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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nurglitch wrote:Hey, speaking of analogies, here's an interesting analysis of why analogical reasoning sucks via the medium of sticking it to Creationists. To summarize: analogical reasoning sucks because analogies abstract away important formal (a.k.a 'structural') elements of an argument while simultaneously situating the content in either an irrelevant universe of discourse, or a dissimilar model. Mind you, Monty Python already covered this one in "Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail", but I really like the details of this since a friend of mine does something similar in computer science.

This was worth watching just for the bit where the clocks mate. That was hilariously done.

blaktoof wrote:I vote permissive.

Otherwise my armies free broom which it obviously never says I cant take will use its special rule to sweep your models off the table, since it never says I cant use the brooms special sweep move.

That would be an advanced sweeping move, which is covered on page 40. Sorry, I had to, I just liked the sound of that inference.

*ducks*