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.

insaniak:

No, they both mean that you must take one Runtherd for every ten Grots, since, if you must take one Runtherd for every ten Grots, the number of Grots depends on the number of Runtherds.

Nice little flame though, always in character.

No flame was intended. Your arguments, if somewhat tending towards long-windedness, normally make more sense.

So it seemed likely that you were either just here for a lark, or had overlooked something obvious. Happens to us all occasionally.

1 Runtherd for every 10 grots means precisely that. For every 10 grots, you have 1 Runtherd.

The number of grots does not depend on the number of Runtherd. You select X number of grots, and for every bundle of 10, you take a Runtherd.

Okay, let's take it from the top then.

Codex: Orks says:

1. "For every ten Gretchin you must take one Runtherd"

Does this mean that for every ten Gretchin that you purchase, you have one Runtherd?

No, it does not. To see why, it might help to look at a superficially similar sentence from the Ork Boyz entry. It says:

2. "For every ten Orks in the mob, one Ork may exchange his slugga or shoota for a big shoot or rokkit launcha"

In both cases, we can rewrite them so that the preposition beginning the sentence instead joins its two clauses.

1. "You must take one Runtherd for every ten Gretchin"

2. "One Ork may exchange his slugga or shoota for a big shoot or rokkit launcha, for every ten Orks in the mob"

So they still look superficially the same, reading something like "You take A for every x B" which can be paraphrased as "If x B then A". If these two sentences both read this way, then it would be true that a mob of Gretchin would need twenty Grots before it had to take two Runtherds.

However...

One says "must" and the other, two, says "may". So when one says "You must take A for every x B" and the other says "You may take A for every x B".

We know the latter, #2, means that:

1. If you take x B (x = 10, B is Boyz), then you can have A (the exchange of slugga or shoota for big shoota or rokkit launcha).

The former, #1, "You must take A for every x B", cannot be rephrased in such a manner since the requirement, the "must", flips the conditions. So it must be paraphased as "If you take A, then you can have x B". It follows that "If you take A (one Runtherd), then you can have x B (ten Grots).

Therefore, the sentence "For every ten Gretchin you must take one Runtherd" means the same thing as "You can have ten Grots for every Runtherd."

As I explained earlier:

"The keywords here are "may" and "must", and these are not interchangeable, logically. The logic in question is, naturally, modal logic, the logic of necessity and possibility."

If we represent "May" the possibility modal operator, with <> and "Must" the necessity modal operator [] and a basic propositional logic (using -> to indicate material conditional operators), anyone can understand how the conditionals become flipped so that otherwise identical sentences express very different statements:

1. []A -> <>B
"You must take one Runtherd for every ten Gretchin"

2. <>(B -> A)
"One Ork may exchange his slugga or shoota for a big shoot or rokkit launcha, for every ten Orks in the mob"

Nurglitch wrote:The former, #1, "You must take A for every x B", cannot be rephrased in such a manner since the requirement, the "must", flips the conditions. So it must be paraphased as "If you take A, then you can have x B". It follows that "If you take A (one Runtherd), then you can have x B (ten Grots).

This is where you lose me.

The fact that the Runtherd is compulsory doesn't suddenly reverse the statement. It simply means that you have to take them, if the number of Grots meets the requirement.

You're not selecting a Runtherd, and then adding Grots. It's a Gretchin unit, not a Runtherd unit. You select 'x' number of Gretchin, and then for every 10 of them, you take a Runtherd.

insaniak:

Okay, so why don't you agree that the change in modality reverses the statement?

Try looking at it from this angle then:

Assume that the ratios of Runtherds to Gretchin is 1:1. Now, a synonym for "every" is "each", and grammatically we'd need that synonym to rephrase the sentence in question to fit this hypothetical change in content, although the same logical information is conveyed.

Instead of "For every ten Gretchin you must take one Runtherd", we can have "For each Gretchin you must take one Runtherd" or, to extend it, "For each option of a Gretchin you must take one Runtherd".

This change in subject, but not in logical content, should illuminate the fact that because the Runtherd is compulsory, and the Grots are optional, that the number of the Grots is dependent upon the number of the Runtherds.

As I illustrate it above, in comparing the phrase in the Ork Boys entry with the phrase in question, the former contains two options. The first is to take up to ten boyz, and the second to exchange weapons. The option take the exchange of weapons depends on the option to take ten Orks.

The phrase in the Gretchin entry contains a requirement and an option, and the option to take a number of Gretchin depends on the requirement of taking a number of Runtherds.

If you must have one thing for every ten other things, then whether you have those ten other things depends on first having that one thing. You must have that one thing, and then, it's there for those ten other things.

Put another way, if the option is that you must have a Runtherd for every ten Gretchin, then in realizing that option you must have a Runtherd for there to be 10 Gretchin.

insaniak wrote:No flame was intended. Your arguments, if somewhat tending towards long-windedness, normally make more sense.

So it seemed likely that you were either just here for a lark, or had overlooked something obvious. Happens to us all occasionally.

1 Runtherd for every 10 grots means precisely that. For every 10 grots, you have 1 Runtherd.

The number of grots does not depend on the number of Runtherd. You select X number of grots, and for every bundle of 10, you take a Runtherd.

How can it be explained any other way? This is spot on. Nurglitch is spending way too much time analyzing a pretty basic statement.

Well this is the internet. If he wants to make himself look like a fool he has every right.

Nurglitch wrote:Okay, so why don't you agree that the change in modality reverses the statement?

Because it doesn't?

The condition is the same. The only difference between your two examples is that in one, the action is optional, and in the other the action is required.

This change in subject, but not in logical content, should illuminate the fact that because the Runtherd is compulsory, and the Grots are optional, that the number of the Grots is dependent upon the number of the Runtherds.

This makes no sense within the context of the actual entry.

You select a number of Grots. For every 10 of them, you take a Runtherd.
The number of Runtherds is therefore dependant on the number of Gretchin. The fact that the number of Gretchin is variable makes no difference to that whatsoever.

Put another way, if the option is that you must have a Runtherd for every ten Gretchin, then in realizing that option you must have a Runtherd for there to be 10 Gretchin.

What this overlooks is that having a Runtherd doesn't automatically require there to be only 10 Gretchin.

If you need a Runtherd for every 10 Gretchin, then having a Runtherd requires you to have at least 10 Gretchin, not exactly 10 Gretchin.

To put it simply, the rules require you to take a Runtherd for every 10 Gretchin. So, if there is 1 Runtherd, then there will be at least 10 Gretchin, because you need a Runtherd for every lot of 10. Whether there are exactly 10 Gretchin or 15, you've still satisfied the rules.

em_en_oh_pee wrote:How can it be explained any other way? This is spot on. Nurglitch is spending way too much time analyzing a pretty basic statement.

I explained it the other way, incidentally the correct way. I tried a very simple explanation, really all that needed mentioning, but somehow or other some of you seem to lack basic reading skills, which requires covering lots of remedial material.

So far as I'm concerned, simply restating the original quote, as I've done, should be the end of the matter.

But, as always, the 'obvious' seems to be distracting people from the evidence.

Gwar! wrote:Well this is the internet. If he wants to make himself look like a fool he has every right.

Quoted for irony. Nice contribution Francis.

Insaniak:

Except the condition is not the same. That's my point. The change in keyword from "may" to "must" means that while the first part of the Ork Boyz phrase is the condition for that sentence, the second part of the Gretchin phrase is the condition for that sentence.

I've pointed out that this is the only difference, but given that it's the only difference, it makes all the difference.

The subject-substitution example makes sense in the context of that entry, because a unit of Gretchin has, at minimum, one Runtherd and ten Gretchin.

So, given that a unit is minimally one Runtherd and ten Grethin, it makes sense that if you change this ratio without changing the logical content, then you can decide whether that change in subject affects the logical content or not. If it does, then that reading is inconsistent and the interpretation is false. If the logical content is consistent, then the interpretation is truth-preserving.

Speaking of truth-preserving, my point about how the "Must" and "May" statements changes the logical form of the sentences does not overlook the fact that having a Runtherd doesn't automatically require there to be only ten Gretchin. It assumes it as given. After all, as I said prior to the sentence you quoted, "the Runtherd is compulsory, and the Grots are optional".

So naturally, I agree with the statement that the rules require you to take one Runtherd for every ten Gretchin you may take.

Where I disagree with you is that it follows from this that if you have ten Gretchin, then you must take one Runtherd. What it clearly and unambiguously means is that if you take one Runtherd, then you may take up to ten Gretchin, for the reasons I've given.

Let me summarize those reasons as I have given them, for your convenience.

1. The presence of "Must" instead of "May" in such a sentence expressing a conditional makes what is mandatory the condition.

2. Conceptual analysis demonstrates that this transformation of the sentence into non-ambiguous sentences is truth-preserving for the case that it means the number of Grots depends on the number of Runtherds, and not truth-preserving otherwise.

3. The lack of any effort to show otherwise beyond a just-so "Because it doesn't?"

Nurglitch wrote:Where I disagree with you is that it follows from this that if you have ten Gretchin, then you must take one Runtherd.

So... where you disagree is with my claim that the rules actually mean what they say, rather than the exact opposite?

Yeah, ok. Good luck with that.

Nurglitch, after looking through your posts in the topic, the cornerstone of your argument is this: although the conditions of the boys weapon upgrades the runtherd upgrade look almost identical, the conditions are flipped because of the presence of "must" instead of "may". You keep stating that this is because of how "conceptual analysis" works and you also seem to be frustrated that none of use understand how "conceptual analysis" works.

Now, I'm not asking you to give us a lesson on conceptual analysis, you've done enough of that, however, I think it would make things a lot easier for all of us, as well as get to the bottom line of this argument, if you would explain SPECIFICALLY WHY the presence of "MUST" changes the conditions, instead of just referring to conceptual analysis. Try to do so without using the same old textbook terms that aren't getting across. If it's such a simple matter of reading comprehension, it shouldn't be that hard to put it layman's terms.

Squig's 2 cents coming at you:
1. My understanding of the rules are as follows "Every runtherder controls up to 10 gretchen, he only has two hands and a grot prond ^^, so if i had 11 gretchen my first runtherder is too busy with his 10 to control the 11th and therefor we need another runtherder", do see?

2. A much simple analysis is, A drummer has two drum sticks, he can play two drums [or notes if you like] at a time [we are excluding base and the pedals] now you ask him to play three notes at once, he cant do it, he need another hand, so we get another drummer for the third notes. just follow that example on and on and you will yes.

3. One last example, if you look at the game star craft [second one is coming out soonish ^^] the race called zerg [like tyranids] need overlords to increase populatation you start with 10, now to to go to 11-20 you need to purchase another one, and so on. This can also be seen in DoW 1-1.4[soulstorm being the last true RTS in the series], you must first purchase the Waaagh! banner before increasing the number.

I hope that helps

P.S. me facebiters only need one, me^^ lol

"May" and "must" doesn't matter.
"Runtherd" and "Big shoota/Rokkitlauncher" doesn't either.
The quantifier matters.

The quantifier, is both in the case of Boyz and Gretchin; "for every ten X."

Either we allow Boyz to buy a "special" weapon for every 10 boyz or part thereof and Runtherds to be bought for every 10 Gretchin or part thereof

or

We agree that you must have the full 10 X before the quantifier is fullfilled, thus "allowing/forcing" the upgrade ("special weapon/Runtherd").

The rules say nothing of control.

You can as easily argue that you need 10 grots to control one runtherd, if you only got 19 grots you obviously don't have enough to control more than one runtherd.

So your examples do not work Squig_herder.

1-10 Grotz -> 1, 2 or 3 RuntHerds
11-20 Grotz -> 2 or 3 RuntHerds
21-30 grotz -> 3 RuntHerds

Nurglitch, you crack me up Dressing up a bald assertion in fancy language doesn't make it any less a bald assertion. Conceptual analysis isn't a reading skill--and even among analytic philosophers it's controversial.

Formal logic, in contrast, is not controversial.

Nurglitch wrote:Step 1

Let's take the original sentence to be:

"For every ten Gretchin you must take one Runtherd"

Step 2

Restate it so the sentence doesn't begin with a preposition.

'You must take one Runtherd for every ten Gretchin"

...and you're taking the preposition out of the beginning because...? I don't see any logical reason to move the preposition out of the front position, but I do see a problem with it. By changing the word order you've actually changed the logic of the statement.

The original sentence translates into a condition as "If ten gretchen, then one runtherd."

The only allowable change that translates to the same meaning is the contrapositive: "If not one runtherd, then not ten gretchen."

Your reversal of the terms is a fallacy of affirming the consequent: "If one runtherd, then ten gretchen."

This statement does lead logically to your conclusion, but it is *not* a true verbal equivalent of "For every ten gretchen you must take one runtherd." Your argument is flawed from step one.

If you're seriously going to use logic (aka reading skills) you're not allowed to just reverse terms of a statement willy-nilly.

Those who are arguing that 9 grots does not equal 10 grots are reading the logic of the statement correctly. The requirement is "10 gretchen" for each required runtherd, not "up to 10." There's no support for the assertion that "ten" is the verbal equivalent of "up to ten."

SmoovKriminal wrote:Nurglitch, after looking through your posts in the topic, the cornerstone of your argument is this: although the conditions of the boys weapon upgrades the runtherd upgrade look almost identical, the conditions are flipped because of the presence of "must" instead of "may". You keep stating that this is because of how "conceptual analysis" works and you also seem to be frustrated that none of use understand how "conceptual analysis" works.

Now, I'm not asking you to give us a lesson on conceptual analysis, you've done enough of that, however, I think it would make things a lot easier for all of us, as well as get to the bottom line of this argument, if you would explain SPECIFICALLY WHY the presence of "MUST" changes the conditions, instead of just referring to conceptual analysis. Try to do so without using the same old textbook terms that aren't getting across. If it's such a simple matter of reading comprehension, it shouldn't be that hard to put it layman's terms.

I understand conceptual analysis, and I don't believe it applies in this case. It's a simple verbal logic question with a clear answer.

[edit]
Actually on further reviewing Nurglitch's arguments, I believe his use of conceptual analysis is leading him into errors of verbal logic: like substituting "every" for "each" for instance.

Someone needs to post a pic of a dead horse (Frazzled, where are you?).

What is clear is that the rules aren't clear.

INAT FAQ says that you need 2 runtherds for 29 grotz. INAT FAQ is not official, but usually a good starting point.

I will add, if you think that 11 grotz equals 2 runtherds, then you should also play that 11 ork boyz equals 2 rokkits or big shootas. The sentence structure is the same, just replacing 'may' (an option to select wargear) with 'must', which required adding the runtherd to the unit. And don't get into any fancy gramatical analysis and re-writes, just don't. Be consistent and fair. And saying that 11 grotz needs 2 runtherds, but you need 20 boyz for 2 bottle rokkits is being inconsistent.

And I don't think you need to ask a TO for clarification, but you might want to.

IMHO, any explanation of a wargaming rule aimed at teenagers that requires "conceptual analysis" or "logic formulas" (e.g. 1. []A -> <>B , 2. <>(B -> A) ) is taking a point way beyond what it was meant to be.

"For every 10 ... Must" and "For every ten ... May" have the same requirement of what "For every ten" means.

I am of the opinion that both should be run the same, either :
a) 11 grots = 2 runtherds AND 11 boyz = 2 special weapons,
or
b) 11 grots = 1 runtherd AND 11 boyz = 1 special weapon.
I am happy to play it either way, but think the 2nd is correct.

As noted, deceased equine beatings are occurring.
All have made their case.
I'll talk to the people at my table, see what they say.

Spike Out.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Nurglitch, you crack me up Dressing up a bald assertion in fancy language doesn't make it any less a bald assertion. Conceptual analysis isn't a reading skill--and even among analytic philosophers it's controversial.

Formal logic, in contrast, is not controversial.

Nurglitch wrote:Step 1

Let's take the original sentence to be:

"For every ten Gretchin you must take one Runtherd"

Step 2

Restate it so the sentence doesn't begin with a preposition.

'You must take one Runtherd for every ten Gretchin"

...and you're taking the preposition out of the beginning because...? I don't see any logical reason to move the preposition out of the front position, but I do see a problem with it. By changing the word order you've actually changed the logic of the statement.

The original sentence translates into a condition as "If ten gretchen, then one runtherd."

The only allowable change that translates to the same meaning is the contrapositive: "If not one runtherd, then not ten gretchen."

Your reversal of the terms is a fallacy of affirming the consequent: "If one runtherd, then ten gretchen."

This statement does lead logically to your conclusion, but it is *not* a true verbal equivalent of "For every ten gretchen you must take one runtherd." Your argument is flawed from step one.

If you're seriously going to use logic (aka reading skills) you're not allowed to just reverse terms of a statement willy-nilly.

Those who are arguing that 9 grots does not equal 10 grots are reading the logic of the statement correctly. The requirement is "10 gretchen" for each required runtherd, not "up to 10." There's no support for the assertion that "ten" is the verbal equivalent of "up to ten."

Well said Flavius.

Nurglitch, you crack me up Dressing up a bald assertion in fancy language doesn't make it any less a bald assertion. Conceptual analysis isn't a reading skill--and even among analytic philosophers it's controversial.

Formal logic, in contrast, is not controversial.

Flavius always talks so purdy.....

coredump wrote:

Nurglitch, you crack me up Dressing up a bald assertion in fancy language doesn't make it any less a bald assertion. Conceptual analysis isn't a reading skill--and even among analytic philosophers it's controversial.

Formal logic, in contrast, is not controversial.

Flavius always talks so purdy.....

He has a Purdy Mouth