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.

 Charistoph wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Col, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

A strange phrase. It never made sense to me. Why could you never eat the cake you have? If it means that you cannot eat something already eaten, then it is worded quite poorly.

In this case, though, Col_Ignored is trying to push a brownie as cake for getting ala mode, but not as cake for the price.

Or maybe just like Bill Cosby in justifying chocolate cake for breakfast?

As I understood it, the phrase "Have your cake and eat it too" is referring to that you cannot have a beautiful cake and be able to eat it, as the act of eating it will destroy the cake. Hence, you either enjoy it's beauty as a work of art, or enjoy it's flavour as food, but never both.

This phrase made more sense back when making a beautiful cake was actually hard and machines didn't exist. Nowadays it's a trivial matter to make two identical cakes (especially since everyone prefers minimalist decorations as oppose to the almost high-gothic look of older times), so the literal meaning of the phrase (again, as I understand it) has been somewhat lost to time.

EDIT: The phrase basically means you can't have all of the upsides and none of the drawbacks, especially in a mutually exclusive situation.

col_impact wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
Your scenario isn't impossible col. As you present it, the model can access the terminator wargear. If he chooses to upgrade to cataphracti armour, he would then loose access to it, at which point it is a redundant option. It is possible for him to access it as long as he remains in his original terminator armour.

Does the Option say "may take items" or "may access items"? I don't think you are paying attention to the difference there.

Does it say see codex space marines?
Does tenet 1 state you have to provide your RULES precedence for these interactions?

You have made many statements about a supplement overriding and replacing a codex, instead of... supplementing. Provide your proof per tenet 1.

I don't think you have been paying attention.

 JamesY wrote:
By your logic, he may take cataphracti armour. Then he looks at the options he may take from the terminator wargear list, only to find that he isn't eligible for anything on there. He may therefore choose not to upgrade his armour, then go back to the terminator wargear list and find that the options that were previously unavailable, he may now take.

To me, its terminator armour either way, and if someone did try to shenanigan their way to a jetpack terminator, I'd enjoy the realisation that they'd set themselves up for an easy HQ removal, with no transport or squad it could hide in.

The permission granted - "may take items in the Terminator Weapons [list]" - is irrespective of the armour the Terminator Captain is wearing.

Compare that permission to this permission.

"• A Captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armour may only take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists."

Permission is granted in AoD, then denied in Codex space marines if they are no longer in terminator armour.

 JamesY wrote:
Permission is granted in AoD, then denied in Codex space marines if they are no longer in terminator armour.

Which rule statement is specifically applied to the Terminator Captain model, the permission or the restriction?


In summary

col_impact wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
By your logic, he may take cataphracti armour. Then he looks at the options he may take from the terminator wargear list, only to find that he isn't eligible for anything on there. He may therefore choose not to upgrade his armour, then go back to the terminator wargear list and find that the options that were previously unavailable, he may now take.

To me, its terminator armour either way, and if someone did try to shenanigan their way to a jetpack terminator, I'd enjoy the realisation that they'd set themselves up for an easy HQ removal, with no transport or squad it could hide in.

The permission granted - "may take items in the Terminator Weapons [list]" - is irrespective of the armour the Terminator Captain is wearing.

Compare that permission to this permission.

"• A Captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armour may only take items from the Terminator Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists."

The statement a captain or Chapter Master in Terminator armor is needed in the SM codex because they have power armor by default, where's the other has terminator armor by default.

Please quote the page per tenet 1 as premise and which book per tenet 2, in the supplement that states it overrides the codex that it tells you to refer too.

Provide premise or your argument is not sound.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Col, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

A strange phrase. It never made sense to me. Why could you never eat the cake you have? If it means that you cannot eat something already eaten, then it is worded quite poorly.

In this case, though, Col_Ignored is trying to push a brownie as cake for getting ala mode, but not as cake for the price.

Or maybe just like Bill Cosby in justifying chocolate cake for breakfast?

As I understood it, the phrase "Have your cake and eat it too" is referring to that you cannot have a beautiful cake and be able to eat it, as the act of eating it will destroy the cake. Hence, you either enjoy it's beauty as a work of art, or enjoy it's flavour as food, but never both.

This phrase made more sense back when making a beautiful cake was actually hard and machines didn't exist. Nowadays it's a trivial matter to make two identical cakes (especially since everyone prefers minimalist decorations as oppose to the almost high-gothic look of older times), so the literal meaning of the phrase (again, as I understand it) has been somewhat lost to time.

EDIT: The phrase basically means you can't have all of the upsides and none of the drawbacks, especially in a mutually exclusive situation.

Oh, I understood what it means, I am just saying that it is worded poorly. Probably because it has been truncated over the decades after it was first used. Many phrases are setup that way. They make sense when first generated, but as time goes on it gets modified and changed and the language in general goes through many modifications.

 Charistoph wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Col, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

A strange phrase. It never made sense to me. Why could you never eat the cake you have? If it means that you cannot eat something already eaten, then it is worded quite poorly.

In this case, though, Col_Ignored is trying to push a brownie as cake for getting ala mode, but not as cake for the price.

Or maybe just like Bill Cosby in justifying chocolate cake for breakfast?

As I understood it, the phrase "Have your cake and eat it too" is referring to that you cannot have a beautiful cake and be able to eat it, as the act of eating it will destroy the cake. Hence, you either enjoy it's beauty as a work of art, or enjoy it's flavour as food, but never both.

This phrase made more sense back when making a beautiful cake was actually hard and machines didn't exist. Nowadays it's a trivial matter to make two identical cakes (especially since everyone prefers minimalist decorations as oppose to the almost high-gothic look of older times), so the literal meaning of the phrase (again, as I understand it) has been somewhat lost to time.

EDIT: The phrase basically means you can't have all of the upsides and none of the drawbacks, especially in a mutually exclusive situation.

Oh, I understood what it means, I am just saying that it is worded poorly. Probably because it has been truncated over the decades after it was first used. Many phrases are setup that way. They make sense when first generated, but as time goes on it gets modified and changed and the language in general goes through many modifications.

This is all off-topic. No one is trying to have their cake and eat it too. Personally, I would rather the Cataphractii Captain could not take a jump pack and power fist.

However, the actual rules say otherwise. Personal preferences have no place in a principled discussion of the rules.

Please quote the page per tenet 1 as premise and which book per tenet 2, in the supplement that states it overrides the codex that it tells you to refer too.

Provide premise or your argument is not sound.

Word semantics are not valid.

Ceann wrote:
Please quote the page per tenet 1 as premise and which book per tenet 2, in the supplement that states it overrides the codex that it tells you to refer too.

Provide premise or your argument is not sound.

Word semantics are not valid.

What are you talking about?

You have not backed up your statements-you halfway state something, then leave a gap for us to assume it to fill.

You have not cited rulebooks, instead going off what is solely your opinion of what constitutes advanced versus basic.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Please quote the page per tenet 1 as premise and which book per tenet 2, in the supplement that states it overrides the codex that it tells you to refer too.

Provide premise or your argument is not sound.

Word semantics are not valid.

What are you talking about?

You have made the following statements to assert you are correct.

"Permissions granted to one specific model in a codex Army List Entry is much more specific than descriptive text vaguely applying a general restriction to any model that gets directed to that list. "
"Angels of Death is a "Codex Supplement" so it overrides the Space Marine's codex in cases of conflict. The Codex Supplement adds and replaces rules in the base Codex where appropriate. "

Please follow the tenets.
Tenet 1. Cite your premise that your interpretation is correct.
Tenet 2. Cite the PAGE these statements occur on and the GW approved text they are on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Post haste if it isn't a bother.

Just glancing through the thread...I feel like the simple answer is: have Space Marine terminators (in any edition) ever been able to take jump packs?

If the answer is no...then no, you cannot.

Ceann wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Please quote the page per tenet 1 as premise and which book per tenet 2, in the supplement that states it overrides the codex that it tells you to refer too.

Provide premise or your argument is not sound.

Word semantics are not valid.

What are you talking about?

You have made the following statements to assert you are correct.

"Permissions granted to one specific model in a codex Army List Entry is much more specific than descriptive text vaguely applying a general restriction to any model that gets directed to that list. "
"Angels of Death is a "Codex Supplement" so it overrides the Space Marine's codex in cases of conflict. The Codex Supplement adds and replaces rules in the base Codex where appropriate. "

Please follow the tenets.
Tenet 1. Cite your premise that your interpretation is correct.
Tenet 2. Cite the PAGE these statements occur on and the GW approved text they are on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Post haste if it isn't a bother.

Both are at the Codex level of authority. However, Angel of Death is a more recent publication, so it updates the Codex in cases of bona-fide conflict if you are using the AoD supplement. It's relevant in terms of Chapter Tactics, since the language has changed for AoD.

My argument isn't contingent on AoD overriding C:SM, per se but rather on specific rule statements overriding general rule statements. I have already shown logic discussions to be supported by YMDC.

And what does Angels of Death tell you to do? Reference Codex Space Marines.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And what does Angels of Death tell you to do? Reference Codex Space Marines.

That is neither in contention nor relevant.

Does the Terminator Captain have the permission to "take items from the Terminator Weapons [list]", yes or no?

Yes.

He also has no rules that lets him bypass the restrictions normally in place.

So, if he is in Terminator Armour, he may select items. If not, he may select any item that he meets the qualifications for-that is, none of them.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes.

He also has no rules that lets him bypass the restrictions normally in place.

So, if he is in Terminator Armour, he may select items. If not, he may select any item that he meets the qualifications for-that is, none of them.

So if there is some general restriction that he may not take any of them then that is in direct conflict with his specific permission that he 'may take items', correct?

Incorrect.

You are determining on your own, without discussion which is a general statement and which is a specific statement. You have already demonstrated that you are incapable of making a logical argument as you have failed to properly assemble all of the components required to pose one, multiple times.

You are REQUIRED per the tenets to cite the PAGE NUMBER that tells you...
And you must also cite the PREMISE that supports your conclusion, which doesn't exist.

"Both are at the Codex level of authority. However, Angel of Death is a more recent publication, so it updates the Codex in cases of bona-fide conflict if you are using the AoD supplement. It's relevant in terms of Chapter Tactics, since the language has changed for AoD. "

This entire statement is invalid until your cite tenet's 1 and tenet's 2.

Ceann wrote:
Incorrect.

You are determining on your own, without discussion which is a general statement and which is a specific statement. You have already demonstrated that you are incapable of making a logical argument as you have failed to properly assemble all of the components required to pose one, multiple times.

Incorrect. My logical arguments have been fashioned correctly and have been sound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:


"Both are at the Codex level of authority. However, Angel of Death is a more recent publication, so it updates the Codex in cases of bona-fide conflict if you are using the AoD supplement. It's relevant in terms of Chapter Tactics, since the language has changed for AoD. "

This entire statement is invalid until your cite tenet's 1 and tenet's 2.

Which portions of the statement are incorrect?

How is relevant in terms of chapter tactics... Here is the units page...

Under Wargear
Terminator Armor - See Codex: Space Marines
Iron Halo - See Codex: Space Marines

"LOL, after you just said its relevant to chapter tactics"

Chapter Tactics - See Codex: Space Marines

Options - Option 1. See Codex: Space Marines,
Option 3. See Codex: Space Marines


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What portions of your statements are incorrect?

All of them.

Tenet 1. You have failed. TO CITE YOUR PREMISE. In special people land this means that you need to provide a circumstance where your interpretation of the rules is already a proven case, you have yet to do this.

Tenet 2. Also in the same magical place, we have these things called Codex's, they have page numbers, you need to provide the page number and the VERBATIM text that supports your assertion.

You have done neither of these things and now you pretend to be oblivious to them.

Every example you have provided, your dog or whatever has been incomplete or contained a self created logical fallacy of some kind. You try to craft statements to make the answer you pose to confirm your point of view.

That is not how logical statements work, you must provide the entire statement in full, you either provide 1 premise and 1 conclusion or 2 premises and no conclusion and then pose it as a question that you can criticize someone when they answer it.

You need to provide an ENTIRE statement on your own, and then that statement is determined sound or unsound.
The only thing you have done is play word games and hypocrisy.

Ceann wrote:

Every example you have provided, your dog or whatever has been incomplete or contained a self created logical fallacy of some kind.

All of my examples were sound. If you think there is a logical fallacy then point it out.



In logic, specific overrides general.

1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.

2) 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.

Ceann wrote:
You try to craft statements to make the answer you pose to confirm your point of view. That is not how logical statements work, you must provide the entire statement in full, you either provide 1 premise and 1 conclusion or 2 premises and no conclusion and then pose it as a question that you can criticize someone when they answer it.

You need to provide an ENTIRE statement on your own, and then that statement is determined sound or unsound.

You are making this claim based on what authority?

Sigh... how thick are you really?

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give PREMISES for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.

Premises

For the sake of organization, number your premises. Premises should be largely based on rules. Sometime the rules won't cover the issue, but if there is a related rule, it's a good idea to include it in a premise. Be sure to provide PAGE NUMBERS or quotes.

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

All of you examples were not sound. You are not follow propositional logic.


Premise 1: P → Q
Premise 2: P
Conclusion: Q

Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.

Example 1 from you. There is no full correlation of P and Q and a conclusion, you have failed to provide a logical argument. Ambulance Drivers are also drivers, your premise is a fallacy.

Example 2 from you.
1) Pitbulls are dangerous
2) My girlfriend's pitbull is not dangerous

This one does nothing. I don't even know what to say.
Rocks are sharp, my girlfriend has a rock that isn't sharp.
The statement means absolutely nothing, you are not asserting any conclusion.

You might want to have a better understanding of logic before you try playing these silly word games that mean nothing.

Ceann wrote:


All of you examples were not sound. You are not follow propositional logic.


Premise 1: P → Q
Premise 2: P
Conclusion: Q

Drivers may not go over the speed limit.
Ambulance drivers may go over the speed limit.

Example 1 from you. There is no full correlation of P and Q and a conclusion, you have failed to provide a logical argument. Ambulance Drivers are also drivers, your premise is a fallacy.

Example 2 from you.
1) Pitbulls are dangerous
2) My girlfriend's pitbull is not dangerous

This one does nothing. I don't even know what to say.
Rocks are sharp, my girlfriend has a rock that isn't sharp.
The statement means absolutely nothing, you are not asserting any conclusion.

You might want to have a better understanding of logic before you try playing these silly word games that mean nothing.

Who said I was adhering to the conventions of the special branch of logic known as propositional logic?

Are you aware that the field of logic is far more vast than just that specialized branch?

Again the case below is perfectly worth of consideration.

In logic, specific overrides general.

1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.

2) 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.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
No, he does not have specific permission to WEAR it, he has permission to ACCESS that gear, He MAY, not CAN, not MUST, he MAY, it is then followed by directions on where to look at the war gear. The criteria states that he must be wearing terminator armor to use said wargear.

If he is wearing terminator armor, then he may purchase those items. The entry you reference for the unit refers to the entry of the codex, it is directing you to the rules.

At this point in order to purchase those items he MUST be wearing terminator armor, if he is wearing terminator armor then he cannot ride a bike.

If there was any truth to your statement that you were "just honestly following the rules" the same train of thought you are putting forth applies to relics also, if we can ignore the prerequisite text for a grouping of wargear, then clearly he can take as many relics as he wishes also instead of just one.

If you are asserting that, then you are asserting that this same exact line of text "may take from X" that is on nearly every single SM character in existence may also ignore the prerequisites of relics and take as many as they want as well.

Is that what you are saying?

Don't straw man my argument.

The captain model is given specific permission to take items from the Terminator list. That permission supersedes any more general statement that would say he may not take items from the Terminator weapons list.

Specific > general.


In logic, specific overrides general.

1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.

2) 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.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:


BTW, if we are able to ignore restrictions in the Wargear List, then Codex Tacticals, Devastators and Crusaders can take Heavy Flamers! Not to mention we can ignore the restrictions listed for Terminators to be on Bikes and take Jump Packs, or any combination! So, have fun with your Librarian riding a Bike in Terminator Armor with a Jump Pack.

As if anyone would seriously allow that to happen that had any grasp of basic English, context, and grammar.

But then, almost anything's possible in Col_ignored's esoteric grammar dictionary.

That is not what is being discussed at all. Nobody is saying to ignore the restrictions in the Wargear list. Why do you even bother chiming in on discussions about my arguments when you refuse to actually read my arguments first hand?

Do as I say, not as I do? Stick to 40k related examples.

 Brother Ramses wrote:


Do as I say, not as I do? Stick to 40k related examples.

Logic is fair game in YMDC per YMDC rules.

In logic, specific permission trumps more general restriction.

The Terminator Captain has specific permission applied to his very model that he "may take items from the Terminator Weapons [list]".

In summary

Incorrect.

What you are trying, and poorly, to use, is called inductive reasoning.

Terminator weapons are available to units who wear terminator armor.

Some units wear terminator armor.

Like that right?
My statement is so true, I am broke my arm patting myself on the back.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also YMDC is not a rule.
Logic is not a rule.

If you want to cite logic as a rule, cite the page in the BRB that allows logical interpretations of the rules.

Ceann wrote:
Incorrect.

What you are trying, and poorly, to use, is called inductive reasoning.

Terminator weapons are available to units who wear terminator armor.

Some units wear terminator armor.

Like that right?
My statement is so true, I am broke my arm patting myself on the back.

Wrong again.

For something like 40k you are mostly concerned with sorting out logical relationships based on natural language and semantics. At no point is any classical logical proof going to be relevant to a discussion of 40k game logic,

So again . . .


In logic, specific overrides general.

1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.

2) 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.

This general and specific nonsense is what you are copying from the YMDC page and does not actually follow standard logically formulated arguments.

Your premise is false because you are making an unstated assumption, that the AoD supplement supersedes the Codex: Space Marines, because you are making this assumption you conclude that your logical deduction is true.

You have yet to establish that your premise is true. The fact that you refer back to the YMDC page terms specifically rather than discussing actual premise and conclusions that are the basis of logical arguments, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Logical arguments per the forum rules are meant to SUPPORT a rule. You are not supporting a rule, you are fabricating your entire argument from nothing because you have cited no premise.

Ceann wrote:

Also YMDC is not a rule.
Logic is not a rule.

If you want to cite logic as a rule, cite the page in the BRB that allows logical interpretations of the rules.

YMDC has defined what a debate on Rules As Written involves.

If you feel otherwise, feel free to cite what Rules As Written means in the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:
This general and specific nonsense is what you are copying from the YMDC page and does not actually follow standard logically formulated arguments.

You have yet to find any fault in my argument.

In logic, specific overrides general.

1) Drivers may not go over the speed limit.

2) 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 Terminator Captain has specific permission applied to his very model that he "may take items from the Terminator Weapons [list]".

In summary