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.

I really hate when some people use the "You-can't-use-The-rules-doesn't-say-Im-prohibited" card as an excuse for their lack of reading comprehension skills.

Don't get me wrong. I am in total understanding with the fact that we need a rule to allow us any given action.
There just happen to crop up situations where you have to ask your opponent to show you where the rules says that you can't do a given thing.

Gwar! is looking at it to much in black and white (though he will never admit to being wrong).

Steelmage99 wrote:Gwar! is looking at it to much in black and white (though he will never admit to being wrong).

Because he never is, just misinformed

Kaaihn:

I agree, and I think you raise a really good point. I think if I hadn't TA'd logic and critical thinking classes back in the day, I would be utterly mystified about some people's inability to make logical inferences, not merely putting two and two together to make four, but doing so according to the logic of the material in front of them.

It turns out that most first-year university students, the ones taking Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking the years I TA'd at least, were almost pathologically incapable of making sound inferences. Or noticing what a sound inference was (hint, it's not "An inference that you like the sound of"!) Or noticing that you don't get extra marks for creativity in exams, for that matter. Thank God for grading on a curve, else the failure rate would have created a scandal.

The capacity to make sound inferences because so much of the 40k rules requires players to make valid inferences, such as "Tactical Marines are Infantry, Infantry move 6", therefore Tactical Marines move 6", and yet when you point out the only valid inference that a particular combination of rules implies and they say: "Show me where it says that in the rules"*.

The worst part is when people say things like "Well, according to your logic" or "You shouldn't apply things like logic to Warhammer rules", as if logic was somehow subjective and not about rules.

*This drives me up the wall, because one of the seminal results in logic in the twentieth century was that no logic, no system of rules, could be explicitly expressed, hence the abandonment of logicism in favour of axiomatic approaches.

@Nurglitch- My head just imploded....thanks.lol

Another one is when someone makes an analogy that's only analogous when working under the assumption that they're correct, and they use it to try and prove that they are correct.

That happens more than a few times a thread.

Hey, speaking of analogies, here's an interesting analysis of why analogical reasoning sucks via the medium of sticking it to Creationists. To summarize: analogical reasoning sucks because analogies abstract away important formal (a.k.a 'structural') elements of an argument while simultaneously situating the content in either an irrelevant universe of discourse, or a dissimilar model. Mind you, Monty Python already covered this one in "Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail", but I really like the details of this since a friend of mine does something similar in computer science.

Nurglitch wrote:Hey, speaking of analogies, here's an interesting analysis of why analogical reasoning sucks via the medium of sticking it to Creationists. To summarize: analogical reasoning sucks because analogies abstract away important formal (a.k.a 'structural') elements of an argument while simultaneously situating the content in either an irrelevant universe of discourse, or a dissimilar model. Mind you, Monty Python already covered this one in "Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail", but I really like the details of this since a friend of mine does something similar in computer science.

This was worth watching just for the bit where the clocks mate. That was hilariously done.

Here's an even better one for creationists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related

This is a fun poll.

The options should be:

1. I read the text and I will follow it's guidance.

2. I didn't read any of the text, therefore, I will make up my own rules. Or I read the text, but I choose to ignore it.

I vote permissive.

Otherwise my armies free broom which it obviously never says I cant take will use its special rule to sweep your models off the table, since it never says I cant use the brooms special sweep move.

blaktoof wrote:I vote permissive.

Otherwise my armies free broom which it obviously never says I cant take will use its special rule to sweep your models off the table, since it never says I cant use the brooms special sweep move.

That would be an advanced sweeping move, which is covered on page 40. Sorry, I had to, I just liked the sound of that inference.

*ducks*

Sweeping Advance! Sweeping Advance!

Deploy the bowling ball ordnance templates!