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.

You guys are missing a few key points.

The studio design team are English raised and English educated.

This means they do not use American grammar nor do they use our measurement system by default in their heads.

They think English in both ways.

You'll notice they are far more 'gentlemanly' in their games than Americans are, if you ever play them.

They don't really care what the rules say, or don't say, when they play.

Within means to them precisely what yak thinks it does, any part is within. It's common sense applied with a English rub.

Same thing goes for 'entirely within'. That means no part is sticking outside.

Alot of people get confused, especially here in the states.

Don't use Merriam-Webster.

Use the Oxford.

Helps if you've been to the UK and played these guys, but that's not the point--the two kinds of English are different.

You guys are arguing math, and what one definition of the word means but you aren't using the right sources.

Take it for what you will.

Oh and 'game designer' isn't trained in this field. Show me a course at a 4 year University teaching 'game design' that isn't video games, and was around in the 80s and 90s, when the studio grew up. Some have grown immensely, and done well. Others have stagnated, or simply never had talent to begin with. Names unspoken. Phil Kelly is the heir apparent to Andy Chambers in my view.

Nurglitch wrote: While there are only [-][-] between the two [o][o], if we subtract [-][-] from [o][-][-][o] we are left with [o][o] the distance between which is 1

Are you truly attempting to argue that 4-2=3? I have taken my fair share of Geometry and Physics and a plethora of other courses dealing with geometry in a higher learning level while studying Civil Engineering at UTEP, and I can tell you that when dealing with definite spacial objects, such as a model's base, measurements from that object are dictated from the farthest extent of its spacial occupation. Meaning, you measure from the furthest portion of the object. If you have two bases touching one another, there is no distance between the two, save a few microns which I won't even get into. If you move one object exactly 2 inches from the other, there is not a total of TWO inches between them. This is not a difficult concept. Honestly Nurglitch, I attempted to grasp what you were trying to convey and I just didn't understand the logic you were attempting to use here. Taking two inches from between two object where there was only two inches exactly to begin with does not make the two overlap, but merely puts them within contact.

And out of curiosity, what does this have to do with KFF? If you are attempting to define "within", this example is simply moot. If you are hellbent on using word exactitude as the basis of logical argument, then it seems a rather poor practice to use "equivalent expressions" because that is the basis for interpretation. Using one rule bounced off of another as the basis for fact. While I agree this is needed to manage the spirit of the game, everything you have mentioned from this point would suggest you are against this sort of practice.

Yakface: I think you missed my point on the first page where I talked about amphiboly and how in 'within' is used in several different ways in the Warhammer 40k and in accordance with its grammatical uses. Which is to say I haven't proposed a definition of 'within' at all. I've simply pointed out how to figure out how the term is being employed in English and what that use signifies.

Then I pointed out that there are errors in the Warhammer 40k rules, such as the disagreement between the unit coherency diagrams and the unit coherency text. I did so by showing how such an error could be detected so that typos were not used as exemplars of consistency.

I did both of these things because I would like you to answer my question. Let me repeat it:

Why we should consider these different grammatical constructions to mean the same thing. As in: explain to me why two phrases that say different things somehow state the same thing. Why does "unit within [range]" mean the same thing as "unit with a model within [range]"

Nurglitch wrote:Yakface: I think you missed my point on the first page where I talked about amphiboly and how in 'within' is used in several different ways in the Warhammer 40k and in accordance with its grammatical uses. Which is to say I haven't proposed a definition of 'within' at all. I've simply pointed out how to figure out how the term is being employed in English and what that use signifies.

And this is where I believe you continue to make your fundamental mistake by assuming that the definition of the word means one thing when its use in the diagrams throughout the book demonstrate a different definition of the word (a commonly accepted definition).

Then I pointed out that there are errors in the Warhammer 40k rules, such as the disagreement between the unit coherency diagrams and the unit coherency text. I did so by showing how such an error could be detected so that typos were not used as exemplars of consistency.

And again, the only thing this diagram helps to illustrate is not that the diagrams in the book are full of errors and should therefore be disregarded but rather that the authors have a different understanding of language than what you are arguing.

I did both of these things because I would like you to answer my question. Let me repeat it:

Why we should consider these different grammatical constructions to mean the same thing. As in: explain to me why two phrases that say different things somehow state the same thing. Why does "unit within [range]" mean the same thing as "unit with a model within [range]"

Because I disagree that the phrases say different things. I think those two phrases can mean exactly the same thing. The reality is that in real life sometimes "within" is used to mean "entirely within" and other times it is used to mean "partially within". But in the situation we've been discussing it is far more commonly associated as "partially within" (as I've illustrated in my posts above).

Or are you asking why would they would possibly use different terminology to describe the same thing? Because they are imperfect humans who have shown a tendency to use different phrases to describe the same situation.

Various reasons. Human error, different authors, bad word consistency, misconception of how it would interpreted, ect. I agree that it should not be assumed to be a matter of interpreting when the rules are undeniable, but this is an entirely different case, as has been the case with various other rules. The term "within" is very suggestive and open to debate. To some, it signifies a boundary and to others its the furthest reach of a measurement. Both of these cases are supported by various other examples within the rules as many people have pointed out. This alone tells of the inconsistencies within the rules and the way they are written. Again, there are many reasons why one reference can use a word and an entirely seperate reference uses it differently. Last I checked, these Codices were written by various people typically working in teams with not a high amount of proof reading involved.

Take the lately Ork Codex for instance. The leaked version is dated 7/26/07 and has flaws in it, as many have pointed out. As soon as I received the official version of the Codex, one of the first things I checked was the differences between it and the leaked version. There were none that I can detect. Hell, the Stormboyz entry even still has Waaagh! in its unit description page and not in the unit listing. This alone tells me that error is in the nature of GW and that the proofreading process and word exactitude isn't exactly a high priority. If you want to break down the rules as though they were exact and deliberate in their usage, be my guest.

Now, I'm not saying throw the baby out with the bath water here. The rules may have some flaws within them and there is a high need for FAQ's on occasion, but the great part about this fine game is that its meant to be fun. If DakkaDakka has shown me anything, its that there are many ways to see the same thing. Take Yakface's polls on various game questions dealing with obscure rules. Almost all of those polls showed a high degree of diversity in what people would play in their games. Who's right? Again, "right" being a suggestive word. Nurglitch would believe that there is a "right" response, and this is true. If I could sit down all the author's of all the Codices and Rulebooks, I would hammer out a perfect interpretation, and that would be the "right" way to play. But this is impossible and there will always be room for making an educated and wise decision on what you and your group believe it should be played. You may be totally wrong but by the same token, may also be totally right. Fact is based upon the absence of doubt, but while doubt remains and evidence which produces that doubt and contradictory viewpoints, it is not fact, its opinion. So, the moral of the story is please be certain to be humble enough to realize that there is a huge difference between one's facts and opinions.

DaBoss: Of course I'm not arguing that 4-2=3. That would be arithmetical stupid. I simply demonstrated that the check-marked diagrams for unit coherency do not agree with their associated text. I see you followed my point exactly, that when you take away the 2 inches between the models in the diagram they do not overlap, and that if they do not overlap (and hence are 0 inches apart), then they are more than 0" apart. Since in the diagram they are (x > 0) + 2 that means they are more than 2 inches apart (x + 2 inches) when the text says that no more than 2 inches may lie between them.

All this has to do with the Kustom Force Field is to point out to Yakface that at least one diagram in the rulebook is inconsistent with its accompanying text. Since this is the case, suggesting that the disembarkation diagram proves that the term "within" is universally used in the text to mean 'partially within' is false. Indeed, I have also shown that the term "within" is used in several ways in the text, each way conforming to the grammatical employ in which it is found, so this shouldn't even be an issue.

Now, given that "within" is used in all sorts of interesting ways in the text, what is relevant is how it is being used in the Kustom Force Field rule. What is also of relevance is the difference, or lack thereof, of the phrasing "unit within" and the phrasing "unit with a model within".

kirsanth has rightly pointed out that where there is a difference the rules are consistent, and that where there is no difference there is a curious consistency. Fortunately there is an easy way to check to see if these different grammatical constructions mean the same thing or something different and I am waiting for Yakface to demonstrate it.

Stelek: English grammar is English grammar, whichever variations in dialect you care to use. That's what makes it English.

Again, I can't quite grasp what you're attempting to say. If two objects are touching , there is zero distance between them. Two objects do not need to intersect to have null space between them, just the absence of distance which is achieved with contact. Put your thumb and your forefinger together. If they are touching, are you saying that because they do not pass into one another that there is distance between them?

If you have two bases and have a stick that is perfectly two inches long and place it perfectly between them so the stick is making full contact (not on top of or any other form of "overlapping"), and then take that stick away, how can there be more than two inches between the two bases?

This can truly go on for another 50 posts and will come nowhere closer to a consensus. Is is possible for everyone involved with continual sparring viewpoints to agree to disagree and wait for some FAQ and play their own way until that time?

Yakface wrote:And this is where I believe you continue to make your fundamental mistake by assuming that the definition of the word means one thing when its use in the diagrams throughout the book demonstrate a different definition of the word (a commonly accepted definition).

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I am not assuming the definition of the word means one thing. I have point out that the word is being used in more than one way. I have given two examples of different ways in which the term is used as proof.

Yakface wrote:And again, the only thing this diagram helps to illustrate is not that the diagrams in the book are full of errors and should therefore be disregarded but rather that the authors have a different understanding of language than what you are arguing.

Y'know, there's a joke about a kid that got all of the question on his arithmetic test right except for one that asked "5 + 7 = x". He had written "x = 13" and so naturally the teacher had been forced to mark him down. When he saw this error he took the sheet of paper to the teacher's desk and said: "Although I can understand why you marked me down, you shouldn't have." The teacher is naturally intrigued because the child is quite clever, she asks: "Why? Surely you know that 7 + 5 = 12?" The child nods and replies: "Oh certainly when you adults use the sign for 5 you mean [and here he raised his hand with his fingers spread], but I mean [and here he raised both hands, one with fingers spread and one clenched in a fist with the thumbs up]. So you can see that since I mean by 5 what you mean by 6, you should have marked that question correct!"

The funny thing is that the text shows that whatever understanding of the text that the text demonstrates, it demonstrates (so far as I've checked) at least a perfectly good understanding of English grammar. And by 'perfectly good understanding' I naturally mean the correct application of English grammar.

Yakface wrote:Because I disagree that the phrases say different things. I think those two phrases can mean exactly the same thing. The reality is that in real life sometimes "within" is used to mean "entirely within" and other times it is used to mean "partially within". But in the situation we've been discussing it is far more commonly associated as "partially within" (as I've illustrated in my posts above).

Okay, you think that the phrases corresponding in meaning to "partially within" and "wholly within" mean the same thing because sometimes they mean "partially within" and sometimes they mean "wholly within". You do realize that is what is generally known as "begging the question?

Yakface wrote:Or are you asking why would they would possibly use different terminology to describe the same thing? Because they are imperfect humans who have shown a tendency to use different phrases to describe the same situation.

Again, I am not asking for a just-so story or anything about motivation or intention. I am asking that you show us how to read these phrases correctly. It is simple: show us how the grammar and terms of these phrases express the same syntax.

After all, the construction of the sentence expressing the range on the Kustom Force Field Effect is identical to that of the Catalyst Psychic power and the Doom Psychic power, while the Resurrection Orb, the Fortune psychic power, the Guide psychic power, and the Bone Sword all use a different construction that explicitly admit partially covered units.

DaBoss: I'm not breaking down the wording as though it is deliberate and exact. I'm breaking down the text such that we can tell what is deliberate and what is a mistake. My research into logic and the philosophies of language began with being taught that there's a right way to do some things and a wrong way to do some things, and that right and wrong depend upon whatever conditions or restrictions that one might assume. And the wonderful thing was that if you carefully proceeded step by step and logged these steps, then you could tell the difference between what was the result of error and what was simply beyond your own first glance. The best part is that it allows you to do the same for other people's work, and so arrive at objective results. It is the basis for the utility of the pure sciences such as mathematics, statistics, logic, and computer science, and by extension the empirical sciences.

With regard to facts and opinions, the fact is that your opinion about the state of the facts may true or false. Fact are facts; they are neither true nor false, they are what statements/propositions may be about. The arrangement of the text, layout, diagrams, pictures, and whatnot in the Warhammer 40k rulebooks are facts. The statements made by these arrangements are the facts of the game of Warhammer 40k. The grammar and terms employed are facts of the natural language English.

Consensus is pleasantly irrelevant, although I see no point in quitting this discussion until the participants are satisfied that that their opinions are in accordance with the facts. If we agreed to disagreed, well, I can disagree with people from the privacy of my own home. I'm here to discuss the rules and either have the courtesy of having my errors corrected, or correct others in turn.

I've shown you how there is more than no space between adjacent objects. I recommend you return to the proof I gave and check that. I will suggest, however, that you consider the difference between zero and the null set as you do so.

Rule as written must be considered in light of the writer’s linguistic education and circumstances. If the writer’s did not intend a formulistic logical approach to rules interpretation through semantic analysis, then to apply such a regime can produce just as artificial a result as the person who argues from a strict ‘intent’ perspective. Moreover, to insist on such a regime simply because one can ‘see’ it in the structure is not valid, unless it is supposed to be there.

GW has provided little guidance for resolving apparent rules discrepencies apart from the “rule as written” standard. But what does “as writtent” mean? Well, it means “as it appears on the page.” It doesn’t require us to go into detailed semantic analysis, or to compare it to other similar rules to pick out word choice differences. It compels only that we read the rule and understand what it means, what it’s supposed to mean. That’s it.

The problem with Nurglitch’s approach is quite simply that they’re always HIS approach. No one else is advancing as complete or detailed semantic arguments. Surely GW did not intend the user community to be guided the few and far between logic students, but that we could all pick up the books and resolve disputes for ourselves.

All I’m trying to say is that Yak has a point when he says something doesn’t make sense, or that he has a problem accepting a Nurglitch’s semantic interpretation. GW wrote its rules with a mind that people with varying levels of education in varying fields could all play reasonably the same game. (I emphasize “varying fields” because logical, semantic analysis is not utilized everywhere where technical reading and interpretation skills are required. See the field of law. Public policy and legislative intent often trump semantic logic in the field that regulates our rights and freedoms, and I’d be happy to give very specific examples to that fact.) Nurglitch gives these forums a very reasoned and sound perspective, so please don’t take this as an attack, but I think it’s important to remember that’s not the only valid approach to interpretation, nor was it dictated by GW, nor are judges expected to possess any degree of logical training to provide definitive interpretations.

Nuglitch, you offer the forums great perspective, keep it coming. But at the same time, that approach is only one of the valid interpretive methods.

Nurglitch wrote: I've shown you how there is more than no space between adjacent objects. I recommend you return to the proof I gave and check that. I will suggest, however, that you consider the difference between zero and the null set as you do so.

I am suggesting that your "proof" is SERIOUSLY flawed. Understand just because you drew out an idea with symbols and the works and labeled it a proof does not make it a "fact". Like so many other things, please clarify the words you wish to use carefully. To say "Adjacent" objects is just to say they are simply next to each other, not necessarily in physical contact with one another. I challenge you to find any actual educated person in the field of Geometry and Physics, other than myself, to actual admit that there is empty space between two objects which are touching. Hell, I challenge you to find ANYONE on this forum to concur with your reasoning that... and listen closely... there is actual space (meaning empty room which can be measured in distance) between two objects that are in physical contact with one another (they are touching, the atoms of one are in direct contact with atoms of the other). Its madness!

Nurglitch wrote: I'm not breaking down the wording as though it is deliberate and exact. I'm breaking down the text such that we can tell what is deliberate and what is a mistake.

To presume you can identify what was meant as a deliberate meaning and a mistaking in writing is rather much. Again, without the say-so of the actual horse's mouth, you are basing this of personal analysis which is fundamentally flawed in its concept since you neither have the resource of personal clarification from the authors and any actual insight into their intent... all you have is a argument backed up with a personal interpretation which many seem to disagree with. And to say we did not put forth the effort to look at these rules in a "logical" manner if rather an insult. Many other persons than yourself are capable of looking at something in a totally rational and logical way and come up with a very different idea.

deadlygopher wrote:Nuglitch, you offer the forums great perspective, keep it coming. But at the same time, that approach is only one of the valid interpretive methods.

I agree. I welcome good healthy debate, but without the actual clarification from the authors, no rule interpretation is fact. So, what we are left with are peoples opinions and that is good enough for now.

Nurglitch, if you are truly attempting to make everyone like minded on this subject, I'd personally quit while I'm behind. You will NEVER convince everyone of your opinion, no matter how wordy you attempt to make your argument. Its the fault of human perspective and our individual awesome unique design.

I’ve been thinking about RAW, and the underpinnings of this thread. Perhaps this is a little more succinct than my last post…

Rule as written. What does this require us, as interpreters of rules, to do? Quite simply, it requires us to read a rule, and from that alone gauge the meaning. As is clear, that is often insufficient. English words can and often do have different or ambiguous meanings. So what do we do?

Well, we could adopt a semantic approach. We could analyze structure, other rules, basically all the written material we want, and this may very well lead to a logical result. What’s the problem with this approach, or shall I say, what’s the problem with any approach at this point?

Intent. We’re assuming that any interpretive approach we take is the one we ought to take, instead of one of several we might take, and infers we know what the designers wanted us to do. RAW requires us to figure out how RAW is supposed to work. What do we need to do to make a RAW analysis? I don’t think GW has provided any real guidance on this question.

Now, it might be argued that we MUST adopt a semantic, logical approach, but that isn’t true. As I’ve noted, the field of law, that important thing that controls what we do and sometimes can even put us to death, has often rejected a literal semantic approach in favor of finding the intent behind a law. Examples of this are beyond numerous; I’d be happy to share some. I say this only to illustrate there are other interpretive methods. I don’t think GW ever laid out basic resolution principles, or guided us to various intro textbooks to learn the interpretive technique. Saying logic must be used is as much of an assumption as any other.

I, personally, don’t like a purely logical approach. I don’t think it’s what GW intended, even if one can be ‘seen’ to exist. For one, GW wants everyone, the general population, to play their game, and it seems reasonable that GW would want everyone to resolve rules disputes when they arise. Everyone. Not the mathematically or scientifically educated, but those people plus all the others. And how does the average person deal with a rule they don’t understand? Form a comprehensive semantic argument? Not a chance. They go to common sense, first impressions given how they feel the game ought to work, precedent and similar rules, maybe WD articles. All this is fine, it doesn’t violate the RAW standard because the RAW standard doesn’t take us very far. Semantics is fine too, and very persuasive much of the time. But that’s all it is, a possible approach to finding the ‘true’ meaning.

DaBoss: Whether you find my proof compelling is irrelevant. Until you show me a flaw in it, it is correct. I recommend doing so in the Off-topic Forum if you wish to pursue this.

I do not merely presume that I, or anyone applying this method, can distinguish between correct information and typos. It has been proven by better logicians than I. I know that it works in part because the author's motivations and intentions are irrelevant to the fact of what is on the page. That these errors exist is not my opinion, it is a fact that anyone applying this method can identify.

If you are going to tell me that other posters have looked at the rules in "totally rational and logical ways" and come up with different answers then there are at least two given values for "logical" at work here. When I say logical I mean that there is a reproducible and effective method that anyone can apply to arrive at the same answer. Hence if someone is being rational and logical then we should be able to apply their method and thus arrive at the same result. Yet I see no effective and reproducible methods being put forth, although I do see plenty of just-so stories and appeals to credulity, authority, question-begging, and popularity of opinion. I see people confusing the two meanings, much like the confusion over the term "within".

There's the flaky colloquial use of "logical" to mean "something that's persuasive and makes sense at first glance", and then there's the technical and useful use of "logical" to mean "demonstrable, reproducible, and effective." I see plenty of the former, but nearly none of the latter. Being reasonable is using logic and biting the bullet, being unreasonable is denying that there is no objective matter of fact for reasons that are irrelevant, fallacious, or illogical.

As I keep pointing out, apparently in Swahili, I am not attempting to change anyone's opinions. No one can change another's opinion. You can only change your own. Given that my opinion may be wrong I have checked the truth of it using an effective formal methodology that returns a positive. Given that one may miss errors more easily in one's own work than in those of others, and that no one else has bothered to look into the truth of the matter (preferring instead to bandy about opinions and census in the guise of truth), I have put it out there for people to check. Perhaps unsurprisingly I have seen no flaw identified in it, while I have patiently pointed out the errors that my interlocators have made should they deign to notice.

Anyhow, my question stands. Could someone show me how the expression of the Kustom Force Field rule, though different from that of the Resurrection Orb rule, or the Guide rule, or the Bone Sword rule, or the Fortune rule means the same thing? Just lay it out for me, one step at a time.

Nurglitch wrote:
Anyhow, my question stands. Could someone show me how the expression of the Kustom Force Field rule, though different from that of the Resurrection Orb rule, or the Guide rule, or the Bone Sword rule, or the Fortune rule means the same thing? Just lay it out for me, one step at a time.

well it's not swahili, it's german, but it's good enough for me.

http://www.games-workshop.de/home/errata/errata-40k-de.shtm#orks

"Schpezialkraftfeld:
Die Formulierung zur Reichweite des Effekts bei Infanteriemodellen ist nicht ganz eindeutig. Klarer ist:
"Ein Schpezialkraftfeld verleiht allen Einheiten mit Modellen im Umkreis von 6 Zoll um den Mek einen Deckungswurf von 5+."

google translates that to:

"gives all units with models within a radius of 6 inches to the coverage Mek a throw of 5 +."

bad grammar but the meaning should be clear.

Yes, thanks, I know that they've released an Errata that changes it to the correct expression. That doesn't answer my question.

Edit: Speaking of Errata...

something tells me you're not going to get the answer you're looking for. I honestly could care less, I'm just happy to have the whole sordid affair behind us.

it does seems to go against your idea of knowing when the writers have stuffed up a rule accidentally or not. as obviously they didn't mean what you thought they meant, and in fact they intended for it to work the way most everyone else imagined.

gnat: Well, I'm certainly not holding my breathe. Thank Gork for the efficiency of the Germans, eh?

As for going against the identification of error, it might if you misunderstood what I was talking about. I wasn't talking about some magical voodoo that divined the thoughts and intentions of the Design Studio. I was talking about what the printed text indicated.

Given that the indicated rule did not match their intention, GW Germany changed it. Indeed, the fact that it clearly and unambiguously stated that the unit had to be within range is why the rule needed to be changed. I certainly wasn't against playing it the way everybody planned to anyways, I was against the notion that the text stated we should play it that way. Do you see what I'm getting at here? There's reading the rules and there's playing the game, and between the first and the second there's a decision that players have to make about each and every rule that they're going to use. When playing one must not only discard rules in the manual that incorrectly expressed rules rather than blindly follow them, but one may also discard correctly expressed rules if they are unsatisfactory for one's purpose.

It's like baking a cake. The recipe says 40g of sugar where everywhere else in the recipe it says 40mg of sugar. That is an error. Suppose the recipe also mentions adding zested lemon rind, but you don't like zested lemon rind. So you leave it out. You don't keep it in and complain that the recipe is wrong. The recipe is just a guideline to be applied as you see fit. But how you see fit to apply it may not be the recipe, and if you bake such a cake without lemon rind it would be stupid of you to say that the recipe really meant without lemon rind and that the recipe writers intended that lemon rind not be used.

In the case of the Errata, the recipe writers realized that people didn't like lemon rind and decided they'd get more repeat customers by leaving it out!

Nurglitch: A short while back we discussed PK nobz in shoota mobz. A key to your argument was the line “Some unit upgrades depend on whether a character is taken,” and thus, if the unit depends on the character, the character must come first, thereby allowing him to do his exchange before the squad. (I know I’m murdering the argument, bear with me).

That line “Some unit upgrades…” was not with the unit entry, it was not part of the rule. You viewed the codex as a whole to form a comprehensive argument.

But RAW doesn’t mandate you do this. RAW doesn’t even suggest you do this. “Rule as written” mandates you consider the one rule as it is written. It’s not “codex as written.”

Nothing is invalid with your argument, it’s quite insightful in fact. Yet, it wasn’t RAW because you chose to include material beyond the rule itself. Now, the rule itself was insufficient, so something else had to be considered. But it was no more necessary to look to a line on another page that it would have been to find a picture in WD with a PK nob in a shoota squad and say, “Aha, I’ve found the ‘true’ meaning. “

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with your analysis. I’m saying you seem to suggest your method is necessary, but nothing from GW indicates it is, nor is it the only possible one.

Moreover, even if a "logical analysis" produces consistent results, do most people resolve apparent conflicts using that method? I don't think they do. You discuss the difference between what the rule and says and how the rule's played. I contend there's no difference, and if there is a difference, then the former is irrelevant. What is a rule apart from how it's played? If someone has a method for resolving rules disputes, what value does it serve if his opponents and fellow gamers are in complete disagreement? To say "I've found the 'true' meaning of a rule, even though it's not what the designers intended and not how everyone else plays it," then you've in fact found nothing at all.

I'm not about to advocate we follow a 'majority rules' position, or say there's no point to discussing rules. I do contend, however, that there is something to be said for paying heed to what might reasonably be called the most consistent result when looking to the most common methods for dispute resolution, which might include precedent, analogy, etc. And while these methods might not be perfect, or logical, appealing to them (or better yet, to whatever method GW intends us to use), might be the best way to find out what the 'true' rules are.

deadlygopher: As people have mentioned GW isn't staffed by logicians, linguists, philosophers of language, and so on. So it would be surprising had they posted a bibliography in White Dwarf so that GW customers could educate themselves. Quite the contrary, Mr. Johnson instead recommended that people apply RAW.

In the case of the Kustom Force Field the method was necessary to establish that that the text stated what it did. After you know what the rules are, which is what the method is for, then you can go ahead and decide what to do about them. Unfortunately some people get it backwards and believe the rules are how they decide to apply them. Sometimes we even see this in the pages of White Dwarf, where the battle reports are released which are inconsistent with the texts.

It is necessary to use 'conceptual analysis' (that's what it's called) to determine what rules a text relates because the analysis does not confuse irrelevancies (what people want, how people play, what gets published in White Dwarf) with what is relevant: the text, its context (or 'co-text'), its language, layout, and so on.

And of course it's possible to have any number of methods of interpretation. Unfortunately most of them are bad, either because they return false results, or they are not repeatable, or because they are methods in name only (they are not methodical). At least one method of interpretation, which isn't a method of interpretation since it is an analysis, an exploded diagram of the information at issue, works and that is conceptual analysis.

Conceptual analysis is useful for solving disputes because its methodology is objective, repeatable, etc; it puts people on the same page. Once you all know what the text says, and how the rules expressed behave, then you can move on to either talk about the properties of those rules, or talk about how those rules might be applied. Part of the usefulness of employing conceptual analysis is the fact that it appeals to one's reason and thus to one's desire to engage in a co-operative venture. No one can make you agree that, given certain axioms, 2 + 2 = 4, but it's a fact that if you obstinately disagree without demonstrating otherwise that you are in the wrong (and also that you're an idiot).

Of course the application of conceptual analysis only works where participants are interested in co-operating to find the truth of things, but that's partly the beauty of it. In playing a game people have already agreed to engage in a co-operative venture wherein they work together for the advantage of all and knowing the truth of a matter in dispute is to the advantage of all to moving along and never having to repeat the dispute. If one's opponent and fellow gamers are in complete disagreement with using a method that assures that the truth may be found, then they are not one's friends or fellow gamers and they've simply entered into the game contract under false pretences; without the good faith required for the game (and for resolving disagreements in the game) all you have left are the sad bastards that have to win at all costs, be it cheating, degrading the game for all of its participants, or whatnot. That is why I do not have opponents to play against, I have friends that I play with: the former is a contradiction in concepts.

Now, if you wish to mislead people, or to use sophistry to your advantage, to 'lawyer' as it were, then using merely popular methods to bully people into agreeing with you is a very bad way to find out what the text of the rules state. If I wished to derive a theorem from a set of axioms I would not take a poll of people on the street, I would apply the proof theory that allowed people to check my work and to assure ourselves that it was sound and that reasonable people must accept it on pain of being unreasonable.

As for what people wish to do with the rules stated in the text, well, that is a matter for the people who play together to decide. I don't play these games with you people and you don't play them with me, and so how you or I wish to play is irrelevant to one another until such time as we sit down and make plans for a game.

I'm glad you mention a goal is to avoid false results, because here's my point - even though coneptual analysis yields consistent results, the results are still false unless that's what the writers meant the rule to be. A consistent method won't be valid if the method wasn't meant to be applied.

Does this mean I'm arguing for a RAI standpoint? Certainly not. I'm merely pointing out what others in this thread have said, that the writers can use different words to mean the same things, that the writers might not have developed a codex with an eye to a logical layout, etc.

RAW tells us we look to the writing of the rule. It's a stupid standard because it doesn't tell us anything. We know what words mean, in part, by knowing what they're supposed to mean. We might know what words are suppposed to mean via a conceptual analysis, but we also might know what words mean by getting more information from the writers themselves, similar writings in rules, etc. And since it's not the only possibility, it's not necessarily the correct one. That might mean that there are truly ambiguous rules, which is why we have tournament judges and informal FAQs.

However, a method that guarantees consistency but sacrafices accuracy cannot claim to be the valid method if a goal is true results.

The results won't be false. As I've pointed out part of conceptual analysis is identifying where the same words are used to mean different things and different constructions mean the same thing, where the text itself is not consistent etc. The writer's intentions are irrelevant to the results as I've explained. However they meant the game to be played is irrelevant to what the text states and how we decide to play it. The 'methods' that sacrifice accuracy are those methods that supposedly divine the intentions of the writers.

A writing means what the writer intends it to mean, so long as it is written to communicate that. But a writing may be ambiguous or susceptible to multiple interpretations, such is the nature of English.

Assume I wrote a sentence that, on its face, is susceptible to two interpretations, one of which I intended to communicate, the other I did not. You might look to my other writings, and through conceptual analysis, say my sentence means what I did not intend it to mean, but that's only accurate if I wrote my sentence while considering my other writings, if I possessed a knowledge of the conceptual analytical process so that I might ensure the true meaning is conveyed. The alternative is simply that I wrote a sentence susceptible to multiple interpretations.

RAW has no problem with this. "Rule as written," necessitates no more than analysis of the rule in question. Applied to my sentence, there are multiple possible meanings.

Obviously, to resolve the conflict we must do something else, but no method is more likely than another to get to the accurate meaning unless I intended a method to be applied. Therefore, while a conceptual anaylsis may be consistent and certain when viewed with other things, it's not necessarily the right meaning.

deadlygopher wrote:A writing means what the writer intends it to mean, so long as it is written to communicate that. But a writing may be ambiguous or susceptible to multiple interpretations, such is the nature of English.

That's false. I've explained why. I'll explain again: The fact of the matter is that intention-based meaning is an error-theory of language. It begs the question about what connects some mysterious quality of "intention" with the well-known qualities of signs. Don't take my word for it, go do some research. In particular I'd recommend reading about Hilary Putnam's Gedanken experiment about "Twin Earth". Basically it shows that whenever you try to establish a connection between an intention and meaning, you beg the question about what establishes that meaning. For example, suppose I were to say: "Oh, you can tell the intentions of the writers by looking at their other works." But it follows that if you cannot find a connection between intentions and text, then finding more text will simply increase the size of the problem space and not provide a link to intentions; all you will have is more text whose meaning is the result of the writer's intention. The problem, of course, is that the writer's intentions, if intentions define meaning, then those intentions are themselves unknowable. The alternative is far less mysterious: the writer's intentions are irrelevant and meaning is defined by such objective things as the structure, expression, signs, and referents (i.e., the things that conceptual analysis is concerned with) of texts including spoken words, electronically stored information, analog, you name it.

Take, for example, a baseball game. Suppose that a batter steps up to the plate with a .999 batting average (for the sake of argument). He always hits home runs. Now suppose he also strikes out. When the Umpire calls "Out", it would be stupid of this batter to stand up and point out that he had hit a home run and that you can tell that he intended to hit a home run because he had always intended to hit a home run and hit a home run before. It would be equally stupid of the Umpire to retort that the batter had not always hit a home run before, that he had struck out once when meaning to hit a home run, and therefore the batter's most recent swings were thus ambiguous. The intentions of the batter, like those of a writer, are irrelevant to how they act within the rules of their specific game.

deadlygopher wrote:Assume I wrote a sentence that, on its face, is susceptible to two interpretations, one of which I intended to communicate, the other I did not. You might look to my other writings, and through conceptual analysis, say my sentence means what I did not intend it to mean, but that's only accurate if I wrote my sentence while considering my other writings, if I possessed a knowledge of the conceptual analytical process so that I might ensure the true meaning is conveyed. The alternative is simply that I wrote a sentence susceptible to multiple interpretations.

Actually I wouldn't need to look at your other writings. I would take that sentence and apply it. When you protest and say that's not what you meant to say then I can point out to you that you obviously mispeak yourself (technically I would give you the conceptual analysis of your sentence, and upon noticing that all was in order you realize that you mispeak yourself). Likewise if I take your sentence and misapply it, then you could protest and point out to me in the same manner that you spoke well and truly and that I misunderstood. If you write an ambiguous sentence, and you think I misunderstood while I think you mispeak, then by checking the sentence via conceptual analysis we would notice that you mispeak and I misunderstood. Either way the conflict is resolved.

Nurglitch wrote:
Actually I wouldn't need to look at your other writings. I would take that sentence and apply it. When you protest and say that's not what you meant to say then I can point out to you that you obviously mispeak yourself (technically I would give you the conceptual analysis of your sentence, and upon noticing that all was in order you realize that you mispeak yourself). Likewise if I take your sentence and misapply it, then you could protest and point out to me in the same manner that you spoke well and truly and that I misunderstood. If you write an ambiguous sentence, and you think I misunderstood while I think you mispeak, then by checking the sentence via conceptual analysis we would notice that you mispeak and I misunderstood. Either way the conflict is resolved.

I'll return then to the shoota boy/pk nob issue. What is the resolution to problem of the order of option application if you're not going to look at "Some unit upgrades depend on whether a character is taken." Would you resolve for me the problem using nothing else but the rule itself?

On your first point, I believe it is you who are missing the point. I'm not arguing that true conflicts don't exist if one were to adopt my approach, but I am arguing the importance of intent.

Take, for instance, two rules, rule A and B. A, on its face, is susceptible to two meanings, although the designers meant one meaning to apply and the other not. Rule B was written after rule A, and interacts with it. Under the intended meaning of rule A, the game flows harmoniously, balance is protected, all is well with the world. If the unintended meaning of rule A is applied, total chaos. The game breaks down, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. If this were to happen, how can it be said the intent is meaningless?

Now, you've of course argued that there is a difference between the rule as played and the rule as actually written. That's a useless distinction. The rules exist for the game alone, only to be read and understood for the purpose of playing the game. If one interpretation were to wreak havoc and destroy the game, that interpretation would be discarded. And if asked, "what does the rule mean," a person would tell you the one the designers meant.

If this were to happen, would you still argue up and down the forum that no, you have the true meaning? And if you did, would you be serving any other purpose than intellectual egotism?

Nurglitch wrote:

deadlygopher wrote:A writing means what the writer intends it to mean, so long as it is written to communicate that. But a writing may be ambiguous or susceptible to multiple interpretations, such is the nature of English.

That's false. I've explained why. I'll explain again: The fact of the matter is that intention-based meaning is an error-theory of language. It begs the question about what connects some mysterious quality of "intention" with the well-known qualities of signs. Don't take my word for it, go do some research. In particular I'd recommend reading about Hilary Putnam's Gedanken experiment about "Twin Earth". Basically it shows that whenever you try to establish a connection between an intention and meaning, you beg the question about what establishes that meaning. For example, suppose I were to say: "Oh, you can tell the intentions of the writers by looking at their other works." But it follows that if you cannot find a connection between intentions and text, then finding more text will simply increase the size of the problem space and not provide a link to intentions; all you will have is more text whose meaning is the result of the writer's intention. The problem, of course, is that the writer's intentions, if intentions define meaning, then those intentions are themselves unknowable. The alternative is far less mysterious: the writer's intentions are irrelevant and meaning is defined by such objective things as the structure, expression, signs, and referents (i.e., the things that conceptual analysis is concerned with) of texts including spoken words, electronically stored information, analog, you name it.

No, it's not false. There's nothing illogical by saying a writing might be ambiguous. What you're doing is advocating an interpretive method. That's fine. I'm not challenging conceptual analysis.

Nurglitch wrote:Take, for example, a baseball game. Suppose that a batter steps up to the plate with a .999 batting average (for the sake of argument). He always hits home runs. Now suppose he also strikes out. When the Umpire calls "Out", it would be stupid of this batter to stand up and point out that he had hit a home run and that you can tell that he intended to hit a home run because he had always intended to hit a home run and hit a home run before. It would be equally stupid of the Umpire to retort that the batter had not always hit a home run before, that he had struck out once when meaning to hit a home run, and therefore the batter's most recent swings were thus ambiguous. The intentions of the batter, like those of a writer, are irrelevant to how they act within the rules of their specific game.

I like your analogy. Who imposed the rules of baseball? Not GW, "rule as written" is too limited. Well, if no one chose to impose the rules but yourself, then it's not so stupid if the batter and the umpire have different meanings. Now, of course you're going to argue that the rules are a necessity, and must be there, and will always be there, but that's not necessarily true. A writer may write a thought, and each sentence will bear the meaning she gave to it, though to another it's meaning might be different.

This is why conceptual analysis is not universally applied, for writers must be aware of its requirements to ensure they comply. But to be unaware does not mean they've failed to write proper English, and here I'll give you a reading assignment. Larry A. Di Matteo, Contract Theory: The Evolution of Contractual Intent is pretty good, and emphasizes, even in contractual interpretation, a field where precision and specificity is so required, that we look behind the words to get the true meaning. "A restrictive reading of contractual intent is disregarded. The use of surrounding circumstances to find the real intent of the parties is used to make a construction that is fair and reasonable."

deadlygopher wrote:No, it's not false. There's nothing illogical by saying a writing might be ambiguous. What you're doing is advocating an interpretive method. That's fine. I'm not challenging conceptual analysis.

Speaking of ambiguous, you may have noticed that I didn't challenge the fact that texts can be ambiguous. In fact the sentence "that's false" was intended to refer to your sentence: "A writing means what the writer intends it to mean, so long as it is written to communicate that" rather than the entire paragraph. But in not specifying that I mispoke and you misread, as I have explained.

deadlygopher wrote:I like your analogy. Who imposed the rules of baseball? Not GW, "rule as written" is too limited. Well, if no one chose to impose the rules but yourself, then it's not so stupid if the batter and the umpire have different meanings.

That's incorrect because games are not things that are imposed on the participants (not necessarily the same as the players). It's stupid for the player and the umpire to have different understandings of the rule because there is only one rule to understand, and it's especially stupid for the player to disagree with the umpire since there is a rule in baseball to the effect that insofar as the game in progress is concerned the umpire's decision is considered correct.

deadlygopher wrote:Now, of course you're going to argue that the rules are a necessity, and must be there, and will always be there, but that's not necessarily true. A writer may write a thought, and each sentence will bear the meaning she gave to it, though to another it's meaning might be different.

While it's certainly possible for a text to have multiple meanings (though not in the case of rules since rules have the satisfaction level of truth), that fact is that either those meanings are fixed and or they are ambiguous and have no meaning. A sentence will only bear the meaning intended by the writer insofar as that writer can express that meaning correctly. If its meaning is different from what the writer intended, then they have failed to correctly express what they meant. Likewise if the meaning is not understood by a reader, then that reader has failed to correctly comprehend the sentence.

deadlygopher wrote:This is why conceptual analysis is not universally applied, for writers must be aware of its requirements to ensure they comply.

This is another falsehood. Conceptual analysis is restricted in its application because its usefulness is not universally accepted, not because it is not universally applicable. It's not a problem with the problem, it's a problem of sales. It's much like the problem GW faces, wherein they could make a much better gaming system than Warhammer 40k, but they don't want to alienate those customers who like the old version no matter what was wrong with it. Instead they do it the legal way, by building on unsteady foundations until the mess is unworkable and then they tweak a few details to keep business moving and people buying.

deadlygopher wrote:But to be unaware does not mean they've failed to write proper English, and here I'll give you a reading assignment. Larry A. Di Matteo, Contract Theory: The Evolution of Contractual Intent is pretty good, and emphasizes, even in contractual interpretation, a field where precision and specificity is so required, that we look behind the words to get the true meaning. "A restrictive reading of contractual intent is disregarded. The use of surrounding circumstances to find the real intent of the parties is used to make a construction that is fair and reasonable."

I've checked it out. Dr. Di Matteo could do with a remedial course in basic logic, as well as in Kant's theory of law. I don't think I've read that much sophisticated stupid in a while, but that's to be expected from those working in the philosophy of law (particular the common law tradition). If you're going to treat the rules of Warhammer 40k like a matter of law, then I wish you well in your rules-lawyering.

The fact of the matter is we've reached an impass. It is worthwhile to note that the reading I suggested to you is by no means an isolated view, but more accurately is the view held in probably a majority of states.

It's obvious I'll be unable to convince you there's more than one way to interpret a rule, and I'm not so arrogent to conclude so many legal scholars and judges are mere "sophisticated stupid."

Instead, I'll choose to live in a world where terminators wear terminator armor, and I'll let someone bring Zagstuk even when there's no deep strike. So let's put this to rest. I wish you the best in your ivory tower, and I'll enjoy the game. Cheers.

And as I've pointed out, perhaps in this thread or another, argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. A consensus merely means that people agree with each other, and that is irrelevant to whether they agree with the truth.

There is nothing arrogant about supposing legal scholars and judges are capable of producing highly sophisticated stupid. Up here in the "Ivory Tower" it's business as usual. What would be arrogant, and indeed a fallacy in appealing to authority, would be supposing these guys aren't committing highly illogical wrongs simply because they are legal scholars and judges. Applying the methods of law, the application of rules to possibly uncooperative situations, to situations of cooperation such as games would likewise be as foolish as applying the methods of war, the application of rules to necessarily uncooperative situations. Neither rules-lawyering or WAAC gaming is a proper attitude to take to interpreting rules in a gaming situation.

It's interesting that you should imagine I live in a world where Terminators don't wear Terminators armour. The Space Marine Codex certainly states it is so, and the Dark Angel, Blood Angel, and Chaos Marine Codicies certainly state so. Likewise Zagstruck may be used whether Deep Strike is available or not, a unit of Stormboyz lead by him must simply Deep Strike when the option is available. The Ork Codex is quite clear on the matter if you care to check it. You must be mistaking me for some other idiot, one that believes falsehoods on the basis of RAW.

Still, I enjoyed the accusation of arrogance. It put me in my place.