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.

Fragile wrote:

col_impact wrote:

If we don't follow the beam subtype as a guide then how exactly do you insert the Death Ray into the shooting sequence?

Following the shooting sequence with the Focused Death Ray.

1. Nominate unit to shoot. - Pylon
2. Choose a target. - Here is where BvA kicks in and you target a set of points rather than a unit. "To Fire the FDR....." in the rule.
3. Select weapon- This is also covered in the "To fire the FDR.."
4. Roll to Hit - Skipped due to the rule stating units under the line are hit.
5. Roll to Wound - From here down the shooting process takes back over.

The FDR rule overrides 2, 3, 4. The Beam subtype weapons are pretty much the same other than choosing just a single point and a few restrictions.

Thank you for presenting a step by step analysis. It's a heck of a lot easier when people actually do that.

You do have a decent argument but you will come up against problems. I don't think you are necessarily wrong with how you handle step 2. It's just step 2 is a place where someone could contest and say you can satisfy the normal step 2 requirements and your additional Death Ray requirements since they don't contradict and thus BvA doesn't hammer. In fact many Tourney FAQs follow that rationale. The problem is you are house ruling just as much as your opponent is since there is no clear directive and so who is more right?

In effect though what you are presenting is effectively "don't follow the shooting sequence" since your analysis swaps wholesale the important shooting sequence stuff out for the Death Ray stuff. Again, here someone could contest you on why you are wholesale swapping certain steps when you don't exactly have to.

Adopting the "beam as guide" goes a long way at quelling the overly strict RAW argument since you are able to point to the rules themselves and say "see, it's basically that exact subtype and that's the way GW handles it." It's a very effective debate ender to be able to point to something in the actual rulebook. In fact, I generally take a fairly strict RAW approach and without beam presenting me with a clear guide and directive of sorts I would come up with a solution that tried to maintain as much of the shooting sequence as possible.

Can you clarify what you mean by "beam as a guide?"

Fragile wrote:
Can you clarify what you mean by "beam as a guide?"

Basically, look at how the beam subtype is handled in the BRB and use it and how that subtype integrates with the rest of the shooting rules as a guide for how to integrate Death Ray. Beam doesn't use the shooting sequence at all. So the Death Ray, which is very similar in mechanics to the beam subtype, should similarly not use the shooting sequence.

If you don't use the shooting sequence then how do you generate wounds and make saves?

Fragile wrote:
If you don't use the shooting sequence then how do you generate wounds and make saves?

Why are you engaging this guy? He just changed his application of BvA from the the skytryant thread and will likely get this thread locked also.

Fragile wrote:
If you don't use the shooting sequence then how do you generate wounds and make saves?

That's a good question. Maybe I am overlooking something.

Standard shooting attacks follow the shooting sequence.

Blast weapons have permission to circumvent the To Hit step.

Template weapons have permission to circumvent the To Hit step.

Barrage weapons follow Blast rules and gain the ability to fire at a target they do not have line of sight to, so it actively modifies the Choose A Target step.

Beam weapons are explicitly allowed to follow their own targeting restrictions and "follow their own rules for their subtype". Directly above the discussion of beam subtype is this gem of a statement.



But I think you are very correct to note that there is a hole that possibly emerges there since then we are in an rules spot with Beam and following its subtype rules in that we are not told at least in the subtype section how to deal with wounds and allocate saves. Does it still have those rules granted in the "rules given above to resolve it"? Probably yes. It looks like I may have misread the rules slightly in terms of Beam. Beam doesn't bail on the Shooting Sequence altogether. Beam gives explicit permission to follow its own targeting restriction and follow its on way of resolving hits. So Beam is exactly what you are looking for as a guide to how you resolve Death Ray. Would you agree that Beam doesn't circumvent the shooting sequence altogether (this is a correction of a misread I had of that rule) and instead explicitly is allowed to follow its own targeting restrictions in addition to having permission to circumvent the To Hit step?

So it looks like to me that Beam is an even better guide for integrating Death Ray than I initially surmised in the sense that it seems to give you precisely what you want.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

barnowl wrote:

Fragile wrote:
If you don't use the shooting sequence then how do you generate wounds and make saves?

Why are you engaging this guy? He just changed his application of BvA from the the skytryant thread and will likely get this thread locked also.

I am sure Fragile can make his own decisions. Your post is off-topic and purely disruptive.

I am well aware that my consistent application of RAW will produce some unpopular arguments and I guess one of my more recent ones involving the Skytyrant did not sit well with you. My RAW arguments that the bargeLord's chariot profile gets a 3++ save and can join units are unpopular even though they are indisputably supported by RAW. Additionally my RAW argument that Thunderwolf Cavalry strikes at S 9 with their power fists is similarly a very unpopular one. Moreover I have had to accept that O'vesa can join a unit with an IC unit since it has RAW support, even though I don't personally like that it has RAW support. I am not trying to win popularity contests or bend the rules to get certain popular outcomes. My role in these discussion is not to pander to the masses. I take the rules and apply them in each rules question I am presented with. And indeed that's what people should be doing in a YMDC thread.If RAW brings rules to the point where they break or people are truly upset with how they apply then they can collectively call for a house rule.

I am always consistent in my application of BvA. I always apply it as RAW.



Fragile wants to take a pretty loose sense of BvA to hammer away all of the normal targeting restrictions simply because Death Ray provides some of its own. The problem his argument faces is that the ones Death Ray provides could logically co-exist with the normal ones. A strict RAW read of BvA would disallow it and topple it on the requirement for "contradicting" which is clearly present in the BvA rules . Contradicting rules are ones that preclude each other. A good example of rules that preclude each other would be a rule that says "use the Swooping Flight Mode" and one coming from a more advanced source that says "can only use Gliding Flight Mode"

Keep in mind that I am not opposing the end result of Fragile's argument, which I agree with. I am trying to help him shore up his argument against people who can take issue with how he applies BvA. In fact, there are many Tourney FAQs that subject the Death Ray to the normal targeting instructions in addition to the Death Ray specific instructions using presumably the same logic I am challenging him with so he can figure out ways to overcome that logic.

So what rule allows for targeting two things? You've asserted that the DR rules and the shooting phases rules can coexist.
One requires targeting a unit, the other requires targeting along.

rigeld2 wrote:
So what rule allows for targeting two things? You've asserted that the DR rules and the shooting phases rules can coexist.
One requires targeting a unit, the other requires targeting along.

Please provide a full analysis like Fragile did. He is providing an analysis that integrates the DR into the shooting sequence. And I pointed out a place where his argument has a potential weakness. For me, since Beam provides a clear guide of how to integrate Death Ray I don't personally have a problem with his argument, since for me there is something in the rules I can use as a guide. However, some people could have issues. And there are Tourney FAQs out there that presumably take that exact argument so I am challenging him with questions that are worth exploring.

It's possible to argue that DR wholesale skips the shooting sequence like Grendel argued above, however permission to skip the shooting sequence is not given in the rules. You are granting it to yourself via house rule.

So without a house rule we have the shooting sequence to contend with and it's up to us to BvA away anything where we are given contradictory instructions.

CHOOSE A TARGET


Focused Death Ray


So, first off, you aren't really being asked to target two things. The basic rule asks you to target. The Death Ray rules tell you to nominate two points. I really don't see BvA necessarily having to hammer away the basic instructions of "target" with "nominate". How exactly are you coming to your issue without first asserting nominate is target (which is a claim that would seemingly require you to insert a house rule)? And, what's even more interesting, even if somehow you can say that nominate = target, you should note that the Death Ray rule itself would then be asking you to target two things, which would then separately defeat your issue.

I can't believe this is being argued.

How do I fire a normal gun? I follow the rules in the BRB.

How do I fire a Focused Death Ray? To fire the focused death ray, nominate...

I have to ask if you're being serious or if you're trolling at this point. The focused death ray provides you with a more specific, advanced method for firing. It can be easily argued that this method replaces the basic method for firing a gun. The only step you would keep is nominating the weapon to fire. Once you've nominated the weapon to fire, the advanced rules take over and tell you how to fire.

 Kriswall wrote:
The only step you would keep is nominating the weapon to fire. Once you've nominated the weapon to fire, the advanced rules take over and tell you how to fire.

The reason it's being argued is because the statements you assert above are not found anywhere in the actual rules.

And it's being argued because there are Tourney FAQs out there that do require the Death Ray to target a unit. So it's important to defeat that argument.

The issue is going to come up too. Invisible Death Stars are common. I have to support what I do with rules and not just tell my opponent "well Kriswall on DakkaDakka says its so obvious and people who want explicit rules justification are just trolling."

Blast, Template, Barrage, Beam are all explicitly integrated into the shooting sequence. The Necron codex does not tell us how to integrate Death Ray into the shooting sequence. And since "nominate" does not equal "target" as outlined above we can't BvA away the Choose a Target step, unless we adopt Beam as a guide, since Beam has explicit permission to follow its own targeting rules.

Fine then. Insufficient RAW to make a call. RaI seems painfully obvious. You'll just have to abide by the TO's call until the Necron Codex is updated with a 7th edition version and hopefully some better written rules.

HIWPI... The death ray gives specific instructions on how to fire it. These instructions never require targeting a unit. You could fire the weapon and purposefully not hit any units. I would not require a player to declare a target. TO rulings are effectively just Tourney HIWPI, so thre opinion is exactly as useful to the discussion as mine.

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The only step you would keep is nominating the weapon to fire. Once you've nominated the weapon to fire, the advanced rules take over and tell you how to fire.

The reason it's being argued is because the statements you assert above are not found anywhere in the actual rules.

And it's being argued because there are Tourney FAQs out there that do require the Death Ray to target a unit. So it's important to defeat that argument.

The issue is going to come up too. Invisible Death Stars are common. I have to support what I do with rules and not just tell my opponent "well Kriswall on DakkaDakka says its so obvious and people who want explicit rules justification are just trolling."

Blast, Template, Barrage, Beam are all explicitly integrated into the shooting sequence. The Necron codex does not tell us how to integrate Death Ray into the shooting sequence. And since "nominate" does not equal "target" as outlined above we can't BvA away the Choose a Target step, unless we adopt Beam as a guide, since Beam has explicit permission to follow its own targeting rules.

You still have not quite answered the question about using Psychic Beams as a guide. How are you treating the two differently? The only difference is that with Psychic Beams, one of the points is fixed.

Also anytime you have a conflict BvA applies. You have a conflict in "target a unit" and "target a point". You obviously have to follow the weapon rule.

Fragile wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The only step you would keep is nominating the weapon to fire. Once you've nominated the weapon to fire, the advanced rules take over and tell you how to fire.

The reason it's being argued is because the statements you assert above are not found anywhere in the actual rules.

And it's being argued because there are Tourney FAQs out there that do require the Death Ray to target a unit. So it's important to defeat that argument.

The issue is going to come up too. Invisible Death Stars are common. I have to support what I do with rules and not just tell my opponent "well Kriswall on DakkaDakka says its so obvious and people who want explicit rules justification are just trolling."

Blast, Template, Barrage, Beam are all explicitly integrated into the shooting sequence. The Necron codex does not tell us how to integrate Death Ray into the shooting sequence. And since "nominate" does not equal "target" as outlined above we can't BvA away the Choose a Target step, unless we adopt Beam as a guide, since Beam has explicit permission to follow its own targeting rules.

You still have not quite answered the question about using Psychic Beams as a guide. How are you treating the two differently? The only difference is that with Psychic Beams, one of the points is fixed.

Also anytime you have a conflict BvA applies. You have a conflict in "target a unit" and "target a point". You obviously have to follow the weapon rule.

Show me in the Death Ray rules where it says "target."

Also, I think you are maybe misunderstanding my saying treat Psychic Beam as a guide. I mean treat Psychic Beam as a precedent for how to handle Death Ray. Again, when I say we can use Psychic Beam as a precedent it is helping to support the argument you are making.

It doesn't say target because firing the weapon doesn't require a target. We are given specific, explicit instructions on how to fire the weapon. These instructions don't contain anything about targeting. As such, I'm not sure why you want us to pick a target.

 Kriswall wrote:
It doesn't say target because firing the weapon doesn't require a target. We are given specific, explicit instructions on how to fire the weapon. These instructions don't contain anything about targeting. As such, I'm not sure why you want us to pick a target.

You need to justify which steps in the shooting sequence you will BvA hammer over and which you will not. You don't get to freely choose by your whim

The Template rules also do not say "target." They specify "instead of a roll to hit." By your logic, I could assume that since I have separate advanced rules for Template weapons I could freely disregard the need to Choose A Target.

However, that is not the case and I don't get to freely choose which steps in the shooting sequence I can ignore. Template rules specifically give me permission to override the To Hit step.

Death Ray doesn't give any inkling as to what steps are permitted to override. Minimally, Death Ray rules will override the To Hit.

However, its very debatable whether you can override with BvA the Choose A Target step. And that's a weakness. You are going to get called on it by Invisible Death Star players. Death Ray doesn't mention any specific targeting instructions, so the normal targeting restrictions can apply fine, just as they do for the Template advanced rule.

The availability of Beam as a precedent though helps give a lot of support to the idea that weapons that function like Beams have permission to override the Choose A Target step.

Back to the original question.... do all 3 FDR in a squad have to target the same point? HWYPI?

The beam rules are a bit tighter as they say "target a point" rather than "nominate a point", which is a good indication that it replaces the target choosing stage.

So we have a pretty good idea that the intent of the Death Ray is to not pick a target, but two points instead.
Unfortunately there is no rule that outright states it, so strict RaW it still seems to need a target.

I think there's enough support to say the RAI is for target.

"To fire..."

That tells me all I need to know. When I choose to fire that weapon, I follow what is after "to fire" and not what is in the BRB.

"To fire..." gives me an implied permission to ignore the standard process.

If you need an explicit permission, you're not going to find it. Warhammer 40k isn't Magic the Gathering and never will be. It's incredibly clear how this weapon is supposed to work.

Question for you... how do you think this weapon is fired?

 unfassbarnathan wrote:
Back to the original question.... do all 3 FDR in a squad have to target the same point? HWYPI?

That is a tricky one, as the lack of target would also mean each weapon could fire completely independently, something even units with splitfire can't do!

As a house rule I'd be tempted to go for same point, similar to a unit shooting the same target. But there's not much rules justification there.

RaW you should be able to pick different points for each gun.

It's important here to remember you are going to have to form an argument against a rule lawyering Invisible Deathstar opponent in front of a judge who is not trying to pick sides.

So if I were to be the strictest rules lawyer here I would say and stick to exactly what is actually said in the rules.

Death Ray follow normal rules for Choose A Target (nothing in Death Ray rules contradicts normal targeting).
Replace the To Hit Section with the Death Ray text (Death Ray gives us rules for generating hits).
Each Focused Death Ray can nominate points freely (no rules actually state any restrictions).

This is the strictest argument that could be advanced here.

However, for me, the Beam precedent would let me drop the Choose a Target bit, since Beam is by far the closest thing we have in the BRB to the Death Ray. And having something to point to in the actual BRB to help settle gray areas does a lot for me.

So pick any other target and then just hit the Invisible Deathstar anyways. Nothing says you have to hit the unit you're targeting. Nothing in the death ray rules anyways.

 Kriswall wrote:
So pick any other target and then just hit the Invisible Deathstar anyways. Nothing says you have to hit the unit you're targeting. Nothing in the death ray rules anyways.

You are 100% right there. Assuming we take the strict approach and we have to Choose a Target, there just has to be some legal target to choose. Then you can just nominate points on the battlefield and draw lines that have nothing to do with the actual target you were required to choose.

col_impact wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

barnowl wrote:

Fragile wrote:
If you don't use the shooting sequence then how do you generate wounds and make saves?

Why are you engaging this guy? He just changed his application of BvA from the the skytryant thread and will likely get this thread locked also.

I am sure Fragile can make his own decisions. Your post is off-topic and purely disruptive.

I am well aware that my consistent application of RAW will produce some unpopular arguments and I guess one of my more recent ones involving the Skytyrant did not sit well with you. My RAW arguments that the bargeLord's chariot profile gets a 3++ save and can join units are unpopular even though they are indisputably supported by RAW. Additionally my RAW argument that Thunderwolf Cavalry strikes at S 9 with their power fists is similarly a very unpopular one. Moreover I have had to accept that O'vesa can join a unit with an IC unit since it has RAW support, even though I don't personally like that it has RAW support. I am not trying to win popularity contests or bend the rules to get certain popular outcomes. My role in these discussion is not to pander to the masses. I take the rules and apply them in each rules question I am presented with. And indeed that's what people should be doing in a YMDC thread.If RAW brings rules to the point where they break or people are truly upset with how they apply then they can collectively call for a house rule.

I am always consistent in my application of BvA. I always apply it as RAW.

My point is you are not consistent at all in how you apply BvA. You do it one way the Skyrant, another way in this thread.

barnowl wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

barnowl wrote:

Fragile wrote:
If you don't use the shooting sequence then how do you generate wounds and make saves?

Why are you engaging this guy? He just changed his application of BvA from the the skytryant thread and will likely get this thread locked also.

I am sure Fragile can make his own decisions. Your post is off-topic and purely disruptive.

I am well aware that my consistent application of RAW will produce some unpopular arguments and I guess one of my more recent ones involving the Skytyrant did not sit well with you. My RAW arguments that the bargeLord's chariot profile gets a 3++ save and can join units are unpopular even though they are indisputably supported by RAW. Additionally my RAW argument that Thunderwolf Cavalry strikes at S 9 with their power fists is similarly a very unpopular one. Moreover I have had to accept that O'vesa can join a unit with an IC unit since it has RAW support, even though I don't personally like that it has RAW support. I am not trying to win popularity contests or bend the rules to get certain popular outcomes. My role in these discussion is not to pander to the masses. I take the rules and apply them in each rules question I am presented with. And indeed that's what people should be doing in a YMDC thread.If RAW brings rules to the point where they break or people are truly upset with how they apply then they can collectively call for a house rule.

I am always consistent in my application of BvA. I always apply it as RAW.

My point is you are not consistent at all in how you apply BvA. You do it one way the Skyrant, another way in this thread.

Feel free to actually prove this point you are trying to make. In the Sentry Pylon case I am applying it RAW and adhering to using BvA in a way that requires bona-fide contradicting rules to be able to hammer. In the Skyrant case I am applying it RAW and adhering to using BvA in a way that requires bona-fide contradicting rules to be able to hammer. I am being thoroughly consistent actually. Feel free to prove otherwise instead of just posting off-topic and contentless disruptive comments.

Again, it looks like you are just unhappy about the RAW argument I was able to make in the Skyrant case and are resorting to less than professional tactics to express your feelings. Get over it.

col_impact wrote:
It's important here to remember you are going to have to form an argument against a rule lawyering Invisible Deathstar opponent in front of a judge who is not trying to pick sides.

So if I were to be the strictest rules lawyer here I would say and stick to exactly what is actually said in the rules.

Death Ray follow normal rules for Choose A Target (nothing in Death Ray rules contradicts normal targeting).
Replace the To Hit Section with the Death Ray text (Death Ray gives us rules for generating hits).
Each Focused Death Ray can nominate points freely (no rules actually state any restrictions).

This is the strictest argument that could be advanced here.

However, for me, the Beam precedent would let me drop the Choose a Target bit, since Beam is by far the closest thing we have in the BRB to the Death Ray. And having something to point to in the actual BRB to help settle gray areas does a lot for me.

No, the strictest form of RAW is an absolute replacement. "To fire a FDR......" That is complete replacement of all the Shooting steps. It is its own set of rules. Now like any other rule that is several editions behind, it has problems that way. But no more than the holes in the current rules.

You can follow the FDR rule through to the generating hits section and then it comes to a complete stop. You have no instruction how to generate wounds and allocate. However, this is no different than things like Transports exploding, vector strikes, grounding checks, etc. Anything in the current rule that says it generates hits. GW assumes that you are smart enough to fall back to the wounding section of the shooting phase to figure it out without telling you each time.

So if your opponent has an issue with pure Raw, then you can simply stop taking wounds from all those other "hits" that have no explanation for how to make wounds.

Fragile wrote:

col_impact wrote:
It's important here to remember you are going to have to form an argument against a rule lawyering Invisible Deathstar opponent in front of a judge who is not trying to pick sides.

So if I were to be the strictest rules lawyer here I would say and stick to exactly what is actually said in the rules.

Death Ray follow normal rules for Choose A Target (nothing in Death Ray rules contradicts normal targeting).
Replace the To Hit Section with the Death Ray text (Death Ray gives us rules for generating hits).
Each Focused Death Ray can nominate points freely (no rules actually state any restrictions).

This is the strictest argument that could be advanced here.

However, for me, the Beam precedent would let me drop the Choose a Target bit, since Beam is by far the closest thing we have in the BRB to the Death Ray. And having something to point to in the actual BRB to help settle gray areas does a lot for me.

No, the strictest form of RAW is an absolute replacement. "To fire a FDR......" That is complete replacement of all the Shooting steps. It is its own set of rules. Now like any other rule that is several editions behind, it has problems that way. But no more than the holes in the current rules.

You can follow the FDR rule through to the generating hits section and then it comes to a complete stop. You have no instruction how to generate wounds and allocate. However, this is no different than things like Transports exploding, vector strikes, grounding checks, etc. Anything in the current rule that says it generates hits. GW assumes that you are smart enough to fall back to the wounding section of the shooting phase to figure it out without telling you each time.

So if your opponent has an issue with pure Raw, then you can simply stop taking wounds from all those other "hits" that have no explanation for how to make wounds.

No, strictest RAW is the narrowest logical replacement of the Shooting Sequence. Death Ray doesn't give permission to skip any steps of the Shooting Sequence so you attempt to logically apply as many as you can. Death Ray does not say "instead of following the shooting sequence." BvA provides a hammer only to rules that are specifically contradictory. "To fire a FDR" could just as easily refer to a custom To Hit as refer to an entirely custom Shooting Sequence. In fact, your interpreting "To fire a FDR" as permission to skip the Shooting Sequence is your house ruled permission you are giving yourself to skip the Shooting Sequence. Somebody else could easily house rule the alternate that "To fire a FDR" means "instead of a To Hit roll".

So strictest RAW means you take the narrowest logical replacement for Death Ray which is the replacement of the To Hit roll. BvA isn't ChristmasLand. You don't get to hammer away without justification and pick and choose to your benefit what steps of the Shooting Sequence get hammered or not. They have to be justified.

You certainly have an arguable stance for absolute replacement. However, it will be one that can be easily contested by a player who stands to benefit from the narrowest logical replacement and a judge will have to sort it out. At that point you will probably do well to remember to point to the precedent of Beam which explicitly follows its own targeting rules.

Except it does say "Instead of following the shooting sequence" as following the shooting sequence == firing and we know that the FDR rules say "To fire the FDR..."

Fragile,
Something to think on about sequences...
Is there a Restriction which states these Steps can only trigger in situations where the whole Shooting Sequence is utilized?

I bring this up because each Step in a sequence is still and individual Rules in their own right, being printed in 'The Rules' section of the book while containing instructions to follow while playing the game and all that. They still have titles, instructions to resolve and triggers which inform us when they occur like every other Rule in the book. The reason they are formatted into a sequence is simply because the vast majority of the time a Rule / Step will contain triggers which immediately occur because of an action in the previous Step / Rule. To my knowledge, this is nothing more then formatting and I have not yet seen something which allows a Rule to be discarded simply because it contained formatting different to other Rules.

Without something stating the triggers within the To Wound Rule only function in situations X Y or Z, or terrible Rule Writing that fails to give us values we can use in this step, can you see grounds to deny this Rule from resolving?

rigeld2 wrote:
Except it does say "Instead of following the shooting sequence" as following the shooting sequence == firing and we know that the FDR rules say "To fire the FDR..."

As obvious as this argument may seem to you, it still relies on a house rule on your part. An alternate house rule can simply be advanced that "To fire the FDR" means "Instead of a To Hit roll" and you are then faced with the real problem facing your argument, that Death Ray doesn't provide any rule that precludes normal targeting restrictions.

Blast, Template, Barrage, and Beam all provide explicit permissions to skip certain steps (with alternates). Death Ray provides no such permissions. The only step that the Death Ray hammers out with a RAW application of BvA (which requires contradicting) is the To Hit roll. You are required to carry out all the rules that you have not been permitted to skip.