Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?