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.

 doctortom wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Absolutely. Fall Back says you cannot Advance or Shoot. Neither has yet been introduced in the rules at this point.

Whether or not they've been introduced in the rules yet is inconsequential. Fall Back is putting a restriction on the permission granted to Shoot or Advance.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Models cannot move within 1" of an enemy model - a straight-up cannot.

False. It's putting a restriction on an already established permission, i.e. Movement.

You ask about 'already granted permissions' then change what you've asked? Eh, this is all off topic anyway. The rules liberally use can and cannot, may and may not. They are demonstrably mixing permissive and prohibitive. You can't show otherwise.

You have to show that the prohibition isn't on something that you get permission to do normally. It doesn't matter if it's listed before or after in the rules, you still have the basic permission that something being prohibited revokes. Go back and find an example where there's a prohibition for something that isn't said to be permitted normally. Otherwise, to go by your logic the "kill a puppy for a re-roll" would be valid since it's not prohibited.

No. No, it really wouldn't.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
No. No, it really wouldn't.

Show me where it says I cant!

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

p5freak wrote:
Previous editions dont matter now. 8th edition also doesnt disallow to move any parts of a model. I would discuss it with my opponent before playing.

It also doesn't disallow me to kill a puppy for a re-roll (What can I say, Dark Eldar players are weird). The rules don't tell you what you can't do, they tell you what you can do. The rules don't say anything about moving individual parts of models, so you can't.

The rules are a mix of permissive and prohibitive, lots of May and lots of Cannot also. So your logic doesn't work I'm afraid.

You're demonstrating that you don't understand how permissive rules sets a pre written.

It is quite typical that the rules will first have a permissive statement (like saying that models can charge) and then have prohibitive statements to modify or limit that permission in some circumstances (like saying that some model cannot charge after running) using Cannot.

That's still a 'permissive' rules set, because the rules granted the permission to do something.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Turning turrets to point at the target was actually specified in the rules in some previous editions. The current edition gives no permission to change the configuration of a model at all.

Turning turrets rarely will ever effect LOS.
There still gonna be seen or not..

Plus helps keep track of what's firing on what.

Raising and lowering your gun to exploit LOS... Kinda far, I mean its a game.

It can if you want to try to exploit it. Tuck in behind a building out of LoS. Turn the turret so that the tip sticks out the side. Draw LoS to the enemy from the tip of the barrel. Turn the turret back so that you can't be shot back at.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Absolutely. Fall Back says you cannot Advance or Shoot. Neither has yet been introduced in the rules at this point.

Whether or not they've been introduced in the rules yet is inconsequential. Fall Back is putting a restriction on the permission granted to Shoot or Advance.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Models cannot move within 1" of an enemy model - a straight-up cannot.

False. It's putting a restriction on an already established permission, i.e. Movement.

You ask about 'already granted permissions' then change what you've asked? Eh, this is all off topic anyway. The rules liberally use can and cannot, may and may not. They are demonstrably mixing permissive and prohibitive. You can't show otherwise.

Tell me, how is Nathan Poe these days?

Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 3 - take your pick.

Just realize that ALL are a condition of posting here though.