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.

col_impact wrote:


Which is the more specific statement?

1) The Terminator Captain model may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.

2) A model wearing terminator armour may . . .

They are both quite specific, and clear, what you are allowed to do. To me the restriction is clear, you need to be wearing terminator armour to use the options. And wargear listed restrictions still claim superiority, please refer to my argument about the order of superiority earlier. And then counter my argument instead of skirting around it.

Well specific and general have nothing to do with RAW, they are not elements of RAW. You have a nasty habit of tunnel visioning on 3 or 4 words and repeating them like a mantra. We do not get to do that in RAW, we have to read the entire sentence, the entire lines of rules and then take action based on the their entirety.

We read the words and do exactly what they tell us to do, in order.

We read that we may access terminator weapons, when we get to the terminator weapons section, we now either do or do not have terminator armor in order to proceed.

We may access relics, when we get to the relic section we now either do or do not already have a relic, if we do not have one then we can proceed.

We may access the special wargear, we may ride a bike if we do not have terminator armor.
May is contingent upon something else.

All of these choices have a prerequiste and the line of text you are attempting to manipulate is essentially universal in every single SM,GK,DW codex.

Those are the options the rules give us, we are told to go to the space marine codex and the space marine codex tells us what to do. Anything else you are doing is playing with words or using semantics to make the words mean what you want them too.

Ceann wrote:
Well specific and general have nothing to do with RAW, they are not elements of RAW. You have a nasty habit of tunnel visioning on 3 or 4 words and repeating them like a mantra. We do not get to do that in RAW, we have to read the entire sentence, the entire lines of rules and then take action based on the their entirety.

We read the words and do exactly what they tell us to do, in order.

We read that we may access terminator weapons, when we get to the terminator weapons section, we now either do or do not have terminator armor in order to proceed.

We may access relics, when we get to the relic section we now either do or do not already have a relic, if we do not have one then we can proceed.

We may access the special wargear, we may ride a bike if we do not have terminator armor.
May is contingent upon something else.

All of these choices have a prerequiste and the line of text you are attempting to manipulate is essentially universal in every single SM,GK,DW codex.

Those are the options the rules give us, we are told to go to the space marine codex and the space marine codex tells us what to do. Anything else you are doing is playing with words or using semantics to make the words mean what you want them too.

I think this is a well reasoned argument, and this is also the only way we can consider which permission or restriction = rule, claims superiority over another.

Ghorgul wrote:


They are both quite specific, and clear, what you are allowed to do. To me the restriction is clear, you need to be wearing terminator armour to use the options. And wargear listed restrictions still claim superiority, please refer to my argument about the order of superiority earlier. And then counter my argument instead of skirting around it.

1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.

2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.

Can the ambulance driver go over the speed limit?

If yes, explain how it can do so even though it is breaking the restriction in statement 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:
Well specific and general have nothing to do with RAW, they are not elements of RAW. You have a nasty habit of tunnel visioning on 3 or 4 words and repeating them like a mantra. We do not get to do that in RAW, we have to read the entire sentence, the entire lines of rules and then take action based on the their entirety.

We read the words and do exactly what they tell us to do, in order.

We read that we may access terminator weapons, when we get to the terminator weapons section, we now either do or do not have terminator armor in order to proceed.

We may access relics, when we get to the relic section we now either do or do not already have a relic, if we do not have one then we can proceed.

We may access the special wargear, we may ride a bike if we do not have terminator armor.
May is contingent upon something else.

All of these choices have a prerequiste and the line of text you are attempting to manipulate is essentially universal in every single SM,GK,DW codex.

Those are the options the rules give us, we are told to go to the space marine codex and the space marine codex tells us what to do. Anything else you are doing is playing with words or using semantics to make the words mean what you want them too.

There is direct conflict between a specific permission granted to the Terminator Captain ("may take items in the Terminator weapons" list) and a general description that would preclude him from taking any items. The two statements cannot both be true.

The direct conflict is resolved in favor of the more specific statement. This is a simple quality of logic and statements in general.


Overrides are specifically applied to text that directly conflicts.

There is a specific rule on the Army List Entry that the captain may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.

There is some descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour") that prevents the captain from taking any and all items for the Terminator Weapons. Text that makes it impossible for the captain to take any item at all directly conflicts with the line "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.

So, there is a direct conflict between a specific permission granted to the captain model and a general description.

The specific permission ("may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list) granted to that exact model (the captain) wins out over the general descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour")

Logic is not RAW. I am sorry.
There is no line nor logic section in the BRB that says "apply professors col_impact's logic to the rules".

There is not a direct conflict, it states explicitly "see Codex: Space Marines" which clearly defines the critera upon which you can and cannot use the gear,special, relics.

There is no such thing as a "direct conflict" that is not in the BRB. It is stated that when a datasheet breaks a rule then you follow that datasheet.

The supplement's datasheet TELLS US, directs us, SPECIFICALLY, to the Codex: Space Marines.

If your argument held water, it would be true for anything that use Codex: Space Marines.

RAW are also not logic puzzles, so the other words you put about drivers mean nothing. I could not find a drivers section in the BRB.

Ceann wrote:
Logic is not RAW. I am sorry.

Rules As Written carries with it that the rules are WRITTEN in a language. Language carries with it grammar, syntax, semantics, mathematics, and logic.

If you don't allow these implicit and attending things, then you cannot even add two die together. Nor could you follow any instruction since the instructions are in a language. To play 40k you must recognize the English language (or whatever language it has been translated to for your use).

Moreover, logic in particular is fully recognized by YMDC as critical to interpreting Rules As Written and resolving rule debates. https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate


So considering that discussions of logic are fully allowed by YMDC then kindly answer the following . . .

1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.

2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.

Can the ambulance driver go over the speed limit?

If yes, explain how it can do so even though it is breaking the restriction in statement 1.



In summary

col_impact wrote:


The specific permission granted to the Terminator Captain overrides the more general description text that precludes the permission.

Overrides are specifically applied to text that directly conflicts.

There is a specific rule on the Army List Entry that the captain may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.

There is some descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour") that prevents the captain from taking any and all items for the Terminator Weapons. Text that makes it impossible for the captain to take any item at all directly conflicts with the line "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.

So, there is a direct conflict between a specific permission granted to the captain model and a general description.

The specific permission ("may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list) granted to that exact model (the captain) wins out over the general descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour")

You keep arguing the same thing, that permission on unit entry is somehow gains superiority over wargear restrictions. Earlier I presented an argument and explanation why I consider wargear and wargear restrictions to be more advanced, more specific, rule, and thus should claim superiority over any unit entry permissions. You sir still are not responding to my argument.

That ambulance example is hardly relevant example of the rules question we are arguing about in here imho.

In general, your example of direct conflict is somewhat a valid argument. This argument however does breakdown, as the direct conflict is caused by player choice. As you do you have a choice to have only the standard terminator armor. The direct conflict arises only after choosing the cataprachtii armor. Thus the direct conflict is self-inflicted by your own choice, as you could always choose the option that does not result in direct conflict. This is why I am of the opinion that your direct conflict argument does not hold in this particular case.

EDIT: Minor grammatical correction.

it's totally legit. it's a relic, not wargear... people get their panties in a ruff because they think wargear restrictions apply to it. But the truth is, it isn't wargear....the notation next to the special issue wargear just doesn't apply....it's from a different list of options. Also, if you need a second point, it's technically not Terminator Armor... it's Catapharctii Terminator Armor, which is a different Proper Noun. Also, if you check the wargear entry for Jumppack, because the relic is a jumppack.... it has no restrictions for Terminator armor.

anywho... check out mine! If it looks this dope, its definitely allowed in play.

 poolatka wrote:
it's totally legit. it's a relic, not wargear... people get their panties in a ruff because they think wargear restrictions apply to it. But the truth is, it isn't wargear....the notation next to the special issue wargear just doesn't apply....it's from a different list of options. Also, if you need a second point, it's technically not Terminator Armor... it's Catapharctii Terminator Armor, which is a different Proper Noun.

anywho... check out mine! If it looks this dope, its definitely allowed in play.

That's a pretty cool conversion!

I think we have reached consensus, that RAW a Cataprachtii Captain can have bike or jump pack. Also a rough consesus has been reached that RAW the Cataprachtii Captain cannot take any wargear from terminator weapons as he is not wearing terminator armor.

This would make your conversion tabletop illegal as per RAW, because you have combi-melta and chainfist. Although in your case you can get around this by just using standard terminator armor, I think.

personally... I don't mind it... because it's a relic... it's only one guy in the army.... it's not as bad as spamming flying tyrants or something...


plus, it ain't smashfucker without iron hands...and he's no Khan on a bike... It's kinda a unique thing for ravenguard... you forget. if this is The One Thing that Ravenguard get despite having one of the weaker tactics, it's a fair trade off.... granted, if you play their strike force, you are now forced into over 50% of your list not really being what you want...but their strike force is pretty damned good.


I'd just like to see Imperial Fists or Ultramarines Reroll a Reroll...... then things would start evening up.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Logic is not RAW. I am sorry.

Rules As Written carries with it that the rules are WRITTEN in a language. Language carries with it grammar, syntax, semantics, mathematics, and logic.

If you don't allow these implicit and attending things, then you cannot even add two die together. Nor could you follow any instruction since the instructions are in a language. To play 40k you must recognize the English language (or whatever language it has been translated to for your use).

Moreover, logic in particular is fully recognized by YMDC as critical to interpreting Rules As Written and resolving rule debates. https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate


So considering that discussions of logic are fully allowed by YMDC then kindly answer the following . . .

1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.

2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.

Can the ambulance driver go over the speed limit?

If yes, explain how it can do so even though it is breaking the restriction in statement 1.



In summary

Spoiler:

The specific permission granted to the Terminator Captain overrides the more general description text that precludes the permission.

Overrides are specifically applied to text that directly conflicts.

There is a specific rule on the Army List Entry that the captain may take items from the Terminator Weapons list.

There is some descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour") that prevents the captain from taking any and all items for the Terminator Weapons. Text that makes it impossible for the captain to take any item at all directly conflicts with the line "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list.

So, there is a direct conflict between a specific permission granted to the captain model and a general description.

The specific permission ("may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list) granted to that exact model (the captain) wins out over the general descriptive text ("wearing terminator armour")

I hope you get this framed and put it next to your screen. I recall when you were ignoring "these weapons" for RG because there was nothing in the rules that defined what the term explicitly meant, now you are doing the exact opposite by demanding that every word be thought of and accounted for. Yet another instance of hypocritical arguments based on the interpretation that best suites your intentions.

There is no such thing as permission for gear, there is access to gear, the data sheet tells us all of the potential things something can access and he does have access however it is contingent upon something else. A restriction specific to that wargear, just like the what the make says is even more specific. Units are the least specific, followed by models, then by wargear, each of these things is progressively more narrow.

You have a silly logical fallacy you are trying to use to make your point while ignoring the fact that the very line you are trying to use as justification directly deferred itself, to Codex: Space Marines.

As for your drivers nonsense complete your assertion rather than asking me to complete your attempt at an argument for you. Your premise is false because MAY denotes a possibility both of your provided subjects can perform either action making any conclusion false. Present a full argument.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
There is no rule that says that.
Advanced rules dictate that a codex takes precedence, the entry in the supplement book directs us to the codex.

No rule needs to say it. In logic, specific overrides general.

Drivers may not go over the speed limit.

Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.

The Ambulance driver can go over the speed limit even though that contradicts the general restriction to drivers. The ambulance driver has a more specific permission than the general restriction.


The captain model is specifically given permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list. That overrides the general statement "a model wearing terminator armor".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghorgul wrote:
I would like know how a basic option on a basic unit supercedes the wargear restrictions. Clearly the wargear list has extra restrictions and thus could be ruled as more advanced rule.

Imho wargear rules are more advanced rules as they are applied after getting the unit. It is hopefully clear to everyone that unit needs to be bought before getting wargear. So in this manner clearly in the order of list building ( has gw given any other orders?) the wargear specific rules and restrictions are more advanced than the basic unit options.

The specific model is given the permission to take items from the Terminator Weapons list. That specific permission overrides any general restriction that a model not wearing Terminator armour cannot. The rules have specifically indicated that that particular captain model can indeed take items from the Terminator Weapon list.

So you are saying a Ambulance driver no matter what he is driving can ignore the speed limit!!!!

No he is saying nothing, it is an incomplete statement, leaving you to draw an incorrect conclusion by default. A clever trick.

col_impact wrote:

 MattKing wrote:
No It doesn't. If you are at a restaurant and the server tells you "we have no icecream today" and you demand a vanilla shake because it's a specific type of icecream and therefore not subject to the waiter's general provisions. You still won't get any icecream.

What does any of this have to do with anything?

Keep in mind tenet #3 of YMDC.

Examples need to be directly relevant to 40k.

We are talking about the specific permission granted to a specific model to take items overriding a general restriction to not take any items. This is a permissive ruleset not a restaurant.

What is this hypocritical nonsense about an ambulance?

 MattKing wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 MattKing wrote:
No It doesn't. If you are at a restaurant and the server tells you "we have no icecream today" and you demand a vanilla shake because it's a specific type of icecream and therefore not subject to the waiter's general provisions. You still won't get any icecream.

What does any of this have to do with anything?

Keep in mind tenet #3 of YMDC.

Examples need to be directly relevant to 40k.

We are talking about the specific permission granted to a specific model to take items overriding a general restriction to not take any items. This is a permissive ruleset not a restaurant.

What is this hypocritical nonsense about an ambulance?

Guess this is an open and shut case, thanks Matt for your contributions.

col_impact wrote:

1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
Can the ambulance driver go over the speed limit?

If yes, explain how it can do so even though it is breaking the restriction in statement 1.

The answer you are looking for is yes, but that is because you've not put in the required restrictions in when an ambulance driver can break the spead limit. They may not do so while driving their own vehicle, for example, it is not carte blanche.

Your question should have read

1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit in an emergency
Can an ambulance driver break the speed limit whenever they want?

As to models having access to a list they cannot take items from see space marine bikes and special weapons in the previous codex, this required a specific errata as having access to the list did not mean they could actually take anything as it required giving up a weapon they didnt have.

Ceann wrote:


There is no such thing as permission for gear, there is access to gear, the data sheet tells us all of the potential things something can access and he does have access however it is contingent upon something else. A restriction specific to that wargear, just like the what the make says is even more specific. Units are the least specific, followed by models, then by wargear, each of these things is progressively more narrow.

Does the option say "May access items from the Terminator" list or "may take items from the Terminator" list?

"May take items" is permission to "take items". That permission is granted to a specific Terminator Captain model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghorgul wrote:


In general, your example of direct conflict is somewhat a valid argument. This argument however does breakdown, as the direct conflict is caused by player choice. As you do you have a choice to have only the standard terminator armor. The direct conflict arises only after choosing the cataprachtii armor. Thus the direct conflict is self-inflicted by your own choice, as you could always choose the option that does not result in direct conflict. This is why I am of the opinion that your direct conflict argument does not hold in this particular case.

The direct conflict is there because Army List Entries have no history or preference. The option "may take items from the Terminator Weapons" list is just as valid for the Terminator Captain in terminator armour as it is for the Terminator Captain in Cataphractii armour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ItsPug wrote:

col_impact wrote:

1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.
Can the ambulance driver go over the speed limit?

If yes, explain how it can do so even though it is breaking the restriction in statement 1.

The answer you are looking for is yes, but that is because you've not put in the required restrictions in when an ambulance driver can break the spead limit. They may not do so while driving their own vehicle, for example, it is not carte blanche.

Your question should have read

1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit in an emergency
Can an ambulance driver break the speed limit whenever they want?

As to models having access to a list they cannot take items from see space marine bikes and special weapons in the previous codex, this required a specific errata as having access to the list did not mean they could actually take anything as it required giving up a weapon they didnt have.

Ambulance drivers can go over the speed limit because they have specific permission that logically overrides the general restriction.

Similarly

1) Pitbulls are dangerous

2) My girlfriend's pitbull is not dangerous

Is my girlfriend's pitbull dangerous or not dangerous?

The specific truth statement overrides the more general truth statement.


The Terminator Captain has specific permission to "take items from the Terminator Weapons" list which logically overrides any more general restriction that blanket removes his ability to take any items at all.

So he can also take as many relics as he wishes because he may take items from...? Correct?

The exact same text is used for a Space Wolves Iron Priest. Why can't they take a Jump Pack?

Ceann wrote:
So he can also take as many relics as he wishes because he may take items from...? Correct?

There is no direct conflict in the case of relics. There would only be a direct conflict if there was some general blanket statement preventing the Terminator Captain from purchasing any relics. There is no such general blanket statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The exact same text is used for a Space Wolves Iron Priest. Why can't they take a Jump Pack?

There is no direct conflict. The Iron Priest can still take items. Only if all items on Special Issue Wargear list were forbidden to the Iron Priest would the Iron Priest not be able to take items and in that case there would be a direct conflict.

So a restriction on just one item (e.g. a jump pack) in the Special Issue Wargear list is perfectly okay and does not present a case of direct conflict.

Again you have no clue how to make a logical statement.

What is 3.? All pit bull are dangerous? What assertion are you trying to make. You keep using two statement examples and then leaving a hanging open field.

Provide your THEREFORE assertion if you are going to bother to make a feeble attempt at using a logical model.

Then which items can the Catphractii Captain take?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Then which items can the Catphractii Captain take?

He can take any of the items on the Terminator Weapons list and any of the items on the Special Issue Wargear list.

So, just to be clear-because it says "May take", he can take any item he wishes from the lists he has access to, regardless of restrictions?

If your girlfriends pit bull isn't dangerous then clearly not all pit bull are dangerous, so your premise is wrong from the start. You are creating a trap answer to your hanging question that immediately becomes a logical fallacy and because you pose these silly two step statements based on an inaccurate premise without completing it then any response you are given by a responder is automatically wrong.

Present your own argument if you cannot create one on your own then clearly none of your arguments have any merit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The text states at the end. See codex space marines.
Anything else you have to talk about from the supplement is irrelevant.

Ceann wrote:
If your girlfriends pit bull isn't dangerous then clearly not all pit bull are dangerous, so your premise is wrong from the start creating and answer to your hanging question to immediately be a logical fallacy and because you pose these silly two step statements based on an inaccurate premise without completing then any response you are given by a responder is automatically wrong.

Present your own argument if you cannot create one on your own then clearly none of your arguments have any merit.

No. The first statement was presented in "as a general rule" format so it is not a faulty premise.

Consider:

1) Women have ovaries.

2) My sister [who is a woman] does not have ovaries.

Statement 2's specificity overrides the "as a general rule" statement in #1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, just to be clear-because it says "May take", he can take any item he wishes from the lists he has access to, regardless of restrictions?

Nope. Not at all. The only restriction that has been removed is the general one that is in direct conflict with the specific "may take items" permission granted to the model. Any other restrictions that are not in direct conflict are still present.

So it does or does not remove restrictions?

Again, your premise is wrong. You are asserting something.

FINISH your therefore, what is your assertion?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So it does or does not remove restrictions?

The specific permission is only going to remove restrictions that are in direct conflict.

col_impact wrote:

ItsPug wrote:

1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
2) Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit in an emergency
Can an ambulance driver break the speed limit whenever they want?

Ambulance drivers can go over the speed limit because they have specific permission that logically overrides the general restriction.

You didnt answer the question, "Can an ambulance driver break the speed limit whenever they want?" Yes or No?

I answered the question you posed, incomplete as it was, please do me the respect of answering my counterpoint.

col_impact wrote:

The Terminator Captain has specific permission to "take items from the Terminator Weapons" list which logically overrides any more general restriction that blanket removes his ability to take any items at all.

GW disagress, they specifically created an errata in the 6th edition space marine codex to allow space marine bikes to change their bolt pistol to a close combat weapon to allow them to take special weapons from the special weapons list, they already had an option stating that "up to two Space Marine Bikeers may each take one item from the Special Weapons list" but were unable to select a special weapon because they could not meet the critera to select any item from the list. In this case this caused what you call a "direct conflict", you state this means that they could select the items, GW (and people with a grasp of logic) realised it mean the opposite and had to be corrected.