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.

Which page in the 40k rulebook does it state that 40k is a permissive ruleset?
Cheers.

It doesn't. The reason people say it's a permissive ruleset is it wouldn't work any other way.

For example: The rules do not say that the first person to climb on the table and do a jig does not automatically win the match either. I'm sure you can see how this would be detrimental to playing the game as intended.

If it is not a Permissive ruleset you get some interesting arguments of It does not say i can't.

Like:
It does not say i can't roll a die and on a 2+ I win the game.

It does not say i can't smash all of your dead models with a hammer.

It does not say i can't roll a bowling ball across the table, and any models that fall over are removed as casualties.


Being a Permissive Ruleset is the only way the rules function.

It must say you can, or you are not allowed to.

On the other hand, you can get some pretty crazy arguments by strictly adhering to the permissive rules philosophy too.

For example, the rules do not give you permission to assemble or paint your models.

Everything in moderation people.

Every single abusive/dick move has been based on "permissive ruleset" so yeah that makes a lot of sense. It recently occurred to me I've never actually seen it mentioned in the rulebook.

It is not mentioned in the book, but being a Permissive Ruleset is literally the only way the rules function.

Otherwise I win all tournaments that I know about and no rule can over-ride this rule. This rule trumps all other rules...

DeathReaper wrote:It is not mentioned in the book, but being a Permissive Ruleset is literally the only way the rules function.

Otherwise I win all tournaments that I know about and no rule can over-ride this rule. This rule trumps all other rules...

Or it's based on mutual consensus. If all the people at the tourney agree that you can get on the table and do a jig to win, then that becomes the rule.

In fact "The Most Important Rule" specifically says this
So a permissive ruleset is neither RAW, nor RAI.

The funny things is, people say, "if its not in the rule book you can't do it..." or something to that effect.

Well guess what is not in the rulebook?

A statement that says it is a permissive ruleset or something to that effect.

LOL

40k-noob wrote:The funny things is, people say, "if its not in the rule book you can't do it..." or something to that effect.

Well guess what is not in the rulebook?

A statement that says it is a permissive ruleset or something to that effect.

LOL

The point. You have missed it.

Testify wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:It is not mentioned in the book, but being a Permissive Ruleset is literally the only way the rules function.

Otherwise I win all tournaments that I know about and no rule can over-ride this rule. This rule trumps all other rules...

Or it's based on mutual consensus. If all the people at the tourney agree that you can get on the table and do a jig to win, then that becomes the rule.

In fact "The Most Important Rule" specifically says this
So a permissive ruleset is neither RAW, nor RAI.

Not RAW, per se; but still RAI.

TMIR specifically grants permission for the group to decide what rules are permitted.

In your example the mutual consensus permits the win-via-jig.

But still, most of us will grant the that rulebook assumes a few things from us (for example, being able to read English and know what words mean). Where exactly to those asusmptions stop?

A rule is quite literally something that tells you what you are allowed to do.

Some rulebooks contain ´rules´ that tell you that you can _not_ do something, but they are basically superfluous because they are usually clarifications for actual rules or indicative of badly written rules.

Just compare it to the way our laws are written for what is illegal. We live in a restrictive rule-set society and if you compare that to how the rules for this game are written you will see why it's referred to as permissive.

There is also the "spirit of the game" side-note in the book that tells you the rulebook is just a framework as well.

Most of the people using the "permissive" ruleset argument sre those trying to break the game. In reading the rules, it seems like many times they go out of their way to explain what may or may not be done, and many times seemingly in response to the whaaaaambulance discussions we used to have about 5e.

Please, stop trying to break the game and just play.

Try not to attribute motive to other people's rules arguments. That never ends well.

pretre wrote:Try not to attribute motive to other people's rules arguments. That never ends well.

Exactly this.

Most peoples motive is to get the rules correct no matter what they say.

Bias should not enter into it, we need to be impartial when reading the rules.

It does not enter into my assessment of the rules, and though i can only speak for myself, I would like to think that other people have a similar outlook.

pretre wrote:Try not to attribute motive to other people's rules arguments. That never ends well.

I'm not trying to get into a pissing match...

I've read several posts to this effect on several different threads. And while I mostly agree with this in principle, I think that if you have a general policy of NOT calling people on their motives / bias when that bias is evident, then you are essentially giving people a "license to nerf". Some people on YMDC seem to consistently argue for rules interpretations that negatively effect specific codecies.

And of course pretre is right - you can never prove an allegation like that without being a troll. But I'm just sayin' - there are trends in some posters' points of view.

Anyways.... I think that "mutual consent" is exactly what is happening on YMDC. We have heated arguments about what the rules are and when there is RAW, we go with that. But sometimes the rules are not clear - or worse, flat out contradictory! In those cases, the 28 pages with 825 posts of arguments for one interpretation or another posted there mostly for the purpose of building consent for one ruling or another. So the most important rule wins.

Oh, I'll agree that some folks have an axe to grind, but going there generally never ends well. If it is evident to you, it is probably evident to everyone else in the thread. They aren't getting a free pass, we're just not going to get them to bait us into attacking the poster instead of the argument.

edit: Guess you did. Just checking to see it wasn't a stealth update to hotlink names if they matched users.

pretre wrote:Oh, I'll agree that some folks have an axe to grind, but going there generally never ends well. If it is evident to you, it is probably evident to everyone else in the thread. They aren't getting a free pass, we're just not going to get them to bait us into attacking the poster instead of the argument.

edit: Guess you did. Just checking to see it wasn't a stealth update to hotlink names if they matched users.

Well said. +1

The point is to come to an objective reading of he text, rather than an interpretation. Because once you voice your subjective interpetration of the text, it will very likely differ from someone else's interpretation.

This often boils to down to specifics of the English language and/or reconciling conflicting parts of the text.

Wasn't there a Crazy RAW post for 5th Edition where it said Wraithlords can't shoot as they don't have eyes?

And Flamers couldn't shoot out of Transports as they hit the transport ^^?

Bloodhorror wrote:Wasn't there a Crazy RAW post for 5th Edition where it said Wraithlords can't shoot as they don't have eyes?

And Flamers couldn't shoot out of Transports as they hit the transport ^^?

Yes. GW have been ignoring the 'models without eyes' thing since Rogue Trader. The flamer issue was included in the 5th edition FAQ, though.

While it's easy to dismiss the 'crazy RAW' discussions, they do sometimes bring to light legitimate problems with the way the rules are written, like the aforementioned flamer issue or the Captain Shrike-nerf due to ICs not originally being able to join other units before deployment, which also made it into the FAQ.

Most players are happy to ignore the fact that Wraithguard don't have eyes, but it's not always so clear whether something that appears a little screwy is deliberate design, accidental nerf, or just loose wording.

Actually all games ever use a permissive rules set, because that's literally the only way to write games.

So there is absolutely no need to spell out in the rulebook that the game is permissive, because it is essentially meaningless. By reading the rules you are participating in a permissive rules set.

Because before you read the rules, the game doesn't exist for you...you have no frame of reference on what you are allowed or not allowed to do to play the game.

Once you crack open a rulebook you find that the game will give you rules of what you are allowed to do within the game to play it...these are all the things you're given permission to do in order to play the game.

Then once they've laid out these permissions, they'll then lay out some restrictions as well, within those general permissions, which then restricts some of the permissions they previously granted to you.

So the rules will say that you're allowed to move all your models in the movement phase. This is a permission and therefore you are allowed to do it. Then they might say stuff like, but you cannot move through impassable terrain. This is then a restriction within the greater permission of being able to move your models in the movement phase.

But following this same train of thought, if the rules don't mention that you are allowed to move your models in the shooting phase, then guess what? You are not allowed to move your models in the shooting phase because there are no rules giving you permission to do so.


This basic framework is the same for every game ever invented from Monopoly to games of tag and everything in between.

Even an imaginary game that said: you can do anything at all you like, but the first person to do X wins the game is still permission based gameplay. Just in this case, you are given permission to do absolutely anything, with the lone restriction that when someone does 'X' then the game ends with a winner.


So the idea that GW should define the basic nature of what rules even means is frankly silly. It would be like them explaining the definition of every word in the rulebook, explaining the meaning of language, etc. These are basic fundamental principles that we already live and exist by. There is literally no way to play a game without this basic understanding, so explaining it is redundant.

Correct rules are always written in the way that will take the least amount of writing. For games this is always permisive. It is much easier for me to tell you what you are allowed to do in the game than to list all the things that you are not allowed to do. Say we play monoploy, the rules state that if you roll doubles you move and then get to roll again, they don't say that I cannot roll non-doubles and roll again. Furthermore they tell you how to build houses and hotels, they don't tell you you cannot build condos, or country clubs, but they don't tell you how to so you are not allowed to do so.

Conversely Laws are written as a prohibitive ruleset, because it is shorter to do so. It is easier for a governing body to tell its citizens what they are not allowed to do, than it is to tell them all the things they are allowed to do.

You are allowed to wake up in the morning
You are allowed to brush your teeth.....

What no game does is say that you cannot decide you would like to omit a portion of the rules, or write additional rules, so long as who ever you are playing with does not care/agrees to use those rules.

Essentially what it comes down to is that if you deny that a game is permissive, than I can do what ever I want, and technically you as an opponent can only stop me by making up your own rules.

Shandara wrote:The point is to come to an objective reading of he text, rather than an interpretation. Because once you voice your subjective interpetration of the text, it will very likely differ from someone else's interpretation.

Such is life.

Maybe I just feel that trying to force objective viewpoints on everyone is unhealthy. There's no logical validity, since all interpretation of language is subjective. One person can say "The rules say you have to do this, so I'm being RAW and you're being silly and emotional", despite the fact that it is perfectly valid to interpret language differently.

Testify wrote:Which page in the 40k rulebook does it state that 40k is a permissive ruleset?
Cheers.

Permissive rule set is not a rule in itself, it is a format in which how rules are written.

Basically, a permissive rule set allows for you to do only which the rules allow you to do. This allows the writers to only have to include permission in the course of explaining a set of rules.

If you were to drop the permissive rule set, you would have to include everything that you do not have permission to do which would increase the complexity of the rules and subsequently the size of the rulebook. In addition, it would be infinitely impossible to include everything that you do not have permission to do. For example a non-permissive rule set would be required to have a rule such as,

"You cannot roll a 2+ on a d6 to automatically win a game."

However a person could then say,

"Well it doesn't say I cannot roll a 2+ on a d6 at 10:30am on July 1st, 2013 to automatically win a game."

The vast variables of what the rules can list that you cannot do, would make the game unplayable.