Is 40k a Permissive Ruleset or is that a flawed mindset that certain players invented from nothing?

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.

**rigeld2**

Zodiark wrote:
I challenged a flawed mindset that certain players have when playing the game. It is not supported by the rules of the game, therefore you cannot claim that it is.

Back on the subject of this thread. Make a new one if you wanna debate the mythological "permissive" ruleset.

Please Zodiark, show me what in the rules prevents me from smashing your models with a hammer. Page and paragraph please.

**Zodiark**

Show me where in the RB that states you can, then you win the debate.

There is no such thing as a permissive ruleset, this is something made up by players here on this forum and nothing more. When you can cite explicit backing of this concept from GW themselves and nothing else, then you can consider using it.

**sirlynchmob**

Why isn't this a poll?

**Zodiark**

Popular opinion does not make something right or wrong. Rules do.

Nothing from GW supports this mythical permissive ruleset, therefore stating that it is one, cannot logically happen.

**Sigvatr**

Uhm...can't you guys sort this out via PMs? :/

Every game is a permissive ruleset. Imagine playing Monopoly and I ask you to give me 5000$ every time you roll snake eyes.

Or imagine any drinking game where at the start, I just drink all booze because nobody says that I can't.

Come on guys.

**Zodiark**

Quoting from different threads on this topic.

FlingitNow wrote:
Zodiark wrote:
FlingitNow wrote:
I don't need to show denial of permission when I have proven that "resolving the power according to it's entry" prevents Terrify from stacking. Whilst also having illustrated you have no permission to stack.

Your entire argument is based on whether or not you have the permission to do something. As has been mentioned half a dozen times, if you are not told to do something, what is stopping you from doing it? Nothing, just house rules, nothing official exists anywhere within the texts prohibiting you from stacking. In fact, others have numerous times cited the rules for multiple modifiers and multiple instances of Terrify counts as multiple modifiers which the rules specifically addresses.

You haven't "proven" anything, all you have done is latch on to a last bastion of hope.

This sums up both arguments perfectly. If you believe that the rules are a permissive ruleset then you can't stack Maledictions. However if like the pro-stacking side you do not believe the rules are a permissive ruleset then nothing says you can't stack.

Also nothing says I can't add new units to the table at any point in the game. Or choose to take an extra shooting phase in the middle of your turn.

So which do you believe? Maledictions don't stack or I can just remove all your models from the table and declare myself winner at any point? After all the rules say I can't voluntarily move my models off the table therefore I can move yours right?

As you can see from even other players, permissive ruleset is a debated concept, not a solid foundation for anything

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sigvatr wrote:
Uhm...can't you guys sort this out via PMs? :/

Every game is a permissive ruleset. Imagine playing Monopoly and I ask you to give me 5000$ every time you roll snake eyes.

Or imagine any drinking game where at the start, I just drink all booze because nobody says that I can't.

Come on guys.

This boils down more to a dispute between him and me as we seem to bash heads everywhere we post it seems. Me, using logic and what is physically written and what is common knowledge and him using nothing more than conjecture and fallacies.

**Sigvatr**

Zodiark wrote:

This boils down more to a dispute between him and me as we seem to bash heads everywhere we post it seems. Me, using logic and what is physically written and what is common knowledge and him using nothing more than conjecture and fallacies.

That's one side of the argument. Rigeld certainly tends to lack manners from time to time, but as far as I have seen, he usually is spot on with the rules (90%-ish) and provides backup if he can.

**Zodiark**

Sigvatr wrote:
Zodiark wrote:

This boils down more to a dispute between him and me as we seem to bash heads everywhere we post it seems. Me, using logic and what is physically written and what is common knowledge and him using nothing more than conjecture and fallacies.

That's one side of the argument. Rigeld certainly tends to lack manners from time to time, but as far as I have seen, he usually is spot on with the rules (90%-ish) and provides backup if he can.

The last 48 hours must be that 95%. He won't be able to provide GW backing for a permissive ruleset which makes this entire thread pointless.

**sirlynchmob**

Well should we first establish what exactly a permissive rule set means? Then see if the BRB fits that definition?

**Zodiark**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Well should we first establish what exactly a permissive rule set means? Then see if the BRB fits that definition?

This was discussed yesterday, trying to find the post right now.

It was determined this game was a combination of permissive and restrictive as it clearly states what you can and cannot do.

Though even then, this entire conversation is nothing more than speculation, I'll entertain myself for awhile.

Other forums have even debated this concept to mixed reception as well apparently.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?300606-Permissive-Rule-Set

http://the11thcompany.freeforums.org/permissive-or-denial-rule-set-t4158.html

The common consensus so far is a mix for both.

If the rule says you can, it fits the permissive, if the rule says you cannot, it fits the restrictive.

**Blacksails**

Zodiark, read this.

While its in reference to another classic debate, para 1 Yakface explains about permissions.

**Happyjew**

IIRC a Permissive rule set is one where you need permission to do anything. In order to move a token, you need permission. In order to take money from the bank, you need permission. In order to capture objective you need permission.

This is the way rules must be written. If, it were restrictive, then instead of having "You may move your model up to 6" on the board", you would instead have "You cannot move your model more than 6". You cannot use a wooden stick to push your model more than 6". You cannot train your dog to pick your model up and drop it more than 6" away from its originating point. Etc."

Laws, are the opposite of this. You can do whatever you want as long as there is no law preventing it.

**rigeld2**

Zodiark wrote:
Show me where in the RB that states you can, then you win the debate.

It doesn't! Awesome! So you agree that for me to be able to do something, the rules must permit it, yes?

**Hollismason**

Actually the rules tell you exactly what they are

The Most Important Rule

In a game of the size and complexity of Warhammer 40,000, there are bound to be occasions where a situation is not covered by the rules, or you can’t seem to find the right page. Even if you know the rule, sometimes it is just a really close call, and players don’t agree on the precise outcome.

Nobody wants to waste valuable gaming time arguing, so be prepared to interpret a rule or come up with a suitable solution for yourselves (in a manner befitting the better class of Imperial Citizen, of course).

If you find that you and your opponent cannot agree on the application of a rule, roll a dice to see whose interpretation will apply for the remainder of the game – on a result of 1-3 player A gets to decide, on a 4-6 player B decides. Then you can get on with the fighting! Once the game is over, you can happily continue your discussion as to the finer points of the rules.

The rules are a guideline to playing the game, but it is intended to be interpreted at times by players as to how to apply those rules if it is unclear.

The Spirit of the Game

Warhammer 40,000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it’s important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game. Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey. What’s more, Warhammer 40,000 calls on a lot from you, the player. Your responsibility isn’t just to follow the rules, it’s also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written.

So why do we argue rules as written, well when we play people we don't know we all want to have established baseline to cover certain situations that arise in order so that we do not have to spend time discussing it.

The reason we have rules in tournaments is so that everyone is on the same page of interpretation.

Again the rules of 40k are not permissive, you have permission to do wtf ever, we choose as players to make a conscious decision to establish baseline rules and interpretations in order to save time during a game, which is why we have YMDC to begin with.

**Zodiark**

Happyjew wrote:
IIRC a Permissive rule set is one where you need permission to do anything. In order to move a token, you need permission. In order to take money from the bank, you need permission. In order to capture objective you need permission.

This is the way rules must be written. If, it were restrictive, then instead of having "You may move your model up to 6" on the board", you would instead have "You cannot move your model more than 6". You cannot use a wooden stick to push your model more than 6". You cannot train your dog to pick your model up and drop it more than 6" away from its originating point. Etc."

Laws, are the opposite of this. You can do whatever you want as long as there is no law preventing it.

Except that no game is strictly permissive only, they are combinations of both.

Every game tells you what you can (permissive) and cannot (restrictive) do.

**rigeld2**

Zodiark wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Well should we first establish what exactly a permissive rule set means? Then see if the BRB fits that definition?

This was discussed yesterday, trying to find the post right now.

It was determined this game was a combination of permissive and restrictive as it clearly states what you can and cannot do.

Though even then, this entire conversation is nothing more than speculation, I'll entertain myself for awhile.

Other forums have even debated this concept to mixed reception as well apparently.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?300606-Permissive-Rule-Set

http://the11thcompany.freeforums.org/permissive-or-denial-rule-set-t4158.html

The common consensus so far is a mix for both.

If the rule says you can, it fits the permissive, if the rule says you cannot, it fits the restrictive.

Part of a permissive rule set is inherently adding restrictions on those permissions. It's literally the only way for it to exist.
This isn't some made up concept - it's a simple fact.

**Sigvatr**

First of all, this thread has absolute popcorn potential. Taking bets on the # of pages before locked!

Secondly: I don't see the problem here. At all. Noone has ever stated that 40k is a 100% permissive ruleset - restrictions are always necessary. I'm confused.

**Ghaz**

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/permissive?r=66

Definition #2. 40K's rules "grant or denote permission" as to what the player can do, thus it is a permissive rules set.

**Zodiark**

rigeld2 wrote:
Zodiark wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Well should we first establish what exactly a permissive rule set means? Then see if the BRB fits that definition?

This was discussed yesterday, trying to find the post right now.

It was determined this game was a combination of permissive and restrictive as it clearly states what you can and cannot do.

Though even then, this entire conversation is nothing more than speculation, I'll entertain myself for awhile.

Other forums have even debated this concept to mixed reception as well apparently.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?300606-Permissive-Rule-Set

http://the11thcompany.freeforums.org/permissive-or-denial-rule-set-t4158.html

The common consensus so far is a mix for both.

If the rule says you can, it fits the permissive, if the rule says you cannot, it fits the restrictive.

Part of a permissive rule set is inherently adding restrictions on those permissions. It's literally the only way for it to exist.
This isn't some made up concept - it's a simple fact.

There is no game that has a pure permissive or pure restrictive ruleset and you will not find any because they would never work.

This game, you are told clearly, what you can and cannot do. If a rule does not state you cannot do something, then you can. If it states you can, then you can. If it states you cannot, then you cannot.

There is no argument here, zero room for debate or interpretation.

This is critical thinking, logic at its core and you cannot debate this.

**Hollismason**

Its not though, the rules are simply a guideline we as players choose to interpret them as RAW as it helps us over all to all be on the same page and not argue every individual thing.

It's why the whole " it's a permissive ruleset" is a bunch of bs.

It's permissive, interpretive and Restrictive. It's all of that.

They clearly lay out that there will be situations where you will not have a rule or a rules outcome is unclear and you are to interpet that and negotiate in order to come to an agreement on what it should be.

This is why we have YMDC though is so we can all get on board with a general interpretation of the rules.

**Blacksails**

Hollismason wrote:

Again the rules of 40k are not permissive

Well, actually, they are. Again, see the post I linked that Yakface wrote explaining the basics of this idea.

you have permission to do wtf ever

Sure, but in the way that in any game, I can technically do whatever I want. Which is quite obviously not playing by the rules, which means that the concept of a permissive ruleset isn't invalidated by anyone's ability to flip the table and accuse grandma of being a cheating, awful person.

If you're playing within the confines of the rules, they are permissive. If you choose to ignore any number of them, you're just doing that. The rules themselves are permissive, but you have free will and can do as you please.

**rigeld2**

Zodiark wrote:
There is no game that has a pure permissive or pure restrictive ruleset and you will not find any because they would never work.

This game, you are told clearly, what you can and cannot do. If a rule does not state you cannot do something, then you can. If it states you can, then you can. If it states you cannot, then you cannot.

There is no argument here, zero room for debate or interpretation.

This is critical thinking, logic at its core and you cannot debate this.

The underlined is false.
No rule states I cannot hit your models with a hammer. According to the underlined sentence, I can.

**sirlynchmob**

Sigvatr wrote:
First of all, this thread has absolute popcorn potential. Taking bets on the # of pages before locked!

Secondly: I don't see the problem here. At all. Noone has ever stated that 40k is a 100% permissive ruleset - restrictions are always necessary. I'm confused.

Put me down for 5 internetz for a page 3 lock

**Zodiark**

Blacksails wrote:
Hollismason wrote:

Again the rules of 40k are not permissive

Well, actually, they are. Again, see the post I linked that Yakface wrote explaining the basics of this idea.

you have permission to do wtf ever

Sure, but in the way that in any game, I can technically do whatever I want. Which is quite obviously not playing by the rules, which means that the concept of a permissive ruleset isn't invalidated by anyone's ability to flip the table and accuse grandma of being a cheating, awful person.

If you're playing within the confines of the rules, they are permissive. If you choose to ignore any number of them, you're just doing that. The rules themselves are permissive, but you have free will and can do as you please.

1. Yak is not an expert and thus anything stated there is pure opinion, nothing factual.
2. It is common knowledge to all gamers, except the one in 40k for some reason, that games are a combination of permissive/restrictive. No arguing this point.

**Hollismason**

Read my previous statement, it's not just a Permissive ruleset, it by it's very nature is interpretive and restrictive as well as permissive.

This whole idea of "permissive" is a false ideology that people are holding onto like it's some sort of eternal flame of truth they will burn away all doubts with.It's not the games meant to be interpretitive.If was actually a permissive ruleset. We would not have YMDC at all.Chess is a Permissive ruleset or you could call it Restrictive.

You can't start a game of chess and then start playing the pawns like queens because you only have permission to move them a certain way. Everything is clearly laid out as to what your actions can be.

Again, if it was an actual permissive ruleset we would not have YMDC. That's the huge logical fallacy this whole idea is built on.

**rigeld2**

Zodiark wrote:
2. It is common knowledge to all gamers, except the one in 40k for some reason, that games are a combination of permissive/restrictive. No arguing this point.

Yes - but they are at a base permissive. Unlike laws which are, at a base, restrictive.

You're not understanding what "premissive" means. It doesn't mean that the only thing existing is permission - it means that if you don't have a rule allowing it, you can't do it. If you do, and there's nothing removing that permission, you can do it.

**Blacksails**

Zodiark wrote:

1. Yak is not an expert and thus anything stated there is pure opinion, nothing factual.
2. It is common knowledge to all gamers, except the one in 40k for some reason, that games are a combination of permissive/restrictive. No arguing this point.

Sure, but those restrictions are placed in addition to the permissions.

Did you read the link? While I know he's not an expert, its a well written summary, and Yak has a lot of experience with this sort of stuff.

Having restrictions doesn't mean the game isn't permissive. Restrictions override permissions, but without permission to do something, you can't do it. Otherwise the game breaks.

**DeathReaper**

Zodiark wrote:
It was determined this game was a combination of permissive and restrictive as it clearly states what you can and cannot do.

No that was not determined...

it clearly states what you can and cannot do? Really?

So where does it say that I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn?

It doesn't say that I cant...

That still doesn't mean I can do it.

The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do in the rules. You are not allowed to do anything else.

There are restrictions on given permissions, but the restrictions are there because you already have been given permission and the restriction is now taking that permission away.

**Zodiark**

rigeld2 wrote:
Zodiark wrote:
There is no game that has a pure permissive or pure restrictive ruleset and you will not find any because they would never work.

This game, you are told clearly, what you can and cannot do. If a rule does not state you cannot do something, then you can. If it states you can, then you can. If it states you cannot, then you cannot.

There is no argument here, zero room for debate or interpretation.

This is critical thinking, logic at its core and you cannot debate this.

The underlined is false.
No rule states I cannot hit your models with a hammer. According to the underlined sentence, I can.

Is hitting my models with a hammer a valid tactic in the game, no, then you cannot.

The problem we are having here isn't even a permissive thing.

You are looking for an exact sentence stating what you can and cannot do in every situation and this is physically impossible.

When something comes into question, unless you see a sentence stating in the affirmative you claim that you cannot because you are looking for that specific sentence.

You're wrong from the start when you assume these things and look for something specific for an answer.

GW has allowed the players to find their own solutions to solves issues when something does not specifically state a yes or no answer, you roll for it.

Even this though is still a permissive/restrictive based system as you need a roll or an agreement of some sort to proceed to the next step.

**Hollismason**

It you follow the rules,only holding to the idea that it is a permissive ruleset the game breaks because at some point if you do not interpret a rule or the way a specific situation is carried out and you don't interpret it then you can not move forward your "stuck". You have to actually at some point interpret what you are reading and how a situation should resolve or how you think it should resolve.