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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Idolator.

1. Do we agree that you may only do something if the rules tell you that you can?.

 Idolator wrote:
1. No we do not agree upon the first part.

And that is why your argument falls apart.

if you can not agree to point #1 you can not partake in a cohesive discussion on the YMDC forums as you will have a serious misunderstanding of how the rules work.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Idolator.

1. Do we agree that you may only do something if the rules tell you that you can?.

 Idolator wrote:
1. No we do not agree upon the first part.

And that is why your argument falls apart.

if you can not agree to point #1 you can not partake in a cohesive discussion on the YMDC forums as you will have a serious misunderstanding of how the rules work.

I have made many cogent points and had lots of cohesive discussions. I cannot have them with those that base their arguments on a patently false premise. I pointed out the facts, even quoted the rule book.

I notice that you focus on nine words that I wrote and ignored the reasoning behind them. You know, where I quote the rule book and point out the paradoxical nature of your argument.

I have argued the RAW. You argued the RAW with an added aspect that the rule book itself expressly states is incorrect.

Plus, you are neither a moderator nor are you more than one person. It is not for you to determine if someone can or cannot partake in a cohesive discussion.

And as far as how the rules work. I believe that I showed, quite well, that it is you that has a serious misunderstanding of the rules. You know, when I quoted the rule book and it was different than how you said the rules worked. Then I pointed out that even if your understanding of how the rules worked were true, it would cause an untenable situation with no solution.

But please, continue to speak for everyone and remember to cut out all exposition when you quote me. I'm sure that there is plenty of punctuation in this post that you could isolate and attack. Here's some more if you need it.

?!,.:;[{}]()

You could use that to prove your point.

Once a unit is in a vehicle, it has already met the standards for embarkation. If it changes to beasts while embarked, nothing changes but the troop type. Any thing else and the rules explode. This is a summation, i made the full explanation earlier on page 8. So If is the only thing that you've read that I wrote, please look at my reasoning.

Edit: Honestly, I pointed out the flaw of your rules argument using you own reasoning under your terms. Then, I pointed out the incorrectness of your argument by pointing out the flaws of your reasoning. So you can take your pick. Both are honest and truthful assessments.

I never said you were not able to post, but if you do not understand that you may only do something if the rules tell you that you can, then you can not partake in a cohesive discussion. As in you are not able to post anything constructive if you think #1 is false, as all of your arguments would be void since #1 is an integral part of the ruleset.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I never said you were not able to post, but if you do not understand that you may only do something if the rules tell you that you can, then you can not partake in a cohesive discussion. As in you are not able to post anything constructive if you think #1 is false, as all of your arguments would be void since #1 is an integral part of the ruleset.

I understand that you believe that if any eventuality isn't expressly listed in the rules, then it is forbidden. I did point out that the rule book not only directly contradicts this line of reasoning. I played along with your incorrect assessment and pointed that since the unit wasn't allowed inside the vehicle it was also was not allowed to disembark.

Like I said, I not only disproved that rule interpretation using your own logic and train of thought, I continued on. I then went after your line of reasoning as a whole. The rules interpretation that you gave violates both your and my point of view of the rules.

The rules themselves state that there are things that can occur that are not covered by the rules and your entire premise is based on the notion that anything not noted in the rules is forbidden and therefore covered by the rules.

Who's right here, You or the rule book? It really all comes down to that. I would love to know....You or the Rules, which is it?

The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that 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 or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

If you do not understand this about the game, then you can not play the game at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that 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 or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

If you do not understand this about the game, then you can not play the game at all.

Barring the fact that there are circumstances where you can do that, I won't even address that clap trap. It has no bearing on my statements and is not a comment that I have made.

" this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else." This is not being permissive, just to let you know, It is the antithesis of permissive it's prohibitive, as it prohibits all actions not expressly allowed. While you continue to make the same exact statements you do not back it up with anything other than to repeat the same exact statement. Also, I believe that I pointed out earlier, unless the word "permit" or any of it's derivatives are used then permission is not granted they would be either instructions or.......I don't know.....rules.

I showed that the rule book disagrees with your assessment. So either you or the rule book is correct. Which is it, you or the rule book? It's not a hard question to answer. just a single word will suffice.

How about this one then, using your logic. How can a unit disembark if there are no rules allowing for the disembarkation? That's what you said had to happen, the unit that is now beasts must disembark. There are no rules that allow this.

It is being permissive, but call it what you want, you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do and you are not allowed to do anything else.

That is how most games are written really.

This sums it up nicely...

 yakface wrote:

Actually all games ever use a permissive rules set, because that's literally the only way to write games.

So there is absolutely no need to spell out in the rulebook that the game is permissive, because it is essentially meaningless. By reading the rules you are participating in a permissive rules set.

Because before you read the rules, the game doesn't exist for you...you have no frame of reference on what you are allowed or not allowed to do to play the game.

Once you crack open a rulebook you find that the game will give you rules of what you are allowed to do within the game to play it...these are all the things you're given permission to do in order to play the game.

Then once they've laid out these permissions, they'll then lay out some restrictions as well, within those general permissions, which then restricts some of the permissions they previously granted to you.

So the rules will say that you're allowed to move all your models in the movement phase. This is a permission and therefore you are allowed to do it. Then they might say stuff like, but you cannot move through impassable terrain. This is then a restriction within the greater permission of being able to move your models in the movement phase.

But following this same train of thought, if the rules don't mention that you are allowed to move your models in the shooting phase, then guess what? You are not allowed to move your models in the shooting phase because there are no rules giving you permission to do so.


This basic framework is the same for every game ever invented from Monopoly to games of tag and everything in between.

Even an imaginary game that said: you can do anything at all you like, but the first person to do X wins the game is still permission based gameplay. Just in this case, you are given permission to do absolutely anything, with the lone restriction that when someone does 'X' then the game ends with a winner.


So the idea that GW should define the basic nature of what rules even means is frankly silly. It would be like them explaining the definition of every word in the rulebook, explaining the meaning of language, etc. These are basic fundamental principles that we already live and exist by. There is literally no way to play a game without this basic understanding, so explaining it is redundant.

DR - Your concession is accepted, as yet again you ignore the rule cited that gives general permission. You refuse to debate the rule, therefore I accept that you have no argument any longer. Mark your posts as "HYWPI" given you refuse to debate the rules.

The rules state there is a maximum capacity for a vehicle. Do you agree that that this is the case?

This capacity is given in the untis entry, e.g. 10 models. Agreed?

Now, without referencing the restriction on infantry units that can be carried, have you noticed the permission now available?

You can fill a vehicle to its maximum capacity, in models. Beasts are models. BEasts can fill a vehicle to its maximum capacity.

Your continued insistence that a sentence limiting INFANTRY and how many units of infantry can be carried is amusing, but is showing you are blinkered into your viewpoint.

Step back. Understand your error, and spot that general permission to fill capacity has been given, and is only restricted in the BRB by *model* count, not *unit type*. There is then a restriction on the unit type *infantry* and how many units of infantry can be carried. Your "context" gak is just that - there is no such context here.

RAW: once beasts get there, they can remain embarked as long as they do not exceed the vehicles capacity, in this case 10 models, or any other rules the vehicle specifically has, such as not allowing terminator armo9ur inside.

Thats it. The case is proven, and until you can understand the difference between a statement restricting a general permission, and a permissive statement, I suggest you do not post further in this thread.

Oh, and the rules do not state ONLY infantry may be carried. That is a LIE on your part, another one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DR - Your concession is accepted, as yet again you ignore the rule cited that gives general permission.

Well since there has been no rule cited that says transports can carry beasts...

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is being permissive, but call it what you want, you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do and you are not allowed to do anything else.

That is how most games are written really.

And again, you back up your statement...by repeating the statement. Post it a couple hundred more times it will remain untrue. You are right in that I can call it what I want, I just prefer to use the correct terms.

Seriously, you ignored the on topic questions and refuse to point out your reasoning.

Which is right? You, who states that all eventualities are covered because a lack of instruction is a prohibition, or the rule book that expressly states that circumstances occur that are not covered by the rules. You or the rule book???

Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.

Either one would be good. Both would be better. One requires a citation, the other requires a simple answer.

 Idolator wrote:
Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.

Incorrect, I stated that was HIWPI, that is not RAW. I never stated it was RAW. Please at least read my previous posts if you are going to make wildly inaccurate accusations.

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is being permissive, but call it what you want, you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do and you are not allowed to do anything else.

That is how most games are written really.

And again, you back up your statement...by repeating the statement. Post it a couple hundred more times it will remain untrue. You are right in that I can call it what I want, I just prefer to use the correct terms.

Permissive ruleset is the correct term.

However, the fact remains that you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do and you are not allowed to do anything else. this is undeniably true no matter how many times you say it is not.

This is true no matter what you think. All games ever use a permissive rules set, because that's literally the only way to write games.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is being permissive, but call it what you want, you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do and you are not allowed to do anything else.

That is how most games are written really.

And again, you back up your statement...by repeating the statement. Post it a couple hundred more times it will remain untrue. You are right in that I can call it what I want, I just prefer to use the correct terms.

Permissive ruleset is the correct term.

However, the fact remains that you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do and you are not allowed to do anything else. this is undeniably true no matter how many times you say it is not.

This is true no matter what you think. All games ever use a permissive rules set, because that's literally the only way to write games.

This is awesome, You have backed up your statement, by repeating the statement. While still ignoring the relevant questions to the topic.

I showed that the rule book disagrees with your assessment. So either you or the rule book is correct. Which is it, you or the rule book? It's not a hard question to answer. just a single word will suffice.

How can a unit disembark if there are no rules allowing for the disembarkation?

These are simple questions and are relevant to the topic. As each pertains to how something that shouldn't happen occurs anyway. Please answer.

Edit: Nos was correct, you did make a post that intentionally misstated what the rules actually say in order to strengthen your case. Unless you do actually own this magical dragon skin rule book that contains words that do not exist in any other, you owe the people looking for information an apology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: It was this post.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
The rules never state that a transport ONLY carry infantry models, just that they CAN carry infantry models.

Incorrect, the rules state that a transport can ONLY carry infantry models

The ruleset needs to give permission for a transport to carry a unit type. We have an allowance for infantry and no allowance for any other types.

Therefore ONLY infantry can embark. This is a function of the ruleset as you need permission before you can do anything.

 Idolator wrote:
I showed that the rule book disagrees with your assessment. So either you or the rule book is correct. Which is it, you or the rule book? It's not a hard question to answer. just a single word will suffice.

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC): wrote:7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DR - Your concession is accepted, as yet again you ignore the rule cited that gives general permission.

Well since there has been no rule cited that says transports can carry beasts...

It was cited - the rule stating that a vehicle has a transport capacity that cannot be exceeded, and that capacity is denominated in terms of the number of models. Not, as you have lied about, that it can ONLY carry infantry modfels - which is a separate sentence having nothing to do with vehicle capacity in general.

Stop ignoring rules and quoting partially. Your ignorance of the tenets here is shocking, as you are refusing to acknowledge the existence of a rule. As such there cannot be any debate, and your concession on this topic is accepted.

We had a similar problem a while ago. Used Bran Redmaw in a Caestus. He is able to randomly transform into a werewolf which makes him lose his power armour. The caestus can only transport models in PA/TDA/RA which causes the same rule problems as the chosen.

HIWPI - He embarked legally and transformed afterwards. He can stay in it but cant reembark at any point later.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DR - Your concession is accepted, as yet again you ignore the rule cited that gives general permission.

Well since there has been no rule cited that says transports can carry beasts...

It was cited - the rule stating that a vehicle has a transport capacity that cannot be exceeded, and that capacity is denominated in terms of the number of models. Not, as you have lied about, that it can ONLY carry infantry modfels - which is a separate sentence having nothing to do with vehicle capacity in general.

Stop ignoring rules and quoting partially. Your ignorance of the tenets here is shocking, as you are refusing to acknowledge the existence of a rule. As such there cannot be any debate

Are you talking about this rule?

"Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity." (78)

P.S. Please stop with this, it is getting old.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
and your concession on this topic is accepted.

 DeathReaper wrote:
P.S. Please stop with this, it is getting old.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
and your concession on this topic is accepted.

Not directly relevant to this thread, but pot, kettle, etc.

I'll back out again.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
P.S. Please stop with this, it is getting old.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
and your concession on this topic is accepted.

Not directly relevant to this thread, but pot, kettle, etc.

I'll back out again.

I only stated this once, and it was after nos had asked. My last few posts have not had this in them...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
I showed that the rule book disagrees with your assessment. So either you or the rule book is correct. Which is it, you or the rule book? It's not a hard question to answer. just a single word will suffice.

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC): wrote:7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

Man! You will do anything to avoid answering a question!

I didn't bring the rule into this. I did bring in the statement of fact that precedes the rule. You literally have to avoid the facts or try to deny their admission to continue your train of thought. That should tell you something right there.

Seriously though, How is a unit with no rules for disembarkation allowed to disembark? The world is waiting with baited breath for the answer?

If the rules themselves state that not every eventuality is covered and you insist that every eventuality is covered, then who is right, you or the rules?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
Wow. Three pages and still an overall basic failure to understand what the word "capacity" means. If you don't fit into a capacity, then you exceed that capacity. There is no lingual requirement to specify everything that does not fit into a capacity, once what DOES fit into a capacity is established. Are you in that capacity? No? You've exceeded it.

Which is cool but as pointed out "1 infantry unit" isn't a defined capacity in the rules

It doesn't have to be explicitly defined in the rules, as it is defined in normal English

Page 78: "A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters"

a single Infantry, means just what is says, One Infantry unit, it can not carry any other types of units because they exceed its capacity of a single Infantry unit.

Transports can only carry infantry and, unless otherwise noted, nothing else...

I don't see a "how I would play it" here. Your first post. HMMMMMMmmmmm. I wonder how many others I can find?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So what is an Infantry unit? Just so we are clear?

Units page 3 and Infantry unit page 44 answer this question

What happens when a unit of possessed becomes beasts whilst embarked on a transport?

RAW: The game breaks/No one knows, because the rules do not cover what happens in this situation where a unit is illegally aboard a transport.

HIWPI: I'd treat it just like Champion of Chaos rule and place them within 3" of the transport. Then, since it was the start of the player turn, they could move (but not assault) normally.

Here it was, the post where you say "the rules don't cover what happens in this situation". How is that possible???? A permissive rule set would cover every eventuality as anything not covered by the rules is forbidden.

So there, I used a different source to show that the "permissive rule set" ( a term that has no official definition or rule of governance) is not a reliable way to view the rules. I used YOUR words.

They call this "hoist with your own petard".

Here's an actual definition:
Adherence rules are mandatory rules….an adherence rule provides a protected reason to adhere—a reason to adhere plus an exclusionary reason that excludes certain competing reasons.
This is the basis for most games. Adherence rules.

Here's another definition:
Restrictive rule provides reasons to adhere in all cases and excludes all reasons to deviate.

 Idolator wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

It doesn't have to be explicitly defined in the rules, as it is defined in normal English

Page 78: "A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters"

a single Infantry, means just what is says, One Infantry unit, it can not carry any other types of units because they exceed its capacity of a single Infantry unit.

Transports can only carry infantry and, unless otherwise noted, nothing else...

I don't see a "how I would play it" here. Your first post. HMMMMMMmmmmm. I wonder how many others I can find?

You realize I was answering this right:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.

Incorrect, I stated that was HIWPI, that is not RAW. I never stated it was RAW. Please at least read my previous posts if you are going to make wildly inaccurate accusations.

See how you state "Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport?" (Emphasis mine)

The HIWPI is for a beast unit to disembark from a transport, not for anything else. Please do not misquote out of context next time and you might understand what I have written a bit better.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Please do not misquote out of context next time and you might understand what I have written a bit better.

This is an honest question: Is, perhaps, English a second language for you, learned later in life?

I ask because you seems to have a great deal of difficulty in word use and their meaning. If so, then I apologize for giving you such a hard time on the meaning of words.

Misquote is when someone attributes a statement directly to a person that they did not make. A question, on the other hand, is when a person makes an inquiry.
A misquote can also occur if only part of a persons statements are used to make it seem that they said something that they did not.

Out of context means that a statement is removed from it's underlying reasoning and that reasoning is concealed to misrepresent the statement.

The quotes that I made did neither of these, as they contained the entirety of the original post.

Now, the quote in this post, while edited, is in context because the statement stands on it's own merits.

A falsehood, on the other hand, is a deliberate misstating of facts. Here's an example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
The rules never state that a transport ONLY carry infantry models, just that they CAN carry infantry models.

Incorrect, the rules state that a transport can ONLY carry infantry models

The ruleset needs to give permission for a transport to carry a unit type. We have an allowance for infantry and no allowance for any other types.

Therefore ONLY infantry can embark. This is a function of the ruleset as you need permission before you can do anything.

If you're wondering which part is the falsehood, it's the "Incorrect, the rules state that a transport can ONLY carry infantry models" part. The remainder is merely incorrect.

You missed the point entirely Idolator.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.

Incorrect, I stated that was HIWPI, that is not RAW. I never stated it was RAW. Please at least read my previous posts if you are going to make wildly inaccurate accusations.

You asked "Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport"

I noted that "I stated that was HIWPI, that is not RAW." in reference to a beast unit disembarking from a transport.

You fire back with "I don't see a "how I would play it" here. Your first post. HMMMMMMmmmmm. I wonder how many others I can find?" With you quoting a post of mine that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 Idolator wrote:
Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.

Clearly I have not stated "that they must do this." (This being disembark from a transport).






P.S. out of context misquote has a meaning that apparently you are not familiar with.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You missed the point entirely Idolator.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.

Incorrect, I stated that was HIWPI, that is not RAW. I never stated it was RAW. Please at least read my previous posts if you are going to make wildly inaccurate accusations.

You asked "Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport"

I noted that "I stated that was HIWPI, that is not RAW." in reference to a beast unit disembarking from a transport.

You fire back with "I don't see a "how I would play it" here. Your first post. HMMMMMMmmmmm. I wonder how many others I can find?" With you quoting a post of mine that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 Idolator wrote:
Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.

Clearly I have not stated "that they must do this." (This being disembark from a transport).






P.S. out of context misquote has a meaning that apparently you are not familiar with.

See, you just gave a perfect example of of using another persons statements out of context. Good job. If you had included the rest of the post you would have what we call the "full context".

About the other part, you have stated that they can't remain in the transport, how else can they get out? You do know that disembark means: to exit or leave. Which they must do if they cannot remain in the vehicle.

Also, to misquote, one would have to have quoted. That means that these neat little symbols ( ") must appear before and after the attributed material or in the case of this particular forum be placed in the special quote box provided.

here are the definitions of "out of context" and "misquote".

misquote:
1 verb :quote (a person or a piece of written or spoken text) inaccurately.
2: noun: a passage or remark quoted inaccurately.

out of context is known as contextomy

Contextomy: Noun
1. the practice of misquoting someone by shortening the quotation or by leaving out surrounding words or sentences that would place the quotation in context.
2.an instance of this.

That's it! Compare it to my definitions. How about giving your definition. Because those are the only definitions that the dictionary and I know.

Edit: while this has been a great distraction measure on your part, I haven't failed to notice that you still haven't truly answered any of the questions posed to you.

I have stated it is illegal for them to be carried. but the rules do not let them disembark either and as such the game breaks.

P.S. you misquoted me because you said

 Idolator wrote:
Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.

And I never stated that they must do this. this was the misquote...


P.S. Please do not post dictionary definitions as I am well aware of what those words mean.

Idolator

I think you misunderstand the term permissive ruleset. Basically there are two types of rule set permissive and restrictive and the terms refer to how the rules work. A permissive ruleset is where you do not have permission to do anything without the rules telling you that you can. Thus the rules are a list of permissions to do things hence the term permissive rule set. A restrictive rule set is the opposite. You are allowed to do anything you want unless a rule tells you not to. Hence the rules are a list of restrictions.

An example of a restrictive rule set would be law. In law I can do anything a want unless a rule restricts that action. So for instance I could look at myself in the mirror calling myself Susan whilst poking myself in the eye if I wanted because no law prevents that. In a restrictive rule set you generally have exemptions in the form of permissions. For instance I can't kill anyone except in self defence.

Most games are based on a permissive rule set. They tell you what you can do in the form of permissions. You can not do anything you do not have permission to do. Thus I can not put my dead models back into play even though no rule says I can't. A permissive rule set has exemptions in the form of restrictions. So I can move models in the movement phase any way I want except they can not move over 6" and van not move through impassible terrain and can not move in such a way as to break unit coherency.

Here transports are given general permission to transport models up to their transport capacity (of any unit type) however we are restricted to having only 1 infantry unit (and/or ICs) embarked at one time. We are also restricted on what can embark as we only have permission for infantry to embark. What DeathReaper is refusing to accept is that the rules give general permission for a vehicle to carry its transport capacity and that following the permissions laid out in the BrB and CS supplement leads you to having a unit of beasts embarked and thus they have permission to be there unless there is explicit denial of that permission. Denial he can't find. He's also getting confused between a lack of permission and denial of permission because they are very similar.

Dr - yes, obviously. It gives the maximum capacity. Note how that sentence does not limit anything other than the models, giving allowance fir any model to be inside as long as the total does not exceed the capacity.

10 models that are beasts does not exceed this capacity,,lol therefore they are allowed

You then have the second sentence which functionally limits infantry and infantry only.

I have to go with Death Reaper on this. As per the page he has quoted several times:

BRB pg. 78 A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent characters (as long as they are also Infantry_, up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity.

This sets up 3 requirements for a unit inside a transport:
1. They cannot exceed the model capacity
2. They must be infantry (and only infantry)
3. They must be a single unit (and/or ICs).

If at any time those any one of those 3 qualifications are no longer met, the unit can no longer be legally transported by the vehicle. The only way a unit could break one of those 3 rules and be allowed to stay in the transport would be if a rule makes a specific exception (Stromraven carrying a Dreadnaught in addition to embarked infantry, for example)

Note also, this limitation is listed strictly under Transport capacity, and is not in the embark or disembark rules. There for, unlike what Idolator is suggesting, there is nothing illegal about disembarking the unit once it becomes beasts and thus is no longer allowed in the transport. If the rule for this random change happens at the beginning of the turn (I would think it does but don't know that rule so I can't confirm it), then once they are beasts it is then your movement phase and you would disembark without any problems. If the transformation happens at some other time, then there would be problems that would need a FAQ or some such to resolve what happens.

Read the sentence before the one you posted.

What rule tells you to disembark the passengers?

If they are not allowed to be embarked then were do they disembark from as by your interpretation it can not be from the transport as they could no be there without breaking the rule.

That rule in fact only restricts how many infantry units may be embarked at any time (to one). You have a general permission from the sentence before to have embarked a transports capacity which is of any models regardless of unit type and regardless of number of units. The sentence you've quoted then restricts that in the case of infantry to only 1 unit (and/or ICs).

 FlingitNow wrote:
Idolator

I think you misunderstand the term permissive ruleset. Basically there are two types of rule set permissive and restrictive and the terms refer to how the rules work. A permissive ruleset is where you do not have permission to do anything without the rules telling you that you can. Thus the rules are a list of permissions to do things hence the term permissive rule set. A restrictive rule set is the opposite. You are allowed to do anything you want unless a rule tells you not to. Hence the rules are a list of restrictions.

An example of a restrictive rule set would be law. In law I can do anything a want unless a rule restricts that action. So for instance I could look at myself in the mirror calling myself Susan whilst poking myself in the eye if I wanted because no law prevents that. In a restrictive rule set you generally have exemptions in the form of permissions. For instance I can't kill anyone except in self defence.

Most games are based on a permissive rule set. They tell you what you can do in the form of permissions. You can not do anything you do not have permission to do. Thus I can not put my dead models back into play even though no rule says I can't. A permissive rule set has exemptions in the form of restrictions. So I can move models in the movement phase any way I want except they can not move over 6" and van not move through impassible terrain and can not move in such a way as to break unit coherency.

Here transports are given general permission to transport models up to their transport capacity (of any unit type) however we are restricted to having only 1 infantry unit (and/or ICs) embarked at one time. We are also restricted on what can embark as we only have permission for infantry to embark. What DeathReaper is refusing to accept is that the rules give general permission for a vehicle to carry its transport capacity and that following the permissions laid out in the BrB and CS supplement leads you to having a unit of beasts embarked and thus they have permission to be there unless there is explicit denial of that permission. Denial he can't find. He's also getting confused between a lack of permission and denial of permission because they are very similar.

You have it backwards. Permissive rules mean that actions are permitted unless otherwise prohibited. That is how the laws of the United States work. You are permitted to do as you please as long as it doesn't violate statutory law (rules). It's the very basis for the Billof Rights, the government may do as it wishes within the laws of The Constitution, but the Bill of Rights prohibits the government from the listed actions.

Restrictive rules prohibit actions unless direct permission is given. You cannot do anything without written consent.

These rules in the BRB are actually neither of those. They are what is known as Adherence rules. In order to play the game at all one has to adhere to an agreed upon rule set. These rules occur inside of many other rules that already exist, here in America that are applied after United States federal law, state law, community law, tournament/venue rules and general community standards. It is after that one begins to adhere to the rules for the particular game being played.

People are using the fallacious "permissive/restrictive" position as a means to "prove themselves right", and have gone so far as to create a make believe hierarchy of words and how they function. With: cannot, can, may, must and many others having some place in this farcicle paradigm.
"Can" is not a permissive word, it is a factual statement. "May" is a permissive word and grants permission. Being able to do something is not the same as being granted permission to do something. So if permission is needed before action is taken then the rules as written are irrevocably unplayable as actual permission is granted sparingly. Some will argue that "can" and "may" could be used interchangeably and in some instances this is possible, I admit.

"Must" and "cannot" are antonomical and equal. "I can't miss the meeting, but I must because I'm in a different city" "I must make the meeting, but I can't because I'm in a different city" I just said the same thing twice, once with must compelling an action over can't and vice versa.

Adherence rules. You adhere to the rules based on a compelling reason. The compelling reason in this case is that you want to play a game. 'I earlier gave the definition of adherence rules and will place that definition here later in an edit. Your argument on allowing the newly transformed beasts unit to remain in the vehicle as a normaly transportable unit is a perfect example of using adherence rules. You have a compelling reason to follow the rule and a compelling reason not to follow another action, with no directly stated restriction preventing the unit from being in the transport.
Edit
Adherence rules are mandatory rules….an adherence rule provides a protected reason to adhere—a reason to adhere plus an exclusionary reason that excludes certain competing reasons.
This is the basis for most games. Adherence rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have stated it is illegal for them to be carried. but the rules do not let them disembark either and as such the game breaks.

P.S. you misquoted me because you said

 Idolator wrote:
Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.

And I never stated that they must do this. this was the misquote...


P.S. Please do not post dictionary definitions as I am well aware of what those words mean.

Did you notice that I didn't quote you???? That makes it somewhat of an impossibility to misquote. Which is interesting, since you stated in your P.S. that you know what this term means while demonstrating a lack of said knowledge. Which one of these is the falsehood? Are you feigning ignorance in order to make an accusation or do you truly not know the meaning of "misquote"?

Of further interest to me...I posted those dictionary definitions because you claimed that there were more ways to define "misquote" and "out of context" than I was privy to. Those dictionary definitions mirrored my stated understanding of the words in question. I also asked for your definition of the words, which you have ignored. You simply state that I am wrong and offer no evidence to the contrary.

I know that you are quite big on yanking out the tenets when an argument starts to go against you, so what do the tenets say about telling someone that they are wrong without providing evidence? And....before you quote the tenet about dictionary definitions, this was not about an in game term. It is not applicable.

You also continue to ignore any direct question to clarify your reasoning.

You said that I said it, not a direct quote, but an attributive quote.

But it is still a type of quote.

Please stop being rude.