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.

Timmah;

- Your continued efforts in this thread proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your are showing rules laywering behaviour.

- 99% Of people understand that the stuff written under the Terminator Armor section relates to rules to do with models wearing terminator armor.

- Again 99% of people will understand that stuff written under the Terminator Squad unit entry relates to rules to do with Terminator Squads.


Its all really simple and easy to understand. Aslong as you dont rules laywer. This thread should be sticky'ed as a prime example there of.

Razerous wrote:Timmah;

- Your continued efforts in this thread proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your are showing rules laywering behaviour.

- 99% Of people understand that the stuff written under the Terminator Armor section relates to rules to do with models wearing terminator armor.

- Again 99% of people will understand that stuff written under the Terminator Squad unit entry relates to rules to do with Terminator Squads.


Its all really simple and easy to understand. Aslong as you dont rules laywer. This thread should be sticky'ed as a prime example there of.

You will notice this is a discussion board not a game. I love how I can't bring up a topic and defend my position without being called a rules lawyer.

Obviously the popular answer MUST be correct and I am a filthy rules lawyer for even bring this up on a forum.

I'll make sure and keep my topics to well known and accepted rules questions from now on.

I think you are missing the point. I also agree that the Librarian cannot sweeping advance, seeing as it is the terminator armour that stops him, not him suddenly becoming particularily dense when he is in terminator armour.

What's most irritating is that WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS.

UNFORTUNATELY, as written, Timnah's argument is logically sound. (It isn't logically valid, but that's another argument. Also, I may have those two terms backwards.)

HOWEVER, no one wishes to play that way, indeed, from the tone of some of Timnah's posts, HE doesn't intend to play that way.

SO, why are we still here?

RAW a Librarian in terminator can sweeping advance. However Im fairly sure he cant sweeping advance if he is with a unit of terminators. Its not fair he is being called a rules lawyer. That term has a negative meaning associated with it. He simply pointed something out, wanted clarification and you guys ripped him a new one? Why? You make the call is not about RAI, its about RAW, intentions are not set in stone. Terminator Armor only stops Terminators from sweeping advance. Librarians are not Terminators. They can wear Terminator armor which grants them relentless and a 2/5save.

Okay.

Guys in terminator armor = Terminators.

RAW. Now this may not be, one-word-leads-to-next-word RAW but it is RAW when viewed within the entire context of the Armour section and the subsequent discription. If you want a quote, read the entire section headed "terminator armour".

5 Terminator Space marines = Terminator Squad.

Also RAW.

Thats all there is to it. All other arguments (when disagreeing with the above) are wrong. Yes, you may read it one way, but your still wrong. Disagree with me? No-one else, in a game situation, will agree with you. I apologise for my brashness but its such a uncontestable rule...

P.s I have noticed this is a discussion thread. Which is why I tried discussing it with you. You can do whatever you want but im afraid (as you quite perceptively noted) this discussion board and its various posters may disagree with you. If you bring topics like these with arguments like you have, I think thats rules laywering. But then I may be wrong, just goes to show.

I agree. People pretend like "Rules as Written" allows them to ignore what the rules - as written - are actually referring to and instead apply some sort of secondary ruleset that has no grounding in the actual rules.

A terminator is a model that is wearing terminator armor, because that's what the author meant by terminator. That much is clear to a reader who is genuinely trying to read the passage for what it is. Context is a part of language.

AllWillFall2Me wrote:What's most irritating is that WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS.

UNFORTUNATELY, as written, Timnah's argument is logically sound. (It isn't logically valid, but that's another argument. Also, I may have those two terms backwards.)

HOWEVER, no one wishes to play that way, indeed, from the tone of some of Timnah's posts, HE doesn't intend to play that way.

SO, why are we still here?

His argument is not logically sound as it relies on taking single sentences out of context. You can't remove sentences from a paragraph or section of the rules and try to build an argument upon it anymore then you can isolate individual parts of a sentence to prove a point. Written language is made up of more than just sentences.

All the quotes that he has provided in this section are found in the rules description for "Terminator Armor" and therefore apply to all models wearing it, regardless of whether the author describes the armor in its full name, "Terminator Armor" or uses something else like "Terminators" or even a bizarro abbreviation like "Termies". It doesn't matter, because that entire passage are rules for Terminator Armor as highlighted by the TITLE of the section.

This is further reinforced by the description for the "Terminator Squad" on page 64 of the codex which highlights that the terms used to describe marines fighting in Terminator armor varies, and is often simply "Terminators".


But none of this matters, nor does the fact that if we put a poll in this thread that 99% of people would call the OP crazy for trying to stand by his argument.

This thread was clearly created to get a reaction. Even the title of the thread proclaims what the OP is going to do and then dares people to prove him wrong.

There is no interest in truly being proven wrong. He wants people to argue with him about this and likely about "rules lawyering" in general and many have risen to give him exactly what he was looking for.

It's obvious that librarian from the vanilla dex can't, but has a mistake been made in the alternative ones?

Emperors Faithful wrote:It's obvious that librarian from the vanilla dex can't, but has a mistake been made in the alternative ones?

Nope. The DA and BT codexes are exactly the same. They have rules in the "Terminator Armor" section that say Terminators cannot sweeping advance.

Blood Angels is even more succinct (since it just has that one summary page for its wargear) which just says "May not Sweeping Advance" in the rules for Terminator Armor.

So no, there isn't any mistake in any of the sub-codexes.

The problem with your argument here is that you think:

All terminators wear terminator armor

so

All models wearing terminator armor are terminators

This is not correct. (breaks a logical fallacy)

No where in the entry does it state this. It might allude to this or hint at it, but it does not say it.

The rules in terminator armor state that terminators cannot do some action. So a given unit with a certain piece of wargear cannot do something however others with said wargear can.

Think of the relentless special rule. Units with this special rule can ignore part of the rule for heavy weapons. Rules can and do function differently for different units/characters.


Btw this thread was not meant to get a reaction. I noticed this quirk in the rules and I was wondering if it was written somewhere that I was missing it. Hence, asking for people to show me where I was wrong.

I honestly don't know how I cannot bring up a grey issue in the rules forum without getting flamed. This is the rules forum, we should be able to discuss grey areas without everyone calling me a rules lawyer or something similar.

Timmah - You start your thread not by asking a question but by making a statement. Furthermore, you do it in an inflammatory way.

It certainly looks like you're looking for a reaction.


The special rules under Terminator Armour apply to Terminator Armour. If they were to apply to Terminator squads only then they'd be in that section. Furthermore, the Terminator squad section says that marines fighting in Terminator Armour are often referred to as Terminators. A librarian in TDA is a marine fighting in terminator armour.

Sorry to shoot down everybody on the logic front, but Timmah's argument is logically sound (which by definition makes it also logically valid btw).

P1 "When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance." (p40)
P2 A librarian in Terminator armor who wins close combat is a victor
C: When a unit falls back from combat, a librarian in terminator armor makes a sweeping advance.

Valid & sound. In fact, by the RAW, a librarian in terminator armor *must* make a sweeping advance (unless he's part of a unit of terminators).

The only premises you might insert here to try to make an exception do not change the RAW argument.

P40 "Some troops, as detailed in their entries, are not allowed to make a sweeping advance." The restriction is not specified anywhere in the librarian's entry.

C:SM p 102 "Terminators cannot perform a sweeping advance." By the RAW, a librarian in terminator armor is *not* a terminator. To claim that he is is a fallacy of equivocation--like claiming that Dark Eldar "Warriors" get WBB rolls because they have the same word in their name that Necron "Warriors" do.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:Okay. I will provide it only on one condition: that you provide to me the passage in Codex: Space Marines, that states Tactical Marines move 6". Do we have a deal?

BGB p 11 "Infantry move up to 6" in the movement phase."
C:SM p 134 Tactical marine unit type = "Infantry"

Therefore, Tactical marines move up to 6"

Now it's your turn to quote your rules that prove your argument, Nurg

Models wearing terminator armor are terminators. Dress it up however the hell you want, but your Librarian is a terminator when he puts on that terminator armor. And people are calling you a Rules Lawyer because you're trying to convince us that a Librarian in Terminator armor is not a terminator. A terminator Librarian, perhaps, but a terminator all the same.

As to your remark about Apothecaries affecting vehicle cover saves, I pity those who play with you. If you use these rules in a real game you'll lose people to play with faster than you can say "Why?".

Rico...

Labeling Timmah a "rules lawyer" doesn't change the truth or validity of his argument. It's just an ad hominem attack/fallacy.

I think it's extremely valuable for people to find these kinds of loopholes in the rules because history has proven that this kind of "rules lawyering" actually leads to improvement in the rules.

Or did nobody else notice that after the whole "terminators don't wear terminator armor" argument became huge, the entry for terminators was clarified to specify that they do--removing all doubt?

Yeah, in this case the intention of the rules seems pretty clear. But in many cases the intention is not so clear, so we're all better off if we keep GW on their toes trying to minimize the ambiguous rules. Finding flaws like this one, I believe, is a vital part of that ongoing improvement process.

(edit) Hostile posts and threats that nobody's going to play against Timmah are just ad baculum fallacies. Back off from your emotions for a minute and look at it objectively, guys. Nobody has recommended that anybody actually play it this way. The rules really don't say that librarians in terminator armor become terminators.

Rico wrote:Models wearing terminator armor are terminators. Dress it up however the hell you want, but your Librarian is a terminator when he puts on that terminator armor. And people are calling you a Rules Lawyer because you're trying to convince us that a Librarian in Terminator armor is not a terminator. A terminator Librarian, perhaps, but a terminator all the same.

As to your remark about Apothecaries affecting vehicle cover saves, I pity those who play with you. If you use these rules in a real game you'll lose people to play with faster than you can say "Why?".

Rico...

Its funny because I have quoted rules and you not. You keep telling me the same thing over and over and yet you have nothing to back it up. Flavius did a very good job of highlighting my position and the RAW for it.


(also DA apothecaries let you ignore the result of 1 failed save a turn. So a failed cover save can be ignored. Nothing says it can't be a vehicle cover save, so you are wrong here also but thats the topic for another thread)

Flavius Infernus wrote:P1 "When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance." (p40)
P2 A librarian in Terminator armor who wins close combat is a victor
C: When a unit falls back from combat, a librarian in terminator armor makes a sweeping advance.

Valid & sound. In fact, by the RAW, a librarian in terminator armor *must* make a sweeping advance (unless he's part of a unit of terminators).

The only premises you might insert here to try to make an exception do not change the RAW argument.

P40 "Some troops, as detailed in their entries, are not allowed to make a sweeping advance." The restriction is not specified anywhere in the librarian's entry.

C:SM p 102 "Terminators cannot perform a sweeping advance." By the RAW, a librarian in terminator armor is *not* a terminator. To claim that he is is a fallacy of equivocation--like claiming that Dark Eldar "Warriors" get WBB rolls because they have the same word in their name that Necron "Warriors" do.

The single point that makes all of what you wrote here worthless is that you are cherry picking one sentence out of a six paragraph subset of rules.

Using the entire subset of rules that covers terminator armour, a Librarian equipped with Wargear: Terminator Armour is restricted from making a sweeping advance by the rules in the Wargear: Terminator Armour section. You cannot ignore the rest of the page to make something work how you want. Use all the rules.

Any descriptive term used in the rules governing Wargear: Terminator Armour (i.e. "Space Marine Terminator", "Terminator", etc.) are specifically referring to Wargear: Terminator Armour. Any restrictions or bonuses contained within that rules subset apply to any model equipped with that piece of wargear.

The problem you and Timmah are running into is that you seem to think that RAW does not include context and language rules. It does. You cannot cherry pick one sentence out of the book and ignore everything else related to it and make a RAW argument around just that sentence in a vacuum.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Sorry to shoot down everybody on the logic front, but Timmah's argument is logically sound (which by definition makes it also logically valid btw).

Yakface wrote:His argument is not logically sound as it relies on taking single sentences out of context. You can't remove sentences from a paragraph or section of the rules and try to build an argument upon it anymore then you can isolate individual parts of a sentence to prove a point. Written language is made up of more than just sentences.

Already went over this.

@Timmah: Hehehe. You're telling me that the Apothecary, armed with his geneseed-ejection-hardware and basically field dressings of the far future, will affect a lascannon shots' aim?

As to whether or not people are playing or will play with this rule... Why the hell are we discussing it then? Are we discussing this rule just for trolling's sake? Are we all just people who own the rulebook, every codex, and not a single model, who spend our time pouring over said books and looking for discrepancies? I think GW already has a paying position for that...

So it is valid to bring up the fact opponents will think you're a douche as you tell them your Predator in cover didn't get touched because an Apothecary was there with his trusty Narthecium and that your model wearing TDA can sweeping advance because the Librarian (wearing TDA) is not a terminator, but is rather a Librarian... With Terminator armor! He gives up his chance to sweeping advance when he dons Terminator armor.

Terminators are called Terminators because they wear TERMINATOR armor. This isn't deciding if the square is a rectangle but the rectangle isn't a square. This is just a waste of time. Power armor marines are called as such (a less formal term, perhaps, but valid all the same) because they wear POWER ARMOR. Hell, you could probably call the Techmarine an Artificer Armor marine, but there's not very much you could differentiate a Techmarine from to begin with so people don't call it that.

Rico...

Edit: Why are we still discussing this?

Kaaihn wrote:Any descriptive term used in the rules governing Wargear: Terminator Armour (i.e. "Space Marine Terminator", "Terminator", etc.) are specifically referring to Wargear: Terminator Armour. Any restrictions or bonuses contained within that rules subset apply to any model equipped with that piece of wargear.

How do you know this?

There is other equipment that functions in different ways depending on the model carrying it. (see pretty much any biomorph in the tyranid codex, I'm sure there are other examples but this is the easiest.)

Kaaihn wrote:
The single point that makes all of what you wrote here worthless is that you are cherry picking one sentence out of a six paragraph subset of rules.

Using the entire subset of rules that covers terminator armour, a Librarian equipped with Wargear: Terminator Armour is restricted from making a sweeping advance by the rules in the Wargear: Terminator Armour section. You cannot ignore the rest of the page to make something work how you want. Use all the rules.

Any descriptive term used in the rules governing Wargear: Terminator Armour (i.e. "Space Marine Terminator", "Terminator", etc.) are specifically referring to Wargear: Terminator Armour. Any restrictions or bonuses contained within that rules subset apply to any model equipped with that piece of wargear.

The problem you and Timmah are running into is that you seem to think that RAW does not include context and language rules. It does. You cannot cherry pick one sentence out of the book and ignore everything else related to it and make a RAW argument around just that sentence in a vacuum.

RAW does not include context. I'm not trying to figure out what the rules authors meant here, I'm trying to figure out what the rules actually literally say.

The label "cherry pick" isn't accurate here because I'm not ignoring any rule that is actually relevant to the argument. I have quoted all the rules that might be used to argue one way or the other with this reading, ignoring nothing.

Think of it this way: if you were going to write the rules in such a way that you *wanted* to allow librarians to sweep but not allow terminators, how would you write the rules? You would write them exactly as they are written here.

Rico wrote:

@Timmah: Hehehe. You're telling me that the Apothecary, armed with his geneseed-ejection-hardware and basically field dressings of the far future, will affect a lascannon shots' aim?

As to whether or not people are playing or will play with this rule... Why the hell are we discussing it then? Are we discussing this rule just for trolling's sake? Are we all just people who own the rulebook, every codex, and not a single model, who spend our time pouring over said books and looking for discrepancies? I think GW already has a paying position for that...

So it is valid to bring up the fact opponents will think you're a douche as you tell them your Predator in cover didn't get touched because an Apothecary was there with his trusty Narthecium and that your model wearing TDA cansweeping advance because the Librarian (wearing TDA) is not a terminator, but is rather a Librarian... With Terminator armor!

Rico...

This:
has proven to me that you are all more interested in RAI than RAW. Yes an apothecary in the DA codex can ignore 1 failed save (of any kind). This is how the rule is worded. So, yes it can ignore a cover save on one of your vehicles. No matter how illogical you may think this to be, it doesn't make the rule not function the way you want it to.

Please find 1 dark angels player that disagrees with my position on this.

Also, yes I own pretty much every codex, I like to be informed of what I am fighting against instead of blindly running against armies. Being well versed on the rules for each army doesn't make me a rule lawyer, it makes me informed. It helps me to know most of the discrepencies in the rules so that I know what situations will arise when playing certain armies.

Rico wrote:
As to whether or not people are playing or will play with this rule... Why the hell are we discussing it then? Are we discussing this rule just for trolling's sake? Are we all just people who own the rulebook, every codex, and not a single model, who spend our time pouring over said books and looking for discrepancies? I think GW already has a paying position for that...

Lol, dream on. GW wouldn't pay for such a person. Actually if rumors are true, GW listens to some of the members of the Dakka community and depends on us to help them find and fix these kinds of errors.

Rico wrote:So it is valid to bring up the fact opponents will think you're a douche as you tell them your Predator in cover didn't get touched because an Apothecary was there with his trusty Narthecium and that your model wearing TDA can sweeping advance because the Librarian (wearing TDA) is not a terminator, but is rather a Librarian... With Terminator armor! He gives up his chance to sweeping advance when he dons Terminator armor.

Nope, actually not valid. It's a combination ad hominem and ad bacculum argument.

Rico wrote:
Terminators are called Terminators because they wear TERMINATOR armor.

Fallacy of equivocation. If I wear a smoking jacket does that make me a smoker?

Rico wrote:
This isn't deciding if the square is a rectangle but the rectangle isn't a square.

False analogy. It's more like deciding if a square dance is by definition a square.

Rico wrote: This is just a waste of time.

Feel free not to participate if you prefer.

Flavius Infernus wrote:RAW does not include context. I'm not trying to figure out what the rules authors meant here, I'm trying to figure out what the rules actually literally say.

RAW absolutely includes context, although we should probably make sure we are referring to the same thing when we say context. Context, in language, is including all the material related to a particular sentence. RAW is about what is printed on the page. That doesn't mean take every individual word and take it separately from every other word, it means to only use the information printed on the page. There are six paragraphs of information printed in the book detailing the rules for Wargear: Terminator Armour. All of those six paragraphs of words are context for each individual sentence contained therein.

Flavius Infernus wrote:The label "cherry pick" isn't accurate here because I'm not ignoring any rule that is actually relevant to the argument. I have quoted all the rules that might be used to argue one way or the other with this reading, ignoring nothing.

Yes, you absolutely are. You are ignoring the rule that the paragraphs as a whole tell you, which is that any model equipped with the Wargear: Terminator Armour is disallowed from performing a sweeping advance.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Think of it this way: if you were going to write the rules in such a way that you *wanted* to allow librarians to sweep but not allow terminators, how would you write the rules? You would write them exactly as they are written here.

No, I would not write them as they are written, because as they are written a Librarian with Wargear: Terminator Armour may not sweeping advance. You have it exactly backwards. As it is written, a standard Librarian (not having Terminator Armour) has no restriction preventing him from performing a sweeping advance. If he then takes Wargear: Terminator Armour, he now has said restriction because the wargear he chose applied it to him.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Rico wrote:
Terminators are called Terminators because they wear TERMINATOR armor.

Fallacy of equivocation. If I wear a smoking jacket does that make me a smoker?

You seem to continue to make this fallacy kaaihn.

Again, different wargear can work differently for different models. (see tyranid codex)

Kaaihn wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:Think of it this way: if you were going to write the rules in such a way that you *wanted* to allow librarians to sweep but not allow terminators, how would you write the rules? You would write them exactly as they are written here.

No, I would not write them as they are written, because as they are written a Librarian with Wargear: Terminator Armour may not sweeping advance. You have it exactly backwards. As it is written, a standard Librarian (not having Terminator Armour) has no restriction preventing him from performing a sweeping advance. If he then takes Wargear: Terminator Armour, he now has said restriction because the wargear he chose applied it to him.

You didn't actually answer this question.

Kaaihn wrote: There are six paragraphs of information printed in the book detailing the rules for Wargear: Terminator Armour. All of those six paragraphs of words are context for each individual sentence contained therein.

Please show me the logically sound argument from those six paragraphs that concludes that librarians in terminator armor can't make a Sweeping Advance. (Here's a hint--unless I'm missing something, you can't. But if I'm missing something, I want to see it.)

Please understand that I'm not arguing that terminator librarians *should* be allowed to sweep and I'm not trying to weasel my way into trying to actually do it in a game. I agree with you that the context, the precedents, all that extra non-literal stuff all points toward terminator librarians being prevented from sweeping.

What I am arguing is that the rules literally printed on the page have a logically sound loophole that allows librarians (almost certainly unintentionally) to make a sweeping advance.

If I'm wrong, again, please show me the sound argument, quoted verbatim from the rules, without any more vague appeals to "context" because I'm already aware of the context.

Timmah: I exactly answered the question. He asked how it should be written for librarians to sweep, but not terminators. As I said, that is what is currently written.

Kaaihn wrote:As a standard, any model equipped with a piece of wargear is bound by the bonuses and penalties contained within the rules of said wargear, unless an exception is granted somewhere.

I agree completely.

The broken part here, that creates the loophole, is that the penalties contained refer specifically to a unit type "Terminators," rather than to "Models in Terminator armor."

Because there is no sound support in the rules for the conclusion "Terminators" = "Models in Terminator Armor" (please show me the rule if I'm wrong) that creates the loophole.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Kaaihn wrote: There are six paragraphs of information printed in the book detailing the rules for Wargear: Terminator Armour. All of those six paragraphs of words are context for each individual sentence contained therein.

Please show me the logically sound argument from those six paragraphs that concludes that librarians in terminator armor can't make a Sweeping Advance. (Here's a hint--unless I'm missing something, you can't. But if I'm missing something, I want to see it.)

If I'm wrong, again, please show me the sound argument, quoted verbatim from the rules, without any more vague appeals to "context" because I'm already aware of the context.

Reading comprehension is part of RAW.

The rules of language are not complex on this one. Under the heading of Wargear: Terminator Armour, any descriptive phrases contained in that section are used interchangeably. "Terminator Armour", "Space Marine Terminator", and "Terminator" are all interchangeable here. All are used to tell you that this piece of wargear prevents sweeping advance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:As a standard, any model equipped with a piece of wargear is bound by the bonuses and penalties contained within the rules of said wargear, unless an exception is granted somewhere.

I agree completely.

The broken part here, that creates the loophole, is that the penalties contained refer specifically to a unit type "Terminators," rather than to "Models in Terminator armor."

Because there is no sound support in the rules for the conclusion "Terminators" = "Models in Terminator Armor" (please show me the rule if I'm wrong) that creates the loophole.

This is where you are cherry picking. As I just said, under the heading of Wargear: Terminator Armour, any descriptive phrases contained in that section are used interchangeably. "Terminator Armour", "Space Marine Terminator", and "Terminator" are all interchangeable here. All are used to tell you that this piece of wargear prevents sweeping advance.

Why would a non-terminator have terminator armor? I think if you get the benefits of having terminator armor you are then considered to be a terminator

Kaaihn wrote:
This is where you are cherry picking. As I just said, under the heading of Wargear: Terminator Armour, any descriptive phrases contained in that section are used interchangeably. "Terminator Armour", "Space Marine Terminator", and "Terminator" are all interchangeable here. All are used to tell you that this piece of wargear prevents sweeping advance.

Where is the proof they are an interchangable term? You continue to sight your beliefs but no actual wording.
Every other use of it states units in terminator armor. Why the sudden switch in terminology for this one rule?

Again, I would probably never try and pull something like this in a game but I think certain things like this should be discussed so that they can be clarified in the next rulebook.

Kaaihn wrote:
Timmah: I exactly answered the question. He asked how it should be written for librarians to sweep, but not terminators. As I said, that is what is currently written..

I'm confused but it sounds like you are agreeing that this is the correct way to write it to allow librarians in terminator armor to sweep but not terminators.