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.

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.