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.

nostromo:

If it is true that the logic of special types causes contradictions in the rules when applied consistently, then it should be a simple task for you to find an example of a type/special-type relationship in Warhammer 40k.

As I see it, you won't be able to, and believe otherwise because you do not understand the principle of relevance that I have described earlier in the thread.

Your examples demonstrate this lack of understanding.

Both Tank Shock and Ramming are types of movement, hence they follow all of the elements of moving unless stated otherwise, explicitly or implicitly.

Hence the fact that Tank Shock and Ramming are both types of Movement, and thus share all of the elements of Movement, is irrelevant because we are concerned with the relationship between these specific rules, not their relationship with Movement in general.

We are concerned with special types, not types.

As I've pointed out earlier in the thread, the 'logic' here is not mine, but that of the rules themselves. The rules distinguish between types and special types.

Types, as described above, function transitively. If rule B is a type of rule A, then a rule referencing A will normally implicitly affect B without requiring explicit mention. A rule referencing Movement for vehicles will implicitly affect Tank Shock, for example.

Special types, as described previously in this thread, only function transitively in special cases. In other words, if rule B is a special type of rule A, then a rule referencing A will only affect B under the special conditions that B is a type of A.

Take Wings, for example, in Codex: Chaos Space Marines. Wings are a special type of Jump Pack. Wings allow a model to be Jump Infantry only in the special case of Movement, and as their actual unit type in the case of transport, and everything else that isn't Movement.

Fortunately the rules distinguish between the scope of these references by using key words like "normal" and "special".

But please, present an example wherein the consistent application of the logic of special types, as I've described it here, makes "the whole game would go to pieces so fast you'd be hit by shrapnell."

ok with out quoting the rules word for word (as every ones listed them) lets just work through everything

-Tanks may Tank charge & Ramming which is a type of movement (so all X, Y and Z still aply ... roads make you go faster, extra, extra...)

-Tank charge is a speical movement that lets a tank push its way through non-vehicals units. Moves at any speed.

-Ramming a Special type of Tank charge lets tanks push through all units but the tank must move at full speed ... when ever the tank hits another vehical damage is done to both ... if the ramming tank destroys the other tank then it keeps going

-ReInforced Ram lets a vehical Tank-charge.

-Non-Tank Vehicals which can Tank charge cannot use Raming as they are not tanks and so do not have a rule that lets them lets them ram

-Tank charge and Special Tank-Charge (Ramming) are not the same, the same way that a CC weapon and a Special CC weapon are not the same thing

-Why call a Reinforced Ram a Ram if it cannot ram? because reinforced bumper doesn't sound as good (though to be honist the Ram does very little for your boyz other then bunch the enemy up nicely and give AV+2 when going against DoG)

-If non-Tanks can't ram why put the +1 for being a tank ... well theres nothing to stop a codex coming along with ramming non-tanks vehicals but its mainly there for when a tank rams a non tank


don't think i've missed any of the arguements out but if i have feel free to explain them


er- Nurglitch ... don't wings just make you jump infantry now? wasn't that difference in the last codex? (other then that i agree)

Tri wrote:-If non-Tanks can't ram why put the +1 for being a tank ... well theres nothing to stop a codex coming along with ramming non-tanks vehicals but its mainly there for when a tank rams a non tank

Actually it's much simpler than the explanation you give, it's because tanks can ram other tanks as well as non-tank vehicles and these inflict a hit back on the vehicle performing the ram, thus the reason you can have a non-tank vehicle in a ram interaction.

er- Nurglitch ... don't wings just make you jump infantry now? wasn't that difference in the last codex? (other then that i agree)

Nope, the entry for them only says that the model moves like jump infantry, the main difference this makes is that a winged model can use a transport vehicle.

Nurglitch wrote:
The rules distinguish between types and special types.

which i can find on page number ... ?

nostromo wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
The rules distinguish between types and special types.

which i can find on page number ... ?

Succintly put.

Nurglitch grabbed some mathematical principle (set theory, which I've never before seen used to interpret a 40k rules problem) and declared it relevant. Why did he declare it relevant, you may ask?

Nurglitch wrote:set theory has bearing on any discussion of rules and their relation to each other. It's utility lies in the fact that it is simple, effective, and clear.

There you go. It's "simple, effective, and clear," so it's relevant, according to Nurglitch. That gets me thinking. What if we counted the number of vowels in the rules for tank shocking and ramming, and found that the number was different. Could that be a basis for concluding the rules are independent? Why not? It's simple, effective, and clear too. And counting is a mathematical principle. Hey, it's not my justification, I'm just quoting Nurglitch.

Not to mention the fact that Nurglitch based his conclusion on "elements" without citing anything that names the relevant elements of a 40k rule. When someone has tried to reference another element, it's been "bullshiat." (it's a technical term, you probably wouldn't get it unless you understood logic)

Well, I guess you can't argue with Nurglitch. He's got this analysis pretty well locked up.

nostromo:

Unit Types, p.4, 5, 51-55
Terrain Types, p.13
Complex Units, p.25
Weapons: Type, p.27-29
Additional Weapon Characteristics, p.29-32
Close Combat Weapons, p.42
Character Types, p.47
Vehicles: Type, p.56
Vehicle Types, p.65, 66-73
Universal Special Rules, p.74-76
Defining Buildings and Ruins, p.77
Buildings, p.78
Mission Special Rules, p.94-95

deadlygopher:

Except I didn't declare that set theory was relevant, I used it to show how the rules described by the Reinforced Ram, Tank Shock, and Ramming interact. It's a way of modeling the relevant abstracta. You might as well claim that I declared that using English is relevant, an equally stupid and disingenuous claim. The fact is that there are rules, and those rules are written in English. This automatically makes both English and set theory relevant.

What's also relevant? Well, since the question is whether the Reinforced Ram special rule permits a vehicle to used the Ram rule in addition to engaging in Tank Shock rule, the elements of those rules, and hence how they interact, is relevant.

Which is why your suggested of counting vowels is inane, and irrelevant to determining the relationship between these rules, as well as intellectually dishonest.

You're not only misquoting me, and selectively misquoting me, but doing so in a wholly transparent manner.

The elements I've cited are each distinct part of the relevant rules. They're right there under the headings of Ramming, and Tank Shock. That's what makes them relevant parts of the rules, and the elements of supervening rules like the general rules for Movement, or the number of vowels in the expression of any rule irrelevant, and hence bullshiat.

A wiser man than I has written that bullshiat is not like lying, because lying shows a concern for the truth given that to lie is to obscure or cheat the truth. Bullshiat, he says, is motivated not by a concerned for truth, but the lack of any concern or interest in the truth. Indeed, it's what you do when you want to distract from the truth, like you, deadlygopher, are attempting to do.

If you want to work up my argument, by all means go ahead, because either I have gotten a detail wrong, or you have and it pays to check. But if all you want to do is bullshiat, please go troll elsewhere.

Nurglitch wrote:You're not only misquoting me, and selectively misquoting me, but doing so in a wholly transparent manner.

Nope. That was the reason you gave for the relevancy of set theory. It wasn't out of context and wasn't misquoted, but I can help you read it if you like.

To say that set theory is relevant to 40k rules interpretation just like English is relevant because the language used is English is truly, laughably stupid. Maybe it's relevant to you because you chose to apply it, but that doesn't mean it's a method for discerning the meaning of rules. Either that or you're having some trouble with the idea of relevancy.

Please, be so good as to help me read what I wrote.

Also, please explain the idea of relevancy, that I might correct myself.

This is getting way off topic, isn't it? Should there be a thread dedicated to ways to evaluate 40k rules?

If the designers used formal logic, then formal logic should always yield the same results that the designers found. At least I think that's how it works- something about the same premises leading to a valid and true conclusion. It has been quite some time since I was in a logic course, so I may be wrong about the terminology.

If they did not, what system did they use? What bastardized conglomeration of logic, points calculation and internal balance can justify the CSM codex, the Dark Angel codex, the Ork codex, and the new SM codex?

Personally, I don't think any system is used, other than guess and check. Since the Ork codex was written when 5th was in the planning and playtesting stages, it is entirely possible that a 'Ram' did not exist separately from Tank Shock. Not being on the design team, I don't know.

I'll play the way common sense dictates. That a Honda, despite being a special type of car, is still a car, wherever that is legal. I won't count on that interpretation holding true for any tournament I go to without checking with the judges beforehand.

Sniping at each other, thinly veiled or otherwise, is not going to change anyone's opinions. It definitely is not going to solve GW's woefully imprecise wording.

Gitzbitah wrote:If they did not, what system did they use? What bastardized conglomeration of logic, points calculation and internal balance can justify the CSM codex, the Dark Angel codex, the Ork codex, and the new SM codex?

According to GW Design Team themselves, the write rules then attach the points value that "feels right" and work from there, attempting to keep coherency within books(hence the problems with the points costs re: Storm Troopers/Sisters/Scouts for Witch Hunters).

Gitzbitah:

Maybe there should be a thread dedicated to ways to evaluate 40k, but since disagreements in what the books state always comes down to that, I think it has a place in any discussion of what some particular rule is.

Whether the designers used formal logic or informal logic, we can use formal logic to model the rules stated in the texts, to identify genuine ambiguities, find errors, and judge the consistency and so on of the rules.

You're quite correct that, at least where classical bivalent logic is concerned an argument is valid when the premises fully support the conclusion, and hence that any true premises will entail a true conclusion if the argument is valid.

Another interesting thing about formal logic is that bivalent classical logics are only one of a variety of logics, each with different properties. But we can discover the logic used in the text by close reading and analysis, and thus apply the logic that the text uses, rather than relying on any so-called 'common sense'.

What system, if any, that they have used to calculate the points values assigned to units is irrelevant to whether the rules themselves have a particular form or endorse particular inferences. That's the handy thing about formal logic, is that it lets you find and identify errors in an objective way. If there's a rhyme or reason to the points values, considering them formally will let us spot those relations, or determine their absence.

This is important, because what is common sense is rarely common and usually nonsensical. In other words: subjective.

I mention that because a Honda is not a special type of car. A Honda brand car is a type of car. It is in all ways a car. By contrast, one could say that four wheels on a Honda chassis is a special type of car under the condition where all that counts for being a car is having four wheels on a chassis.

Notice the difference? A special type is only a type of something else under a special condition, whereas a type is a type under all conditions.

GW's use of "special type" in this case is quite precise, since both Tank Shock and Ramming are composed of the four elements that I've harped on about: Movement, Shooting, Effect on Non-Vehicles, Effect on Vehicles, and Ramming shares only 1 of these elements with Tank Shock. Since Ramming is only Tank Shock under the condition of affecting non-vehicles, it is only Tank shock under a special condition. Therefore the qualification of "special type" precisely describes the relation of these two rules.

An armoured car is a special type of car. Therefore an armoured car is not a car. Is that about the size of it?

deadlygopher wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:You're not only misquoting me, and selectively misquoting me, but doing so in a wholly transparent manner.

Nope. That was the reason you gave for the relevancy of set theory. It wasn't out of context and wasn't misquoted, but I can help you read it if you like.

To say that set theory is relevant to 40k rules interpretation just like English is relevant because the language used is English is truly, laughably stupid. Maybe it's relevant to you because you chose to apply it, but that doesn't mean it's a method for discerning the meaning of rules. Either that or you're having some trouble with the idea of relevancy.

Nurglitch is confusing set theory with a grammar.

Gitzbitah wrote:This is getting way off topic, isn't it? Should there be a thread dedicated to ways to evaluate 40k rules?


If they did not, what system did they use? What bastardized conglomeration of logic, points calculation and internal balance can justify the CSM codex, the Dark Angel codex, the Ork codex, and the new SM codex?

Captain Willard: They said your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are they?
Captain Willard: I see no method at all.

Boss Ardnutz:

If there is only one special way in which an armoured car is a car, then yes, an armoured car is a special type of car. If there is more than one way in which an armoured car is a car, then no, an armoured car is just another type of car.

olympia:

Wrong as usual. Set theory is a great way to model the content of rules. Hardly something to be confused with the grammar used to code it.

Nurglitch wrote:Please, be so good as to help me read what I wrote.

Also, please explain the idea of relevancy, that I might correct myself.

Yes Nurglitch the set/subset theory IS relevant, but unless the qualifier "special" is defined by the BRB ...
(By the way walkers are defined as 'very unusual' type of vehicle i'm curiuos where that's defined)

If you do a fallback move thru terrain with jump troops, you take a dangerous terrain test, not because fallback tells you to. But because it's defined as being a move in general with some special rules added, but it still inherits the rules of it's parent set. (not moving thru own models, gaps narrower than the models base, ...)
I already gave multiple examples of this kind of inheritance where we apply the rules of the general kind and then add the special rules on top.
Would you like to have a codex that repeats the most inane general rules every time there is a slight exception to the general case? I don't.

When you look at tank shock it tells you to declare 'tank shock attack' , aim the vehicle by turning on the spot, declaring the speed and then executing the move.
Now look at ramming, it doesn't tell you to declare 'ramming', why is that? How do i declare a ramming attack? the book doesn't specify! hmm, perhaps i just have to declare tank shock and announce maximum speed ...

Why would the DE upgrade need a FAq to prohibit it from doing ramming? The vehicle upgrade only refers to tank shock since the DE codex predates the BRB, yet they felt it necessary to FAQ that this particular upgrade (codex specific) does not allow ramming, the FAQ doesn't make sense unless the general ability to tank shock also allows ramming.

edit nr 37: damn i suck at proofreading

nostromo wrote:When you look at tank shock it tells you to declare 'tank shock attack' , aim the vehicle by turning on the spot, declaring the speed and then executing the move.
Now look at ramming, it doesn't tell you to declare 'ramming', why is that? How do i declare a ramming attack? the book doesn't specify! hmm, perhaps i just have to declare tank shock and announce maximum speed ...

Except that when you try and do this, more often than not your opponent will tell you you can't ram his vehicle because during a tank shock movement a ram effect cannot occur.

Why would the DE upgrade need a FAq to prohibit it from doing ramming? The vehicle upgrade only refers to tank shock since the DE codex predates the BRB, yet they felt it necessary to FAQ that this particular upgrade (codex specific) does not allow ramming, the FAQ doesn't make sense unless the general ability to tank shock also allows ramming.

edit nr 37: damn i suck at proofreading

No, the FAQ is a clarification of the way the rules already work, if it was a modification of rules it would be errata, that is why there are those two distinct segments to the published FAQ documents.

Drunkspleen wrote:
Except that when you try and do this, more often than not your opponent will tell you you can't ram his vehicle because during a tank shock movement a ram effect cannot occur.

Consistently aplying your rationale would mean that ramming can *never* happen.
have fun playing 4th edition

nostromo wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:
Except that when you try and do this, more often than not your opponent will tell you you can't ram his vehicle because during a tank shock movement a ram effect cannot occur.

Consistently aplying your rationale would mean that ramming can *never* happen.
have fun playing 4th edition

You mean my rationale of reading the rules and applying them as they are written in the book?

"If the tank accidentally moves into contact with a friendly model or comes to within 1" of an enemy vehicle, it immediately stops moving" ('Tank Shock', Page 68, BRB)

If you don't declare a ram and instead declare a full speed tank shock, you are getting a very different effect.