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.

My reading is the same as Turtle's.

Seems fair to me that although the transport is non-dedicated, it's currently being used by the harlies, so it would seem fair that they should be placed at the same time...
the tank commander isn't going to say sorry lads, I'm not a transport ok, i'm a tank 'with' transport capabilities, you can't ride in the back until that battle starts!

I would say that they both go on the table when the transport arrives during the heavies turn...
...but yeah you shouldn't get to skip/hold off on putting something on the table...

Ghaz wrote:I understand the word perfectly. It's you who's misunderstanding the meaning of the word. GW's rules are 'permissive' because the rules "... grant or denote permission...". You can even see it in the example given for the defintion:

a permissive nod

That is a nod that gives you permission to do something, just like the rules for 40K give you permission to do something. They are permissive rules. They give you permission to do something.

A 'restricitive' rules set would by defintion "... express or imply restrictions or limitations of application, as terms, expressions, etc...." That is not the way that 40K works.

Ghaz... With all due respect (and I mean that... I'm saying this respectfully, not like some idiot troll flamer-kid), you are dead wrong in your interpretation and I think I will probably never convince you otherwise. Either way, I'm only giving it one more try. I'm not wasting my, your, or the board's time reiterating this over and over again.

You used the words correctly in the above sentences, but have inferred the incorrect meanings of said phrases.
"A permissive nod," for example, is exactly as you've said... it is a nod that gives you permission. Unfortunately, it is out of context for this discussion. The "nod" is a one time thing. To apply it properly to this discussion, you'd have to elaborate the sentence to something like this...

"The rule designers have given a permissive nod to gamers to play the rules in whichever manner they see fit." THAT would, indeed, make the rules a permissive set and make you correct.

What you seem to be missing is that you do not have permission to do anything in the game until given it by the rules or a codex. Permissive means "allowed," in essence. "Permissive rules" would mean that you have permission to do it. You do not. You need permission to do it.
Thus, the rules are restrictive; "... express or imply restrictions or limitations of application..." If the rules did NOT work in a restrictive manner, all games would be resolved by the first person to shout "I win," since "permissive" rules would allow that until otherwise stated (and the BGB does NOT state that you can.

Permissive = Can do it unless otherwise stated (have permission to go beyond a certain scope).
Restrictive = Can only do what you're specifically allowed to do (need permission to go beyond a certain scope).

The only thing I can say is to ask an English major, teacher or someone you might know who can advise you further on it.
Double check your interpretation of it.

I'm telling you, again -respectfully, that you have your interpretation of the definition wrong on this.


Eric

Once again, the dictionary is the one saying you're wrong as well, not just me. You can make all of the claims that you want to, but 40K is indeed a permissive rules set and the dictionary you keep quoting confirms it. No English majors are necessary. It's right there in black and white.

What's all the fuss about? Words can mean different things in different contexts. The way it is commonly used in gaming discussions, a permissive ruleset refers to one that tells you what you can do and a restrictive ruleset tells you what you can't. That these words can mean other things does not make our idiomatic way of using them incorrect; "I think permissive rulesets are too restrictive" is not a contradiction in terms.

On another note, unless what you want is a Kristevan reading of Jane Eyre, then I think you'd need to ask a linguistics major or teacher, not English.

Panic wrote:
Seems fair to me that although the transport is non-dedicated, it's currently being used by the harlies, so it would seem fair that they should be placed at the same time...
the tank commander isn't going to say sorry lads, I'm not a transport ok, i'm a tank 'with' transport capabilities, you can't ride in the back until that battle starts!

I would say that they both go on the table when the transport arrives during the heavies turn...
...but yeah you shouldn't get to skip/hold off on putting something on the table...

You can rationalize anything you want using real-world logic.

But for a rules discussion we need to go to the rules. The rules do not permit you to deploy them at the same time. That’s just about the only advantage of a dedicated transport. Non-dedicated transports are good enough. They get to be scoring units, but the tradeoff is that they don't always stick with the unit that wants to ride in them. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too.