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.

Pg. 66 "A FIRE point is a hatch or gun slit from which one or more passengers inside the vehicle can FIRE (OR USE A PSYCHIC POWER)."

Goes on to say "Models FIRING from a vehicle counts as moving if the vehicle moves, and may NOT FIRE at all if the vehicle moved at cruising speed that turn"

It would seem that they started by stating that for a unit to "fire" is = to "use a psychic power". So in the rest of that rule on page 66 any time they say "fire" they intend "use a psychic power" as well.

So the way I see it if the vehicle has moved at cruising speed than models inside are restricted regardless if a power is counted or called or named a "shooting power".

Timmah:

No, the argument that I offered was both valid, meaning that the conclusion followed logically from the premises, and sound, meaning that if the premises were true, then the conclusion must also be true.

In your criticism you have substituted a true premises for a false premise; a bolter does not count as a ranged weapon: it is a ranged weapon! Since you have done this, it should be no surprise that the conclusion of the argument is clearly false, since you've basically pulled a bait-and-switch, critiquing my argument by constructing a different one that doesn't apply to Warhammer 40,000. Nonetheless, you will note that both arguments are logically valid. Since the conclusion of a valid argument will follow from its premises, the truth of the premises guarantees that the conclusion of my argument is true.

Hah someone took a logic class.

Someone's TA'd logic classes.

Ethics of logic.... Hardest paper I ever had to write. Even though my head hurt at the end I felt like a genius. A.

Clearly off topic hah

Nurglitch wrote:Timmah:
In your criticism you have substituted a true premises for a false premise; a bolter does not count as a ranged weapon: it is a ranged weapon!

So, ranged weapons don't count as ranged weapons?

Timmah:

Correct. Ranged weapons are ranged weapons.

For ranged weapons to count as ranged weapons, the former would have to share some, but not all, properties in common with the latter in some special case.

For example, Mega Armoured Nobz count as two models for the purpose of transported in Trukks, but they are not two models as defined by the rules.

If we take the denominator to be the number of properties in common, and the numerator to be the number of properties of relevance, then we can say that one thing is another iff x/x, and one thing counts as another iff x-y/x & y > 0.

Nurglitch wrote:Kallbrand:

Okay, let me put it into an argument so that you can follow along more easily.

Premise 1
A Lash of Submission is a psychic power.

Premise 2
Using a Lash of Submission counts as firing a ranged weapon.

Premise 3
Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon.

Conclusion:
Therefore, the Lash of Submission is a psychic shooting attack.

Fine, let me put your argument a way you will hopefully understand.



For example, a person may say the following syllogism is valid, when in fact it is not:

1. All birds have beaks.
2. That creature has a beak.
3. Therefore that creature is a bird.

"That creature" may well be a bird, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Certain other animals may also have beaks. Errors of this type occur because people reverse a premise. In this case, "All birds have beaks" is converted to "All beaked animals are birds." The reversed premise is plausible because few people are aware of any instances of beaked creature besides birds—but this premise is not the one that was given. In this way, the deductive fallacy is formed by points that may individually appear logical, but when placed together are shown to be incorrect.

Timmah:

Your criticism fails. Here's why:

We can restate your syllogism using a propositonal logic.

P1. B -> K
P2. K
C3. B

Notice that the first premise is equivalent to: "If Bird, then Beak". So if we find something with a beak, and conclude that it is a bird, then we have committed the fallacy called, among other things, affirming the consequent.

Why is affirming the consequent a fallacy? Well, it's because the logical connective (the material conditional) joining things with the property of being birds to things with the property of having beaks has a specific direction.

Where your criticism fails to hold is in supposing that my argument shares this invalid form, and in particular that my argument involves quantification in the formation of its premises. This is false. Your criticism that my argument affirms the consequent is a straw man. See my following post for details.

You can try and go into it all you want.

But in the end your just saying that:

A psychic shooting attack is the ONLY way for a psychic attack to count as firing a ranged weapon.

The reversed premise is plausible because few people are aware of any psychic abilities that are not shooting attacks—but this premise is not the one that was given



This is the same in the example I gave as you would be saying ONLY birds have beaks.

Which there is no proof of this.

The reversed premise is plausible because few people are aware of any instances of beaked creature besides birds—but this premise is not the one that was given


So for this argument to be valid you would need another premise that said:

All psychic abilities that count as firing a ranged weapon are considered psychic shooting attacks.

However there is no proof of this as no where is it stated in the rules.

Right, forgot to add the legend, and obviously more dots need to be connected for the proof to be accepted. So...

The following is a derivation, a form of logical proof, showing that the conclusion follows from the premises with deductive validity.

Symbols
L = Lash of Submission
P = Psychic Power
R = Ranged Weapon
S = Psychic Shooting Attack
-> Material Conditional (if...then...)
& (also ',') Conjuction (...and...)

P1. L, L -> P
P2. L -> R
P3. P & R -> S
4. L (1, Simplification)
5. P (1 & 4, Modus Ponens)
6. R (2 & 4, Modus Ponens)
7. P & R (5 & 6, Conjunction)
C. S (3 & 7, Modus Ponens)

Premise 1 is true, because there is a Lash of Submission, and it is listed under Psychic Powers on p.88 of Codex: Chaos Space Marines. The Lash of Submission is a Psychic Power. This is usually where people muck up, particularly if they never advanced past syllogistic in their understanding of logic. 'Is' in English is tricky because it means so many things (identity, predication, existence, membership, etc), and the exact sense is almost always contextual. In this case the sense is membership.

Premise 2 is true, because a Lash of Submission is used instead of another ranged weapon, also mentioned on p.88, and so if you are using a Lash of Submission instead of another Ranged Weapon, then you are using a Ranged Weapon. Since the Lash of Submission is not a Ranged Weapon, and it is being used as one, it counts as a Ranged Weapon: so if you are using a Lash of Submission, then you are using a Ranged Weapon under those conditions. This is how the 'counts as' relation works, as I explained earlier in the thread.

Premise 3 is true, because, well, it says "Using a psychic shooting attack counts as firing a ranged weapon" on p.50 of the rulebook. Notice that under a propositional logic that the 'counts as' relation conforms to a material conditional, since the information making Premise 2 true licenses us to say that we can replace A with B where the condition of material A is satisfied.

Line 4 follows from Premise 1 via the logical rule of simplification.

Line 5 follows from Premise 1 and Line 4, technically from Premise 1 alone, but derivations using at least two lines are clearer and easier to follow. If we use a Lash of Submission, and in using a Lash of Submission use a Psychic power, it follows that the Lash of Submission is a Psychic power.

Line 6 as line 5.

Line 7 follows from lines 5 and 6, connecting the first two premises together in a form that clearly satisfies the antecedent of the third premise.

The conclusion, that the Lash of Submission is a Psychic Shooting Attack, follows from Premise 3 and line 7 via the same triviality that licensed us to be completely certain 5 & 6 followed from earlier lines.

To reiterate, the conclusion follows from the premises with full deductive validity via the application of the simplest logical principles. The premises are true, and therefore the conclusion is sound, and fully supported by the text.

Unfortunently Premise 2 is your personal opinion and not supported by any logic, making your whole reasoning fail.

There is nothing to support "used instead of another ranged weapon" actually meaning that it is in itself a ranged weapon. You fail cause you just state "so if you are using a Lash of Submission instead of another Ranged Weapon, then you are using a Ranged Weapon" wich is totally unsupported by the rules.

I think it is a psychic shooting power for the following reason:

There's 7 psychic powers in the CSM codex. Warptime and Gift of Chaos are not done in the shooting. That leaves 5 that are done in the shooting phase. Two of them have a range, strength, Ap value and Type listed (Doombolt and Bolt of Change). They also have the following sentence, "When used, doombolt/bolt of change counts as a ranged weapon with the following profile (roll to hit and wound as normal): "

Wind of Chaos has also a range, no cover/save allowed, quasi-strength (similar to "real" weapons in some instances) and has the sentence, "...this is resolved in the same way as firing a template weapon."

So for those 3, can we agree that they are "psychic shooting attacks" even though the codex never tells us they are "psychic shooting attacks"? (bear with me, I know this isn't the problem)
They all say,"May be used in the shooting phase instead of another ranged attack."

Nurgle's Rot also states that. It also has a range, S and AP value, though it lacks a type (template/assault/rapid fire) and but it says nothing about counting as a ranged weapon. It also breaks a core rule of a shooting attack in that the caster may be in CC, the target(s) may be in CC or neither/both can be in CC. Is Nurgle's Rot a psychic shooting attack with a codex specific exemption from the core shooting rules? It has all the general rules of a psychic shooting attack with a specific exemption added on. Seems like a shooting psychic attack to me.

Finally, Lash. It also is used instead of another ranged weapon in the shooting phase. It has a range, but does no direct damage (therefor no S/AP/Type). No where in the rules is it stated explicitly what makes a psychic power a "psychic shooting attack." We are left to infer which powers constitute a "psychic shooting attack." There is no RAW to tell us either way. Three of the five are pretty clearly psychic shooting attacks, a fourth holds most of the same characteristics (with the caveat that it has a codex specific exemption from a BRB rule) and the fifth is close enough for me to say it is also a psychic shooting effect.

I think the logic behind the idea that you are not able to fire out of a vehicle moving at cruising speed is that it is moving fast enough and is so bumpy that every unit inside has to hold onto something or sit down in order not to fall over.

So for the duration of the movement phase they are preparing to stand or picking themselves up.

No shooting no psychic powers im busy with the "jesus handle".

The rules as stated on page 66 lead me to believe and understand that you substitute the word FIRE with Psychic power where applicable.

This is at least how everyone at my FLGS play.

Kallbrand:

No, the second premise of my argument is based solely on information found in Codex: Chaos Space Marine, making it fact, and how you don't follow the logic is inexplicable. Let me try and break it down for you.

Premise 2 is true, because a Lash of Submission is used instead of another ranged weapon, also mentioned on p.88. I quote:

"A psyker may use this psychic power in the Shooting phase instead of using another ranged weapon."

As budro has pointed out, this sort of construction is used all the psychic shooting attacks in Codex: Chaos Space Marines, including Doombolt, Bolt of Change, Wind of Chaos, Nurgle's Rot, and the Lash of Submssion.

If you are using a Lash of Submission instead of another Ranged Weapon, then you are using a Ranged Weapon.

That's just a basic fact of English. Here's the definition of 'Another' from dictionary.com:

–adjective
1. being one more or more of the same; further; additional: another piece of cake.
2. different; distinct; of a different period, place, or kind: at another time; another man.
3. very similar to; of the same kind or category as: What we need today is another Thomas Jefferson.
–pronoun
4. one more; an additional one: That first hot dog tasted so good I'd like another.
5. a different one; something different: going from one house to another.
6. one like the first: one copy for her and another for him.
7. a person other than oneself or the one specified: He told her he loved another.

"Another", in that sentence, is being used as an adjective to "ranged weapon". If it is in the first sense, then the Lash of Submission is, in some special way, a Ranged Weapon. If it is in the second sense, then the Lash of Submission is being used in the place of a Ranged Weapon. If it is in the third sense, then the Lash of Submission is being used similarly to a Ranged Weapon.

Since the Lash of Submission is a Psychic Power and not a Ranged Weapon, and it is either a special case of a Ranged Weapon, being used as a Ranged Weapon, or being used similarly as a Ranged Weapon: the only valid logical conclusion that we can make is that the sentence means the Lash of Submission counts as a Ranged Weapon.

The properties of being used in the shooting phase and being used instead of another ranged weapon are sufficient for the Lash of Submission to count as a Ranged Weapon, but they are further corroborated by other properties that the Lash of Submission shares with Ranged Weapons such as range, line of sight, and pinning.

Furthermore, the truth of this deduction is corroborated by other remarks on the same page, such as the aforementioned identical sentence constructions used in the rules of powers that are exemplars of Psychic Shooting Attacks, and the text at the beginning of the page:

"A psyker may only attempt to use one psychic power per turn. The only exception to this is a model with the Mark of Tzeentch, which can attempt to use up to two psychic powers per player turn (but not two powers that both count as firing a weapon, as models can only fire one weapon per Shooting phase)." Emphasis mine.

In fact, the premise (2) that the Lash of Submission counts as a shooting attack is not only supported by the text and valid deductive logic, it is demanded by it. It is true.

So, actually, there is something to support the reading of "used instead of another ranged weapon" as equivalent to "count as a ranged weapon" in the Warhammer rules. There are several things, the first of which is the English language, the second is logic,

I do not fail when I state that "so if you are using a Lash of Submission instead of another Ranged Weapon, then you are using a Ranged Weapon" because I am merely citing the only conclusion about the meaning of that sentence that the rules support 100%.

Again, your reasoning is flawed because you state things according to your own reasoning without derive to them, that is what makes them flawed.

"The properties of being used in the shooting phase and being used instead of another ranged weapon are sufficient for the Lash of Submission to count as a Ranged Weapon" Is your own reasoning without making it true.

"A psyker may only attempt to use one psychic power per turn. The only exception to this is a model with the Mark of Tzeentch, which can attempt to use up to two psychic powers per player turn (but not two powers that both count as firing a weapon, as models can only fire one weapon per Shooting phase)." Actually only disproves your reasoning simply by showing that the rules actually uses the wording COUNTS AS in certain cases.

So you may actually write all that text and take examples that arent really relevant and in the end your reasoning is flawed and fails because at one point or antoher you come to your own conclusion by just stating something is.(Wich may or may not be false, but it still ruins your reasoning).


Budros reasoning like he himself states is based on what isnt in the rules and we all know, whats not there isnt.. there are no hidden easter eggs. Unfortunently that leaves it in no mans land, not beeing anything we know of. (except that it is a psychic power that is used instead of another ranged weapon).

Nurglitch wrote:

Line 5 follows from Premise 1 and Line 4, technically from Premise 1 alone, but derivations using at least two lines are clearer and easier to follow. If we use a Lash of Submission, and in using a Lash of Submission use a Psychic power, it follows that the Lash of Submission is a Psychic power.

Ok, so lash is a Psychic Power. True

Nurglitch wrote:

Line 6 as line 5.

And lash counts as firing a ranged weapon. Also true

Nurglitch wrote:

Line 7 follows from lines 5 and 6, connecting the first two premises together in a form that clearly satisfies the antecedent of the third premise.

The conclusion, that the Lash of Submission is a Psychic Shooting Attack, follows from Premise 3 and line 7 via the same triviality that licensed us to be completely certain 5 & 6 followed from earlier lines.

And here is where you are wrong. Just because Lash is a psychic power and counts as firing a ranged weapon does not mean it counts as a psychic shooting attack. Because again you are claiming that all psychic powers that count as firing a ranged weapon count as a psychic shooting attack. And as I stated before you can not prove this.

(a) so (b)
Rain makes it wet out
therefore
(b) so (a)
It is wet out, it rained out

This is a logical fallacy because again there are other ways for it to be wet outside.

Just as there can be things other than psychic shooting attacks that are psychic powers that count as having fired a ranged weapon.



edit:

Rereading your post I see what your main problem is.

You are reasoning that because something counts as firing a ranged weapon, makes it a ranged weapon. However no matter how weird it sounds there is nothing to prove this. Nowhere does it state in the rules that things firing as a ranged weapon count as a ranged weapon.

You are reasoning that because something counts as firing a ranged weapon, makes it a ranged weapon. However no matter how weird it sounds there is nothing to prove this. Nowhere does it state in the rules that things firing as a ranged weapon count as a ranged weapon.

Yes, this is what i was failing to get across originally. You use lash instead of firing a ranged weapon. You also run instead of using a ranged weapon. If the premise Nurglitch is claiming were true, then running would also count as firing a ranged weapon, which it clearly isn't.

Drudge Dreadnought:

If the Lash of Submission was used instead of a ranged weapon, like Run, then you might have a leg to stand on. Actually, the Lash of Submission is used instead of another ranged weapon.

And, as I've pointed out, the Lash of Submission shares this indicative first sentence with psychic powers that are unquestionably Psychic Shooting Attacks, and shares in common with Ranged Weapons a range requirement, a line of sight requirement, and causes pinning.

The text states that the Lash of Submission counts as a ranged weapon. I've quoted the text, shown how it is properly read, I've connected all the dots.

Timmah:

So, we can chalk you up as unable to understand and follow basic propositional logic? The logic is valid, the premises are true. If you don't accept the conclusion is true, then the problem is with you.

Nurglitch wrote:Drudge Dreadnought:

If the Lash of Submission was used instead of a ranged weapon, like Run, then you might have a leg to stand on. Actually, the Lash of Submission is used instead of another ranged weapon.

Actually the another part that you have bolded could mean any number of things. Such as a model which has 2 shooting attacks. SO instead of firing another one of their shooting attacks they can use a psychic test. (As stated in the BRB)



Btw just because your premises are true does not make your conclusion true. Your premises need to prove your conclusion which yours do not.

Timmah:

Actually the premises I provided do prove the conclusion when arranged in the argument that I have given. Apparently you've unfamiliar with logical proofs. Allow me to explain.

In a logical proof such as a derivation, the premises are joined to the conclusion using valid rules of inference to insure that each step is mechanically proved by preceding steps. Where the conclusion follows from the premises, the argument is called 'valid'. If the premises are true, and the argument is valid, then the conclusion is necessarily also true; this is a property of arguments called 'soundness'. I provided such a proof, which is valid, and uses true premises. The conclusion that the Lash of Submission is a psychic shooting attack has been proved to follow from the premises with deductive validity. It is true.

No need to treat me like I am stupid. I know exactly how your argument works.
And as I stated before the problem with your argument is that you believe Lash is considered a ranged weapon solely because it fires as if it is one.

Whether this is true or not makes your argument valid or invalid. As I have stated previously I do not believe that Lash is considered a range weapon and you have stated you believe the opposite.

We are not going to come to a solid conclusion on this unless there is a definitive answer to that point.

Timmah:

I'm not treating you like you're stupid. That would involve me ceasing to post. Instead, I'm treating you like an intelligent human being, which is why I'm pointing out that it is stupid for an intelligent human being such as you to say you understand how the argument I've given works and yet believe that the conclusion of that argument is not sound.

I do not believe that the Lash of Submission counts as a ranged weapon solely because it is used instead of another ranged weapon, though that is sufficient to be justified in that belief. I believe that the Lash of Submission count as a ranged weapon because it is used instead of another ranged weapon, in the shooting phase, using a ranged, line of sight, and causes pinning, because the language used in its description corroborates with non-problematic psychic shooting attacks, and thus with the words at the beginning of the section saying that some psychic powers count as ranged weapons.

Now, quick logic review: truth has little to do with validity. There are entirely valid arguments whose premises are completely false, and whose conclusion is therefore false as a result. Validity is about the form of the argument, such that if a value like truth is inputted into that structure, we are guaranteed a particular value for the results.

Whether the 2nd premise of my argument is true or not affects whether my argument is sound or not (soundness: whether the truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premises). Put crudely: True + Valid = Sound. The form of the argument is valid. That's a matter of fact. The premises of the argument are true. That's also a matter of fact.

Given that we have these two facts, we are able to derive a definitive answer to whether the Lash of Submission is a psychic shooting attack: it is.

If you knew exactly how my argument works, such that you knew how true premises interact with a proof of validity such as a derivation, and I made no errors in that derivation (I haven't, the point of derivations is that they allow you to check this), then you would agree with the conclusion.

The fact that you insist the problem with my argument is that I believe the Lash of Submission to be considered a ranged weapon solely because it fires as if it is one proves that you neither know exactly how my argument works, nor what my argument is.

After all, my argument is not that the Lash of Submission is considered a ranged weapon solely because it is fired as if it is one.

My argument for the truth of Premise 2 is that the Lash of Submission count as a ranged weapon because it is used instead of another ranged weapon, and it is not a ranged weapon. This leaves us with the 'counts as' relation quoted on p.88 of Codex: Chaos Space Marines.

One criticism that has been raised in this thread is that Running does not count as a ranged weapon despite being used instead of a ranged weapon and not being a ranged weapon. So since Running does not count as a ranged weapon, neither should the Lash of Submission.

But this criticism depends on the fallacious grounds that the words 'a' and 'another' are somehow interchangeable, as if an reflexive adjective could magically become the indefinite article. If Running was used instead of another ranged weapon, while not being a ranged weapon, then it would count as a ranged weapon. But the first premise of that argument is false, since Running is done instead of firing, not instead of firing another ranged weapon. Were it otherwise, a Monstrous Creature could run and fire a ranged weapon; this would be cool, but it is false.

it says that troops mounted in a vehicle cannot fire, only the vehicle itself can.

Radda Radda Radda I dun Radda.


Chowder...Cartoon network?... anyone?

Timmah wrote:No need to treat me like I am stupid. I know exactly how your argument works.
And as I stated before the problem with your argument is that you believe Lash is considered a ranged weapon solely because it fires as if it is one.

As pointed out multiple times in this thread, the codex states that Lash is a ranged weapon (C:CSM, p.80).

"...instead of using another ranged weapon."

This makes Lash into a ranged weapon. Had the rule instead stated "...instead of using a ranged weapon" then there would be some good arguments to the contrary.