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.

smart_alex wrote: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.

what I was saying is there are a lot of definitions for auto or automatically. Choosing any one of these could give the rule a different meaning.
The easiest is ofc the definition that "something happens without outside influence" Now for example with God of war, you make a choice, thus the save happened with outside influence (your choice). I am not saying this is the correct interpretation but it is one that could be drawn from using one of the hundreds of the definitions for the term automatic.

So in effect by trying to define a word or term that has rule implications we are opening said rule up to multiple meanings.

Flavius Infernus wrote: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.

We may not be in that much of disagreement, in that case.

I do think deductive reasoning is useful, I just don't think it's all that's relevant, all of the time. (Nor do I think using nothing but deductive reasoning is an ingenuous description for what the Rules as Written are, but that's a slightly different issue.) Additionally even when deductive reasoning is being used, it usually requires some sort of assumptions to be made, even if they're assumptions that wouldn't be opposed by any logical person (the commonly accepted definitions of words, for example).

I've also noticed that Games Workshop's rules have gotten more formal and water-tight, although I think there are still quite a few other game systems that are more so. While Games Workshop often acts like they hate the "rules-lawyers" of the game, I think they really do realize that their rules needed tightening.

Nurglitch:

The closed world assumption allows me to dodge reflexive paradoxes like Russell's.

Actually, when I read rules I go one step further and suspend any consideration of referents in the actual game. If a sound argument from the rules produces a string of nonsense letters as a conclusion, that conclusion is still "true" according to the rules as far as I'm concerned.

I think that "figuring out what the text is expressing" first is inadequate as a starting place in rules interpretation, because anybody can make any claim he wants about what he thinks the text is expressing.

Orkeosaurus:

I've managed to cook it down to about four assumptions that I absolutely must use in order to be able to apply rules. One is the conservation of meaning one mentioned in my first post. Also absolutely vital is the closed world assumption. Then also the assumption that deductive logic can produce "true" results from the rules consistently, and finally assumptions about the relationships between documents and the meanings of the locations of rules within documents.

It may be a matter of how you define "truth".

We both seem to agree that conclusions derived from only deductive reasoning (and thus, under the assumption of a closed world) are useful in our understanding of the rules, I wouldn't call it truth in the general sense because I don't think that the closed world assumption is a logical one (as the rules are still too grounded in natural language to make that completely true).

auto·matic (ôt′ə mat′ik)

adjective

done without conscious thought or volition, as if mechanically
involuntary or reflex, as some muscle or gland action

moving, operating, etc. by itself; regulating itself automatic machinery
done with automatic equipment an automatic landing

noun

an automatic (or, popularly, semiautomatic) firearm
any automatic machine
an automotive vehicle having a transmission that changes gears automatically


THERE what do you mean hundreds of definitions?

In the context of God of War it's difficult.

If you look at it from a broader point of view, then Marneus doesn't automatically pass, because you could have chosen to fail.

From a more narrow view, Marneus automatically passes once he chooses he wants to pass.

I think the second one is closer to it's meaning within the context of No Retreat, but it's not defined well in either case.

Flavius Infernus:

The closed world assumption may avoid the Charybdis of Russell's Paradox, but it falls to the Scylla of natural language. By simply reasoning about combinations of symbols in the text instead of what the text is about, you'll produce any number of false positives. It would be argumentum de dicto, rather than argumentum de rei.

The fact is that the meaning of the text is fixed by the game itself, so the idea that anybody can make any claim he wants about what he thinks the text is expressing isn't a problem, because the point of figuring out the underlying structure is about defining which claims are true and which are false. So of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, it's just that regarding the rules not all opinions are are right, or even accurate.

This sounds backwards to me, Nurglitch.

How can there be a "false positive" when everything in the rules is, by definition, assumed to be true? There can be contradictions and ambiguities (and paradoxes) but no false positives.

I would argue that the game is fixed by the meaning of the text, not the other way around. I think that's in the nature of the rules of games--the game has no existence apart from what is defined by the rules. There is no "rei" that can be used for a de rei argument.

It sounds like you're assuming the existence of some kind of fixed, almost Platonically ideal theoretical Game that exists somewhere out there and against which ideas about the game can be compared to figure out which ones are right and wrong? I would argue that ideal Game is just in your mind--or exists dynamically in the interactions between players or the consensus of player communities--and I agree that the nature of that Game is way beyond the scope of deductive logic.

Which makes me glad that I'm not making any claims about it.

Timmah wrote:

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.

Wouldn't the same apply to a rule about people with terminator armour being in the terminator armour wargear section?

Seriously though, I'd like to see some clarifying of "on the table"/"in play", etc. Also, "deploy"/"deployment" which seem to be used interchangeable to mean the inital setup of forces and the act of bringing a unit onto the table later in the game (but only sometimes the latter definition)

Scott-S6 wrote:

Timmah wrote:

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.

Wouldn't the same apply to a rule about people with terminator armour being in the terminator armour wargear section?

Seriously though, I'd like to see some clarifying of "on the table"/"in play", etc. Also, "deploy"/"deployment" which seem to be used interchangeable to mean the inital setup of forces and the act of bringing a unit onto the table later in the game (but only sometimes the latter definition)

I must be the only person who can get trolled and provoke a legit question in the same response.

Game rules and real life common sense are different things.
You don't apply RAW to real life do you? (at least I hope you don't)

Anyways GW clarifying something like this "on the table"/"in play" would probably go a long way in the tank shocking from off the board argument as well as some other stuff.

Couldn't resist pulling your leg!

In all seriousness, GW's rules are a long way from a good formal ruleset. Common-sense is absolutely a requirement to reading them (especially with their tendency to mix fluff, rule and explanatory text).

Without common sense, how do you seperate fluff from rule (fairly easy) or rule from explanatory text (much more difficult)?

And then you have rules that are vague or downright incorrect - e.g. do you allow wraithguards to shoot? The rules say that line of sight is drawn from the firing unit's eyes. Wraithguards have no eyes. Common sense makes this easy. Rigid interpretation of RAW is a problem.

ETA The two things I would most like to see GW do, in regard to their rules are:

1. Have a list of defined terms which they stick to absolutely (most other companies seem able to do this)
2. Formalise the presentation of rules - i.e. separate fluff, rules and explanation. At least, mark them clearly (fonts maybe) instead of banging it all together like it was prose.

Scott-S6 wrote:Couldn't resist pulling your leg!

In all seriousness, GW's rules are a long way from a good formal ruleset. Common-sense is absolutely a requirement to reading them (especially with their tendency to mix fluff, rule and explanatory text).

Without common sense, how do you seperate fluff from rule (fairly easy) or rule from explanatory text (much more difficult)?


ETA The two things I would most like to see GW do, in regard to their rules are:

1. Have a list of defined terms which they stick to absolutely (most other companies seem able to do this)
2. Formalise the presentation of rules - i.e. separate fluff, rules and explanation. At least, mark them clearly (fonts maybe) instead of banging it all together like it was prose.

Yea, both of these things would go a long way in fixing the rules.

People can claim its a casual game and such all they want, but that doesn't mean it should have a crappy/unclear set of rules.

The problem with bringing common sense into the rules is that while you may agree on many things, there will still be those 1-2 problems with definitions or what people think the rules are suggesting.

I really liked decipher's rules. The Star Wars TCG, for example, had a little getting started booklet but once you were done with that the real rules consisted entirely of a big glossary.

Let's see, I want these troopers out of the star destroyer and into the drop ship. Hmm - Starships->Docking->Personnel Transference

ETA I know exactly what you're saying with common sense muddying the waters sometimes but the rules themselves are so poorly structured that common sense is required to even begin extracting meaning from them.

I totally agree with your argument, Scott.

And also your argument makes a good counterpoint that demonstrates why I think a separation of the RAW from how the game is actually played is not only important, but actually vital to being able to play the game at all.

Scott-S6 wrote:

In all seriousness, GW's rules are a long way from a good formal ruleset. Common-sense is absolutely a requirement to reading them (especially with their tendency to mix fluff, rule and explanatory text).

Agreed, but the shortcoming of common sense is that everybody's version of it is different. The advantage of RAW is that, if everybody is following the same rules of interpretation, everybody gets the same result.

Scott-S6 wrote:
Without common sense, how do you seperate fluff from rule (fairly easy) or rule from explanatory text (much more difficult)?

It isn't necessary to separate them if you use the closed world assumption. Any statement from the rules (or conclusion of a sound argument from the rules) is by definition true whether it's fluff or whatever.

Scott-S6 wrote:
And then you have rules that are vague or downright incorrect - e.g. do you allow wraithguards to shoot? The rules say that line of sight is drawn from the firing unit's eyes. Wraithguards have no eyes. Common sense makes this easy. Rigid interpretation of RAW is a problem.

Yep, I would ague that, by the RAW, Wraithguard can't draw a line of sight on anything.

That conclusion, based on rigid interpretation, is not in itself a problem. There's nothing wrong with making the interpretation or with arguing that it is deductively sound, because it is. It only becomes a problem when people try to play it that way--which is an application that's outside the scope of deductive logic.

That doesn't make RAW readings worthless, though. RAW readings not only create a shared common ground on which to base discussion of the application of rules, but they also, I think, actually encourage GW toward more formal rules presentation of the type that you describe in your post.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
And then you have rules that are vague or downright incorrect - e.g. do you allow wraithguards to shoot? The rules say that line of sight is drawn from the firing unit's eyes. Wraithguards have no eyes. Common sense makes this easy. Rigid interpretation of RAW is a problem.

Yep, I would ague that, by the RAW, Wraithguard can't draw a line of sight on anything.

Ha! I am going to have to try and pull this on my friend who plays eldar. /evil giggle

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
Without common sense, how do you seperate fluff from rule (fairly easy) or rule from explanatory text (much more difficult)?

It isn't necessary to separate them if you use the closed world assumption. Any statement from the rules (or conclusion of a sound argument from the rules) is by definition true whether it's fluff or whatever.

I would have to take issue with this.

If we return to the targetting rules (which have been the subject of many a tedious debate in the past), there is a problem here with what is rule and what is explanatory text. If the list of potential target parts (head, torso, arms, legs) is part of the rule then that is the total list of target-able parts (a real problem with drones, spore mines, bikes, etc). On the other hand, if the list of potential bits is merely a clarification based on the example of the commonest target (humanoid infantry) then there's no problem as we simply use it as guidance and shoot at the main part of the target.


I would like to see structure like this:

fluff fluff fluff fluff fluff fluff fluff fluff fluff fluff fluff fluff

Clearly stated rule

Explanatory text and/or examples to accompany the rule statment.

Scott:

Yep, I would say that that's a problem with the rules, not with RAW reading--and also the gist of my argument above about how the rules define the game, not the other way around.

By the RAW, maybe you can't target a drone (unless you can make an argument for it having a head or torso or whatever).

That doesn't mean there's a problem with RAW reading. That means the rule is broken the way it's written. RAW reading actually reveals the way in which the rule is broken, a problem that we might have missed if we depended on common sense.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Scott:

Yep, I would say that that's a problem with the rules, not with RAW reading--and also the gist of my argument above about how the rules define the game, not the other way around.

By the RAW, maybe you can't target a drone (unless you can make an argument for it having a head or torso or whatever).

That doesn't mean there's a problem with RAW reading. That means the rule is broken the way it's written. RAW reading actually reveals the way in which the rule is broken, a problem that we might have missed if we depended on common sense.

Absolutely. In a really tight ruleset you can treat the rules almost like formal language (I say almost because inevitability a little outside knowledge or natural language will creep in).

This is not the case with GW's ruleset though and has never been the case. If we were discussing a decipher card game then an absolutely rigid reading the letter of the rules would be the very best way to go and would almost always yield the correct result. Far to often with GW it yields a result which is faulty. (I use "faulty" rather than false because these results are clearly correct by the letter of what's written but our outside knowledge of the game tells us that they cannot be correct)

Scott-S6 wrote:

Absolutely. In a really tight ruleset you can treat the rules almost like formal language (I say almost because inevitability a little outside knowledge or natural language will creep in).

This is not the case with GW's ruleset though and has never been the case. If we were discussing a decipher card game then an absolutely rigid reading the letter of the rules would be the very best way to go and would almost always yield the correct result. Far to often with GW it yields a result which is faulty. (I use "faulty" rather than false because these results are clearly correct by the letter of what's written but our outside knowledge of the game tells us that they cannot be correct)

The problem is that GW's ruleset even tells us to use a strict reading of the rules (RAW).

Timmah wrote:
The problem is that GW's ruleset even tells us to use a strict reading of the rules (RAW).

Have you got a quote for that? All of the examples I can think of (at work so no BRB in front of me) regarding rule interpretation tell you to ignore the RAW and do whatever you please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flavius Infernus wrote:Scott:
By the RAW, maybe you can't target a drone (unless you can make an argument for it having a head or torso or whatever).

That doesn't mean there's a problem with RAW reading. That means the rule is broken the way it's written. RAW reading actually reveals the way in which the rule is broken, a problem that we might have missed if we depended on common sense.

The rule itself is fine. If the explanatory text was clearly marked (although, I, personally, would say that being in parentheses is pretty clear) as such then there would be no problem with the rule.

How can the rule be fine if two people, both using common sense, come to two contradictory conclusions about whether or not a model with no body can be targeted?

Because the problem is the mingling of rule and explanatory text. If the two were separate then the rule is perfectly fine.

Flavius Infernus:

There can be false positives because, while everything stated in the rules can be reasonably assumed to be true, what the rules say and what they state are two different things. If you're going to argue de dicto about de rei, you're not going to arguing from true premises, and although your inference may be valid, it will be unsound. Hence you'll arrive at false positives. They'll be positive, because if the inference was about the language, they will have some positive truth value. But they'll also be false regarding the rules-structure.

This doesn't require any kind of idealized Platonic game because, as I have noted, it is an empirical enterprise. By mining the rules-text for the rules-structure, we will be creating a model of the game that should reflect its structural properties. We figure out which ideas about the game are wrong or right by examining the correctness of the reasoning used to extract the rules-structure from the rules-text, and we will be alerted to some possible problem with our current model by any inconsistencies, ambiguities, and dead-ends that we encounter. If we encounter some ambiguity in our model, then we can go back to the reasoning that was logged as justification for that part of the model and check it for validity, completeness, and so on. After all, besides the reasonable assumption that the structure of the rules may have flaws, we must also assume that our analyses of the expression of that structure may also have flaws. That's why I was talking about fallibility being one of the features of this approach, because problems that crop up may signal signal error on our part in building the model, as well as flaws intrinsic to the model.

Furthermore, it gives us a nice alternative to the "Well, if you don't get what is obvious to me then you're clearly an idiot" mentality that tends to pervade the YMDC forum. After all, what is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another, and the whole point of a methodical and fallible method is to make truth accessible to everyone, as well as allow people to be wrong without it being reflected on their character.

Now, a word about common sense: Attributions of common sense, besides the usual remarks of it being neither common nor sense, have the problem of being subjective. It may be the case, for example, that a rule may be fine and that the people coming to contradictory conclusions are using invalid reasoning. Indeed, that two people come to different conclusions is an indication that one or the other, or both, have made a mistake somewhere. Only when it has been objectively established that neither have made an error can we reasonably entertain the notion that the problem is with the structure at issue. But if we are resorting to an objective standard (not an inter-subjective standard, agreement, because both may be wrong) then we're no longer using common sense: we're using a rigorous problem solving method. Better to measure twice and cut once, then to eyeball it and bicker about who has better eyeballs when our cuts turn out differently.

Yeah, I think we are talking about different things, Nurglitch.

When I read rules literally I'm not trying to make any statement about the game or "game structure." I'm keeping the scope of my analysis purely on the language, trying to extract whatever deductively verifiable meaning I can with as few assumptions as possible.

So it is unsound in the sense that I have to make a couple of assumptions about language, logic, how things appear in documents, etc.

For me, anything beyond that analysis is out-of-bounds for what I call "literal" reading, because beyond that everything is just a matter of opinion. Some opinions are better than others, but I have yet to see anything like an "objective" standard for interpreting opinions about texts. Everything is based on agreement.

Flavius Infernus:

No, we're talking about the same thing. It's just that I'm trying to point out why reading the rules literally is a bad idea. You're familiar with the terms de dicto and de rai. They were used in the Church debating duels of the time to mean arguing about the wording, or arguing about the thing. Recently they've been somewhat revived in the modern scholastic academia, in the philosophy of language, to point out that arguing the literal expression of dispute is a fallacy, akin to confusing a picture of a pipe with a pipe.

You seem to think that making as few assumptions as possible is a virtue, but parsimony is only a virtue with everything else being equal. Trying to minimize your assumptions on the basis that such parsimony is intrinsically good ignores the actually utility of those assumptions. As I blather on at length in the thread about Librarians, there's a reason why serious scholarship about systems of rules (aka "Logic" and "Math") doesn't do that anymore.

On a lighter note, I thought it might be something to point out that there are people that read the Bible literally. They're called "Fundamentalists"... Just, you know, pointing that out.

Anyhow, I think I've said about as much as necessary, so I'll leave you gentlemen to your project of scriptural exegesis. Good luck.

People who play RAW to this level are the reason boxes of toothpicks have safety instructions.

Because they need things to tell them what they can and can't do with them. What, you mean I'm not supposed to inhale them?

What's common sense to some is outside the realms of interpretation to others.

One reason why I refuse to be drawn into these type of games - it's 40k, not rocket science. It's closer to tiddlywinks.

Eh, I think that the real problem stems from the fact that 40k does not have a ruleset that is written in 100% "colloquial" or 100% "formal" language.

Although I do believe that enough of the language is formal that you can suss out the rules in most situations, the informality that is present at times is what leads to ambiguity in the rules.

Nurglitch and Chromedog:

....and bring on the ad hominem attacks. Real persuasive.

Where have I made an ad hominem?

chromedog wrote:People who play RAW to this level are the reason boxes of toothpicks have safety instructions.
Because they need things to tell them what they can and can't do with them. What, you mean I'm not supposed to inhale them?

I could not disagree more.

I think that's quite a narrow-minded way of looking at inventive and interesting debate for the purpose of greater knowledge and understanding. I'm very glad that biologists, chemists, mathematicians, philosophers and inventors DO wonder what they could possibly do with the seemingly benign objects and concepts in their respective fields.

I'm agree that there is a line between debating the rules and debating what is a reasonable way to play the game - and yes, this isn't rocket science, but it is a fairly complicated system with many thousands of possible situations - but that does not mean that you should not debate the rules. As long as you have a well thought out, friendly and meaningful debate (without getting angry or changing all your posts into '[...]' out of spite) there's no reason you shouldn't discuss the rules to your heart's content.

Ironically, I am reminded of several times I have used toothpicks in my model conversions for a purpose that has quite literally nothing to do with picking teeth.

DoW