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.

It seems that the growing trend in several deadlocked rules debates is that the rule set is either permissive or prohibitive.

Permissive rule set: The rules have to explicitly state when you CAN do something.

Prohibitive rule set: The rules have to explicitly state when you CAN'T do something.

Vote away!

Does this even need to be asked?

I don't know of a single ruleset in any game or sport that is "Prohibitive".

Would it go something like:
1. You can't kill someone
2. You can't use a car in the game
3. You can't use firearms
4. You can't have nine or less team members
5. You can't have eleven or more team members
....
999,999,999,999,999. You can't use power tools

Permissive voter here!

I am a true believer that unless the rules specifically state that you can do something, you cannot do it.

Rather then list the infinitely endless things that you cannot do with a specific unit it is far easier game play wise and learning the rules wise to only list the things that you can do.

A prime example of how I play a permissive rule set is with my Space Wolves 13th Co army that I play out of Codex: Eye of Terror.

My Space Wolves 13th Co army has a special rule that makes the entire army scouts. The rule is in my army special rules and specifically tells me what to do. However, just because my entire army are scouts, I DO NOT get to Outflank per the Scout USR in the BRB. The Scouts rule in the Codex: Eye of Terror does not include Outflank and does not tell me to refer to anywhere else for the rule. Hence, my rule does not say I can, so I can't have Outflank.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

RustyKnight wrote:Does this even need to be asked?

Considering Eavy Armor, 12" bike assault, DH storm shields +1 attack, and endless other threads, I would say yes it needs to be asked.

Brother Ramses wrote:Permissive voter here!

I am a true believer that unless the rules specifically state that you can do something, you cannot do it.

Rather then list the infinitely endless things that you cannot do with a specific unit it is far easier game play wise and learning the rules wise to only list the things that you can do.

A prime example of how I play a permissive rule set is with my Space Wolves 13th Co army that I play out of Codex: Eye of Terror.

My Space Wolves 13th Co army has a special rule that makes the entire army scouts. The rule is in my army special rules and specifically tells me what to do. However, just because my entire army are scouts, I DO NOT get to Outflank per the Scout USR in the BRB. The Scouts rule in the Codex: Eye of Terror does not include Outflank and does not tell me to refer to anywhere else for the rule. Hence, my rule does not say I can, so I can't have Outflank.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

RustyKnight wrote:Does this even need to be asked?

Considering Eavy Armor, 12" bike assault, DH storm shields +1 attack, and endless other threads, I would say yes it needs to be asked.

The problem with Warhammer 40,000 is that some of the codexes are outdated and refer to rules that have been changed. If they updated everything at once, there would be a lot less confusion. Also, the debate is muddied by people whose names I will not use (!) who believe they are the be-all and end-all of rules knowledge. It is my experience that most players are on the permissive side (casual gamers all) which makes the game flow much more smoothly.

The problem in most rules debates isn't actually permissive versus prohibitive from what I have seen. Most players get that.

The problem is typically from fundamentally different views on some of the other core functions of the how the game works. That, combined with some poor reading comprehension, leads to some wildly different views on how the game works.

Not to mention that the rules permit some things, and explicitly prohibit others. Kinda throws a wrench into the whole exclusive disjunct of "permissive vs prohibitive".

Nurglitch wrote:Not to mention that the rules permit some things, and explicitly prohibit others. Kinda throws a wrench into the whole exclusive disjunct of "permissive vs prohibitive".

That is because the game is permissive, with a few prohibitive rules to clarify things.

Kaaihn wrote:The problem in most rules debates isn't actually permissive versus prohibitive from what I have seen. Most players get that.

The problem is typically from fundamentally different views on some of the other core functions of the how the game works. That, combined with some poor reading comprehension, leads to some wildly different views on how the game works.

I disagree. So many times I have seen a debate boil down to:

"Show me in the rules/codex where it says I can't do xxxx!"

Brother Ramses wrote:"Show me in the rules/codex where it says I can't do xxxx!"

That's only the side who is wrong who say that, because they cannot admit they are wrong.

And most does not encompass everyone, especially on these forums...

warpcrafter wrote:The problem with Warhammer 40,000 is that some of the codexes are outdated and refer to rules that have been changed. If they updated everything at once, there would be a lot less confusion.

I disagree completely here.

they tried that once, and its why me and all my friends quit the game when 3rd edition came out.

not only does it creat mass confusion, it also means each indivual army gets shafted with hastily thrown together rules that either dont work, or are retardedly unbalanced.

Demogerg wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:The problem with Warhammer 40,000 is that some of the codexes are outdated and refer to rules that have been changed. If they updated everything at once, there would be a lot less confusion.

I disagree completely here.

they tried that once, and its why me and all my friends quit the game when 3rd edition came out.

not only does it creat mass confusion, it also means each indivual army gets shafted with hastily thrown together rules that either dont work, or are retardedly unbalanced.

QFT. It was one of the reasons I left during 3rd as well.

That being said:
Gw need to up the Codex production. Armies going 9-13 years with no update is criminal. I would like to see GW stop tieing codex releases to new waves of models until all the codexes have a 5th edition update. Release 5 codex in a year if you have to. Once all the codexes are 5th edition, then work on launching V5.5.

Brother Ramses wrote:I disagree. So many times I have seen a debate boil down to:

"Show me in the rules/codex where it says I can't do xxxx!"

I've seen that brought up as a strawman by the opposition more than as a legitimate argument.

The problem arises when the codex says that something can be done, but it's argued that it can't be done a certain way without explicit permission to do it in such a fashion.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:The problem in most rules debates isn't actually permissive versus prohibitive from what I have seen. Most players get that.

The problem is typically from fundamentally different views on some of the other core functions of the how the game works. That, combined with some poor reading comprehension, leads to some wildly different views on how the game works.

I disagree. So many times I have seen a debate boil down to:

"Show me in the rules/codex where it says I can't do xxxx!"

There's all sorts of ways to be stupid with the rules. The old double-negative you've cited has a companion "Show me in the rules where it says I have to do x!" Which is usually followed, after you cite the passage in the rules where it requires you to do x, "It doesn't say that!"

Take the whole Deff Rolla question, of whether a Deff Rolla does D6 S10 hits when its Battlewagon rams another vehicle. It seems to turn on what people take the term "special type" to mean.

In my opinion (and no doubt lots of people feel the same way about me), that nearly all problems with the rules come down to poor reading-comprehension. I think the Warhammer 40k rules, barring one or two exceptions in the text, are quite clearly and plainly written, and that people who find them vague or confusing need to work on their reading-comprehension skills. I think it is no coincidence that the people who complain about the way that GW writes rules tend to be terrible writers themselves, if their posts are any evidence of writing/reading skills.

Im a firm believer in that you get to keep what your base unit has unless is explicitly says otherwise. This refers to anything to do with movement, shooting, combat and wargear. Now ofcourse, we all know about the Painboy discussion. But Id like to bring up another situation - Daemon Prince, who is a MC, upgraded with wings (unit with wings moves like jump infantry) - does he get to automatically move through cover still? Its a special rule he attains in his profile. He is still a MC, why would he lose his MC ability? Hes still going to be shot like one, so he still has MC characteristics. If not, does moving into area terrain give him the cover save now then? (seriously, I dont want this to turn into a debate on this, so I really do not care what anyone says on the issue, it can be seen both ways)

Its just easier to give a unit stacked options instead of taking away abilities because you BELIEVE they lose it (unless it specifically says it cannot be done). I cant think of any situation where upgrades that do not take away base abilities makes less sense (MC losing movement through cover, even though he's even BIGGER with wings?), nor broken. There are many rules which tell you things you cannot do, or give you a different (specific) starting point to work with - Chaos Lords/SM Captains upgrading to terminator armour and keeping non termy gear, Daemon Princes having mark of khorne and spells, Tyranids and their "** Only one may be taken" options, Lootas and Meks/gretchin and herders with seperate wargear, etc.

When you assume you do not lose abilities/gear, you have a clear starting point to base off of, and you build your model and his abilities from there. When you assume you do, like with the Nobs becoming Painboys argument, youre left with an unclear starting point in what exactly they do or do not have (you are also assuming that the author forgot to tell you exactly what happens) - Bikes still? Armour still? The other discussion went on for 12 pages discussing each piece of gear with enough people on both sides - it's obviously unclear when the rules do not specify what that unit has for wargear and what it shares with its unit.

Its easier to assume you keep it or can do it unless it says otherwise.

Nurglitch wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:The problem in most rules debates isn't actually permissive versus prohibitive from what I have seen. Most players get that.

The problem is typically from fundamentally different views on some of the other core functions of the how the game works. That, combined with some poor reading comprehension, leads to some wildly different views on how the game works.

I disagree. So many times I have seen a debate boil down to:

"Show me in the rules/codex where it says I can't do xxxx!"

There's all sorts of ways to be stupid with the rules. The old double-negative you've cited has a companion "Show me in the rules where it says I have to do x!" Which is usually followed, after you cite the passage in the rules where it requires you to do x, "It doesn't say that!"

Take the whole Deff Rolla question, of whether a Deff Rolla does D6 S10 hits when its Battlewagon rams another vehicle. It seems to turn on what people take the term "special type" to mean.

In my opinion (and no doubt lots of people feel the same way about me), that nearly all problems with the rules come down to poor reading-comprehension. I think the Warhammer 40k rules, barring one or two exceptions in the text, are quite clearly and plainly written, and that people who find them vague or confusing need to work on their reading-comprehension skills. I think it is no coincidence that the people who complain about the way that GW writes rules tend to be terrible writers themselves, if their posts are any evidence of writing/reading skills.

There is a large grain of truth in exactly this. There is more to it though; some people simply view the function of the rules differently than others.

One example would be how you follow rules in a linear fashion, and only the exact condition at the moment is taken into consideration towards the next rule you attempt to use. You conflict check at each step, but you don't hold a conflict over through multiple steps.

If you have a choice of doing Action A or action B, but you are restricted from doing action A because it conflicts with rule 1 while action B doesn't conflict with rule 1, you can do action B. Whatever condition you are in after performing action B is what is used to determine if you can then do action A. If the new condition is no longer in conflict with rule 1, and the condition after completing action B doesn't conflict with action A, you can now do action A.

You wanted to go A then B, but rule 1 prevented A but not B. So you did B, which took you out of conflict with rule 1, and then performed action A.

I guarantee there are many folks that agree with that being a core function of the rules, and just as many that will disagree completely. If people can't agree on core functions like this, they will rarely come to the same conclusion about how something that isn't spelled out in idiot proof language works.

The book needs a "rules on how to use the rules" section at the beginning, that would give everyone the process for resolving a huge amount of questions that the rules don't explicitly cover for various situations.

So how do you suppose that idiots, people who can't figure out how to use the rules, would do when faced with rules about rules?

Edit: Typos

I vote that we make rules about rules, then proceed to make rules about those rules about the rules.
then we should should submit these rules about rules about the rules to GW with extra rules about how they need to rule on these rules about our rules abouts rules about the rules.

then the game would be perfect.

Demogerg wrote:I vote that we make rules about rules, then proceed to make rules about those rules about the rules.
then we should should submit these rules about rules about the rules to GW with extra rules about how they need to rule on these rules about our rules abouts rules about the rules.

then the game would be perfect.

And then we need a Special Edition wrapped in Red Tape

Red Tape and a disclamer with rules about........

Gwar! wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Not to mention that the rules permit some things, and explicitly prohibit others. Kinda throws a wrench into the whole exclusive disjunct of "permissive vs prohibitive".

That is because the game is permissive, with a few prohibitive rules to clarify things.

Yet you keep showing up in threads saying that since a codex entry doesn't specifically say that you "can," you cannot. For example, Necrons getting WBB if squad / tomb spyder / lord with rez orb / monolith etc is in range.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Not to mention that the rules permit some things, and explicitly prohibit others. Kinda throws a wrench into the whole exclusive disjunct of "permissive vs prohibitive".

That is because the game is permissive, with a few prohibitive rules to clarify things.

Yet you keep showing up in threads saying that since a codex entry doesn't specifically say that you "can," you cannot. For example, Necrons getting WBB if squad / tomb spyder / lord with rez orb / monolith etc is in range.

That is what permissive means. It has to say you can do something, otherwise you cannot. Prohibitive rules in 40k are in 99% of cases, prohibiting in some way something a previous rule allowed you to do.

What bugs me the most is when you clearly explain how the rules give permission to do something by connecting the functionality of multiple rules together and then because at one point in your argument you mentioned that it's never expressly prohibited and suddenly the other side is "THE RULES ARE PERMISSIVE, YOU CAN'T MAKE AN ARGUMENT BASED ON IT DOESN'T SAY I CAN'T DO X".

Yep.

The rules say you can do X.

The rules say you can do Y.

Can you do X and Y?

The rules don't specifically prohibit it, and in this case that is a valid line of reasoning, since it's backed up by rules that say you can do it. However, the phrase "the rules don't specifically prohibit it" will act as a trigger for people to scream "YEAH THE RULES DON'T PROHIBIT ME FROM SHOOTING UP A SCHOOL EITHER DOES THAT MEAN I CAN!!!!!!1".

Pemissive I'd think, though both Permissive and Prohibitive, IMHO.

Drunkspleen wrote:What bugs me the most is when you clearly explain how the rules give permission to do something by connecting the functionality of multiple rules together and then because at one point in your argument you mentioned that it's never expressly prohibited and suddenly the other side is "THE RULES ARE PERMISSIVE, YOU CAN'T MAKE AN ARGUMENT BASED ON IT DOESN'T SAY I CAN'T DO X".

Don't ever expect a rational and logical discussion from everyone about something that requires connecting the functionality of multiple rules together. It wasn't that long ago that I had the entire room at my local shop (five people, at the time) laughing at my stupidity of trying to claim something so idiotic as dedicated transports bought with a Troop unit counting as one of the two Troops units you can deploy in the Dawn of War scenario.

I was explaining it using the two separate relevant rule sections, and getting laughed down by the shop TO, and the secondary TO, and three other players. They weren't laughing so much when I later pointed out the example in the DoW section specifically shows that I was correct.

1+1 simply does not equal 2 to many people if they have to read outside a single paragraph.

One of my friends that plays edlar tries this all the time. He states that Eldarich has one spell that specifically states that he needs line of sight to cast and a different spell does not state whether or not it needs line of sight. Ive told him that the general rule for all spells is line of sight unless otherwise specified as this is what i have seen for every other physker.

Ooh, that's an annoying one. Everyone wants to deploy their transports with their two troops. (I almost did it myself once, actually. I caught myself at the last minute.)

Orkeosaurus wrote:Ooh, that's an annoying one. Everyone wants to deploy their transports with their two troops. (I almost did it myself once, actually. I caught myself at the last minute.)

It's an easy mistake to make. It didn't bother me that someone made the mistake. What boggled my mind was all five players (two of them TO's!) not just being unable to connect the dots between to separate paragraphs, but being so blind to it they started actually laughing at how ridiculous I was being to claim it.

Yeah, I know it's an easy one. Almost as bad trying to remember that there's Night Fighting rules on the first turn. (I don't know that I've ever remembered that one successfully...)