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.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Zothos wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Let me guess, you're one of those people who actually believes the Doom of Malan'tai was able to wipe out entire squads at a time and took an entire army to put down?

Well, it didn't, it killed maybe 4 guys, often less with cover saves, then died to a few Krak missiles. It was a somewhat cheap distraction that let our pricey MCs take a bit less firepower for one turn, hardly OP.

Let me guess, you're one of those Tyranid players that was never on the receiving end of that abomination.

Yes, I have, I deployed well so it could only get 2 units, my Tervigon took a wound and I lost 7 Termagants due to their low leadership. Then I killed it with a Hive Guard brood.
130 points took down 67.5 points of models/wounds and distracted a unit's shooting. Which is pretty much how the Doom performed against any competent opponent.

Indeed. Our gaming group is a collection of incompetent rubes.

Clearly, yours, is the superior intellect.

Permissive: Allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behaviour

Rules: A set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity

I'd say that encompasses 40K pretty neatly.

Of course, if you want to try and attach other labels to the the term and continue to argue about it, why not take it to PMs?

 azreal13 wrote:
Permissive: Allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behaviour

Rules: A set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity

I'd say that encompasses 40K pretty neatly.

Of course, if you want to try and attach other labels to the the term and continue to argue about it, why not take it to PMs?

Those are great definitions. The way that everyone characterizes a permissive rule set is always as not having great or excessive freedom of behavior. They characterize it as prohibitive in the extreme.

"I'm permissive, so you can't do anything that I don't tell you to do." Does that statement make any sense?

 Idolator wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Permissive: Allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behaviour

Rules: A set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity

I'd say that encompasses 40K pretty neatly.

Of course, if you want to try and attach other labels to the the term and continue to argue about it, why not take it to PMs?

Those are great definitions. The way that everyone characterizes a permissive rule set is always as not having great or excessive freedom of behavior. They characterize it as prohibitive in the extreme.

"I'm permissive, so you can't do anything that I don't tell you to do." Does that statement make any sense?

It's based on the idea that the ruleset gives you "permission" to do things.

Don't blame me, I didn't choose the word for that.

 Idolator wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Permissive: Allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behaviour

Rules: A set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity

I'd say that encompasses 40K pretty neatly.

Of course, if you want to try and attach other labels to the the term and continue to argue about it, why not take it to PMs?

Those are great definitions. The way that everyone characterizes a permissive rule set is always as not having great or excessive freedom of behavior. They characterize it as prohibitive in the extreme.

"I'm permissive, so you can't do anything that I don't tell you to do." Does that statement make any sense?

The idea is that the rules give you permissions in a permissive ruleset (such as 40k) and the rules give you prohibitions in a prohibitive ruleset (the law, for instance).

A bit confusing, I know, but those are the terms that are used.

 Idolator wrote:
Chess is a definitive example of a permissive rule set because it restricts the movement of the pieces? I don't get it.

The rules of Chess don't restrict the movement of pieces. They outline how those pieces are permitted to move. Without those permissions, there would be no way within the rules of the game to move at all.

What type of laws(rules) are you ascribing to the prohibition laws?

The bit about prohibition was a side-track. The point was that laws are generally written with a focus on what isn't allowed, because what isn't allowed is a much smaller set of things than what is allowed.

In games design, the opposite is true. There are far, far fewer things that you can do in a game than that you can't... and so writing a set of games rules in the same way as we write laws would be a pointless act of tedium.

It's by far easier to write rules that limit than rules that allow.

It really isn't.

If your focus is on limiting instead of allowing, just as an example, you're going to need to have movement rules that point out that normal models can not fly, can not hover above the board, can not teleport, can not grow an organic skateboard out of their feet and move twice as fast, can not lassoo a passing native lifeform and use it as a mount, can not create a tank from mind-power, can not abandon the battle and go fishing, can not bake a cake on the front fender of a passing motorbike, can not swim, can not climb trees, can not trip over their own shoelaces, can not boost their own morale by singing an uplifting song about barmaids and cucumbers, can not gain a strength boost by eating trail rations as they move, can not suddenly learn magic and blast everyone with lightning, can not have a nap and come back in the battle you're going to play next week as a free unit, and can not suddenly turn into a completely different unit and decide to fight for the other side.

Just for starters.

Writing rules from that perspective is futile. It is far easier to outline what the unit is permitted to do in that phase, and assume that anything not listed is simply not possible.

Glad others picked up where I left off.

I dislike it when these arguments go on for a long time and how 40k's lazy design allows them to be entertained.

One thing I hate is playing a list that I "toned down" and still get "That list is OP broken!" Yea, you should my actual tournament list then... :/

 PrinceRaven wrote:
They may have had really poor luck or poor list building as well, I won't deny that. I'm just saying that in every game I played or witnessed the Doom against competent opponents it didn't do much beyond distracting and killing a small amount of troops. The ones in which it did I could point out the mistakes the opponent made that led to the Doom performing better than expected every time.

The most common mistakes were deploying in a way that allowed the Doom to be within 6" of too many units, having their army standing out in the open instead of in area terrain, not moving away from the Doom before shooting at it, and trying to decrease its wounds with low strength shooting and CC instead of ID'ing it.

I've seen both games where the spore scattered a bit and doom died without being able to cause a single wound, and games where doom solo'd his way through half an army. He was essentially a 13" across template blast weapon on the turn he came in, before he even decided to fire off cataclysm at someone for the turn. And god help you if he turned in cataclysm to take biomancy and rolled iron arm.

I personally have benefitted from a nigh unstoppable Doom before. I borrowed a nids army for a big 6 way game one weekend, got him in turn 3, tossed the spore with doom out into the middle of what was about to become a 4 way melee brawl. Doom leeched two warlords, finished off two squads, and sent 3 running back to their lines. Only one squad of chaos marines with a lord didn't flee, thanks to fearlessness. A s10 cataclysm then hit a SM land raider nearby and popped it, spilling out termies.


Next turn? Heavy weapons from here and there fire at Doom (only the chaos and marine players were really worried about him now,) he passes every single save. The chaos troops AND marine termies gather up nearby (outside the leech area.) Chaos goes before the marines, so they get some bolter wounds through then charge, and accomplish nothing. Termies go, Doom cripples the chaos squad, leaving just the lord, and goes back to 10 wounds, and the Termies charge. Doom passes every invuln save. Next guy's turn? The lord and all 5 termies die to leech, and Doom just starts wandering towards the next nearest player's deployment zone.

He never got to do anything else that game, because people gave up trying to kill him, (heavy weapons had pretty much all gotten killed in everyone's army) and the massive battle literally just moved AWAY from the Doom of Malan'tai while fighting each other. Even the guys who ran away after the initial leech, the players just had them book it the hell away from him. He did get me another linebreaker though.

This is a 90 point model ladies and gentlemen. He must've easily eaten over 1500 points plus blowing up a land raider. We decided to say that this huge battle was actually ON Malan'tai, and all records were lost of it.


As for the permissive ruleset. Yeah I think common sense sort of has a place, but I think 40k's rule design is "permissive" in style, as in it tells you what you CAN do 99% of the time. It goes unstated that you cannot, within the rules, physically attack your opponent to win the game, but the fact that it never says you can is considered to be "good enough."

Compare this to say....basketball. Most sports use a more prohibitive tone in their rules. The rules explain scoring, and then follow with what you CAN'T do. EG you can't leave the play area with the ball, you can't walk with the ball, you can't commit various fouls, you can't double dribble, etc. Nowhere in the rules does it say you can't have a vertical leap of 20 feet, or be 7'4" in height, or make a shot from across the whole court, or run faster than the other players. Generally sports use a "prohibitive rules" design because most of what you can do in the game is limited only by your physical capabilities.

I do highly agree that YMDC takes the "permissive ruleset" argument into the next solar system past where it was intended to go, but I think the 40k rules design DO prioritize letting you know what you CAN do, instead of what you can't.

 TheKbob wrote:
One thing I hate is playing a list that I "toned down" and still get "That list is OP broken!" Yea, you should my actual tournament list then... :/

This is the very thing that drives me nuts.
I like to have a variety of units for flexibility and simply to try out and they look better as a variety.
Then THOSE people who want to "cave face" and are looking for those lists.
So I have to carry TWO lists with me and I feel like a cheat just for that.
I would take a close game to tabling my opponent any day (or being tabled for being "nice").

Using the 5th edition Nid codex I ran a Prime, 3 dakkafexes, and a bunch of genestealers to make 1k points. Not an optimized list at all, and pretty easy for most armies to pummel into the ground.

Tabled my opponent in 4 turns, got called names for bringing an overpowered unit of 3 monstrous creatures that are unkillable.

A guy at my FLGS showed up to a tour neat with an eldar army made entirely of play doh once.. it looked awful

My Daemon Prince has a 2+ re-rollable, invulnerable, save.

"If it wasn't for unit (x) I would have won this."

"You play Orks as non-horde, therefore you're doing it wrong." AND "You play Orks purely as horde, therefore you're doing it wrong." (Yes, I've heard both of these, thankfully neither against me specifically.)

"You cannot overwatch, your units already forfeited to shoot at the first close-combat attackers." "Yeah I did, but the first dudes didn't reach my dudes, therefore---" "No you can't do that."

Hideous game enjoyment killing balance issues = 'Narrative'. .

Random game winning /losing dice rolls for no good reason = 'Cinematic.'

Not only do GW plc 'pi$$ in your pocket and tell you it is raining'.
But they say its your fault its raining and sell you an umbrella.And tell you its your fault you smell of pi$$, and sell you some deodorant.

Lanrak wrote:
Not only do GW plc 'pi$$ in your pocket and tell you it is raining'.
But they say its your fault its raining and sell you an umbrella.And tell you its your fault you smell of pi$$, and sell you some deodorant.

Please refrain from deliberately mis-spelling words. It just irritates people. If you're worried about the language you are using being caught by the word filter... well, that's the entire point of the word filter, and deliberately circumventing it will just earn you a suspension.

Piss isn't even censored to my knowledge.

Story time! I've heard somebody say. "Ah a daemon prince? What's it's strength? 5? Ha! Well that just proves that Tau technology is the best and that riptides are better than daemon princes. I should go in and one hit kill it but that would require it surviving my shots. Oh, and thanks for the free kill point." (it was a sergeant that became a prince...)

Other things.
Somebody asked me the range and strength of a boltgun
The starter force is balanced
Rending causes an auto-wound with no armor saves on a hit roll of a 6.
Balanced rules are bad
Balanced rules hurt min maxers and take the fun away
Thousand Sons are good
The Riptide isn't that bad

I have some more but too lazy to list them this late at night.

That you can't let someone who got the same or similar list for much cheaper play against you as it would make you seem like a fool. That was right here on dakka.

That I, the guy with the wife and a bundle of little toddlers, must be a homosexual for fielding the Exorcine.

Said with complete seriousness.

Historically, lots of homosexuals had wives and children. And yet even that fact does not make his/her statement any less ridiculous .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Historically, lots of homosexuals had wives and children. And yet even that fact does not make his/her statement any less ridiculous .

To be fair, the Exorcine does look like a penis, but there's only so many ways to design a giant living gun.

 insaniak wrote:

 krazynadechukr wrote:
"Omg, I hate GW. Let's play 40k."

Derp?

Why?

Is there a requirement to like the company that makes the game, in order to like the game?

I just find it hypocritical.
Imagine hearing "I hate Microsoft, but I love my xbox." "I hate America, but it love serving in the army." "I don't like the institution of marriage, but I decided to marry my girlfriend." I just find it annoying that people can be so delusional and hypocritical, and defend it with "GW isn't 40k man! I hate that money grubbing GW corporation." So in you dislike you support the object of your dislike with buying its products? Hm. IMHO

The rant I hear from a regular gamer is ridiculous and almost tin foil hat stuff. He is like"...I hate GW. They are a world destroying corporation, and they don't understand my hobby (40k). I can't stand them, and won't support them." Then, in our GW store where he games, he takes out his GW case, with GW minis, and GW books, and says "let's play 40k." without skipping a beat. When he starts to lose he is ranting "damnit, see, GW nerfed that unit of mine! I hate GW." Then he buys a new blister (made by GW)...

Hope that clarifies my view point.

 krazynadechukr wrote:
I just find it hypocritical.

It would be hypocritical if you said "I hate 40k. Wanna play some 40k?". But even then - I've done things I don't like because the people I'm with enjoy them.

 Kain wrote:
To be fair, the Exorcine does look like a penis, but there's only so many ways to design a giant living gun.

If heterosexuals really dislike penises so much, he would not care for you cutting of his, right ?
Seriously, if he was right, only homosexuals could appreciate stuff like Kingdom Death or Giger's art. That would be pretty sad. And if we were to apply the same to female organs, only the bisexuals could .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Kain wrote:
To be fair, the Exorcine does look like a penis, but there's only so many ways to design a giant living gun.

If heterosexuals really dislike penises so much, he would not care for you cutting of his, right ?
Seriously, if he was right, only homosexuals could appreciate stuff like Kingdom Death or Giger's art. That would be pretty sad. And if we were to apply the same to female organs, only the bisexuals could .

Ultimately, I think it boils down to him being butthurt about his legio terminators screwing up their deep strike scatter roll and getting pulverized by living artillery nodes.

But yes, the fear of the penis borders on the hilarious quite often. Much like Americans having a weird love-hate relation with sex.

I place little value in the institution of marriage. I would marry my girlfriend though, because it's important to her. You don't have to like every part of something to take part in it or enjoy it,

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 krazynadechukr wrote:
"Omg, I hate GW. Let's play 40k."

Derp?

Why?

Is there a requirement to like the company that makes the game, in order to like the game?

I just find it hypocritical.
Imagine hearing "I hate Microsoft, but I love my xbox." "I hate America, but it love serving in the army." "I don't like the institution of marriage, but I decided to marry my girlfriend." I just find it annoying that people can be so delusional and hypocritical, and defend it with "GW isn't 40k man! I hate that money grubbing GW corporation." So in you dislike you support the object of your dislike with buying its products? Hm. IMHO

The rant I hear from a regular gamer is ridiculous and almost tin foil hat stuff. He is like"...I hate GW. They are a world destroying corporation, and they don't understand my hobby (40k). I can't stand them, and won't support them." Then, in our GW store where he games, he takes out his GW case, with GW minis, and GW books, and says "let's play 40k." without skipping a beat. When he starts to lose he is ranting "damnit, see, GW nerfed that unit of mine! I hate GW." Then he buys a new blister (made by GW)...

Hope that clarifies my view point.

I take it that you like earthquakes since you like living on land. After all it is earthquakes and tectonic plate shifting that gives us this fabulous surface to tread upon.

One doesn't have to like the source of something to like a given result. Also, a person doesn't have to like the entirety of a thing to enjoy one aspect of it.

Dead fish suck, but fish meal fertilizer is awesome.

 Idolator wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Permissive: Allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behaviour

Rules: A set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity

I'd say that encompasses 40K pretty neatly.

Of course, if you want to try and attach other labels to the the term and continue to argue about it, why not take it to PMs?

Those are great definitions. The way that everyone characterizes a permissive rule set is always as not having great or excessive freedom of behavior. They characterize it as prohibitive in the extreme.

"I'm permissive, so you can't do anything that I don't tell you to do." Does that statement make any sense?

Idolator, you have asked many times to get a credible source for the term "permissive rule set" and truth be told m8, you are absolutely right. There is no such term in any credible lexicon. It was a made term by a wargame blogger. It was then snatched up by some in the community to excuse there over use of pedantic and semantic arguments. Unfortunately it has gotten so main stream now that many good natured debates get railroaded by this absolutely made up phrase. All made up phrases aside I have never, in my 20+ years of playing most of GW's products, played against an opponent who has said that phrase or even heard about it till 2 or 3 years ago.

I have also never seen, in any of the rule books, a statement saying "if we didn't say you could do it that means you can't!" I have seen in almost all of the rules books many statements saying the exact opposite.

Andy Chambers wrote something very perfect for YMDC. I am paraphrasing of course. "40k is not like chess or draughts. Its a fluid game that requires complex rules. If it ever comes a time when something is not covered roll off on it" That to me is the EXACT opposite of the made up phrase "permissive rule set" . Tbh thats the core rule to all of GW's games as said by the creators of GW's games.

Ridiculous things I have heard. I have truly heard someone say I was "palming" my dice. After that I always use a Yahtzee cup.

Idolator, the fish thing makes no sense.

"I hate the company that makes the product I love."

Is the most generic way to put it. I'm sorry, I can not grasp how someone can over ride their beliefs/morals (maybe strong words), and still support the root of the thing they dislike. It's like a fat person saying "God I hate dunken donuts, but these donuts are so delicious!" As they shove donuts in their face. And they continue that way... Their the same people that blame Dunkin donuts for being fat! Anyway, this dead horse has been beatin' enough...

 krazynadechukr wrote:
Idolator, the fish thing makes no sense.

"I hate the company that makes the product I love."

Is the most generic way to put it. I'm sorry, I can not grasp how someone can over ride their beliefs/morals (maybe strong words), and still support the root of the thing they dislike. It's like a fat person saying "God I hate dunken donuts, but these donuts are so delicious!" As they shove donuts in their face. And they continue that way... Their the same people that blame Dunkin donuts for being fat! Anyway, this dead horse has been beatin' enough...

All the bad analogies. ALL OF THEM! Bring more!