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.

Posted By swize1 on 01/30/2007 2:43 PM
(Although, as an aside, I've never been all that fond of the "shouldn't have a godlike overview" argument.  It seems to tread dangerously close to fluff,

It's nothing to do with fluff.

It's about your own ability to look at the battlefield, and formulate a strategy based on what you see, rather than on actual measurements. There's a lot more skill involved in estimating... it means that sometimes, things just don't work out the way you had planned.

Pre-measuring takes away that level of fallibility. Knowing the exact distances between everything on the board is kind of like giving yourself the ability to resolve your hits before choosing whether or not you shoot. If you knew that only 2 shots out of your 10 were going to hit, and only 1 of those was going to wound, you might have done something else instead. But no, you commit to a course of action, and you hope that you're in range and that your dice will cooperate

Likewise with the movement. You choose where you want to go, and then you move. If you don't actually make it to where you want to be, well, you'll just have to adjust your plans.

Pre-measuring is just one more step towards turning 40K into a board game instead of a strategy game. It's also open to all sorts of abuse, since it gives players the opportunity to measure weapon ranges at the same time.

Posted By swize1 on 01/30/2007 2:43 PM
What if I say, ok, I am moving these guys THIS way, then I measure, and then, seeing where the 6" mark lies on my ruler, it suddenly occurs to me that I might be in assault range of a different squad.

The whole point we were trying to make is that measurement is something that you do as you move. So once the tape is on the table, the model is already moving.

If it suddenly occurs to you that you're in assault range of another unit, well then you'll learn from that and look more closely at the battlefield around the unit next time...

Posted By insaniak on 01/30/2007 3:15 PM

Likewise with the movement. You choose where you want to go, and then you move. If you don't actually make it to where you want to be, well, you'll just have to adjust your plans.

Alright, this right here is the crux of my argument.  The rules don't tell you to choose where you want to go, then move, and see where you end up, as you say.  The rules tell you to select the unit that you want to move, and move them anywhere up to their maximum movement. 

Is your way more challenging? 

Yes.

Does your way make a certain amount of sense from a fluff perspective, a gaming perspective, and a strategic perspective?

Yes.

Is it supported by the rules? 

Well, I don't see it.  But I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me.

New piece of info I just stumbled upon:

"One you have started moving a unit you may not go back and change the move already made by a previous unit" (BGB, p. 15).

For the record, I was not even arguing for being able to move a unit and the take the movement back.  Personally, I do find that frustrating when people do it frequently (although I will allow it).  I was simply arguing that the rules don't preclude measuring to see where your maximum movement distance will take you.  But this line seems to suggest pretty strongly that until you start moving unit #2, you are free to change the move that you made with unit #1.  Otherwise, it's pretty redundant.

Posted By swize1 on 01/30/2007 3:43 PM
The rules don't tell you to choose where you want to go, then move, and see where you end up, as you say.  The rules tell you to select the unit that you want to move, and move them anywhere up to their maximum movement.

Which is the exact same thing.

To turn that around, the rules don't tell you to choose a unit, measure any distances around them you choose, and then move them. The rules tell to select the unit that you want to move, and move them anywhere up to their maximum movement.

No pre-measuring is mentioned, so no pre-measuring is allowed.

Posted By swize1 on 01/30/2007 3:43 PM
 But this line seems to suggest pretty strongly that until you start moving unit #2, you are free to change the move that you made with unit #1.  Otherwise, it's pretty redundant.

That's one way to look at it. The other way is to realise that redundant statements do pop up from time to time in GW rules, and that since the rules don't specifically allow you to take back a model's movement and do it again in a different direction, it isn't allowed, despite what may be suggested.

Rules don't work by suggestion. They work by telling you what you can do and, when applicable, under what circumstances you can't do that.

The rules tell you that you choose a unit, and move them up to their movement distance. That's all they tell you that you can do, so that's all you can do.

Ok, that's several times now that I think I've pretty diplomatically stated that we are both determining our own list of what is and is not allowed in the movement phase given the lack of specific instructions.  I have never said that you are wrong, only that we should agree to disagree.  After all, there are clearly players in both camps.  Have a good night.

 EDIT:

Ok, I'm weak, I changed my mind. 

There are two similar issues we've been debating, one is pre-measuring movement, and the other is taking back movement.  Even though I think that quote I found is pretty definitive about taking back movement, I was never really interested in proving that.

But as to the former issue, all the rules say is that you pick a unit, and then move them 6" (or whatever their movement is).  Nothing is mentioned about measuring.  But you are saying that once I've layed down my tape measure on the table, I have committed to moving in that direction.  Please tell me where in the rules you are getting that from.  I don't see it.

Please don't respond with "where are you getting that you CAN premeasure?"  I am not making that argument right now.  I just want to know where you are getting the idea that once I lay the ruler down, I cannot move them in the opposite direction.  I would really like to understand.  And please don't tell me that it's implied, or a natural part of moving, it's a hell of a restriction to assume if there is no basis in the rules. 

Swize:

The point is, the rules state that you pick a unit, move the models, then pick another unit and continue. When you move a unit, each model may only move up to their maximum movement allowance.

So you move your models, period (there obviously isn't anything in the rules about laying down a tape measure). Now, a player can use any acceptable method to ensure that he isn't moving his models beyond their maximum distance, with the most popular by far being a tape measure.

However, the use of the tape measure is only to ensure that the models aren't moved beyond their maximum move. A player by the base of the rules is only allowed to move the model one time (it's "move).



But ultimately, I think we're arguing theoretical semantics. I highly doubt anyone on this forum (and very few world-wide) would acutally want to play the game with this kind of rigid restriction. All I've been trying to get across is that if someone does want to play the game this way you shouldn't get angry or begrudge them but instead suck it up and play the game because ultimately they're only wanting to play the game by the purest minimal interpretation of the rules.

Posted By swize1 on 01/30/2007 5:38 PM
Please don't respond with "where are you getting that you CAN premeasure?"  I am not making that argument right now.  

The problem is that, within the rules, that's the only argument that is actually relevant. In order to do something, you need a rule that says it is allowed.

As Yakface pointed out, how you determine the distance your model moves is up to you. But the distance your model actually moves is the only measurement that the rules allow you to make. Not because anything else is specifically forbidden, but simply because nothing else is listed as being allowed.

i am with swize on this one..we will have to agree to disagree

 

like the chess reference mentioned earlier when i have declared i am done with movement or have gone onto the next model to move the by the rules i cannot go back and move something. but until i in effect take my hand off that  model i can try and figure which direction to move is the best use of its max move without dedicating myself to one move or the other.  and to figure out its max move allowed in the rules i need to be able to measure all its possible move locations.

 

 

as for the oposition to the battlefield overview argument i seem to remember GW mentioning in one of the rulebooks that you are the general of the amry and your HQ model represents you commanding the army. the commander of the army is giving the orders because he does have the battlefield overview that allows him to tell his troops where to go and what to do.

 

i think such a stringent interpretation of some of the rules,  at least to me,  violates the most important rule on page 5 of the BBB because i would not have a fun game with sombody who was this anal about the mechanics of playing the game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted By mughi3 on 01/30/2007 8:53 PM
like the chess reference mentioned earlier when i have declared i am done with movement or have gone onto the next model to move the by the rules i cannot go back and move something. but until i in effect take my hand off that  model i can try and figure which direction to move is the best use of its max move without dedicating myself to one move or the other.  and to figure out its max move allowed in the rules i need to be able to measure all its possible move locations.

The difference being that in Chess, you have a rule that actually says you can do that.

There is no such rule in 40K.

Posted By mughi3 on 01/30/2007 8:53 PM
as for the oposition to the battlefield overview argument i seem to remember GW mentioning in one of the rulebooks that you are the general of the amry and your HQ model represents you commanding the army. the commander of the army is giving the orders because he does have the battlefield overview that allows him to tell his troops where to go and what to do.

Right. So take a look at your Commander model. See a tape measure in his hands?

The Commander has to estimate. He has to think 'Ok, can that unit over there reach those trees before that enemy tank can bring its weapons to bear?' ... and make a decision based on nothing more concrete than what he sees before him.

Pre-measuring removes that from the game. You're giving your commander a pace stick and sending him wandering around the battlefield mapping it out before giving any orders...

Posted By mughi3 on 01/30/2007 8:53 PM
i think such a stringent interpretation of some of the rules,  at least to me,  violates the most important rule on page 5 of the BBB because i would not have a fun game with sombody who was this anal about the mechanics of playing the game. 

To each his own then. I find games that don't allow pre-measuring to be far more fun than those that do, because of the extra element of risk.

And frankly, that 'page 5' rule is the most frequently misunderstood and misquoted rule in the game.

It doesn't mean that you should be able to play the way you want, regardless of what the rules say... or that your opponent is somehow being unreasonable for not wanting to follow your house rules. It's simply saying that people should try to play against other players with a similar view to the game, in order to just have fun.

Wanting to play by the rules doesn't make someone 'anal'... it just means they want to play by the rules. If you want to play differently, that's your choice... but the insults are unneccessary.

I guess page 5 means that you have to run and get me a coke whenever I want, since I won't be having fun otherwise... It's a crock, and a bs overused "rule".

I like G.I Joes. I can sit in the sand pit in the back yard and scream "COOOOOOBBRRAAAAAAA!!!!" to my hearts content while I make sweet sweet love to lady J. Throwing firecrackers everywhere, hitting stupid newb kids who get in the way. great fun.

I also like to play 40K, because I can scream "Up yours, GW!!!!" to my hearts content while I make sweet sweet love to Sister Chastity of Convent Prioris. Throwing dice everywhere, hitting stupid newbs kids who refuse to understand the rules.

Some games are fun because they dont have rules, some games are fun because they do.

When I play games that dont have rules, then its a great free for all when someone shoots my Destro and I can say "Screw you Joe, I have a metal reflective mask! Your laser bounces off!".

When I play games that do have rules, Then its a great free for all when some cheating git tries to premeasure all over the place and I can say "Screw you newb, I have the elbow smash to the face rule that says youre gonna bleed!"

Seriously though, I have never once encountered a game, in all the states I have played in, where a person tries to premeasure before making movement, shooting, etc. Unless of course a targeter is involved. Or when charge is denied because of a special rule that dissallows the charge, and you are allowed to charge a different squad.

All that said, I dont think there is a rule either allowing or disallowing such actions. I think it is an accepted convention amongst player nearly universally to not do so. So many things cannot be premeasured in games, I think people assume that premeasuring for movement would be just as taboo. I still wouldnt premeasure though. Its far more challenging to play the game without nowing every single inch of the board for movement. if I wanted a premeasured game, I would play on a grided board.

What I can't personally believe is that there are people out there who actually _like_ the idiotic rules about when and where you are allowed to measure distances. We're supposedly dealing with a futuristic society with technology that's just a bit better than our current level, and you're telling me that every single helmet doesn't have a built-in laser rangefinder that automatically links to the commanders tactical display to build a real-time, accurate representation of the battlefield? I'd personally like to see all restrictions on measurement completely removed. It's particularly silly when you consider the capabilities of what is considered to be guess range weaponry in 40K compared to artillery today.

Yak, I appreciate your response.  Again, I don't fully agree with that interpretation of the rules (especially in light of the line on p. 15 which seems to liken 40k movement rules to chess, as described by Mughi), but I understand where it comes from.  If someone insisted on playing that way, again, I would be happy to, because when rules aren't clear at all, I am generally predisposed to play as my opponent prefers, because, after all, I am just trying to have fun and not get bogged down in pointless debates (that's what the forums are for ).  Thanks again.

 

I hate so many of you. I can't even read all of what you've written as it melts my brain.

So.... the rules don't say that I measure my movement before I do it
Does it say that I can't? NO.

As long as someone doesn't become an ass and 'accidentally' measure with an 18 inch tape. I can even imagin myself letting him take a move back. But only on a roll of 4+. Not every turn of course, every now and again.

It's called Sportsmanship. Who raised you guys?

This one is black and white. People play by the rules or they ask, "well it doesn't say I can't?"  

Some just won't ever get it. I think even Mauleed got sick of berating them.

It's not complex, if your on the "well it doesnt say I can't" side thats the wrong side.

What other rules do you want to make up?

It's called Sportsmanship. Who raised you guys?

Uh, wrong, it's called making up the rules, who raised you? ( I bet you like takey backs. Ever make a mistake you couldn't take back? Sometimes you have to live with those decisions.)

Yeah, making a mistake in real life is something you have to deal with. A failed marriage being one of them. I deal with it.

Making a 'mistake' in a game with friends should be allowed as I don't feel like dealing with the gak I have to deal with in real life. It's a game, I play it to be fun - in fact. I play it less and less and less because of people being rules lawyers. It's a game, let some gak slide - stop trying to be sooper competative in every aspect of life and it'll probably be way more fun. No one has fun when someone is a super competative arsehole. NO ONE - not even the person being the arsehole.

Most rules I'm all for and they should be respected and adherred to. But when it comes to a GAME! I stress again a GAME! Let some gak go in the name of flow. If the person's trying to cheat or get an unfair advantage then call them on it, if they're just a bit dittery or regret something within a decent amount of time of making the move [I.E removing a unit before the movement phase is over] then it's fine.

Posted By Celtic Strike on 01/30/2007 11:22 PM
It's called Sportsmanship. Who raised you guys?

Sigh... yet another person who can't tell the difference between he way peopole discuss rules and they way they actually play...



The whole point of YMTC is for people to discuss how the rules are actually supposed to work.

How we would actually act in game is another matter entirely... but understanding how the rules are supposed to work goes a long way towards giving you a proper basis for 'going with the flow'...

Simmer down a little and take the forum for what it is: A discussion forum for a game. Nothing more.

Let me state for a moment that I AM against the premesuring of deepstriking and movement.

However, I am simply responding to all the people who said "It didn't say I could so I can't" and various other things. I'm tired of all the rules lawyering and peoples God like certainty that they absolutely KNOW what the right interpretation of a very vague rule is.

I got a bit overworked. I hate bulletin boards mostly for the reason that people are idiots and I can't reach them. Hehe. It's a vauge rule and I don't think it needs further disscussion. I'm going.

Celtic Strike:

You apparently ignored all of my posts in this thread where I explained the difference between how I play the game and understanding what the core of the rules say.


Take some time and read the whole thread before you fly into a knee-jerk reaction.

Posted By Celtic Strike on 01/31/2007 12:23 AM
However, I am simply responding to all the people who said "It didn't say I could so I can't" and various other things. I'm tired of all the rules lawyering and peoples God like certainty that they absolutely KNOW what the right interpretation of a very vague rule is.

"It doesn't say you can, so you can't" is not rules lawyering... it's simply how a game works.

If you can find a rule that says you can do something, then you can do it.

So, if you can find such a rule, premeasure to your hearts content.

If you're going to participate in a discussion about premeasuring, then it's generally considered a good idea to actually contribute rules one way or the other, rather than simply insulting the people who disagree with you.

i take issue with that statement because there is no clear rule on the issue.

just some references that seem very chess like as swize pointed out.

you think your way is the right way and i think my way is the right way so we disagree.

 

when i discuss rules on here i discuss them as i would use them on the table. it may not be as narrow an interpretation  as some may play them but i see problems with people taking some of these norrow interpretations and trying to put them into play. call it rules lawyering, call it anal, sportmanship, or whatever else you want but if you make the game un-fun to play by being so narrow in your views you soon find people do not like playing you. fortunately i am not one of those people.

we have strayed way off topic so to the original poster-if you have a problem with the pre-measure feel free to discuss it with your opponant and find a friendly solution. if not use the "permisive" rules set as many here adhere to and do not give him permission to play you by refusing games with him.

Posted By mughi3 on 01/31/2007 6:36 PM
 i take issue with that statement because there is no clear rule on the issue.

That's because you seem to think that not having a rule specifically disallowing an action makes it possible.

'Playing by the rules' means playing by the rules. Not playing by the things the rules don't mention.

Posted By mughi3 on 01/31/2007 6:36 PM
when i discuss rules on here i discuss them as i would use them on the table.

And that may be where you're having some of your problems.

Rules discussions on Dakka tend to revolve around what the rules actually say, rather than how people would play it.

Adding how you play it is fine, so long as house rules aren't passed off as actual rules.

Posted By mughi3 on 01/31/2007 6:36 PM
call it rules lawyering, call it anal, sportmanship, or whatever else you want but if you make the game un-fun to play by being so narrow in your views you soon find people do not like playing you.

And that's why generalisations based on your perception of someone from their rules discussion don't work...

I have plenty of fun playing 40K. My opponents generally also have fun. In fact, the only opponent I can remember not having a fun game was a power gamer in a pick-up game who seemed rather offended that I didn't take the game as seriously as he did... and that was about 10 years ago.

I'll often agree to house rules if they're reasonable. I'll often allow opponents to take back a move, or go back and shoot with a unit they forgot.

But if an opponent wants to insist that the rules allow them to do something that I'm not aware of, then I'm going to appreciate being shown an actual rule that allows it.

If that makes me 'un-fun' to play against in your opinion, then so be it. Chances are you'll never find yourself across the table from me anyway.

Good stuff. Insaniak and Yak have articulated my feelings very well.

Mughi, I'm sure you're a great guy to play against.

That said, I hate premeasuring. Nothing annoys me more at the table than when an opponent swings his tape measure around in an arc (especially for a skimmer or a flying unit in Warhammer). It just feels seven shades of wrong. Gut level uncomfortable.

All THAT said, this happens very rarely. Much more common is someone making one or two "take backs" in a game. Generally I'm not happy about them, but I casually allow them.

My take. (Like it matters)

First off I do not like pre-measuring deepstrike. Only one person has ever done it to me and it was a GW employee droppodding a marine unit. Which scattered 11 inches towards the table edge and he ended up being safe by an inch. I had never seen anyone premeasure and I did not like it. I would have asked but figured since he was an employee it was right. In a tournament I would ask and if they resorted to "Well it doesn't say I can't." I would say ok then ding them on sports to avoid an argument. Hypocritically I tend to be a "doesn't say I can't" player. However I just don't see how you would be allowed to premeasure deep strike, in short maybe I just don't like it is all. Also in terms of movement I play it this way. You can measure and move all over for a unit. Once you move it and start moving another unit, that's it, no more going back.

I think the problem here is not what the rules say but basic philosophy about how rules work. There are those who belive rules are "permissive" and those who believe they are "restrictive" (The opposite.

Which are You?

Well look, people who belive game rules are permissive probably like boring games like baseball (Over 100+ rules!!), and football, where you cannot do ANYTHING out of the rules.

People who think rules are restictive probably like games like soccer, rugby and ice hockey, which in my opinion are more free and fun. The rules don't say I CAN hit the soccer ball with my, head, thigh, chest or even perform an upside-down bicycle kick, but people do. WHy? because the rules only say you cannot hit it with your arms or hands. So as long as i dont hit it with my hands/arms its ok. I think it makes it for a funner game.

Those that disagree can watch football, where a 300+lb guy who never ran a mile in his life is an athlete, or baseball, the only game you can play while taking a nap.

Is one better than the other? Not really, it just comes down to they way you view rules and you can go on in circles for days and nobody will get anywhere.

So if the guy tried to measure DS Id likely let him if he gave the "Can't" arguement. SO then I would do the same thing with all my DS squads but only while playing him/her, If I had no more units to DS then I would ding him on sports. I would never personally initiate measurement for DS cause I dont like it.

Posted By smart_alex on 01/31/2007 11:12 PM


I think the problem here is not what the rules say but basic philosophy about how rules work. There are those who belive rules are "permissive" and those who believe they are "restrictive" (The opposite.

Which are You?

Well look, people who belive game rules are permissive probably like boring games like baseball (Over 100+ rules!!), and football, where you cannot do ANYTHING out of the rules.

People who think rules are restictive probably like games like soccer, rugby and ice hockey, which in my opinion are more free and fun. The rules don't say I CAN hit the soccer ball with my, head, thigh, chest or even perform an upside-down bicycle kick, but people do. WHy? because the rules only say you cannot hit it with your arms or hands. So as long as i dont hit it with my hands/arms its ok. I think it makes it for a funner game.

Those that disagree can watch football, where a 300+lb guy who never ran a mile in his life is an athlete, or baseball, the only game you can play while taking a nap.

Is one better than the other? Not really, it just comes down to they way you view rules and you can go on in circles for days and nobody will get anywhere.

This is an incredibly faulty argument (even though it is masqueraded as an opinion).

All games have permissive rules. Every single one of them, period. No exceptions ever (nor could there ever be).

There are likely no rules in soccer, rugby and ice hockey that restrict players from driving their cars onto the field, using hand grenades, or letting waterfowl run wild across the field, yet no one is allowed to do those things in those games because they are not permitted by the rules.

A game starts as NOTHING until rules are created that allow things to happen within the framework of that game. If those rules aren't in place, then the game doesn't exist. There can still be restrictions constructed within that framework of those permissive rules (in fact there always are), but that doesn't change the basic fact that all games are created by permissive rules.


So believing that games are ruled by a restrictive set of rules isn't a matter of opinion, just a misconception.

and with that the argument ends.

That is a bit of an emtreme analogy. Within the context of the game nowhere does it say you can run, in soccer. Or hit the ball with your head. So then how does your arguement work.

Its still a difference of opinion. You think there is NOTING to start with until rules let you do somthing. Others belive there is CHAOS to start with which is then restricted by rules.

Im not saying you are wrong. I am saying different people view things differently. Neither one is better than the other.

Posted By smart_alex on 02/01/2007 2:45 AM
That is a bit of an emtreme analogy. Within the context of the game nowhere does it say you can run, in soccer. Or hit the ball with your head. So then how does your arguement work.

Honestly, I think you're stretching there.

Being able to run, or to kick the ball are an integral part of soccer. They are a part of the rules... but they're a part that generally isn't written down, as they're things that it is taken for granted that people know. Just like the rules of 40K take it for granted that you know how to roll dice and use a tape measure, rather than specifically telling you the 'correct' way to do so.

The idea of a game being 'chaos' that is then restricted simply doesn't work. There are too many things that would have to be restricted in order to get any sort of a stable system. Yakface gave a couple of good examples there... but that's not even scratching the edge of it.

Without an actual rules structure that outlines what you are allowed to do, a game is unplayable in any sort of stable form.

/Agreed

I have NEVER seen a ruleset for any game, no matter how simple or complex that runs from the principal "you cannot do this". It's ALWAYS "to play this game, this is what you do, this is how you do it." There is always at least one, and by only one I'm being generous, instance of "you may NOT do this", but they are much fewer than the instances of "You MAY do this."

How many times, when asked if you want to play a new game, be it Monoply, Life, Chess, Boggle, Scrabble, WH40K, Chutes and Ladders, Pictionary, or even House, was your first question "Sure! How don't you play it?"

Some rulesets have more restrictions written in them than others, but they ALL start with the premise that you can't just do anything you want, and that if you want to do something it must be in the rules. If it isn't you may not do it. Of necessity, no ruleset would be workable the other way. Any that tried would be 1,000's of pages long telling you that you couldn't color on all the game pieces to change their function to yourbenefit, or that you couldn't peek at the answer before you were asked the question, or that you couldn't "tell your mum on your opponent because they won't let you buy that property", etc. Some rulesets explicitly tell you that you may make up your own rules for them, others do not, but the option is there anyways, as ultimately, YOU determine how you play any given game; If you want to be able to play with other people, either they must know and agree with your alterations, or you must play by the boundaries written in the rules. Even if those Boundaries only tell you where you CAN go, and not where you CAN'T.

When this discussion first started I was put off. I had never even thought that "pre-measuring" movement was illegal. Terms like "rules lawyer" floated through my head an awful lot, but after settling down I realized that by a strict look at the rules, this is the way of things. Still, I think people are dismissing smart_alex's argument a little too quickly. Insaniak, even stated that running is integral to the games, but why? It is not written in the rules, so why is this assumed, but not other assumption in other games? By this logic that some things are just assumed, maybe the main assumption of players to pre-measure the distance they can travel is integral to the game of 40k. It is a stretch, but if you make one assumption, there is suddenly gray area to work with everywhere.

The Wraith

Actually, to comment on the soccer rule mentioned above about the rule being "restrictive" stating only that you can't use arms/hands.

I used to be a youth soccer ref, many years ago. The rule book we used (can't remember which federation it was) stated that any part of the body could be used except the arms and hands. So, in that soccer rule set at least, the rules are permissive, stating what part of the body can be used, as well as restricting which cannot be used.

Sal.