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.

So I would like to bring this up as a discussion on how it should be played by RAW and how you personally feel it should work.

This is a delicate topic and I don't want to get into any flame wars so please be polite when responding.

How should undefined terms be played?
Words like:
Vision
Automatic
Terminators
(If people could bring in more as I am without a rule book and the SM are my best source of these rules quirks)

Do we only choose to allow the term when it is in the description?
EX:
An unit automatically passes a leadership test.
(so its automatic)
A unit passes a leadership test without rolling.
(so its not automatic because the rules don't say it is)

Or do we always use the term when we believe we can clearly define it outside the rulebook using english.

Ex:
A unit passes a leadership test without rolling.
(its/(it's not) automatic because the use of the english language would lead us to believe it is or it's not)

Notice the first has a very clear cut answer when asking the question however just because it gives us a clear answer does not mean it is the correct way to play.

The 2nd gives us many different answers as we choose how to define said term.

Other undefined terms don't even allow the possibility of the first example.
Such as vision.
How then do we define this? Do we again use english to try and find the best possible definition?


I would like to know, not only what people think of these situations, but how they play them.
I think sorting through this as an overall situation would help to define how to play a lot of different rules as well as come to a better understanding of unclear rules.

Again, please no flames or bringing arguments from other threads in here.

Here's some more undefined terms for you:

a
the
when
if
where
are
that
can
detailed
his
he
position
avoid
what
idea
offer

Thank you for trying to derail my thread because you have some unfounded anger towards me.

Perhaps you should specify "40k Game Terms" then.

His response was valid, and yours was pretty close to insulting.

kirsanth wrote:Perhaps you should specify "40k Game Terms" then.

His response was valid, and yours was pretty close to insulting.

Sorry I figured that being in a 40k rules forum would clarify that.

Timmah:

I'm simply pointing out that the rules are filled with 'undefined' terms.

Which brings us to what you consider to be a definition, because terms like: 'visible', 'automatic', and 'Terminators' are defined in the rules.

Indeed, some rules problems, though much less than 4th edition, are not the result of ambiguous or absent definition, but amphiboly: terms bearing too many definitions. Chaos Space Marines, being a notable example.

You would think that someone who cries "CONTEXT!" at the first sign of a rules ambiguity and then attacks those who consider it ambiguous as much as Nurgy does would understand that a thread titled "Undefined terms" in a 40K rules forum was referring to undefined terms in the 40k rules, wouldn't you?

You would be wrong, of course, but then Nurgy often can not help himself.

There are a few terms that people could reasonably find confusing, mostly because as written they use terms interchangeably in some places and not in others. In general, our greater gaming group tends to just argue the rules that stick out while accepting a sort of tribal understanding for 90%. We assume all models with terminator armor are Terminators for the purposes of sweeping advance, but not for force organization slot, etc.

However, the differences come up with those of use who have a more technical background as opposed to those who don't. Engineers and programmers tend to want more strictly defined and literal rules since in our lines of work small distinctions often make huge differences. Others tend to do more of a "this makes sense" reading, which ironically causes bigger fights when two different points of view do not agree. For all their complaints about rules lawyers and being strict on the RAW to the point of being unable to play, nothing causes angry fights more than a light, airy reading of the rules colored with fluff considerations

Personally in my group we know most of the arguments about stuff. We take into account how RAW is and usually mostly base our decision off the person playing the armies belief.

Me being an accountant ofc leads me more in the way of 1st example in my OP.

Wehrdy:

Nice trolling. That''s exactly my point, that proper reading of the text and its context means that a thread about undefined game terms is as much about the structural terms as it is about the semantic terms. Each of the terms I've noted have tokens in the rules.

Wehrkind wrote:You would think that someone who cries "CONTEXT!" at the first sign of a rules ambiguity and then attacks those who consider it ambiguous as much as Nurgy does would understand that a thread titled "Undefined terms" in a 40K rules forum was referring to undefined terms in the 40k rules, wouldn't you?

You would be wrong, of course, but then Nurgy often can not help himself.

In all fairness, all of the terms Nurglich listed are, in fact, in the rules.

Sorry I cut out the non-personal, actually relevant stuff - it was a good read.

I try to keep a rich nougat core of content in all my posts, even when calling someone out on their poor, boorish behavior. Glad you liked that part

A list of undefined terms as seen by Nurglitch without any explanation or examples of why they are "undefined" in rules terms does not help the thread, it only helps Nurglitch feel better about himself by pointing out "You use all these undefined terms, so what's the problem?!" This is not to add to the conversation, but instead belittle the notion and infact end conversation.

Now, he does later make a useful point that there are differing sorts of ambiguous language use. It might well be useful to categorize various cases of confusion based on too many definitions and implied meanings of terms and too few.

It is, however, unfortunate that he decided to break his point up between two posts, one pointless and irritating, and other moderately useful.

Gentlemen, this thread has been reported. A reminder to abide by Dakka Rule #1: Be polite. lets remember that in the thread giong forward or the thread may be closed/posters subject to disciplinary action. Thank you.

A word that has no definition in the rules should be used as it's dictionary definition for the proper definition given the context of the sentence the word is in.

Context changes definitions, so please quote a rules passage and highlight the word you are looking for a book versus dictionary definition for.

One example is automatic. There is no place in any 40K book that says something like "Any automatic result means you do not roll the die". By any, I mean a statement separate from a specific rule. Morale and Gets Hot tell you how to handle automatic results specific to them; those rules being specific would not be applied generically to other situations.

So when we get to a rule for Kharn like the Betrayer that says "...any of Kharns to hit rolls of 1 in close combat have hit his own side." and the situation is that Kharn is assaulting a vehicle that has not moved (which has a hit result of automatic), it becomes critical to agree on what automatic means here.

Since there is no generic definition in the 40K rulebook for automatic, we turn to the dictionary. In the context of the situation here, automatic would mean "without user intervention or participation". So, no roll is made. That means Kharn can't go wacky and smack his friends when assaulting a vehicle that hasn't moved. But if it had moved, he would roll and possibly butcher his friend.

Another example you asked about is Terminator. Terminator has a definition within the rules. If you look in any codex that has access to Terminator armour, the rules for that piece of wargear use Terminator as a specific descriptor for Wargear: Terminator Armour. This means that any model equipped with Wargear: Terminator Armour is also by definition a Terminator (and Space Marine Terminator).

Many definitions in 40k are definitions by use, meaning that certain terms are used in a consistent fashion, like "normal", others are definition by diagram, and still others are definition by reference. None of them are phrased in a logically rigorous bi-conditional fashion, but that's understandable considering that the rules are colloquially written and that game requires co-operation as well as competition between players.

Here's an example of definition by use: Automatic, in 40k, means that you immediately apply the result without using a decision procedure such as rolling a die. In other words, you go straight to one possible result without mediation by other rules.

This is important regarding God of War and No Retreat! because rather than automatically passing the Morale check, God of War enables the player to choose a result that would otherwise be chosen by a dice roll.

Something worth mentioning is the distinction between what a text says, and what it states. What a text says is the mode of expression used, which can be quoted, and what a text states is the logical structure that it refers to, which can only be paraphrased in some formal language.

An example of this is the following two sentences.

1. Two and two is four.
2. Two plus two equals four.

These sentences say different things, but they make the same statement, "2+2=4".

Since Warhammer 40k is a system of rules expressed in a colloquial dialect, mixed in with superfluous fluff or noise text, players need to be able to extract the rules stated by the text from the text of the rules themselves. Note the amphiboly about 'rules' here. There's the rules as text, as an expression, and then there's the rules as structure, as what is expressed.

So obviously players are going to need to have a dictionary handy for possible definitions of unfamiliar terms, but they also need to be able to understand how those terms fit together. Having a grammar primer to go with that dictionary, and perhaps a thesaurus because, although it's better than it was in 4th edition, the writers still occasionally like to spice things up with synonyms (possibly due to the constraints of column inches that all copy writers face).

Nurglitch wrote:Something worth mentioning is the distinction between what a text says, and what it states. What a text says is the mode of expression used, which can be quoted, and what a text states is the logical structure that it refers to, which can only be paraphrased in some formal language.

This is probably the highlight of your post (not that the rest isn't worthwhile). People not understanding this is exactly what led to multiple pages of debate in the Librarian sweeping advance thread and the mixed Terminator squad sweeping advance thread.

Both are ignoring the premise of language quoted here.

Nurglitch wrote:
So obviously players are going to need to have a dictionary handy for possible definitions of unfamiliar terms, but they also need to be able to understand how those terms fit together. Having a grammar primer to go with that dictionary, and perhaps a thesaurus because, although it's better than it was in 4th edition, the writers still occasionally like to spice things up with synonyms (possibly due to the constraints of column inches that all copy writers face).

The problem with using a dictionary to look up said terms is that I can look up the word automatic and find 300 different definitions. Half of which will support either side.

You can choose the definition that you believe best suites the situation but its not objective. Take 200 people and they all might choose a different definition.


And that is the problem with trying to define undefined game terms. (and also the problem with GW's rule system)


Honestly they need to publish keywords and have definitions set up for each. Anything ambiguous that can mean or be interpreted multiple ways. Unfortunately they don't do this.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaaihn wrote:
This is probably the highlight of your post (not that the rest isn't worthwhile). People not understanding this is exactly what led to multiple pages of debate in the Librarian sweeping advance thread and the mixed Terminator squad sweeping advance thread.

Both are ignoring the premise of language quoted here.

The problem with reading within the premise is that it encourages different interpretations. Just like there are multiple definitions of a word, we can read a passage multiple different ways.
THIS IN TURN LEADS TO MULTIPLE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF HOW SOMETHING WORKS. Where if we just take the rules at face value without trying to interpret anything, at least we have a solid rule base that is not open to interpretation.

Heh.

I read the Librarian and SA thread...

While you may have a point (logically) in the SA thread, I think for most things you need to consider the context.

And by context I mean this is a Hobby game with intended audience of what 14-15 years + ?

You wanted to know how people deal with these situations when playing? The above example of Nurg's dealing with "automatic" is a good example of how to settle a dispute relatively easily and quickly without "lawyering" about the rules.

This post will eventually get around to addressing the OP...

Nurglich is a fan of an old style of lexical analysis that I'm not remembering the name of offhand--the one where you take things apart into their smallest parts and then try to reassemble them into a meaning. Maybe you can remind me the name of that school of semantics, Nurg?

I just use classical rhetoric/dialectic, and that's the source of most of our arguments I think. Deductive logic allows me to put aside all of the non-explicit parts of language interpretation and focus on the knowable semantic value of the words of game rules.

So as a result, for deductive reasoning, there are two kinds of questions. Those that have a knowable, sound answer, and those that don't. Deductive logic can't be used to show that things are false or wrong. It can only show that things are either (1) true or (2) not known to be true.

To treat rules this way does actually require a handful of working assumptions. One of the basic assumptions is one I call the "conservation of language." It assumes that (1) words have determinable meanings, that (2) words retain their meanings in multiple contexts, that (3) words defined in the rules can mean something different from what they mean in a dictionary and that (4) some outside authority, such as a dictionary, can be used to define words that are not defined explicitly by the rules. This assumption is necessary in order to have any kind of meaningful application of rules.

So as a result, if a word has multiple possible meanings and the meanings produce different results in the rules, then that is a rule that cannot be read literally. Something like this happened a couple of years back in the multi-wound model rules where the word "whole" could mean either "entire" or "unwounded," each of which produced a different result.

If the meanings of words in the rules produce contradictions or unresolvable ambiguities, then deductive logic can't produce a sound reading of the rule because you have to assume one meaning that you don't know is correct. You just have to accept that the rule is ambiguous.

Flavius Infernus:

I believe you're referring to conceptual analysis. The idea behind conceptual analysis is that the meaning of some unit of natural language (usually sentences) is determined by several things: the terms, grammar, syntax, and semantics. Conceptual analysis uses a process of synonymy and grammatical reconfiguration to isolate syntactic and semantic information for use in formal logic.

It was originally developed by pioneers in the analytic tradition of modern philosophy, Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and so on, first to push for a logicist program by which meaning could be reduced to matters of logic, and once that project failed, it was used as a 'first-step' heuristic in applying formal logic to topics in philosophy.

The mistake that you make in supposing conceptual analysis is all I do is probably due to the fact that it's a good first place to start when entertaining any structure realized in colloquial language, and given the simplicity of the Warhammer rules and questions related to them, usually the last step necessary for determining an answer. Besides, given the utter paucity of education regarding symbolic logic around here makes breaking out a predicate pseudo-code an exercise in futility.

Another interesting error that I would attribute to your understanding of deductive logic is supposing deductive logic to have anything to do with determining matters of truth or falsity. Deductive logic is purely a syntactic matter, and has been since Aristotle's Syllogistic was superseded by the predicate calculus around the turn of the last century. Applying deductive logic to natural languages doesn't work, which is precisely why Aristotle's logic was abandoned (or, rather, subsumed as a fragment of quantificational theory).

Trying to reason using the elements of a sentence's expression, rather than the elements of its statement, is not simply a weak mode of reasoning, however. It won't just let you down when trying to prove the validity of arguments that are not posed as syllogism, it'll actually return false results because your premises will be false. Essentially you're be arguing the words, not the concepts behind them.

So an appeal to deductive logic in matters of truth will only get you so far, showing you were your original assumptions will take you and no further. Not to say there can't be surprises (computer science is, after all, an empirical science), but just that you need extra machinery in order to determine truth.

Part of the innovation of the predicate calculus is that truth and falsity, or whatever other values you may prefer to work with, are put to one side and handled as a semantic model, usually via set theory or category theory or whatever semantics one might prefer to employ.

This semantic model can be glossed over as a "Universe of Discourse", if you're not inclined to go into the proof theory of it, but it really needs to be handled considering that the whole thing about Warhammer 40k is mapping game rules onto a set of game elements such as models, dice, players, a board, and rules.

But, as I mentioned, you either need a system for extracting information from its expression in sentences of colloquial language, or you need a formal language, or your deductions are screwed from the get go. And you need a system for mapping those deductions back onto your model so that your arguments concerning some point of contention are not only sound, but count as proof.

As for myself, I prefer to employ a form of para-consistent logic in concert with AFA (anti-foundational axiom) set theory as that combination tends to handle the inconsistencies and self-references inherent in natural languages and game systems. But like I said, nobody else is up to speed in it and the problem we face in this forum, when they aren't problems that could be solved by looking it up yourself, are problems that result from weak reading comprehension of the English language.

Perhaps it would be wise to go find a forum with people who are "up to speed" enough for you, Nurglitch?

Or possibly, since your talents are obviously wasted here, you could cure all known diseases or solve world hunger?

Either way, it's clear that we mortals aren't much of a challenge to such a dizzying intellect.

DoW

Nurglitch wrote:Flavius Infernus:

I believe you're referring to conceptual analysis. The idea behind conceptual analysis is that the meaning of some unit of natural language (usually sentences) is determined by several things: the terms, grammar, syntax, and semantics. Conceptual analysis uses a process of synonymy and grammatical reconfiguration to isolate syntactic and semantic information for use in formal logic.

It was originally developed by pioneers in the analytic tradition of modern philosophy, Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, and so on, first to push for a logicist program by which meaning could be reduced to matters of logic, and once that project failed, it was used as a 'first-step' heuristic in applying formal logic to topics in philosophy.

The mistake that you make in supposing conceptual analysis is all I do is probably due to the fact that it's a good first place to start when entertaining any structure realized in colloquial language, and given the simplicity of the Warhammer rules and questions related to them, usually the last step necessary for determining an answer. Besides, given the utter paucity of education regarding symbolic logic around here makes breaking out a predicate pseudo-code an exercise in futility.

Another interesting error that I would attribute to your understanding of deductive logic is supposing deductive logic to have anything to do with determining matters of truth or falsity. Deductive logic is purely a syntactic matter, and has been since Aristotle's Syllogistic was superseded by the predicate calculus around the turn of the last century. Applying deductive logic to natural languages doesn't work, which is precisely why Aristotle's logic was abandoned (or, rather, subsumed as a fragment of quantificational theory).

Trying to reason using the elements of a sentence's expression, rather than the elements of its statement, is not simply a weak mode of reasoning, however. It won't just let you down when trying to prove the validity of arguments that are not posed as syllogism, it'll actually return false results because your premises will be false. Essentially you're be arguing the words, not the concepts behind them.

So an appeal to deductive logic in matters of truth will only get you so far, showing you were your original assumptions will take you and no further. Not to say there can't be surprises (computer science is, after all, an empirical science), but just that you need extra machinery in order to determine truth.

Part of the innovation of the predicate calculus is that truth and falsity, or whatever other values you may prefer to work with, are put to one side and handled as a semantic model, usually via set theory or category theory or whatever semantics one might prefer to employ.

This semantic model can be glossed over as a "Universe of Discourse", if you're not inclined to go into the proof theory of it, but it really needs to be handled considering that the whole thing about Warhammer 40k is mapping game rules onto a set of game elements such as models, dice, players, a board, and rules.

But, as I mentioned, you either need a system for extracting information from its expression in sentences of colloquial language, or you need a formal language, or your deductions are screwed from the get go. And you need a system for mapping those deductions back onto your model so that your arguments concerning some point of contention are not only sound, but count as proof.

As for myself, I prefer to employ a form of para-consistent logic in concert with AFA (anti-foundational axiom) set theory as that combination tends to handle the inconsistencies and self-references inherent in natural languages and game systems. But like I said, nobody else is up to speed in it and the problem we face in this forum, when they aren't problems that could be solved by looking it up yourself, are problems that result from weak reading comprehension of the English language.

I've been reading the vast majority of these threads, excitedly waiting for someone to make a post like this.
gg Sir and Kudos.

<3

Yah, conceptual analysis. That's the one. I'm a fan of Wittgenstein, but I agree with the scholars who say conceptual analysis is founded on an error of composition--that the parts contain some identifiable aspect of the whole.

I agree that applying deductive logic to naturalistic languages doesn't work, and I'm not in the habit of doing that in my everyday life. I would argue, though, that a set of game rules is not a naturalistic language. It's a specialized system of meaning analogous to mathematics or a computer language (in which "true" statements are determinable). The closed world assumption makes a rules system subject to this kind of deduction.

Yes, I agree that I'm arguing the words, not the concepts behind them. Since the concepts can only be reached by inductive reasoning, I'm disregarding the concepts for the purposes of determining the semantic value of the words (when possible) deductively. The language is, in most places, functionally formal, so in most places it works. Again, I don't see that as the final word on how the game should be played: only as a consistently obtainable starting point for discussing what the words say.

My only argument for going with deductive reasoning over other types of language analysis is that it is consistent. Opinions are like elbows. But deduction allows everybody who is using some relatively easy rules to come to the same conclusion every time, regardless of opinions, when an answer can be determined at all.

I would be happy if you would frame your arguments in terms of predicate calculus. I will get it at least. After many years of talking about and using propositional logic on this forum--and finding that people pick it up pretty quickly--I do not share your skepticism about the ability of Dakkaites to grasp complex concepts.

Flavius Infernus wrote: Opinions are like elbows.

Really. . . this is what lost me.

Pray tell? Or is it just that people have two?

Hehe, jokes aren't as funny when you have to explain them.

It's a combination of the "opinons are like a**holes" saying and the "can't tell his a** from his elbow" saying.

So I guess everybody has them *and* you can't tell them apart from each other.

I get it. . . it's another "sarcasm is lost in text" issue.

maybe

Flavius Infernus wrote:I agree that applying deductive logic to naturalistic languages doesn't work, and I'm not in the habit of doing that in my everyday life. I would argue, though, that a set of game rules is not a naturalistic language. It's a specialized system of meaning analogous to mathematics or a computer language (in which "true" statements are determinable). The closed world assumption makes a rules system subject to this kind of deduction.

See, this is where I disagree.

I think the Warhammer 40k ruleset has taken on aspects of a specialized system similar to what you're describing, but it still remains rooted in a natural language, and thus while deductive reasoning is more useful than it normally would be it isn't absolutely useful.

In terms of pragmatics, I don't see the potential consistency derived from using only deductive reasoning as being all that helpful, as (a) I don't think it's that significant of a difference, (b) I think it's detrimental to many aspects of the game, and (c) it's simply counter-intuitive for most people, which means in practice it will cause more inconsistency unless everyone else starts accepting it.

Flavius Infernus:

The scholars who claim that conceptual analysis is founded on a fallacy of composition tend to fail at conceptual analysis. The point of analysis isn't to take something apart and look at the pieces, it's to see how the parts work together to produce the properties of the whole.

I certainly agree that a set of game rules should be written in a formal language, but for whatever reason GW simply fails to do that.

Given that they express the rules in a combination of natural language, diagrams, and layout, and that those rules can reasonably be assumed to apply to either themselves reflexively, or to elements on the game board as extensions or referents, then we can build a model of the game to which we can apply whatever systems of logic that we please.

But the fact is that you cannot deduce the semantic value of the terms expressing the rules, that's logicism, and it's a dead end thanks to Russell's Paradox. All you can do to prove a point about what the rules-text says about the game is to match the syntax of the rules to the semantic model of the game and note consistency. This isn't presuming to tell people how the rules work, it's an empirical practice of figuring out how they work. The best part is, of course, that one can be wrong about how the rules work.

This should be distinguished from how play is implemented. After all, how people play is up to them. You don't presume how to tell people how to play, and I don't either. But how people play is irrelevant to what the rules-text states, although what the rules-text states can occasionally be relevant to play by creating a common reference between players to aid in the co-operative aspects of the game.

But figuring out exactly what the rules-text states, and doing it constructively, fallibly, and rigorously is best done from the starting point of figuring out what the text is expressing first, before deducing the understated rules of the game.

By the way, I do not doubt the ability of Dakka-ites to grasp complex concepts, or even simple concepts like the predicate calculus. I doubt their motivation. Also, I would like to state that I share your enthusiasm for objective standards of reasoning, I just think your methodology doesn't suit the subject matter.

Orkeosaurus wrote:See, this is where I disagree.

I think the Warhammer 40k ruleset has taken on aspects of a specialized system similar to what you're describing, but it still remains rooted in a natural language, and thus while deductive reasoning is more useful than it normally would be it isn't absolutely useful.

In terms of pragmatics, I don't see the potential consistency derived from using only deductive reasoning as being all that helpful, as (a) I don't think it's that significant of a difference, (b) I think it's detrimental to many aspects of the game, and (c) it's simply counter-intuitive for most people, which means in practice it will cause more inconsistency unless everyone else starts accepting it.

We might just have to disagree on that, then

I originally started using deductive logic to get literal readings of rules as a response to widespread use of the argument from ignorance fallacy on an earlier incarnation of this board (now I think we call it the "rules don't say I can't" argument).

In my real life I'm a totally postmodern type, and I work in the humanities, not the sciences or mathematics.

I completely agree that the ruleset only works as a formal language in a limited way, and in many places deductive reasoning just won't work because there's a contradiction or an ambiguity that can't be resolved. But I have historically gotten great utility out of it doing very basic things like proving that an infantry model moves up to 6" or that a librarian is subject to the rules for independent characters.

I have noticed that GW's language has become increasingly formal over the years, and I believe the number of passages that can't be figured out as if it were a formal logical language is drastically smaller now.

EIther I don't understand your question or your question is pointless. You are asking what the difference is between saying a unit auto passes vs. passes without rolling.

There is no difference. This seems to be an exersize in futility.