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.

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?

Oldgrue wrote: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.

A very solid inductive argument, with which I agree. But, alas, inductive, therefore unsound.

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.