way that it is irritating. Who cares what they are (or are not) called? What about the old days of 3rd Edition and Terminator Honors?

barlio wrote:

Yes I can. I will define it however I want. Heck the Emperor wasn't even Human. He was in fact a C'Tan dressed as a human (a bisexual-human as well).

Bolters aren't really bolters. I say they are now Soda-Can Sized Ballistic Missiles. Nanana na naaaaa. *Inserts fingers in ears* nananananannanana THE EMPEROR PROETECTS, THE EMPEROR PROTECTS.

Do you get the point? Anybody can say what they want online and it really doesn't matter. You are splitting hairs and you are doing so in such a way that it is irritating. Who cares what they are (or are not) called? What about the old days of 3rd Edition and Terminator Honors?

No I am discussing a rule on a Rules forum. I have no interest in house rules. I also have no interest in your personal attacks towards me.

I have stayed civil this entire thread yet have been called a rules lawyer and an idiot on multiple occasions.

If you do not want to discuss this, why are you in this thread? No one is forcing you to be. So please either post something constructing or gerrout.

You are being a rules lawyer in this thread.

Really.

I count myself as one more often than not, so take this as personally as you like. I am not saying this because I disagree with your point (I am pretty sure I do), but because I have to nit-pick a LOT to even understand your point.

I've got to say I tuned out of this debate on page 1 but your whole argument is that Terminator armour only slows down people called terminators?

So working through this to make sure I'm following your line of rules .... librarians in terminator armour does not count as two models (in transport) and can embark on rhinos and razorbacks.


Sorry your an idiot. Why is any one even arguing with this fool?

Timmah wrote:No it says there is a Crux Terminatus on every "Terminator's" shoulder.
So all terminators have a crux terminatus.

Saying that only the elite choice labeled "Terminators" have a Crux Terminatus would be illogical, because everyone with the armor has it. Your definition requires the passage to be written illogically, mine does not. Occam's razor says they're using my definition.

By the way, can we please stop using the fluff at the beginning of the entry to make arguments? First off it doesn't even work in your argument
and 2nd
Otherwise, per the fluff of the terminator entry:
"Terminators are invincible, they are unstoppable and they never yield"

I'm not saying that the fluff is rules, I'm saying that the terminology is shown in the fluff. As both are written by Games Workshop, the most logical conclusion is that the terminology is the same.


Games Workshop explicitly calls their models "Terminator Librarians" when referring to a Librarian in Terminator armor. Games Workshop made the term up, they define what it is.

kirsanth wrote:You are being a rules lawyer in this thread.

Really.

I count myself as one more often than not, so take this as personally as you like. I am not saying this because I disagree with your point (I am pretty sure I do), but because I have to nit-pick a LOT to even understand your point.

Why am I? Because you disagree with me? Because my point isn't the popular answer?

Again I am discussing something on a forum where multiple people have agreed with me on my point of view. This is a rules forum, we are suppose to hash our way through different rules. Would you really like it if every post was a question like: "what do I need to roll to hit with my space marine?"

I am not arguing this in a game and I have said I probably won't.
I have not gotten angry once, nor have I yelled at the people countering my argument or called them dumb.

So please tell me how I am a rules lawyer.

(my bet is you go with "your arguing against a popular opinion")

Because you are arguing RAI and RAW at the same time. The discussion seemed to end about 2 pages ago. You yourself stated that Terminators cannot SA. I get that. You are arguing that IC in Terminator Armor does not equal a "Terminator" and therefore since he is not a "Terminator" he may sweeping advance. I get that. Everybody gets that.

Here's the problem, everybody else besides you believes that an IC in Terminator armor ~ Terminator. An IC in Terminator Armor gains both the benefits and the negatives of using such a piece of equipment. Therefore an IC in Termie Armor cannot Sweeping Advance. Your being called a rules Lawyer because you are looking for a distinction that doesn't need to be there.

I don't want to discuss the "ruling" because there is no ruling discussion taking place. If anything you are trying to argue wording. There is a reason why RAW and RAI are two different schools of thought. You say that this isn't a case of RAI, but RAW. You seem to want to follow RAI with everything else except Sweeping Advance. That's Rules Lawyering.

Edit: I get the need for intellectual discussion (in your previous post). I think there are, at points, reasonable discussion on even very basic rules. But this is a "What do I need to hit" that has been boiled down to the marrow.

Tri wrote:I've got to say I tuned out of this debate on page 1 but your whole argument is that Terminator armour only slows down people called terminators?

So working through this to make sure I'm following your line of rules .... librarians in terminator armour does not count as two models (in transport) and can embark on rhinos and razorbacks.


Sorry your an idiot. Why is any one even arguing with this fool?

Again you come in here with attacks about a discussion on a RULES FORUM. Why? No one is forcing you to be here.

Please leave as its obvious you have not read the thread and have fallen to personal attacks.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

barlio wrote:
Here's the problem, everybody else besides you believes that an IC in Terminator armor ~ Terminator. An IC in Terminator Armor gains both the benefits and the negatives of using such a piece of equipment. Therefore an IC in Termie Armor cannot Sweeping Advance. Your being called a rules Lawyer because you are looking for a distinction that doesn't need to be there.

No everyone does not agree with the above. There have been multiple posters in here that have agreed with me that a IC in terminator armor =! a terminator. Also I will state again that the popular answer isn't always correct. So please stop trying to use that as a point of argument.

barlio wrote:
I don't want to discuss the "ruling" because there is no ruling discussion taking place. If anything you are trying to argue wording. There is a reason why RAW and RAI are two different schools of thought. You say that this isn't a case of RAI, but RAW. You seem to want to follow RAI with everything else except Sweeping Advance. That's Rules Lawyering.

So because, per RAW there is no definition of what a terminator is, and I choose not to define it (which I can't, because I would have to make an assumption) than I am rules lawyering?
Sorry but if anything you are the one trying to give a definition to terminator as you have tried to do in your last 30 posts.

The rules of Terminator armor only specify that Terminators cannot SA.

So here we go:

Please link the post where it states that:
"Any model in terminator armor is considered to be a terminator"

Heck, please show me the definition of terminator.

Right, there isn't one. Since there is no definition of terminator, trying to define it would be to make an assumption (RAI).

Did you read my whole post or just the first two sentences?

"I am not saying this because I disagree with your point (I am pretty sure I do), but because I have to nit-pick a LOT to even understand your point."

Popular has nothing to do with it.
No one has EVER asserted this before that I have read or heard. In fact to even understand what you asserting and why, it takes a fair amount of reading and explaining. Even then I do not think it works. Most of your argument has devolved into grammar and demanding definitions of words. From there into the realm of picking sentences from a section and showing how they stand slightly different.

Bare in mind - I previously said I tend to call myself a rules lawyer. I am TFG in most discussions about rules in my groups. Not so much in games, mind you. So I really appreciate the nit-picking you are going to. But you really have to realize you are doing it.

I have often picked up debates lacking information and chosen the wrong side. Gwar! for instance has helped neuter some of my favorite tactics. I will not call him an idiot, dumb, popular, or even spiteful. He was right and proved it in the rules. I would call him a rules lawyer though - and doubt he would whine about it.

I rarely side with popular, I just stay out of the conversation.

For the record I do realize I am nit-picking.
And I have already stated I would not do or even try to do this in a game. (probably)

I am just saying that it provides a discussion of how rules are written vs how we want them to be written. And how much RAI is thrown into our current rules.

I am just saying that in this case we assume any model in terminator armor is a terminator. (very logical and would give it a 99% chance of being correct)
However the problem with this is we assume because we don't have a definition of what a terminator is (outside of the troops entry) (which leads to the problem of whether we take the word at face value or interpret it)

Anyways I see both sides and in any actual game would side with him not being able to SA. However I do think its kinda a quirky situation and by bringing it to GW's attention we might get a better written rule set in the future.


(on a side note, I see your from Oakland, ca. If I send you my Jamarcus Russsell Jersey can you get it signed for me :p )

Than carry on!

That was in response to your commenting that people called you a rules lawyer.



I read your post that you probably would not play this way, and a post saying you may try it at a RTT.

I think it would be really funny if you were right, but I really have a hard time reading it that way. It kind of reminds me of the issue for Tyranids out of synapse, LD, Lurk, or. . . neither?!?!?! I finally understood what made people think there was a third option, but I never thought it was right - or legal.

As for a jersey. . . ummm, let me ask my lady. She is the sports fan.

ah don't even get me started on the horrible wording for instinctive behavior.

That thread would double this one in length.

Timmah wrote:

Tri wrote:I've got to say I tuned out of this debate on page 1 but your whole argument is that Terminator armour only slows down people called terminators?

So working through this to make sure I'm following your line of rules .... librarians in terminator armour does not count as two models (in transport) and can embark on rhinos and razorbacks.


Sorry your an idiot. Why is any one even arguing with this fool?

Again you come in here with attacks about a discussion on a RULES FORUM. Why? No one is forcing you to be here.

Please leave as its obvious you have not read the thread and have fallen to personal attacks.

I stand by what I said. By your reasoning Space Wolves Terminators can sweeping advance, as they are not Space Marine terminators. They also would Only take 1 space on a transport. There's something drastically wrong with a reading of a rule, if 16 Terminator can jump out of a LR crusader and can sweeping advance a unit as it falls back.

I do not have a space wolves codex so I can not comment on what the entry says.

However I believe their codex actually does a good job of cleaning up this rule so that they cannot.

Which, if true, is funny because it means the older codex actually had better written rules than the current one.

Timmah wrote:I do not have a space wolves codex so I can not comment on what the entry says.

However I believe their codex actually does a good job of cleaning up this rule so that they cannot.

Which, if true, is funny because it means the older codex actually had better written rules than the current one.

No. Has no stats for Terminators you're told to see codex SM. Since SW are not SM they are unrestricted by the armour in the same way your saying a Liberian would be. oh and they're called Wolf Guard (they take the amour as an upgrade use as a body guard unit. You can only take 20 wolf guard models in an army)

Roughly speaking you could take them as 3 unit (2 7 man and 1 6man) and they form a retinue with the HQ chosen. Each HQ can boost the squad with 4 wounds ... i mean wolfs. In the back of any LR, or even drop pod.

Then technically I would say you are correct, they can sweeping advance.

However, good luck trying to pull it off anywhere.

Timmah wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:

On the other hand, this armour is somewhat cumbersome, so Space Marine Terminators are not able to purse a more lightly armoured foe when they flee. Terminators cannot perform a Sweeping Advance.

So what does "this armour" refer to? The armour referenced in the previous paragraph, Terminator Armour. What are Space Marine Terminators armoured in? Terminator Armour. What are the quoted rules describing? A piece of Armour classed Wargear called "Terminator Armour".

With this quote you have proved the following:

Terminator armour is cumbersome
Terminators cannot peform a sweeping advance


However you have yet to prove
All units wearing terminator armor are terminators.

Which is my point of contention.

Dude, you are being purposefully blind - both sentences that the Nurglethingy need to read in conjunction not isolation - the first sentence generates the thought and the second one continues it one. The two sentences cannot be separated the way you are trying to

Terminator Armour, Armour, Wargear, Codex: Space Marines p.102 wrote (relying on some else posting this rule correctly):
Due to the powerful exoskeleton and power sources built into their armour, models in Terminator armour have the relentless universal special rule. On the other hand, this armour is somewhat cumbersome, so Space Marine Terminators are not able to purse a more lightly armoured foe when they flee. Terminators cannot perform a Sweeping Advance.

If you cannot see that the two sentences are developing a set of rules for terminator armor there is no point having this conversation because, to be frank, your comprehension skills and logical development skills aren't upto the task. No, that isn't a flame - it is my opinion on your cognative abilities based on your posting in this thread.

I do hate you though for making me agree with the Nurglethingy - that just isn't right!

Timmah wrote:Then technically I would say you are correct, they can sweeping advance.

However, good luck trying to pull it off anywhere.

? I would no more try then I would try it with a Librarian. Ether deserves a smack on the head for being an idiot.

So I was all like, excellent, this rule is as clear as RAW as anything so I *must* have me a Librarian in Terminator Armor in order to use this rule to my full advantage. So I went to GW's site and then to Space Marines and looked at the model...

Space Marine Librarian in Terminator Armor
Baaaaw! He has the old fugly sculpt and isn't on the proper base for Terminators...oh, wait, maybe he doesn't need to be since he's only in Terminator Armor. Huzzah! I bought the piece immediately!

While I was there I saw that Games Workshop had a *lot* of figures listed that aren't even legal for tournament play. I mean, check this idiot out;

Space Marine Terminator Librarian
Buh? What;s this bull-hookie. I looked and I looked in my rulebook and there are *no* rules for this guy. That unit doesn't even EXIST! This is total BS, Games Workshop should only give us figures that they have rules for in the Codex - any codex! What's next, a Space Marine Terminator Captain? How am I supposed to play this game with things they don't give rules for?

So, anyway, after I calmed down I decided to start building up my army of unstoppable sweeping advance Librarians in Terminator Armor, and I was like - gosh, what special rules do my mighty Space Marines (Imma gonna paint them Blue!) get? So I pulled out my trusty Codex and looked up the special rules for my army...

Baaaaaw!

Darn it all, in the section titled "Space Marine Special Rules" it says that figures in my army have special rules it says "Space Marines automatically pass tests to regroup" NOWHERE does it say my Librarian Unit has this, nor does my Terminator unit. It also doesn't say that all models in my army are Space Marines! This is bull-hookey! Oh, wait, under special rules it still gives me that ability...aha! Loophole! I am saved! But wait, even though it says I HAVE the special ability...when I read the special ability it only affects "Space Marines" and nowhere in the rules of my Librarian is he called a Space Marine, right there on his stat line he's clearly a Librarian. Darn! Why give him a special rule he can't use? It also says Servitors only get this if they have a Space Marine with them, but I looked, and it's impossible to put a Space Marine with Servitors - you can only use those Master of the Forge units. Oh well, back to reading about my new supah Librarian in Terminator Armor unit...
...
...
...

OH NOES!!! I am undone! From the Codex it states "Terminator Armor is the best protection a Space Marine can be equipped with" A Librarian cannot equip Terminator Armor! Arrrgh! Why does GW sell these models we can't use!?!

Timmah! Quick, ya gotta help! I looked in the rules and I can't find where it tells me a Librarian (or that weirdly described under psychic powers "Space Marine Librarian" for which there are no stats) can equip Terminator Armor. Hurry, I need to know where in the rules it says a Librarian is also a Space Marine! HELP Obi-wan-Timmah, you're my only hope of sweeping advances!

I'm loving that everyone is actually going against what Timmah has been saying this whole time now.

Nurglitch wrote:

P1. All models equipped with Terminator Armour are Terminators.
P2. Terminators cannot perform sweeping advances.
P3 Librarians can be equipped with Terminator Armour
C. Librarians equipped with Terminator Armour cannot perform sweeping advances.

P1 is an assumption. It is not stated in the rules *and* it cannot be inferred by any sound argument from the rules. If I'm wrong, please show me the argument. Otherwise, this argument is unsound.

That's the whole gist of the argument as far as I'm concerned.

Kaaihn wrote:"Terminator" and "Space Marine Terminator" are used specifically in the rules for Wargear: Terminator Armour to describe and provide rules for Wargear: Terminator Armour.

Any model wearing Wargear: Terminator Armour has those specific phrases applied to them via their Terminator Armour. A model wearing Terminator Armour becomes referred to as both a "Terminator" and a "Space Marine Terminator" by the rules for Terminator Armour.

It really is that simple folks.

This is a nice summation of where we get Premise #1 from. So yes, the argument is sound.

Nurglitch wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:"Terminator" and "Space Marine Terminator" are used specifically in the rules for Wargear: Terminator Armour to describe and provide rules for Wargear: Terminator Armour.

Any model wearing Wargear: Terminator Armour has those specific phrases applied to them via their Terminator Armour. A model wearing Terminator Armour becomes referred to as both a "Terminator" and a "Space Marine Terminator" by the rules for Terminator Armour.

It really is that simple folks.

This is a nice summation of where we get Premise #1 from. So yes, the argument is sound.

That's not an argument. I need premises that are either (1) quotes of rules or (2) sound conclusions of arguments from rules. This looks to me like the same appeal to "context" and equivocation fallacy on the word "terminator."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And just to head off any possible misreading of what I'm really saying here and make sure we're all on the same rhetorical page:

A valid argument is an argument whose conclusion follows logically from its premises. If the premises of a valid argument are true, the conclusion is true.

A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are *known* to be true.

So any time you make an assumption, or read anything from context (which cannot be stated explicitly with a quote or sound inference from rules) you are in the place where you no longer know if your premises are true. They might be true, or they might not, but since you don't know for sure, the argument is unsound.

Personally I think Tim, and Flavious have a point. Using strict logic and the rules as written and nothing else I would agree with them.

However, since there is contention about the rules, they need to be read in context. Again the context being this a hobby game for say an average reasonable person aged 14 years +.

I get that some people are accountants or engineers etc, have a preference for clearly defined rules. However you must realise that this flies in the face of a hobby that is easy to get into (let's not argue this point) and fun to play.
By laboriously writing out every rule, like a law or legal contract I would argue detracts from the gaming experience. People who prefer strict rules need to realise this.


Perhaps another way to look at this.

Hypothesis 1: Terminator Librarians can Sweeping Advance

Hypothesis 2: Terminator Librarians cannot Sweeping Advance

If we are to assume one of these being true, which one has the highest "cost", where cost is benefit you gain from being sweeping advance (assuming cost of no sweeping advance is not the same) + counting as one space in troop transport.

Which ever Hypothesis has the lower cost, should tend to be the hypothesis that we assume.

We don't know what a Terminator is. Games Workshop wrote the word, so they must define it.

If a Terminator (referred to in the entry for Terminator armor) is the elite choice only then the following must be true:

(a) Games Workshop has stated that the elite choice Terminators have a Crux Terminatus while ignoring the fact that all Terminator armor - and by extension everyone wearing Terminator armor - has a Crux Terminatus in the shoulder. They also do this without clearly changing the subject from the armor.

(b) Games Workshop has listed a drawback that only applies to an elite choice in the army in the section of the codex that applies to every model wearing Terminator armor, and they once again do so abruptly changing the subject of the sentence from the armor and those who wear it to a specific elite choice in the army.

(c) The Terminator Captain, Terminator Librarian, and Chaos Terminator Lord are all mislabelled, as they are not Terminators simply because they wear Terminator armor.

If Terminator means any model wearing Terminator armor, none of these issues arise.

Occam's razor states that all else being equal the simplest solution is most likely the correct one. As there is no evidence to the contrary, we must logically assume that "Terminator" refers to any model wearing the armor.

Rules as Written requires the use of reading what has been written down, and writing requires context and inferences as to what the subject matter is to make sense. For example, Mad Dok Grotsnik's rules say that "He is Fearless". This means nothing if you can't infer "He" to mean Mad Dok Grotsnik. Reading without inference is impossible, thus abiding by rules as they are written down without inference is impossible.

Well put Orkeosaurus

Well said, Orkeosaurus, and I agree with what you said.

However, your entire argument is inductive (therefore unsound by definition). Occam's Razor in particular is used with inductive arguments where a conclusion can never be sound, and so you need it. In a closed semantic world like a set of rules, though, deductive argument is possible--and works better because you can know for sure that your conclusions are "true" according to the rules.

I'm still pretty sure there is no sound deductive argument that can contradict Timmah's reading.

You have the semantic definition of a valid argument down pat, but your definition of soundness does not get full marks. A sound argument is an argument that is valid, and whose premises are true. Whether you know an assumption to be true or not is irrelevant to the property of soundness.

'Assumption' is a synonym for 'premises', by the way. Whether those assumptions (aka premises) are justified is a matter of epistemology, not logic.

Let me point out something like Kaaihn's argument again:

Argument that models being equipped with Terminator Armour are Terminators.

P1. When an item [of equipment] is unique, it is detailed in the following entry for its owner, and where an item is not unique, it is detailed in the wargear section. (Equipment, Forces of the Space Marines, Codex: Space Marines, p.51)

P2. Terminator Armour is detailed in the wargear section. (Terminator Armour, Armour, Wargear, Codex: Space Marines, p.102)

C. Therefore, references to models equipped, wearing, or in Terminator Armour and references to Terminators in the rules for Terminator Armour refer to the same thing: the rules for models equipped with Terminator Armour.

In other words, models equipped with Terminator Armour are Terminators, for the purposes of the rules regarding Terminator Armour. Therefore, the following argument is sound, and its conclusion is thus true.

P1. All models equipped with Terminator Armour are Terminators. (p.51 & p.102)

P2. Terminators cannot perform sweeping advances. (p.102)

P3 Librarians can be equipped with Terminator Armour (p.133)

C. Librarians equipped with Terminator Armour cannot perform sweeping advances.

Nurglitch wrote:
'Assumption' is a synonym for 'premises', by the way. Whether those assumptions (aka premises) are justified is a matter of epistemology, not logic.

In the real universe, yes. In the closed world of a set of game rules, no. The epistemology of a game goes like this: in the rules, everything that is a quotation of a rule or the conclusion of a sound argument from the rules is, by definition, true.

I habitually use "known to be true" because experience with students has taught me that it makes more sense when I talk about this stuff. But for the sake of this discussion I'll concede the point and say "true" instead.

Nurglitch wrote:
Let me point out something like Kaaihn's argument again:

Argument that models being equipped with Terminator Armour are Terminators.

P1. When an item [of equipment] is unique, it is detailed in the following entry for its owner, and where an item is not unique, it is detailed in the wargear section. (Equipment, Forces of the Space Marines, Codex: Space Marines, p.51)

P2. Terminator Armour is detailed in the wargear section. (Terminator Armour, Armour, Wargear, Codex: Space Marines, p.102)

C. Therefore, references to models equipped, wearing, or in Terminator Armour and references to Terminators in the rules for Terminator Armour refer to the same thing: the rules for models equipped with Terminator Armour.

Not even valid, much less sound.

The only valid conclusion you can draw from these two premises is "Terminator Armor is not unique." If that can be spun out into the conclusion that you want, then that argument is not here yet.

And, just to anticipate what I think is about to be your argument, it would be an error of composition to claim that because terminator armor is worn by both terminators and librarians, that makes a librarian in terminator armor a terminator.

The second part of the argument is sound, but you still haven't shown P1 is true.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Well said, Orkeosaurus, and I agree with what you said.

However, your entire argument is inductive (therefore unsound by definition). Occam's Razor in particular is used with inductive arguments where a conclusion can never be sound, and so you need it. In a closed semantic world like a set of rules, though, deductive argument is possible--and works better because you can know for sure that your conclusions are "true" according to the rules.

I'm still pretty sure there is no sound deductive argument that can contradict Timmah's reading.

But Timmah has no deductive argument himself. All he has is the claim that others have to incontestably prove him wrong, or he's right.

The English language - whether spoken or written - requires the use of inductive reasoning for it's function. Trying to apply the rules without inductive reasoning is not applying the Rules as Written, it's applying the rules according to an arbitrary set of standards. In that regard, I see no reason why my reasoning would have to meet these standards, as they are not the standards of RaW, nor are they standards I think are worthwhile to be beholden to in a case such as this.

Nurglitch wrote:You have the semantic definition of a valid argument down pat, but your definition of soundness does not get full marks. A sound argument is an argument that is valid, and whose premises are true. Whether you know an assumption to be true or not is irrelevant to the property of soundness.

'Assumption' is a synonym for 'premises', by the way. Whether those assumptions (aka premises) are justified is a matter of epistemology, not logic.

Let me point out something like Kaaihn's argument again:

Argument that models being equipped with Terminator Armour are Terminators.

P1. When an item [of equipment] is unique, it is detailed in the following entry for its owner, and where an item is not unique, it is detailed in the wargear section. (Equipment, Forces of the Space Marines, Codex: Space Marines, p.51)

P2. Terminator Armour is detailed in the wargear section. (Terminator Armour, Armour, Wargear, Codex: Space Marines, p.102)

C. Therefore, references to models equipped, wearing, or in Terminator Armour and references to Terminators in the rules for Terminator Armour refer to the same thing: the rules for models equipped with Terminator Armour.

In other words, models equipped with Terminator Armour are Terminators, for the purposes of the rules regarding Terminator Armour. Therefore, the following argument is sound, and its conclusion is thus true.

P1. All models equipped with Terminator Armour are Terminators. (p.51 & p.102)

P2. Terminators cannot perform sweeping advances. (p.102)

P3 Librarians can be equipped with Terminator Armour (p.133)

C. Librarians equipped with Terminator Armour cannot perform sweeping advances.

As much as I hate to say it, the reasoning is sound and the conclusions drawn from it are sound.

Seeing as everyone has through out ever other type of argument ....... if it walks like a duck, quakes like a duck then can it get to the top level of a building.

Seriously, why wouldn't a model wearing TA not follow the rules for TA as in the wear gear section? That to me seems illogical - especially if you read the two sentences in conjuction with each other.

Orkeosaurus wrote:But Timmah has no deductive argument himself.

This is Timmah's deductive argument:
P1 "When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance." (p40)
P2 A librarian in Terminator armor who wins close combat is the victor
C: When a unit falls back from combat, a librarian in terminator armor makes a sweeping advance.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
All he has is the claim that others have to incontestably prove him wrong, or he's right.

Correct that if Timmah had done this, it would be the "shifting the burden of proof" fallacy. But he hasn't done that. The original argument, that the RAW gives librarians permission to perform a sweeping advance, is already out there as "proof" in the deductive argument above. No one has been able to refute the argument.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
The English language - whether spoken or written - requires the use of inductive reasoning for it's function. Trying to apply the rules without inductive reasoning is not applying the Rules as Written, it's applying the rules according to an arbitrary set of standards. In that regard, I see no reason why my reasoning would have to meet these standards, as they are not the standards of RaW, nor are they standards I think are worthwhile to be beholden to in a case such as this.

Again, in the real world that is true. In the closed world of a game system (itself an arbitrary set of standards) deductive logic is the only way to produce consistently true conclusions.

Admittedly, deductive logic is--at it's root--an arbitrary system. But it is different from other arbitrary systems in that someone who follows the rules correctly will always get the same results. So unlike inductive arguments about intentions and context, deductive reasoning can produce results that everybody can agree are true according to the rules.

Again, doesn't say anything about the way the game should be played--only about the literal meanings of statements in the rules.

Well....I have one argument. Just one, but still.

RAW I think Timmah is right. But that doesn't matter. RAW and RAI don't have a single thing on how rules work.

Although Timmah is right, RAW, it's not RAW or even RAI that governs rules. It's the players themselves. If I tried getting my Librarian to SA with Termie armor, I'd probably be called a "Blatant Cheater" amongst other things.

So while both sides have perfectly valid reasoning, I believe that it's truly not up to us to decide.

Flavius Infernus wrote:This is Timmah's deductive argument:
P1 "When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance." (p40)
P2 A librarian in Terminator armor who wins close combat is the victor
C: When a unit falls back from combat, a librarian in terminator armor makes a sweeping advance.

Ah, I meant he had no deductive argument for a Terminator not being a model with Terminator armor.

I don't see the debate being relevant beyond that point, that's the entire point of contention.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Correct that if Timmah had done this, it would be the "shifting the burden of proof" fallacy. But he hasn't done that. The original argument, that the RAW gives librarians permission to perform a sweeping advance, is already out there as "proof" in the deductive argument above. No one has been able to refute the argument.

As said, I was reffering to the claim that a Terminator wasn't any model in Terminator armor. His problem wasn't that he shifted the burden of proof, so much as he raised the standard of proof to a level inconsistent with use of the English language.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Again, in the real world that is true. In the closed world of a game system (itself an arbitrary set of standards) deductive logic is the only way to produce consistently true conclusions.

Except it's not, because those rules are still written with the English language.

If they were expressed in some sort hypothetical form of communication that required no inductive reasoning we wouldn't have this problem, but that's not what modern, English writting is.

Admittedly, deductive logic is--at it's root--an arbitrary system. But it is different from other arbitrary systems in that someone who follows the rules correctly will always get the same results. So unlike inductive arguments about intentions and context, deductive reasoning can produce results that everybody can agree are true according to the rules.

Again, doesn't say anything about the way the game should be played--only about the literal meanings of statements in the rules.

Only if definitions are agreed on.

In this case, it's the definition of a word that's caused the entireity of the problem.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:This is Timmah's deductive argument:
P1 "When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance." (p40)
P2 A librarian in Terminator armor who wins close combat is the victor
C: When a unit falls back from combat, a librarian in terminator armor makes a sweeping advance.

Ah, I meant he had no deductive argument for a Terminator not being a model with Terminator armor.

I don't see the debate being relevant beyond that point, that's the entire point of contention.

Aha! This is shifting the burden of proof on the part of the people who argue against Timmah's argument.

The rules do not state that librarians in terminator armor are terminators, and it can't be inferred from the rules in a sound deductive argument, so it's not true that librarians in terminator armor are terminators--according to the rules.

It's incumbent upon the party making the claim to show evidence that the claim is true. That's not shifting; the burden of proof to show that librarians in terminator armor are terminators is yours to begin with.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
If they were expressed in some sort hypothetical form of communication that required no inductive reasoning we wouldn't have this problem, but that's not what modern, English writting is.

And here's where the judgment call comes in; I believe the language here is clear enough to make a sound deductive argument. That's not always the case, but in this case IMO, it is.

But once we start stating opinions, we're heavily into inductive land. Now it becomes a question of which argument is persuasive, and I'll let my arguments stand on their own at that point.

Cryonicleech wrote:Well....I have one argument. Just one, but still.

RAW I think Timmah is right. But that doesn't matter. RAW and RAI don't have a single thing on how rules work.

Although Timmah is right, RAW, it's not RAW or even RAI that governs rules. It's the players themselves. If I tried getting my Librarian to SA with Termie armor, I'd probably be called a "Blatant Cheater" amongst other things.

So while both sides have perfectly valid reasoning, I believe that it's truly not up to us to decide.

Best comment yet.

Well, besides mine of course. But that goes without saying.

DoW

This is the da best thread.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Aha! This is shifting the burden of proof on the part of the people who argue against Timmah's argument.

The rules do not state that librarians in terminator armor are terminators, and it can't be inferred from the rules in a sound deductive argument, so it's not true that librarians in terminator armor are terminators--according to the rules.

Only if you believe that the rules can only be the product of deductive reasoning. Which isn't consistent with Rules as Written, or really, anything as written.

P1 "when a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a sweeping advance" however is an unsound premise on its face, since we are all agreed that if the victors are terminators then they do NOT make a sweeping advance. The premise is ignoring established facts and cannot be used as stated.

There is no literal definition as to what a terminator is in 40k game terms .... just as there is no flat ironclad definition of most terms in the game. Most of the terms we must interpret from an implied definition.

It all comes down to how we are defining context. It appears that the arguements for the librarian not being affected by the terminator rules are restricting context to single sentences. Given that the rules in question are all subrules under the heading of terminator armor perhaps they should be examined int hat context?


We also need to consider the overall context of the 40k rules and how DW writes these rules. Is GW alwasy precise and use exactly the same word to describe the same item/ unit in every case? Or does GW freely interchange some terms but mean the same thing? Context is not limited to a sentence, and limiting our understanding of the rules to one sentence at a time taken out of context is what tends to draw the perjorative terms such as rules lawyering.

Is there any other usage in the rules that would imply that models wearing terminator armor are not the same as terminators? That would lend credence to the arguement that there is a difference in the rules. Unless some further text can be supplied that in some ways wearing terminator armor and being called terminators is not just a short hand wording format then we are left with the clear implication that they are the same.



Sliggoth

Wasn't this cleared up within the first three posts on the first page?

Where is the lock?

Flavius,

The problem with the argument you've been supporting is that it completely ignores the logical structure of the way the rules (sentences) are presented.


P1. There is a section in codex space marines that details the rules for [models wearing] terminator armor.
P2. Librarians wearing terminator armor follow the rules for terminator armor.

C1. Librarians in Terminator armor must follow all the rules presented in the section for [models wearing] terminator armor.



You cannot simply ignore the fact that the section clearly defines that it is a set of rules FOR terminator armor. So it doesn't matter what terminology is used to then describe the model wearing terminator within that passage, it is still referring to the same thing because it is a specific section of the rules dealing with a specific piece of wargear (terminator armor).



For example, if I made a piece of wargear called a "Locator Beacon" (I know it exists, but that isn't important) and it had a clearly defined section of rules entitled "Locator Beacon", it wouldn't matter if within that section if I referred to it simply as "the beacon", because of the context of the formatting this rule would clearly apply to the "Locator Beacon".

Or if I buy a car manual for a specific make and model and within that manual it says something like: "If the car suffers a flat tire, fix it as detailed here." Obviously these instructions are not referring to any car in general, but specifically to the make and model the owners manual is written for.

Sliggoth wrote:P1 "when a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a sweeping advance" however is an unsound premise on its face, since we are all agreed that if the victors are terminators then they do NOT make a sweeping advance. The premise is ignoring established facts and cannot be used as stated.

Point of order: arguments, not premises, are sound or unsound.

We are all agreed that terminators do not make a sweeping advance, true. But the argument does not claim that a librarian in terminator armor is a terminator, so the rule is irrelevant.

Sliggoth wrote:There is no literal definition as to what a terminator is in 40k game terms

Factually incorrect. A terminator is one of the models defined in the army list entries on page 136--that little spot where it says like "4 terminators?"

Sliggoth wrote:
.... just as there is no flat ironclad definition of most terms in the game. Most of the terms we must interpret from an implied definition.

This is an argumentem ad absurdem based on an error of composition. Just because we can't figure out the definitions of some things doesn't mean we can't figure out the definitions of *anything.*

Sliggoth wrote:
It all comes down to how we are defining context. It appears that the arguements for the librarian not being affected by the terminator rules are restricting context to single sentences. Given that the rules in question are all subrules under the heading of terminator armor perhaps they should be examined int hat context?

Non-explicit context is not part of a deductive argument. I do not believe the heading can be used as support for an argument that a librarian wearing terminator armor is a terminator (and believe me, I thought about it). If I'm wrong, please show me the argument.

Sliggoth wrote:
We also need to consider the overall context of the 40k rules and how DW writes these rules. Is GW alwasy precise and use exactly the same word to describe the same item/ unit in every case? Or does GW freely interchange some terms but mean the same thing? Context is not limited to a sentence, and limiting our understanding of the rules to one sentence at a time taken out of context is what tends to draw the perjorative terms such as rules lawyering.

Again, the ad absurdem with a veiled ad baculum where you threaten people with the label "rules lawyer."

Sliggoth wrote:Is there any other usage in the rules that would imply that models wearing terminator armor are not the same as terminators? That would lend credence to the arguement that there is a difference in the rules. Unless some further text can be supplied that in some ways wearing terminator armor and being called terminators is not just a short hand wording format then we are left with the clear implication that they are the same.

Shifting the burden of proof: you only need one rule that says you can do something in order to be able to do it. There is only one rule that says infantry models move up to 6". Are you prepared to refuse that as a "true" rule unless you have some other support for it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yakface wrote:
Flavius,

The problem with the argument you've been supporting is that it completely ignores the logical structure of the way the rules (sentences) are presented.


P1. There is a section in codex space marines that details the rules for [models wearing] terminator armor.
P2. Librarians wearing terminator armor follow the rules for terminator armor.

C1. Librarians in Terminator armor must follow all the rules presented in the section for [models wearing] terminator armor.



You cannot simply ignore the fact that the section clearly defines that it is a set of rules FOR terminator armor. So it doesn't matter what terminology is used to then describe the model wearing terminator within that passage, it is still referring to the same thing because it is a specific section of the rules dealing with a specific piece of wargear (terminator armor).



For example, if I made a piece of wargear called a "Locator Beacon" (I know it exists, but that isn't important) and it had a clearly defined section of rules entitled "Locator Beacon", it wouldn't matter if within that section if I referred to it simply as "the beacon", because of the context of the formatting this rule would clearly apply to the "Locator Beacon".

Or if I buy a car manual for a specific make and model and within that manual it says something like: "If the car suffers a flat tire, fix it as detailed here." Obviously these instructions are not referring to any car in general, but specifically to the make and model the owners manual is written for.

Yak, I agree with you in principle. That's why I have never anywhere in this thread claimed that librarians can or should be allowed to sweep while wearing terminator armor.

All I have argued is that Timmah's original argument is deductively sound. I think my claim is right.

But, yeah, I'm starting to feel like this thread has run it's course too. Probably and then some.

So in paragraph 1 we establish that 'Terminator' and 'Terminator Armor' can be used interchangeably. Specifically Sentences 2 and 3 where 'Terminator Armor' and 'Terminator' are used interchangeably. The game piece is marketed as 'Terminator Librarian' and 'Space Marine Librarian in Terminator Armor' Terminator is again used interchangeably in the entry on Terminators (C:SM p64 pp2-3)

Being that these entries are all contained within the Space Marines codex and are subject to the special rules for Space Marines one could reasonably conclude that 'Librarian' and 'Terminator' also qualify as being a 'Space Marine'.

Given that we accept 'Space Marine Librarian'/ 'Librarian' and 'Space Marine Terminator'/'Terminator' are each interchangeable there is no reason that our logic should not maintain its consistency in regards to 'Terminator Armor' and 'Terminator'.

The inability to make a sweeping advance is therefore reasonably tied to the armor.

Timmah wrote:I am just saying that in this case we assume any model in terminator armor is a terminator.

We don't assume it. We know it as fact because the rules for the piece of wargear called Terminator Armor refers to itself as "Terminators" in its own rules.

Flavius Infernus:

I would agree with you except I believe it has been established that we differ on what constitutes a rule. You, it seems, believe that the text of the rule is the statement of the rule, as if the rules were written in a formal language. But the rules are not written in a formal language, and hence the expression of the rules, the text, is not the statement of the rules, and determining what rule-structures the rule-text is referring to is a matter of epistemology because logic is neutral with regard to knowledge.

My experience with students has taught me that telling them "known to be true" is a good way of confusing the issue when it comes to what logic is, and how to apply it.

Now, you suppose my argument to be invalid, but you offer no proof of how it is invalid except to suggest what you suppose to be the "only valid conclusion".

Let me expand that argument for you, so that you can follow along, and each step in the argument will be following by a note in brackets about either its origin or the logical rule used to deduce it:

Terminator Armour References All Models Equipped with Terminator Armour, Not Just Terminators
P1. When an item [of equipment] is unique, it is detailed in the following entry for its owner, and where an item is not unique, it is detailed in the wargear section. (Equipment, Forces of the Space Marines, Codex: Space Marines, p.51)

P2. Terminator Armour is detailed in the wargear section. (Terminator Armour, Armour, Wargear, Codex: Space Marines, p.102)

3. When an item of equipment is unique, it is detailed in the following entry for its owner. (Simplification, 1)

4. Where an item of is not unique, it is detailed in the wargear section. (Simplification, 1)

5. Terminator Armour is not unique (Modus Ponens, 4 & 2)

6. Either an item of equipment is unique, or it is not detailed in the following entry for its owner (Material Implication, 3)

7. Terminator Armour is an item of equipment (Instantiation, 2)

8. Terminator Armour is not detailed in the following entry for its owner (Disjunctive Syllogism, 6 & 7)

9. Terminator Armour is not unique and is not detailed in the following entry for its owner. (Conjunction, 5 & 8)

10. Terminator Armour is not unique to Terminators and Terminator Armour is not detailed in the Terminator entry. (Instantiation, 9)

11. The details of being equipped with Terminator Armour are not unique to Terminators (Equivalence, 10)

C. Therefore, references to models equipped, wearing, or in Terminator Armour and references to Terminators in the rules for Terminator Armour refer to the same thing: the rules for models equipped with Terminator Armour. (Expansion, 11)

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Sliggoth wrote:There is no literal definition as to what a terminator is in 40k game terms

Factually incorrect. A terminator is one of the models defined in the army list entries on page 136--that little spot where it says like "4 terminators?"

Really?

Where is this stated?

"Terminator" is only refered to in the sections proving you are wrong.

kirsanth wrote:

kirsanth wrote:"Terminator" is used three times in the actual rules.

Exactly the same number of times as "models in Terminator armor"

"Tactical Dreadnaught Armor" is used once, and "Space Marine Terminator" once also.

Which ones do we ignore?

It comes down to a basic understanding of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and all those lovely things we call grammar.

Terminator = Noun
Terminator Armour = Used as adjective


You are making the supposition that the word Terminator is always used as a noun not as a descriptive adjective.

Hollismason wrote:It comes down to a basic understanding of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and all those lovely things we call grammar.

Terminator = Noun
Terminator Armour = Used as adjective


You are making the supposition that the word Terminator is always used as a noun not as a descriptive adjective.

It is used as "Terminator armour". Not "Terminator Armour".

Easily and most commonly read as different.

Nurglitch wrote:

11. The details of being equipped with Terminator Armour are not unique to Terminators (Equivalence, 10)

C. Therefore, references to models equipped, wearing, or in Terminator Armour and references to Terminators in the rules for Terminator Armour refer to the same thing: the rules for models equipped with Terminator Armour. (Expansion, 11)

There's the invalid jump, Nurg.

Thanks for the exhaustive explication, by the way. Everything up to the conclusion I agree with. I'm going to reframe my point in terms of propositional logic, because that's more what I'm used to. If I make an error in translation, please let me know.

So 11 says "If a unit is equipped with Terminator Armour, it shares some features with Terminators."

The conclusion says "Therefore all units equipped with Terminator Armor share all features of Terminators."

Still looks like an error of composition to me. What am I missing?

Flavius Infernus wrote:
A very solid inductive argument, with which I agree. But, alas, inductive, therefore unsound.

I Disagree.
Inductive reasoning (Cogency) requires a situation to define it as false, rather than being false by the nature of being inductive. The argument against is inconsistent because it depends on the burden of proof being on my reasoning rather than any evidence. The probability that Timmuh's argument is correct is further reduced based on how long the SM codex has been available.
If we choose to define this situation by deductive reasoning then there needs be a method to disprove* the hypothesis in question.

edit: Bad language on my part. Disprove isn't as correct as making my position falsifiable (since this isn't really something we can experiment against.). Making my position falsifiable pretty much requires cheating being an valid option within the ruleset, or a statement to clarify from the author of the ruleset.

Nope, that's a valid application of the rule of expansion.

The details of being equipped with Terminator Armour are listed under the entry for Terminator Armour (Armour, Wargear, Codex: Space Marines, p.102). These details include references to models in Terminator armour, models wearing Terminator armour, models equipped with Terminator armour, and Terminators.

These details are not unique to Terminators.

Since one of the details is a reference to Terminators, and it is a detail that is not unique to Terminators, and the other details are not unique to Terminators, and the scope of the details are fixed by being unique to Terminator Armour, then an identity is established.

Incidentally, any reference to operations involving quantity requires a predicate logic: propositional logics can't handle quantity. Also, please don't address me as "Nurg". It's offensive.

Oldgrue: good argument. Unfortunately I didn't claim that the inductive argument was false; I claimed that it was unsound.

An unsound argument may still be true. Or it may be false. It's unsound because we don't know whether it is true or false.

There is a method of disproving the deductive conclusion (if that's what you mean). Show a sound deductive argument that contradicts or modifies the original argument.

Nurglitch wrote: Also, please don't address me as "Nurg". It's offensive.

I dunno "Nurg" has quite the ring to it - Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg, Nurg,

Say it enough times and I am sure you will come to like it.

Prefer it to Nurglethingywhatchmatcallit or Nurglethingy

Nuuuuuurg if you say it with a deep resonating voice even adds some mystery to it.

fullheadofhair wrote: Nuuuuuurg if you say it with a deep resonating voice even adds some mystery to it.

"Say it loud and there's music playing.

Say it soft and it's almost like praying..."



All joking aside, if he asked you not to use it, you should probably respect that.


And what's with all the Philosophy 101 people coming out of the woodwork all of a sudden? I thought I was the only one who got a BS in BS...

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote: Nuuuuuurg if you say it with a deep resonating voice even adds some mystery to it.

"Say it loud and there's music playing.

Say it soft and it's almost like praying..."



All joking aside, if he asked you not to use it, you should probably respect that.

I dunno, if I can be offensive without resorting to the usually foul selection of words and phrase I think it is w1n for me. Or I could grow up, put down my beer and ... I dunno, totally lost track of that thought. It was going somewhere.

Has anyone thought that if Timmah is right then assualt terminators could sweeping advance. Personally I would say Timmah is right, BUT and this is a big but I wouldn't use it unless I was playing someone and they pointed it out. Aswell as the fact that I don't have a space marine army

Philosophy is funny. Take the kind of guys that argue everything is a figment of their imagination and just can't be persuaded otherwise with any reasonable argument. The only solution is to kick them in the groin, then say "you must hate yourself very much to do that".

Flavius Infernus wrote:
Think of it this way: if you were going to write the rules in such a way that you *wanted* to allow librarians to sweep but not allow terminators, how would you write the rules? You would write them exactly as they are written here.

No, in that circumstance the "no sweeping advance" rule would go into the terminator squad entries - not into the terminator armour section in the wargear list (thus implying that it effects everyone that wears that armour)

Meh, I cut my eyeteeth in "logic" in the most painful mathematics class of my (unfortunately lengthy) mathematical career: Discrete Mathematics. So for me, this is Logic, branch of Math, rather than Logic, branch of Philo.

A REMINDER.

STOP personal attacks.

Debate the POINT, not the USER.

If you CANNOT do these things, either IGNORE (literally or figuratively, your choice!) the USER in question.

ALSO, keep ON TOPIC.

Thanks!

Nurglitch wrote:Nope, that's a valid application of the rule of expansion.

The details of being equipped with Terminator Armour are listed under the entry for Terminator Armour (Armour, Wargear, Codex: Space Marines, p.102). These details include references to models in Terminator armour, models wearing Terminator armour, models equipped with Terminator armour, and Terminators.

These details are not unique to Terminators.

Since one of the details is a reference to Terminators, and it is a detail that is not unique to Terminators, and the other details are not unique to Terminators, and the scope of the details are fixed by being unique to Terminator Armour, then an identity is established.

Incidentally, any reference to operations involving quantity requires a predicate logic: propositional logics can't handle quantity. Also, please don't address me as "Nurg". It's offensive.

Right, this is where I think predicate calculus--while perfectly legitimate for the uses for which it was designed--breaks down as a method for reading game rules literally. When you apply operations of revision theory--expansion in particular--you're allowing for a different level of vagueness, which in working with real-world propositions is a strength. In a real world setting, any errors introduced by applying the rule of expansion, contraction, analogy would be ironed out in testing.

But there is no real-world testing for a game system. In the real world when you theorize that a librarian in terminator armor can't sweep, you would go out and observe an actual termie librarian in combat and notice whether or not he sweeps, and come back and revise your theory accordingly.

But in the closed world of the game system, the words of the rules are the only evidence that exists. So predicate calculus used semantically or lexically on the rules works like a shell game that allows you to move to any conclusion that you want while introducing all kinds of potential errors that can never be caught. It's like a shell game where you never get to look under the shells.

That's why I believe that the parts of good old-fashioned Aristotelian dialectic that usually are shortcomings actually become strengths in this case. It allows you to keep the granularity fixed in an admittedly simple-minded way that minimizes the possibility of introducing errors. It allows you to get at what can be known to be correct according to the available evidence (when the meaning can be determined at all).

Then, after that, everybody can run off and theorize about what is meant or intended or whatever. Which is fine by me.

Nurglitch wrote:

Since one of the details is a reference to Terminators, and it is a detail that is not unique to Terminators, and the other details are not unique to Terminators, and the scope of the details are fixed by being unique to Terminator Armour, then an identity is established.

I would say that detail/reference is unique to terminators. The fluff before it is not, however fluff is not really game rules. If so, then my quote from the fluff about terminators being invincible would be applicable.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:
Think of it this way: if you were going to write the rules in such a way that you *wanted* to allow librarians to sweep but not allow terminators, how would you write the rules? You would write them exactly as they are written here.

No, in that circumstance the "no sweeping advance" rule would go into the terminator squad entries - not into the terminator armour section in the wargear list (thus implying that it effects everyone that wears that armour)

Somebody already mentioned that the same wargear can work differently with different unit types. Tyranid biomorphs are the example already given. Grey Knight force halberds are an example specifically of a case where the way that the same wargear works differently for different models/units is specified in the wargear entry, not the unit entries.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Somebody already mentioned that the same wargear can work differently with different unit types. Tyranid biomorphs are the example already given. Grey Knight force halberds are an example specifically of a case where the way that the same wargear works differently for different models/units is specified in the wargear entry, not the unit entries.

People complained because tyranid weapon biomorphs only work different in the strength of the gun. However if Grey knight force halberds indeed function differently (more than just strength) and it is only defined in the rules for the wargear than I think we have presedence.
(I can't check it atm, without my DH codex til later today.)

Timmah wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Somebody already mentioned that the same wargear can work differently with different unit types. Tyranid biomorphs are the example already given. Grey Knight force halberds are an example specifically of a case where the way that the same wargear works differently for different models/units is specified in the wargear entry, not the unit entries.

People complained because tyranid weapon biomorphs only work different in the strength of the gun. However if Grey knight force halberds indeed function differently (more than just strength) and it is only defined in the rules for the wargear than I think we have presedence.
(I can't check it atm, without my DH codex til later today.)

Yep, the DH codex wargear list has an entry for "Nemesis Force Weapons" that contains a table showing that the item has different properties for different models within a unit (power weapon for justicars, non-power for grunts) and also different properties for different unit types (power weapon for terminators, force weapon for GK grand masters, not force weapon for GK captains & others). The properties of the weapon are not referred to in the unit entries, only in the wargear list.

Not that a precedent was necessary for the central argument since argument from precedent is inductive. But it is there.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Yep, the DH codex wargear list has an entry for "Nemesis Force Weapons" that contains a table showing that the item has different properties for different models within a unit (power weapon for justicars, non-power for grunts) and also different properties for different unit types (power weapon for terminators, force weapon for GK grand masters, not force weapon for GK captains & others). The properties of the weapon are not referred to in the unit entries, only in the wargear list.

Not that a precedent was necessary for the central argument since argument from precedent is inductive. But it is there.

Yes, but now we show that you can follow all the rules for a set piece of wargear even if some of the entries don't apply to your model.

So the people arguing that you have to follow all the rules of said piece of wargear are proven to be wrong now.
Otherwise the rules for Nemesis Force weapons would be illogical as you could not apply the justicars version of the rules to grunts just like you can't apply the terminators version of the rules to librarians.

Flavius Infernus wrote:
. . . .unit types (power weapon for terminators, force weapon for GK grand masters, not force weapon for GK captains & others). The properties of the weapon are not referred to in the unit entries, only in the wargear list.

Emphasis mine.

You just did what GW did.

Funny it does not confuse anyone this time.

kirsanth wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:
. . . .unit types (power weapon for terminators, force weapon for GK grand masters, not force weapon for GK captains & others). The properties of the weapon are not referred to in the unit entries, only in the wargear list.

Emphasis mine.

You just did what GW did.

Funny it does not confuse anyone this time.

No, it means that terminators (the unit type) get power weapons. Units that are upgraded to terminator armor would not get power weapons. (if that is indeed the correct wording)

Its funny because Flavius has pretty much proved my point that wargear can function differently for different units yet you still won't accept it.

Also, can't GK grand masters wear terminator armor? Meaning if they are in fact terminators then there weapons are 2 different types...

Yak I think makes a definitive point, but I think it definitively supports Flavius and Timmah when rethought from a different angle.

Using his car manual analogy:

Say I have a manual for a Ford F-150, 1990-2000. I need to change the tire on my 1996 F-150, and so I get the manual and see what I need to do.

The text is as follows:

[Owners of Ford F-150s] will need to jack the front of the truck up using the supplied jack placed on the frame behind the desired wheel.

[Owners of Ford F-150s] need to use a 1 3/4" tire iron to loosen the nuts.

[Owners of 1992 Ford F-150's] will need to disengage the parking brake.

[Owners of Ford F-150s] fully remove the nuts and take off the tire.


So, I ask you, owning a 1996 F-150, should I disengage the parking brake?

Again I will state the point that "All Terminators are models wearing Terminator armor, but not all models wearing Terminator armor are Terminators." This is just as "All 1992 Ford F-150's are Ford F-150's, but not all Ford F-150's are 1992 Ford F-150's."

Also, I want to point out that this is worth discussing not because one wants to use it in a game, but because, as Flavius so importantly points out, in a rules system (be it for a game, a processing algorithm or a multi-million dollar ERP system) the rules and their exact, literal interpretation is all you have. It is very easy to read a rule and impose your own assessment of what it means based on fluff, past rules execution or whatever, and have it be strictly incorrect by the reading of the rules. After all, how many people are still finding things in 5th edition and saying "Oh, crap, they changed that?" Humans tend to think inductively, but the only way to come to the same result every time in a rules system is a strict deductive reading.

So yes, you perhaps don't need GW to necessarily spell out "All models in terminator armor are called "Terminators" in the rule set" if you can chat with your mates about it and come to a conclusion. Just as you don't need to agree that "Ramming is a special kind if tank shock" means something in particular to use a Death Rolla on a vehicle, so long as you and your friend both happen to read the rule and come away with the same guess as to what it means.
The problem arrises when the rules are written such that two people can come away with perfectly valid results from the same rules. This is when rules writers fail, and the nature of the failure should be pointed out, discussed, and hopefully ultimately corrected.

Interestingly, even the entry for Terminator Armor in the wargear list of the DH codex specifies that Grey Knights in terminator armor (which includes three unit types) do get +1 attack for wearing termie armor, but Inquisitors who buy the wargear upgrade do not get the +1 attack.

So if you need an example of Terminator Armor specifically working differently for different unit types, and for those differences being described in the Terminator Armor wargear entry, there's one.

Yeah but the DH codex was also written for 3rd edition. I think using that to prove a point in a 5th edition setting will get you nowhere with some people.

Terminator Honors?

barlio wrote:Yeah but the DH codex was also written for 3rd edition. I think using that to prove a point in a 5th edition setting will get you nowhere with some people.

Terminator Honors?

The edition doesn't matter as it is still a legit rulebook.

Just like certain weapons get changed in newer rulebooks it doesn't invalidate those in older editions. (DH assault cannons)



On a side note, I find it funny that the only argument against this has been nullified by the DH codex.
I know its sad and its warping what GW probably meant but technically with RAW it works and can be defended (easily enough) to a judge.

This is an example of the author being fancy with his language and failing to define precisely the advantages and disadvantages of taking Terminator Armor.

The author's use of an example "On the other hand, ..." creates a specific case/exception that is not defined in the Terminator pg.64 entry.

In conclusion, the Author of the Codex is an Idiot

Lacross wrote:This is an example of the author being fancy with his language and failing to define precisely the advantages and disadvantages of taking Terminator Armor.

The author's use of an example "On the other hand, ..." creates a specific case/exception that is not defined in the Terminator pg.64 entry.

In conclusion, the Author of the Codex is an Idiot

Really? Are you the author? Because I don't think you can speak with 100% accuracy as to his intentions when writing this. (if you are the author, ha you just called yourself an idiot)

Summary
No where does it state all units in terminator armor are terminators (no reference as its not written anywhere)

Only terminators can't make sweeping advances (sm codex)

You can still follow all the rules for a given piece of wargear even though it may vary in function between models (DH codex reference, nemesis force weapons)

Well may as well ask Timmah. Let's say you're at a GT and you have a Librarian in Terminator Armor? Are you going to sweeping advance with him?

Not trying to attack, just gauging in-game attitude.

At a GT? Most likely not, as I would prolly get dinged massively on all my soft scores.
(people don't like unpopular answers even if they are correct)

Actually I don't even play with any models in terminator armor atm. I don't like to get involved in rules questions that I have a stake in. It can skew your pov.

Now, if I had brought said model and it was the difference between something big happening, winning/losing, I might (depending on my mood) explain my position to a judge and let him decide.

Again we have made a pretty solid, reasonable to understand, argument for models in terminator armor making that aren't terminators making sweeping advances.
Basically, its not my fault GW publishes bad rules sometimes, why should I be punished because I don't think the popular answer is correct?

Timmah wrote:

Lacross wrote:This is an example of the author being fancy with his language and failing to define precisely the advantages and disadvantages of taking Terminator Armor.

The author's use of an example "On the other hand, ..." creates a specific case/exception that is not defined in the Terminator pg.64 entry.

In conclusion, the Author of the Codex is an Idiot

Really? Are you the author? Because I don't think you can speak with 100% accuracy as to his intentions when writing this. (if you are the author, ha you just called yourself an idiot)

Summary
No where does it state all units in terminator armor are terminators (no reference as its not written anywhere)

Only terminators can't make sweeping advances (sm codex)

You can still follow all the rules for a given piece of wargear even though it may vary in function between models (DH codex reference, nemesis force weapons)

I am sorry but repeating adnauseum your point doesn't make it true. Regardless of logic etc the simple fact is you are taking one sentence without reading it in conjunction with the other sentence. Basic English comprehension disproves your point. I wonder what the result would be if you gave that reading of the weargear entry to someone who doesn't play the game and then ask them if that is the case.

fullheadofhair wrote:

I am sorry but repeating adnauseum your point doesn't make it true. Regardless of logic etc the simple fact is you are taking one sentence without reading it in conjunction with the other sentence. Basic English comprehension disproves your point. I wonder what the result would be if you gave that reading of the weargear entry to someone who doesn't play the game and then ask them if that is the case.

I have not taken anything out of context.
Thanks to flavius we have proven that certain wargear can work differently for different models.

So the bulkiness of the armor only slows down actual terminators
Its IC's awesomeness that keeps them from being slowed

Just like GW grand inquisitors make nemesis force weapons in force weapons
where terminators aren't cool enough and only make them into power weapons

Thing is, whenever a rule does something different then GW clearly spells it out. What's missing to mean the Liberians in terminator armour could sweeping advance is and exception say that.

For example add to the end "... Independent Characters may still sweeping advance" possibly with some add fluff "... since they have long practice wielding this mighty armour"

Going back to DH it is clearly pointed out what happens when an inquisitor puts on terminator armour or what happens when some one has a Nemesis force weapon.

Tri wrote:Thing is, whenever a rule does something different then GW clearly spells it out. What's missing to mean the Liberians in terminator armour could sweeping advance is and exception say that.

For example add to the end "... Independent Characters may still sweeping advance" possibly with some add fluff "... since they have long practice wielding this mighty armour"

Going back to DH it is clearly pointed out what happens when an inquisitor puts on terminator armour or what happens when some one has a Nemesis force weapon.

Thats because in the DH references the difference is that the DH items do something different than normal rules would tell them to. SO it must be spelled out.

In the terminator/terminator armour case, the unit just functions the same as normal rules would dictate so it doesn't need to be spelled out.

The absence of a rule differentiating IC is not enough to prove intent. It requires conformation to become true

As stated by others is you take some of the written rules and follow them without inserting a modicum of common sense, the rules don't work.

Ether you except he is a terminator or (by the same logic) he doesn't count as a space marine (rendering ATSKNF and combat tactic useless)

Tri wrote:The absence of a rule differentiating IC is not enough to prove intent. It requires conformation to become true

As stated by others is you take some of the written rules and follow them without inserting a modicum of common sense, the rules don't work.

Ether you except he is a terminator or (by the same logic) he doesn't count as a space marine (rendering ATSKNF and combat tactic useless)

You don't need to prove intent, just RAW. Inserting common sense into a fantasy game can lead to even more grey areas.
We have proven everything asked by the opposition. Idk what more you guys want.

Okay question.

How many 'slots' does the librarian take up in a transport vehicle?

Andrew

Flavius Infernus:

Except that the predicate calculus is not a method for treating the text of the rules as the statements indicated by the text of the rules. What I have done, avoiding the use of a pseudo-code of symbols, is shown the application of a predicate calculus to the syntactic information expressed by the rules-text. I think you may have been distracted by the fact that I expressed that information using the natural language used to express them, because the predicate calculus is a deductive logic: if you accept the premises and the logical rules applied to them, then truth of the conclusion follows without any kind of vagueness. Part of the point of employing a predicate calculus is that you remove the vagueness and noise that is introduced by methods like argument by analogy. What you appear to object to, please correct me otherwise, is the validity of the rule of expansion. This rule simply made the move that the statement about the uniqueness of the sub-rules or details of Terminator Armour, noting that since their scope was not unique to Terminators and unique to Terminator Armour, they referenced the same thing (models wearing Terminator Armour). The form, expressed in pseudo-code, is as follows:

(Ux)((Ax v Bx) & (A = B)) ≡ (Ux)(Ax) v (Ux)(Bx)

Whether there is some "real-world" test of a logic system is completely irrelevant to the properties or behaviour of objects within that system, this is about a logical structure, not the correspondence between some logical structure and the phenomena it should predict. Likewise the predicate calculus is about the syntax of a system of rules, rather than whatever model it may implemented over. It is about highlighting the operation of the syntactic information in a system of rules, isolating that information from , and acting as an accounting system of the values that may be inputted. So far from being the shell in a shell-game, the predicate calculus is about tracking and recording the movements of the con-artist, since the movement of the con-artist is what both conceals and informs the location of the pea, so that you can figure out when and where the slight-of-hand takes place. That is basically what all mathematical symbol systems are, a method of accountancy.

Aristotelian logic fails as a method for introducing transparency into reasoning because it does not isolate syntax from semantics, grammar, and terms, leaving them all muddled together. Despite its name, the predicate calculus is actually a form of algebra, and various precursor systems of logic were developed prior to Gottlob Frege's 'original' version. Boolean logic, for example, is notable for isolating the truth value of statements from their quidity, despite its inability to handle quantification. So, no, Aristotelian Syllogistic's shortcomings are not strengths. Despite what people may believe, philosophy (and particularly philosophical logic) has not only advanced in the past 2000+ years (though really in the last 100) but gone far beyond the dialectic in terms of utility, applicability, and user-friendliness. It dispenses with epistemological boondoggles about the possible truth value of available information by assuming a strict separation of syntactic and semantic information, allowing the user to input whether possible semantic model they might be inclined to test.

By employing it, properly and rigorously, we can not only test competing semantic models to determine exactly what is meant by the rules-text, but also to trouble-shoot and debug whatever semantic model survives such a selection process. It not only gives us a tool for objective analysis of rule systems, but it also provides us with a tool for turning the game into shareware code and publicly logging errors, improvements, and current points of contention. After all, we want people to run off and theorize about what the rules mean, but we also want them to come back together and engage in a constructive project of dialog about the truth of the matter.

Seriously Nurglitch? You owe me $.49 to replace the fuse in my brain you just blew. I'm totally lost now.

barlio:

I'll send it right along. However, I have to deduct C$20.99 for shipping and handling. You can deposit the difference in my paypal account.

Also, you may find the following informative:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/

Tri wrote:Ether you except he is a terminator or (by the same logic) he doesn't count as a space marine (rendering ATSKNF and combat tactic useless)

Does that necessarily follow? I didn't think ATSKNF was just a universal Space Marine rule, I thought it was specifically annotated for each unit in their respective description? Less sure about Combat Tactics but I thought it was also specifically mentioned underneath the Librarian entry.

If I'm misunderstanding you then I apologise, but I think saying he's not a terminator despite wearing terminator armour is quite different from saying he's not a Librarian because he's wearing terminator armour.

DoW

EDIT: Whoops, thanks Cheese. How'd I manage that one? Ah well, all these threads are the same anyway.

Wrong thread.

Nurglitch wrote:
This rule simply made the move that the statement about the uniqueness of the sub-rules or details of Terminator Armour, noting that since their scope was not unique to Terminators and unique to Terminator Armour, they referenced the same thing (models wearing Terminator Armour). The form, expressed in pseudo-code, is as follows:

(Ux)((Ax v Bx) & (A = B)) ≡ (Ux)(Ax) v (Ux)(Bx)

Thank you for finally using pseudocode. Now I can easily see where the problem is.

The logic of the statement is correct, but (Ax v Bx) is a false dichotomy and (A=B) is equivocation.

False dichotomy: You're assuming a universe (maybe we should call it a domain of discourse? Still not sure about the use of that term) in which the properties of terminator armor are either described in one place or the other, or not described at all, and in which the properties are completely described in one place. The properties of wargear may be both (1) contingent on the unit or model the wargear is assigned to or (2) incompletely described or have properties that aren't directly described in their wargear entries, but which actually carry over by inference from more general rules. Not that an example of this fact is necessary, but examples cited above from the DH codex show that both these possibilities do occur in the rules.

Equivocation: Which also borders on begging the question. If you assume in your premise that models in terminator armor are terminators, then it's no surprise that your conclusion says the same thing.

Please correct me if I've misinterpreted something. I'm having to make all kinds of assumptions about what your pseudocode means since you didn't include an interpretation. I was especially having trouble figuring out which term denotes the property "uniqueness" that was in the natural language version, so I finally guessed that it wasn't there.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
This rule simply made the move that the statement about the uniqueness of the sub-rules or details of Terminator Armour, noting that since their scope was not unique to Terminators and unique to Terminator Armour, they referenced the same thing (models wearing Terminator Armour). The form, expressed in pseudo-code, is as follows:

(Ux)((Ax v Bx) & (A = B)) ≡ (Ux)(Ax) v (Ux)(Bx)

Thank you for finally using pseudocode. Now I can easily see where the problem is.

The logic of the statement is correct, but (Ax v Bx) is a false dichotomy and (A=B) is equivocation.

False dichotomy: You're assuming a universe (maybe we should call it a domain of discourse? Still not sure about the use of that term) in which the properties of terminator armor are either described in one place or the other, or not described at all, and in which the properties are completely described in one place. The properties of wargear may be both (1) contingent on the unit or model the wargear is assigned to or (2) incompletely described or have properties that aren't directly described in their wargear entries, but which actually carry over by inference from more general rules. Not that an example of this fact is necessary, but examples cited above from the DH codex show that both these possibilities do occur in the rules.

Equivocation: Which also borders on begging the question. If you assume in your premise that models in terminator armor are terminators, then it's no surprise that your conclusion says the same thing.

Please correct me if I've misinterpreted something. I'm having to make all kinds of assumptions about what your pseudocode means since you didn't include an interpretation. I was especially having trouble figuring out which term denotes the property "uniqueness" that was in the natural language version, so I finally guessed that it wasn't there.

Ya'll is so smarts

Flavius: adding logical arguments to Tims mindless rants since 7/28

Flavius Infernus:

The pseudo-code I have given for Expansion is simply the form of the rule, a definition. If you want to input the information for Terminators, or critique that input, you're going to have to produce a string of the following form with the appropriate referents to the logical information in the Terminator Armour and Equipment rules.

Here's a set of terms to get you going:
U = Universal or Uniqueness Quantifier
A = A predicate
B = Also a predicate
x = a variable
= is an identity predicate, using infix notation. Use I for prefix notation
≡ biconditional operator
v inclusive disjunct operator
& conjunct operator
~ negation operator
→ material conditional

For Terminators you will need a predicate for every reference to models in Terminator Armour, wearing Terminator Armour, equipped with Terminator Armour, and Terminators. I suggest I, W, Q, and T. M denotes the property of being a model. Use E to symbolize the Existential Quantifier. Use x, y, z as your variables. t denotes Terminator Armour.

I'll leave this here for now and post a fully symbolized code version of the argument previous made as soon as I am able.

Ah, I see my misunderstanding now.

You don't have to go through the entire argument in code, Nurglitch. I agree with everything up to the point where premise 11 goes to the conclusion in the natural language version on page 7. The only part I really don't get is the leap from "this thing is not unique" to "these two things are the same."

GW seems to think that models in Terminator Armor are Terminators.

See
Terminator Librarian
and
Terminator Captain
though, there are counter-examples.
Librarian in Terminator Armor
and
Chaplain in Terminator Armor

Clearly, it all depends on which model you buy. If you intend to sweeping advance, purchase carefully.

I think Orkestra wins the thread. Flavius, the previous leader, was just bumped to 2nd. Good show all

Flavius Infernus:

What's going on is that while the detail of Terminator Armour referencing Terminators is not unique to Terminators, all of the details of Terminator Armour are unique to models equipped with Terminator Armour. This uniqueness means that they are all the same in regard to the rule they reference.

Orkestra wrote:GW seems to think that models in Terminator Armor are Terminators.

See
Terminator Librarian
and
Terminator Captain
though, there are counter-examples.
Librarian in Terminator Armor
and
Chaplain in Terminator Armor

Clearly, it all depends on which model you buy. If you intend to sweeping advance, purchase carefully.

lol, that's so awesomely wonky! If people actually started playing the rule, you would theoretically see the sales of the "Libarian in Terminator armor" go up like meltagun bitz and "Terminator Librarians" piling up on the shelves like Nork Deddog blisters.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Orkestra wrote:GW seems to think that models in Terminator Armor are Terminators.

See
Terminator Librarian
and
Terminator Captain
though, there are counter-examples.
Librarian in Terminator Armor
and
Chaplain in Terminator Armor

Clearly, it all depends on which model you buy. If you intend to sweeping advance, purchase carefully.

lol, that's so awesomely wonky! If people actually started playing the rule, you would theoretically see the sales of the "Libarian in Terminator armor" go up like meltagun bitz and "Terminator Librarians" piling up on the shelves like Nork Deddog blisters.

That would be great. People would start learning which model you got from each. Then there would be yelling that someone bought the wrong model ect. Classic.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Orkestra wrote:GW seems to think that models in Terminator Armor are Terminators.

See
Terminator Librarian
and
Terminator Captain
though, there are counter-examples.
Librarian in Terminator Armor
and
Chaplain in Terminator Armor

Clearly, it all depends on which model you buy. If you intend to sweeping advance, purchase carefully.

lol, that's so awesomely wonky! If people actually started playing the rule, you would theoretically see the sales of the "Libarian in Terminator armor" go up like meltagun bitz and "Terminator Librarians" piling up on the shelves like Nork Deddog blisters.

Or you could see it as evidence that your are comprehending the rule wrong. Any model equipped with the wargear: terminator armour is then referenced as both Space Marine Terminator, and Terminators. That would mean the models are all functionally identical in terms of which can or can't sweeping advance.

This shouldn't take eight pages of detailed discussion on language structure to be apparent.

Kaaihn wrote:This shouldn't take eight pages of detailed discussion on language structure to be apparent.

And it would not anywhere else, I daresay.

Edited to add: NINE PAGES!!!

Kaaihn wrote:

Or you could see it as evidence that your are comprehending the rule wrong. Any model equipped with the wargear: terminator armour is then referenced as both Space Marine Terminator, and Terminators. That would mean the models are all functionally identical in terms of which can or can't sweeping advance.

This shouldn't take eight pages of detailed discussion on language structure to be apparent.

Uh yea, I think we all acknowledge this thread has run its course. Yet you continue to fight it. We have shown many things that make this a grey area (wargear functioning different for different units, nothing specifically stating wearing terminator armor makes you a terminator).

Anyways, it was a very good discussion imo and brought out some very good discussion from both sides (some name calling too but w/e).

Again, as many of us have said, we would probably never do this in game, but its good to discuss grey areas like this here outside of a game because you can play the TFG on the forums to try and hammer out the true RAW.


edit: yay 9 pages

The problem I see with this thread is that it promotes the myth that the rules are replete with grey areas, ambiguities, confusion, and so on. As Kaaihn said, it shouldn't take this many pages to point out that the rules are perfectly clear on the subject of what Terminator Armour is an how it applies.

This thread reminds me unpleasantly of my days as a TA, marking first year student tests. In the first test I ever marked, mostly short answer, but with a few keyword questions, the average mark was about 33%, and no one passed the test. Obviously this was a problem, so the professor explained to the class that the test hadn't been a creative answer test, but one in which they showed that they had properly digested the course material. The next test included lots of multiple choice questions, to boost marks. This time only one person passed and they go about a ~63%. The rest failed. The next test was mostly true-false questions, carefully tweaked so that a set of purely random answers could pass the course.

Actually, there was one highlight, and I thought this sort of thing was apocryphal before it actually happened: as part of the last test the students were required to complete a ten step conceptual analysis to define a term. The only student who got more than 5/10 got to the seventh step, and paused to write an essay explaining that the question was a waste of time, that there was already a perfectly good definition of the term in the dictionary, and where the professor and I could stick it. If only the student had waited until they'd completed all ten steps before adding their little note, they could have gotten 10/10...

What I find the most perplexing about this thread is that it is replete with evidence that many of the people misreading the text are well educated and intelligent people. Not to say that well educated and intelligent people can't make mistakes, but just that the intelligent and well educated part is supposed to minimize this sort of problem with basic literacy.

Nurglitch wrote:The problem I see with this thread is that it promotes the myth that the rules are replete with grey areas, ambiguities, confusion, and so on. As Kaaihn said, it shouldn't take this many pages to point out that the rules are perfectly clear on the subject of what Terminator Armour is an how it applies.

But they are. Even if Flavius and I weren't right ("if", not saying we were wrong) we still put together a very valid argument that the only way you could refute (whether you were right or wrong) was by putting a 13 step argument back against ours.

The amount of reasoning needed to clear this up (and its still not) shows that there are plenty of grey areas left in the rules and GW still has a long way to go in writing clear/quality rules.

Timmah:

No, it's been cleared up multiple times.

Your argument that Librarians in Terminator Armour was shown to be logically invalid a long time ago.

The argument I offered was simply to make the logic of the text clear, explicitly detailing each step, in a way that only the intellectually dishonest could refuse assent. Simply out that the reference to Terminators was in the Terminator Armour rules and not the Terminator rules should have been sufficient.

Incidentally that's why so many people are themselves breaking the forum rules by flaming and accusing you of being a troll, because your continued dogged defense of your position in the face of all reasonable proof makes you appear to be intellectual dishonest, just a troll intent on provoking controversy rather than someone intent on getting to the truth of the matter.

No one is saying this about Flavius Infernus, because at least he is being methodical and reasonable about the position is wrong.

From my perspective, you've failed to prove your point, and your refusal to agree with what has been proved makes no sense for an intelligent person of good will.