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.

Kaaihn wrote:This shouldn't take eight pages of detailed discussion on language structure to be apparent.

And it would not anywhere else, I daresay.

Edited to add: NINE PAGES!!!

Kaaihn wrote:

Or you could see it as evidence that your are comprehending the rule wrong. Any model equipped with the wargear: terminator armour is then referenced as both Space Marine Terminator, and Terminators. That would mean the models are all functionally identical in terms of which can or can't sweeping advance.

This shouldn't take eight pages of detailed discussion on language structure to be apparent.

Uh yea, I think we all acknowledge this thread has run its course. Yet you continue to fight it. We have shown many things that make this a grey area (wargear functioning different for different units, nothing specifically stating wearing terminator armor makes you a terminator).

Anyways, it was a very good discussion imo and brought out some very good discussion from both sides (some name calling too but w/e).

Again, as many of us have said, we would probably never do this in game, but its good to discuss grey areas like this here outside of a game because you can play the TFG on the forums to try and hammer out the true RAW.


edit: yay 9 pages

The problem I see with this thread is that it promotes the myth that the rules are replete with grey areas, ambiguities, confusion, and so on. As Kaaihn said, it shouldn't take this many pages to point out that the rules are perfectly clear on the subject of what Terminator Armour is an how it applies.

This thread reminds me unpleasantly of my days as a TA, marking first year student tests. In the first test I ever marked, mostly short answer, but with a few keyword questions, the average mark was about 33%, and no one passed the test. Obviously this was a problem, so the professor explained to the class that the test hadn't been a creative answer test, but one in which they showed that they had properly digested the course material. The next test included lots of multiple choice questions, to boost marks. This time only one person passed and they go about a ~63%. The rest failed. The next test was mostly true-false questions, carefully tweaked so that a set of purely random answers could pass the course.

Actually, there was one highlight, and I thought this sort of thing was apocryphal before it actually happened: as part of the last test the students were required to complete a ten step conceptual analysis to define a term. The only student who got more than 5/10 got to the seventh step, and paused to write an essay explaining that the question was a waste of time, that there was already a perfectly good definition of the term in the dictionary, and where the professor and I could stick it. If only the student had waited until they'd completed all ten steps before adding their little note, they could have gotten 10/10...

What I find the most perplexing about this thread is that it is replete with evidence that many of the people misreading the text are well educated and intelligent people. Not to say that well educated and intelligent people can't make mistakes, but just that the intelligent and well educated part is supposed to minimize this sort of problem with basic literacy.

Nurglitch wrote:The problem I see with this thread is that it promotes the myth that the rules are replete with grey areas, ambiguities, confusion, and so on. As Kaaihn said, it shouldn't take this many pages to point out that the rules are perfectly clear on the subject of what Terminator Armour is an how it applies.

But they are. Even if Flavius and I weren't right ("if", not saying we were wrong) we still put together a very valid argument that the only way you could refute (whether you were right or wrong) was by putting a 13 step argument back against ours.

The amount of reasoning needed to clear this up (and its still not) shows that there are plenty of grey areas left in the rules and GW still has a long way to go in writing clear/quality rules.

Timmah:

No, it's been cleared up multiple times.

Your argument that Librarians in Terminator Armour was shown to be logically invalid a long time ago.

The argument I offered was simply to make the logic of the text clear, explicitly detailing each step, in a way that only the intellectually dishonest could refuse assent. Simply out that the reference to Terminators was in the Terminator Armour rules and not the Terminator rules should have been sufficient.

Incidentally that's why so many people are themselves breaking the forum rules by flaming and accusing you of being a troll, because your continued dogged defense of your position in the face of all reasonable proof makes you appear to be intellectual dishonest, just a troll intent on provoking controversy rather than someone intent on getting to the truth of the matter.

No one is saying this about Flavius Infernus, because at least he is being methodical and reasonable about the position is wrong.

From my perspective, you've failed to prove your point, and your refusal to agree with what has been proved makes no sense for an intelligent person of good will.

Nurglitch wrote:

The argument I offered was simply to make the logic of the text clear, explicitly detailing each step, in a way that only the intellectually dishonest could refuse assent. Simply out that the reference to Terminators was in the Terminator Armour rules and not the Terminator rules should have been sufficient.

why won't you accept that we proved this point wrong? Just because it makes a reference to 1 specific unit in the wargear entry doesn't mean everything using that wargear is the same as said specific unit.

We showed that this happens in other books as well, see the DH nemesis force weapons.


Oh and btw, there were as many people who flamed me as agreed with me. But you continue to fight me no matter what I say. (atm I am pretty sure I could tell you the sky is blue and you would have a rebuttal for me)

What Nurglitch said.

Nine pages to try and make someone understand that RAW doesn't mean you pluck one sentence out and maul it with a dictionary. RAW means you derive answers based solely on the provided written material. This includes context surrounding any given sentence and reading comprehension with understanding of language.

No amount of discussion can prove to someone that has plucked a single sentence out and is arguing it to exclusion of everything else related to it that their conclusion is wrong. Because by the false standard they have created, they aren't wrong.

The trick is making someone understand that the standard they created is false, and what the correct answer is using the correct standard. This renders the correct answer they arrived at themselves using a false standard as irrelevant.

What Nurglitch is implying (is that throughout this thread)that (in the case of you declaring the sky to be blue) the sky would in fact be green (for whatever reason the sky would be green) and everybody else in the community would see the green sky. But since technically green has some blue in it it should count as being blue. You would probably argue then that technically there are no colors that exist independantly and therefore it doesn't really matter what color the sky is since there is no "true" definition of what the colors are.

I'm not trolling (at least in my mind), but I'm trying to point out that in the grand scheme of things one can break down and argue some points too far.

Nurglitch wrote:The problem I see with this thread is that it promotes the myth that the rules are replete with grey areas, ambiguities, confusion, and so on. As Kaaihn said, it shouldn't take this many pages to point out that the rules are perfectly clear on the subject of what Terminator Armour is an how it applies.

Nurglitch, let me get this straight. Are you actually claiming that there exists a perfect system for objectively determining the meanings of texts that only the intellectually dishonest can disagree with? Are you actually saying that predicate logic--or whatever flavor-of-the-month shoehorning of mathematics into semantics/linguistics you're advocating--is actually the Holy Grail of text interpretation that gives everyone the same meaning every time without ambiguity or confusion?

If that's true, then it's news to the rest of academia. You should write the paper that proves it, and you'd be a shoo-in for the Nobel and probably a MacArthur Genius Grant too.

I didn't pluck one sentence out. I agreed that I would have to prove that wargear can function differently for different units otherwise I would have to accept every reference to a unit type in the terminator armor section was a reference to a terminator or model wearing said wargear.

However we did prove that wargear can function differently for different units and that difference is written in the same wargear entry.

Btw Kaaihn and Nurglitch, your "we are right and your trying to read the text incorrectly/wrong" can be thrown right back at you.

Honestly stop getting all upset over a discussion outside of a game on a forum used to discuss rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:The problem I see with this thread is that it promotes the myth that the rules are replete with grey areas, ambiguities, confusion, and so on. As Kaaihn said, it shouldn't take this many pages to point out that the rules are perfectly clear on the subject of what Terminator Armour is an how it applies.

Nurglitch, let me get this straight. Are you actually claiming that there exists a perfect system for objectively determining the meanings of texts that only the intellectually dishonest can disagree with? Are you actually saying that predicate logic--or whatever flavor-of-the-month shoehorning of mathematics into semantics/linguistics you're advocating--is actually the Holy Grail of text interpretation that gives everyone the same meaning every time without ambiguity or confusion?

If that's true, then it's news to the rest of academia. You should write the paper that proves it, and you'd be a shoo-in for the Nobel and probably a MacArthur Genius Grant too.

Oh nice, you can be right up there with the other brilliant minds of our generation, like Al Gore.

Kaaihn wrote:What Nurglitch said.

Nine pages to try and make someone understand that RAW doesn't mean you pluck one sentence out and maul it with a dictionary. RAW means you derive answers based solely on the provided written material. This includes context surrounding any given sentence and reading comprehension with understanding of language.

No amount of discussion can prove to someone that has plucked a single sentence out and is arguing it to exclusion of everything else related to it that their conclusion is wrong. Because by the false standard they have created, they aren't wrong.

The trick is making someone understand that the standard they created is false, and what the correct answer is using the correct standard. This renders the correct answer they arrived at themselves using a false standard as irrelevant.

This is an honest question and not a Troll--and I'm only interested in Kaaihn's answer because I've already heard Nurglitch's.

How do you know that the interpretation that librarians in terminator armor can't sweep is the correct one? Since there are no actual librarians that we can go observe in the real world to see if they sweep, what external standard of "correctness" are you using to decide that your conclusion, and not the other one, is the right one?

And to anticipate you asking me the same question, what you're calling my "false" standard is that I don't use any external standard of "correctness" at all. I naively assume that whatever the language can be known to be saying is, by definition, correct, no matter how silly or nonsensical or "wrong" it feels to me.

Timmah
why won't you accept that we proved this point wrong?
quote wrote:

Hammering a point of veiw over and over isn't 'proving' anything.

It certainly proves nothing to those that 1) disagree with you 2) don't bother reading this section of dakka because of the insane rules lawyering in some threads 3) don't read 40k forums on the internet 4) choose to ignore you and play the game the way their group wants to play it 5) TO's that have to make rulings in their tournaments

You're just arguing forever on the internet, and then trying to claim some victory, proclaiming that the point you wanted to prove is now justified.

Since there are no actual librarians that we can go observe in the real world to see if they sweep,

My friend's mother is a librarian, and she sweeps like a demon. Most librarians keep a tidy house.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:What Nurglitch said.

Nine pages to try and make someone understand that RAW doesn't mean you pluck one sentence out and maul it with a dictionary. RAW means you derive answers based solely on the provided written material. This includes context surrounding any given sentence and reading comprehension with understanding of language.

No amount of discussion can prove to someone that has plucked a single sentence out and is arguing it to exclusion of everything else related to it that their conclusion is wrong. Because by the false standard they have created, they aren't wrong.

The trick is making someone understand that the standard they created is false, and what the correct answer is using the correct standard. This renders the correct answer they arrived at themselves using a false standard as irrelevant.

This is an honest question and not a Troll--and I'm only interested in Kaaihn's answer because I've already heard Nurglitch's.

How do you know that the interpretation that librarians in terminator armor can't sweep is the correct one? Since there are no actual librarians that we can go observe in the real world to see if they sweep, what external standard of "correctness" are you using to decide that your conclusion, and not the other one, is the right one?

First, you are using a false standard. This is set of rules to play a game created by a person or groups of people. Even the attempt to determine behavior of the game and text by comparing it to anything outside the game or text (language) is a false standard from the beginning. Understanding things like abstract concepts that have no basis in reality or even common sense are used to make the game work and flow is absolutely critical to being able to correctly derive answers to questions that do not have answers written in simplified language.

Flavius Infernus wrote:And to anticipate you asking me the same question, what you're calling my "false" standard is that I don't use any external standard of "correctness" at all. I naively assume that whatever the language can be known to be saying is, by definition, correct, no matter how silly or nonsensical or "wrong" it feels to me.

If I understand you correctly, you say that the answer is whatever the language tells you it is. If this is what you are saying, you are on the correct path. The key here is in what language you are using to derive your answer from.

If you pluck out "Terminators can't sweeping advance" and maul it with a dictionary, you have used the language of the written rules incorrectly to derive an answer. With nothing else for consideration, the answer is indeed that only something classified as a Terminator cannot sweeping advance. This leads us down the path of looking at formal unit titles and saying that since there is a unit called a Terminator, that must be what it is referring to.

This is an absolutely perfect example of an incorrect usage of language to determine an answer. The correct usage of language would be to see that the statement "Terminators cannot sweeping advance" is directly tied to the wargear item of Terminator Armour because of structure of the writing. In the Terminator Armour specific rules, the descriptive terms of both Space Marine Terminator and Terminator are applied to the item all these rules are providing information on. That is how the English language works, but you will not derive that answer if you look at nothing but that "Terminators can't sweeping advance" sentence.

Where RAW arguments go wrong is exactly at the point where someone is of the mindset that makes them think they are correct in saying things like "reply with nothing but a copied sentence from the book, with the page number". This is creating a false standard. What saying that means is that you refuse to recognize anything but the absolutely simplest form of the language. It is this mindset that has had people tell me I was completely wrong and laugh in my face because I said that dedicated transports of a troop unit count as one of the two troops units allowed in deployment in the DoW scenario. Since we were looking at the two rules sections that the language details the logic that gets you to this (none of us noticed the example in the DoW example itself), they were convinced I was wrong because the answer I was telling them was not written in simplest terms.

Running to dinner, edits and more if needed later.

Timmah:

I can't reasonably accept that you proved the conclusion of the argument to be wrong because the premises were true, the rules of inference valid, and hence the conclusion sound. Since your conclusion contracts a sound conclusion, and was itself shown to be the result of invalid argumentation, it would be unreasonable of me to claim otherwise. However, I would certainly admit to error if you would but point it out.

Flavius Infernus:

No, actually this is old news to the rest of academia. People have been using tools like conceptual analysis and the predicate calculus for over a century. It's so old hat that it's taught in introductory logic courses, which are usually a requirement in most philosophy, math, and computer science programs. In the intervening century, we've used these techniques and their extensions to build things like computers. So while I'd love to write a paper on it, and am actually busy writing a paper on fixing the semantics of self-referential sentences using a game theoretic approach to self-reference, I'm afraid the opportunity for that has passed me by with Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Chomsky, and the rest of the basis of modern linguistics.

Now, somehow or other you've managed to construe what I've said as claiming that conceptual analysis and the employment of a predicate logic is somehow an infallible method. An infallible method is neither possible nor desirable. What they are, in combination with the building of semantic models, and the compilation of a dictionary of terms, is a fallibilistic method that you can use to fix the meanings of finite systems of rules such as Warhammer 40k.

Kaaihn:

Okay I see what you're saying, but still, supposing hypothetically for a minute that the authors had meant for the sentence "Terminators cannot perform a Sweeping Advance" to apply only to the unit type Terminators (and not other models wearing Terminator Armor) and for that rule to be an exception in the larger rules on Terminator Armor (like they did in the DH codex). Are you not even willing to admit that it's a possibility?

If not, then what is it that makes you 100% sure that putting the potentially different terms in the same section would communicate the author's intention that a rule that specifies "terminators" also refers to other types of units in terminator armor?

I'll wait till after dinner for a response.

I would have expected the rule would not have been under the section entitled Terminator Armor.

Completely off-topic.

When your wife calls and says she is coming home early from her office and wants to go to Mortons for dinner, and then gets home and says she didn't realize how tired she was and just wants to have some hotdogs and take a nap, that should be a divorcable offense.

How the hell am I supposed to appease a palate expecting a steak with some hotdogs?! I have to go find my tiny violin and make sure it is playing now, thanks for listening.

Nurglitch wrote:
Now, somehow or other you've managed to construe what I've said as claiming that conceptual analysis and the employment of a predicate logic is somehow an infallible method. An infallible method is neither possible nor desirable. What they are, in combination with the building of semantic models, and the compilation of a dictionary of terms, is a fallibilistic method that you can use to fix the meanings of finite systems of rules such as Warhammer 40k.

Cool, okay now that I'm reassured that we're on the same page about what conceptual analysis and predicate logic actually can and cannot do, how can you justify claiming that a set of rules written in naturalistic language (which by your own assertion is programmatic for formal logic systems) does not have ambiguities or gray areas?

Also, how can you claim that you have conclusively demonstrated your, uh, conclusion is correct as if your method of interpretation were infallible? Or am I misinterpreting your assertions that the dispute is settled and you're right and everybody else is wrong?

...and I'm still hoping to see the pseudocode version of the logical movement from "terminator armor is not unique" to "models in terminator armor = terminators." I can tell that it's clear in your mind, but I'm still just not seeing it. I'm the first to admit when I'm wrong, but I haven't seen how I'm wrong yet.

Nurglitch wrote:The problem I see with this thread is that it promotes the myth that the rules are replete with grey areas, ambiguities, confusion, and so on. As Kaaihn said, it shouldn't take this many pages to point out that the rules are perfectly clear on the subject of what Terminator Armour is an how it applies.
...
What I find the most perplexing about this thread is that it is replete with evidence that many of the people misreading the text are well educated and intelligent people. Not to say that well educated and intelligent people can't make mistakes, but just that the intelligent and well educated part is supposed to minimize this sort of problem with basic literacy.

Nurglitch, it is paragraphs like the above that exemplefy why I have a problem with you, and I expect why the rest that do too feel that way. I know you don't care, it isn't like you and I are suddenly not going to the ice cream social as a result, but for future reference if you find yourself thinking "People always react to me like I am some sort of troll when I honestly want to help them" refer to this as the probable reason.

This isn't a question of "No, seriously guys, 2+2=4, traditionally speaking." Yet you quite merrily assert that everyone other than you is reading the rules wrong, despite the myriad of arguments back and forth, with your argument nothing more concrete than paraphrasing "Obviously this is what it is supposed to mean" in 600 word posts. I am willing to accept that Timmah and I have probably been less than convincing, but Flavius has gone to great length and debated with you on your own terms about this subject, and still you accuse him of having a problem with basic literacy.

Trying to assert that there is but one true reading of this rule, and all other interpretations of this text should be obviously false to everyone with basic literacy skills sort of makes one wonder why the devil people bother with formal logic, technical writing or really any manner of speech more exact than what you expect at a 7-11. After all, if every well educated and intelligent person should be able to read every passage exactly the same, why bother?

Anything written in colloquial language can mean many things. Generally people understand each other's train of thought well enough that uncertainty isn't a problem, but when there are specific results needed, specific wording matters. Hang around with someone for whom English is a second language, particularly if the other language has very different structures (lacks personal gender pronouns, for instance) and you will very quickly learn that colloquial language is not nearly clear enough, particularly when sloppiness with word choice means someone is saying something but meaning something fairly different, but unable to recognize the difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaaihn wrote:Completely off-topic.

When your wife calls and says she is coming home early from her office and wants to go to Mortons for dinner, and then gets home and says she didn't realize how tired she was and just wants to have some hotdogs and take a nap, that should be a divorcable offense.

How the hell am I supposed to appease a palate expecting a steak with some hotdogs?! I have to go find my tiny violin and make sure it is playing now, thanks for listening.

Are we married to the same woman? My wife considers hotdogs and ramen to be a delightful dinner, one she periodically pines for...

Fortunately, I can get by on cereal in a pinch

And for Kirsanth:

IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAND!!! (pages, divided by 1000)

kirsanth wrote:I would have expected the rule would not have been under the section entitled Terminator Armor.

Aha! good point, Krisanth, and that's the answer that Kaaihn has been giving.

But since we know from the DH codex that GW does sometimes put wargear exceptions under larger headings, how can you know that the case of "Terminators cannot perform a sweeping advance" is not another one of these exceptions to the heading?

Ok so per the DH rules
Nemesis weapons are...and have the following charactersistics when wielded by different rank so Grey Knights:
Str bonus Pwr Force
Grey Knight
Justicar
Terminator
Brother-Captain
Grand Master

Note Brother Captain and Grand masters. So if they are also terminators how do we know what kind of weapon to give them.

Heck by your interpretation Grand Masters are referenced in the Wargear entry so all of my Grey Knights must be Grand Masters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flavius Infernus wrote:

kirsanth wrote:I would have expected the rule would not have been under the section entitled Terminator Armor.

Aha! good point, Krisanth, and that's the answer that Kaaihn has been giving.

But since we know from the DH codex that GW does sometimes put wargear exceptions under larger headings, how can you know that the case of "Terminators cannot perform a sweeping advance" is not another one of these exceptions to the heading?

Also there are multiple characters that can wear terminator armor. If GW wanted them to be able to sweeping advance, they would need to put a note into everyone of the entries for the other units and all of the units that have the option to take terminator armor.


@mikhaila
I was asking why they would not accept the point that we had proven that Wargear can function differently for different models; not my entire argument.
All I need to do prove this is show you the Nemesis Force weapon entry. However they continue to debate this fact.

Btw I have been civil this entire thread Mkihaila even through countless shouts of Troll/rule lawyer/ idiot.
And I didn't just hammer on one point. My argument evolved thanks to Flavius and we even shored up some of the counter arguments like the one above.

I was wondering if a part of the Terminator Entry has been ignored by certain parties. We know that within the Terminator Armour entry we have the, *A*"Terminators cannot perform Sweeping Advances".

The final entry into the Terminator Armour section, *B*"Terminators count as two models for the purposes of transport capacity, and cannot embark Rhinos or Razorbacks".

I know it is a dead horse at this point, but can the same logic (regarding difference between Terminators and ICs in Terminator Armor) be applied here to both sides of the argument?

Both A & B use the term Terminators (from which must debate has been deriven), but would anybody argue that ICs in Termie Armor don't take up two models of Transport Capacity? Another question I would pose is to what the Chaos Marine Codex says regarding Terminator Armor. I do not own the Codex so I cannot provide that information.

Because of the previous examples of them using the words interchangably.
Cuting and pasting . . :
"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.

Outside of this, I largely agree with your arguements - even if I am dubious that it should be read that way.

See my debates about lurk, roll, or neither about IB.

I asked a question earlier to see if anyone had picked up on Timmahs' ultimate mistake on his logical argument. No one responded, oh well.

Timmah hasn't thought through his statement. By stating that a model wearing terminator armour isn't a terminator, then he is also stating that said model can ride in a Rhino/Razorback and only counts as one model for the purposes of transport.

So is this the position that he is truly advocating?

Timmah, this sweeping statement of yours has to be all or nothing.

Is this hypothetical Librarian of yours really capable of sweeping advance, riding in a rhino and only counts as one model for the purposes of transport.

Or is he for all purposes a terminator, incabable of riding in a rhino, counts as two models for transport and incabable of sweeping advance?

Because you can't be both.

Andrew

Beat by barlio and five minutes, shouldn't have stopped typing to check the codex

This Thread

I like that pic! LOL

lol Thank you Bla_Ze for the hot-beef comedy injection, refreshing.

AndrewC wrote:I asked a question earlier to see if anyone had picked up on Timmahs' ultimate mistake on his logical argument. No one responded, oh well.

Timmah hasn't thought through his statement. By stating that a model wearing terminator armour isn't a terminator, then he is also stating that said model can ride in a Rhino/Razorback and only counts as one model for the purposes of transport.

So is this the position that he is truly advocating?

Timmah, this sweeping statement of yours has to be all or nothing.

Is this hypothetical Librarian of yours really capable of sweeping advance, riding in a rhino and only counts as one model for the purposes of transport.

Or is he for all purposes a terminator, incabable of riding in a rhino, counts as two models for transport and incabable of sweeping advance?

Because you can't be both.

Andrew

Beat by barlio and five minutes, shouldn't have stopped typing to check the codex

Yes except Rhino's and Razorbacks, in their rules entries, state an model in terminator armor cannot embark. So yes, they count as 1 model for transport but no they cannot use rhinos/razorbacks

Kirsanth: I'll be happy with a "your argument has made me not sure" if that response is available.

I'm not really in this discussion to prove a particular point, but only to try to improve the rules by questioning the workarounds that people habitually use to compensate for problems with the rules.

[snipped because Timmah had a better answer]