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.

Nurglitch-stonefox: The way that GW writes its rules conforms to the rules of English grammar, which is good enough to find out what logical information they are expressing.

But do they conform to the rules of ambiguity? RAI vs RAW. Where did those expressions come from?

Nurglitch wrote:

Spack wrote:Ignoring one model does not fulfill the requirement of "all the parts", or the complete mob, does it?

Sure it does, if that model is not part of the "entire mob" in question, then ignoring that model as irrelevant is correct. The term "entire mob" is qualified by the possession of "sluggas and choppas". The entire phrase used for the option is simply the generalization of the construction "up to x models may exchange y for z", and taking terms out of their context naturally yields the wrong information.

stonefox: The way that GW writes its rules conforms to the rules of English grammar, which is good enough to find out what logical information they are expressing.

So I guess a correct way to have written the rule then would have been.

All Ork Boyz may replace their Choppa/Slugga with Shootas at xx cost.
Nob may replace his Choppa with a Big Choppa or PowerKlaw for xx cost.

I still maintain that the wording of the rule requires the player to make an assumption of what Entire means. Entire to me, and others it seems, is that it is the Entire Mob (As it says 'Entire Mob' in the rule) regardless of equipment. This follows with a strict interretation of the wording which in the past has been the view of GW in other RAW discussions. If the meaning should have been non-inclusive of the Nob, then the rule should have been clear to seperate him from that context. As the rule indicates Mob and not just Boyz, I do not think the interpretation you have made is 100% valid.

No, the phrasing that GW used is fine for the space they have to work with (I suspect that some people forget GW's rules writing is constrained by formatting...). It requires no assumptions on the part of the player about what the term "entire mob" refers to because it qualifies that term with two other conditions, "sluggas and choppas". If the Nob does not have a slugga and a choppa then the reference does not include the Nob, and it's clear because the three conditions that the Nob may or may not meet are written right there in black and write (member of the mob, choppa, slugga). As the rule indicates all those members of the mob armed with sluggas and choppas, the 'interpretation' I have made (and that should be made) is 100% valid and true. It is sound.

It may help to think about it as the meaning of the sentence rather than its individual terms. As Peter Suber reminds us the universal quantifier is relative to whatever properties it quantifies over. If I say: "All green apples..." and my universe includes green apples, then do I mean all of the green apples in my universe? I may or may not, depending on how the rest of the sentence qualifies the clause "All green apples..."

If it ends "...with leaves on their stems", then such a sentence would not refer to all green apples in the universe, just the subset of green apples with leaves on their stems if not further qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc..

If it ends "...may be exchanged for oranges", then such a sentence could refer to all green apples in the universe if information in that sentence was not qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc.

If it ends "...with leaves on their stems may be exchanged for oranges", then such a sentence would refer to only those green apples with leaves on their stems and oranges, and then only those broad categories if not further qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc.

Nurglitch wrote:No, the phrasing that GW used is fine for the space they have to work with (I suspect that some people forget GW's rules writing is constrained by formatting...). It requires no assumptions on the part of the player about what the term "entire mob" refers to because it qualifies that term with two other conditions, "sluggas and choppas". If the Nob does not have a slugga and a choppa then the reference does not include the Nob, and it's clear because the three conditions that the Nob may or may not meet are written right there in black and write (member of the mob, choppa, slugga). As the rule indicates all those members of the mob armed with sluggas and choppas, the 'interpretation' I have made (and that should be made) is 100% valid and true. It is sound.

It may help to think about it as the meaning of the sentence rather than its individual terms. As Peter Suber reminds us the universal quantifier is relative to whatever properties it quantifies over. If I say: "All green apples..." and my universe includes green apples, then do I mean all of the green apples in my universe? I may or may not, depending on how the rest of the sentence qualifies the clause "All green apples..."

If it ends "...with leaves on their stems", then such a sentence would not refer to all green apples in the universe, just the subset of green apples with leaves on their stems if not further qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc..

If it ends "...may be exchanged for oranges", then such a sentence could refer to all green apples in the universe if information in that sentence was not qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc.

If it ends "...with leaves on their stems may be exchanged for oranges", then such a sentence would refer to only those green apples with leaves on their stems and oranges, and then only those broad categories if not further qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc.

First:
I read the paper you linked to... Well, about the first 20 or so points.
Eventually, I just got disgusted with it and stopped.
It reads to me as a manual on how to make sentences say what they don't say (the "cream or sugar," example is dead wrong and assumes intent that the listener doesn't know the speaker has).

As for your example above, it lacks limitations provided by the Codex for orks.
If there is a basket of green apples and the sentence is "All of the green apples in that basket may be exchanged for oranges," then the sentence does, indeed, refer to the apples in their entirety. Thus, "all." It does not say "any," which would, indeed, indicate that a choice may be made.

Nurglitch, though I do not agree with your reasoning, I absolutely agree with your opinion of what they meant. Unfortunately, however, the limiting vocabulary in the rulebook does not support your particular reasoning, regardless of how you attempt to twist meanings and/or infer things unsaid.

Eric

That's a rather odd thing to say, because I have no opinion of what the writers may or may not have meant when they wrote Codex: Orks. I am simply pointing out what it says. Likewise Suber's point about the use of 'or' in English is true, that word can be used as either inclusive or exclusive, and you'll need more than the word 'or' to know which is which.

By all means, please, show us how we should read it.

Nurglitch wrote:No, the phrasing that GW used is fine for the space they have to work with (I suspect that some people forget GW's rules writing is constrained by formatting...).

I think it is interesting that you are qualifying the poorly written rule by saying that GW has a limited or finite space which which to work to present the rules for their game. This is crazy as it is their game and they choose what to include and not include. It is much more likely that the issues of the PK was never thought as the RAI is that they should be allowed and it was assumed the wording was correct, but in hindsight it should be seen now that the wording in inconclusive and at minimum they should be providing a FAQ update on the website where the space for the rules is more available.

Except I don't think it's a poorly written rule. It is, as I said, not limited by the space available for its expression. I would challenge people to convey the same information more concisely in the space available.* The phrasing is entirely conclusive, should you wish to sit down with a grammar and a dictionary and work it out (or, you know, show I've made a mistake somewhere and it is conclusively something else).

GW doesn't need to release an FAQ. Anyone with a dictionary, a grammar, and the education to combine the two can figure out what GW means.

*Incidentally, para-phrasing a sentence is part of Peter Suber's advice for symbolically modeling rules and arguments.

Nurglitch wrote:Except I don't think it's a poorly written rule. It is, as I said, not limited by the space available for its expression. I would challenge people to convey the same information more concisely in the space available.* The phrasing is entirely conclusive, should you wish to sit down with a grammar and a dictionary and work it out (or, you know, show I've made a mistake somewhere and it is conclusively something else).

GW doesn't need to release an FAQ. Anyone with a dictionary, a grammar, and the education to combine the two can figure out what GW means.

*Incidentally, para-phrasing a sentence is part of Peter Suber's advice for symbolically modeling rules and arguments.

At the very least GW should release a FAQ ruling on this subject because their army list examples include Shoota mobs that have Nobs with a Slugga and Choppa, something clearly not allowed by the rules. That sure throws up a red flag that the wording of the unit entry is probably not what the writer believed he wrote.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Note that the unit Options and the Character options are in separate lists for unit entries. Moreover certain specific options like Painboyz have their own lists. In the Stormboyz entry, for example, there is a list for Character options and a list for Boss Zagstruk (consisting of...Boss Zagstruk). It seems like it would actually be against the rules for a Nob to have a shoota, so the sample army lists on the GW site are perfectly valid, and would actually be invalid had the Nobz been armed with shootas.

Nurglitch wrote:Perhaps, perhaps not. Note that the unit Options and the Character options are in separate lists for unit entries. Moreover certain specific options like Painboyz have their own lists. In the Stormboyz entry, for example, there is a list for Character options and a list for Boss Zagstruk (consisting of...Boss Zagstruk). It seems like it would actually be against the rules for a Nob to have a shoota, so the sample army lists on the GW site are perfectly valid, and would actually be invalid had the Nobz been armed with shootas.

So in your opinion, The Nob 'should' have access to Big Choppas and PKs all the time and that they CAN NEVER be armed with regular Shootas? There is nothing in the rules that indicate the base weaponry to be specific for Nobs, and the rules DO indicate that the Entire Mob may exchange their Choppas/Sluggas for Shootas. Are you now determining that the NOB is not a part of the Mob as a whole then?

This is the crux of the issue as the Nob IS in fact part of the Mob as a whole and Should always be included as a member for rules indicating the Mob as a whole.

I just want to take a quick moment from this latest edition of " Arguing GW On Teh Intarwebz" to point out that this thread is the current example that I'm using to explain to the local Warhammer players that 99% of Warhammer players are, in fact, Clown Shoes.

Thanks for your time and I now return you to "When Rules Boyz Attack!!!"

Blackheart666 wrote:I just want to take a quick moment from this latest edition of " Arguing GW On Teh Intarwebz" to point out that this thread is the current example that I'm using to explain to the local Warhammer players that 99% of Warhammer players are, in fact, Clown Shoes.

Thanks for your time and I now return you to "When Rules Boyz Attack!!!"

Hey, Wait, How did you know what I wear for shoes. I agree, this thread has gone on a bit. It's probably best to just ignore it from now on. It's just soooo tempting to read it again.

jlong05: I'm not voicing an opinion either way (although I am inclined to go with what's written in the Codex). I'm pointing out what's printed in Codex: Orks as it relates to the sample lists mentioned by Yakface.

The 'crux of the issue' is not that the Nob is part of the unit, as that's pretty obvious. The 'crux of the issue' is whether "The entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas" means the same thing as (1) "All models in the mob with sluggas and choppas may all replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas" or (2) "If all models in the mob have sluggas and choppas, then they may all replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas"

If (1) is not a lossy paraphrase of the option, then its combination with a Nob option replacing either the Nob's choppa with either a power klaw or a big choppa is permissible.

If (2) is not a lossy paraphrase of the option, then its combination with a Nob option replacing the Nob's choppa with either a power klaw or a big choppa is not permissible.

However (1) & (2) mean different things, and hence allow different states of affairs. If the option is a grammatically well-formed sentence, then both cannot be accurate paraphrases.

The facts are that the option is a grammatically well-formed sentence, that (1) is the accurate paraphrase, and as a result we know that a Nob can have either a big choppa or a power klaw if the entire mob replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas.

Whether a Nob can have a choppa and a slugga in a unit otherwise equipped with shootas, now there's a question that can't be solved by close reading (good eye, Yakface).

This is funny as heck...

Blackheart666 wrote:I just want to take a quick moment from this latest edition of " Arguing GW On Teh Intarwebz" to point out that this thread is the current example that I'm using to explain to the local Warhammer players that 99% of Warhammer players are, in fact, Clown Shoes.

ROFL, that sums this whole thread up in one medium sized sentence.

This discussion is like a vehicle accident in progress,
You wanna look away, but can't as its way too interesting...

If anyone needs me, I'll be failing to attempt to not watch this discussion.

Nurglitch-No, the phrasing that GW used is fine for the space they have to work with (I suspect that some people forget GW's rules writing is constrained by formatting...). It requires no assumptions on the part of the player about what the term "entire mob" refers to because it qualifies that term with two other conditions, "sluggas and choppas". If the Nob does not have a slugga and a choppa then the reference does not include the Nob, and it's clear because the three conditions that the Nob may or may not meet are written right there in black and write (member of the mob, choppa, slugga). As the rule indicates all those members of the mob armed with sluggas and choppas, the 'interpretation' I have made (and that should be made) is 100% valid and true. It is sound.

It may help to think about it as the meaning of the sentence rather than its individual terms. As Peter Suber reminds us the universal quantifier is relative to whatever properties it quantifies over. If I say: "All green apples..." and my universe includes green apples, then do I mean all of the green apples in my universe? I may or may not, depending on how the rest of the sentence qualifies the clause "All green apples..."

If it ends "...with leaves on their stems", then such a sentence would not refer to all green apples in the universe, just the subset of green apples with leaves on their stems if not further qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc..

If it ends "...may be exchanged for oranges", then such a sentence could refer to all green apples in the universe if information in that sentence was not qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc.

If it ends "...with leaves on their stems may be exchanged for oranges", then such a sentence would refer to only those green apples with leaves on their stems and oranges, and then only those broad categories if not further qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc.

Crikey, I have an Army Idea....



My new "Green Horde Army, in carry-case......

And which army builder file do I need to field this army legally?

*edit* spelling

jlong05 wrote:

So in your opinion, The Nob 'should' have access to Big Choppas and PKs all the time and that they CAN NEVER be armed with regular Shootas?

Well, if you follow GW's new design logic, that the rules should follow the models, and that the box provides all the parts to make all the legal squad options, and you examine the contents of the new Boyz box, this sentence makes a lot of sense. It's actually impossible to make a nob with a shoota out of the new box, your only options ade slugga + (big choppa/powerklaw/choppa). The shoota arms simply don't work on the nob body.

That's not how the rules are worded, obviously, but you try getting a nob with a shoota model.

Redbeard wrote:

jlong05 wrote:

So in your opinion, The Nob 'should' have access to Big Choppas and PKs all the time and that they CAN NEVER be armed with regular Shootas?

Well, if you follow GW's new design logic, that the rules should follow the models, and that the box provides all the parts to make all the legal squad options, and you examine the contents of the new Boyz box, this sentence makes a lot of sense. It's actually impossible to make a nob with a shoota out of the new box, your only options ade slugga + (big choppa/powerklaw/choppa). The shoota arms simply don't work on the nob body.

That's not how the rules are worded, obviously, but you try getting a nob with a shoota model.

It's called converting. You simply clip the shoota from a boyz arms and then add it to the Nob. Now, I realize this is obvious, in no way am I making light of your statement. My point here is that the options are there, just not as a specific molded one. Also, GW has many options for units that are not available as part of the purchased model that must be addapted. Case in point, I highly doubt that the new(upcoming) plastic Warboss will include every posisble option he has; including runts, squigs, warbike with rider legs, and both regular, 'eavy armour, and mega armour body options. I have no proof of this, but by your statement, GW is now expected to include all options and here is clearly an example of that not likely to be so.

akira5665 wrote:Crikey, I have an Army Idea....



My new "Green Horde Army, in carry-case......

That would be legal, if GW grew the green apples. Hey, No leaves on the stems though. I guess no upgrades.

OK,

I have scanned over most of these seven pages; so I hope that I have not missed this.

1) Regarding the data file. My file (downloaded from the maintainers) allows PK nobs in the shoota mobs.

My data file was downloaded from the AB40k site prior to it's general availability on the main site, so I may have gotten an early release build before a few tweaks and changes were made??????

2) As the maintainers have used this argument in their responses in the past: "what is there that says that you have to upgrade "x" before doing "y"." I feel that they should have allowed this.

What is there in the RAW that says that you must upgrade your mob prior to upgrading the nob? If you upgrade one of your orks to a nob, and then give him a PK,..... then upgrade the mob: "the entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas." Well since the nob no longer has a choppa,... he can not make this exchange.

yamato wrote:OK,

I have scanned over most of these seven pages; so I hope that I have not missed this.

1) Regarding the data file. My file (downloaded from the maintainers) allows PK nobs in the shoota mobs.

My data file was downloaded from the AB40k site prior to it's general availability on the main site, so I may have gotten an early release build before a few tweaks and changes were made??????

2) As the maintainers have used this argument in their responses in the past: "what is there that says that you have to upgrade "x" before doing "y"." I feel that they should have allowed this.

What is there in the RAW that says that you must upgrade your mob prior to upgrading the nob? If you upgrade one of your orks to a nob, and then give him a PK,..... then upgrade the mob: "the entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas." Well since the nob no longer has a choppa,... he can not make this exchange.

This has been gone over, as you said in the last 7 pages of this thread. Its ambigious in the rules and it's open to interpretation. One group which includes the datafile maintainers, vies Entire mob as inclusive of the Nob and as such must include him. As you said, if has been upgraded and traded weapons he can't be included so no Shootas are allowed. The other group is stating a view such as yourself which says that the Nob would just not get included in the trade, but that shouldn't stop the rest.

This is a FAQ issue and will be resolved for everyone when that happens. At GW's current speed of releasing FAQs for their codex armies, I expect the FAQ around 2010.

I think we've sufficiently covered the topic, and there's been more than a bit of nastiness.

Thread locked.