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.

I'm saying you can actually come to a mutual agreement between everyone stop acting like children and stop being wilfully dense.

I don't have to live in a either or world I can come to some sort of understanding that something can be permissive, but also leave room for interpretation as well as have restrictive rules.

I don't need the rules to say I can't smash my opponents army with a hammer because I am not psychotic.

Zodiark wrote:
Permissive ruleset + restrictive elements = Permissive/Restrictive rulesets.

You cannot take pieces from a second source and claim the original, doesn't work that way.

I tell you that laws are Restrictive (which is a fact). Does that mean a law can never, ever grant permission?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
I'm saying you can actually come to a mutual agreement between everyone stop acting like children and stop being wilfully dense.

Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should exercise your right to not post in the thread?
I'm not being childish here, I'm trying to explain how rules actually work to someone who has demonstrated a flaw in his understanding of how they work, and refuses to see that flaw.

Hollismason wrote:
I'm saying you can actually come to a mutual agreement between everyone stop acting like children and stop being wilfully dense.

I don't have to live in a either or world I can come to some sort of understanding that something can be permissive, but also leave room for interpretation as well as have restrictive rules.

I don't need the rules to say I can't smash my opponents army with a hammer because I am not psychotic.

Great, maybe in the future you can post without a ton of unnecessary condescension and engage other members in a sensible discussion, as you seem to be calling for.

When you call other people children, don't expect to be treated like an adult in return.

Either way, this debate now seems to have been cleared up to be about a naming convention. Its a permissive ruleset with restrictive elements. Seems simple enough.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
You are missing the point.

Just because it doesn't tell you that you can do something doesn't mean you can't. This is why permissive rulesets don't work logically. There need to be instances where you are told you cannot do something which is purely restrictive.

No, really - that's incorrect.
If it doesn't tell you that you can do something, you can't.
You can't just shoot an Orbital Bombardment during my shooting phase because you want to. You need a rule allowing you to.
Yes, a permissive rule set must include restrictions. - or rather denial of permission. That doesn't make it not a permissive rule set.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/599722.page#6916555
Just like I said there.

No really, this is how games work.

Have you played any game that tells you specifically what you can and cannot do because I have and it makes sure to provide instances for every occasion when you can and cannot do something and is accepted that unless told otherwise, you can do something.

Zodiark wrote:

No really, this is how games work.

Have you played any game that tells you specifically what you can and cannot do because I have and it makes sure to provide instances for every occasion when you can and cannot do something and is accepted that unless told otherwise, you can do something.

But 40k doesn't cover every instance. If it did, we wouldn't need to discus what the rules mean.

Zodiark wrote:
is accepted that unless told otherwise, you can do something.

What games? Name them. Please. I'd love for you to.
Oh - perhaps you shouldn't include RPGs because they are special snowflakes in that your character can do anything a person can do.

Problem with quoting a section from the book which states players have the ability change the game however they want, as long as they both agree:
This is still the Rulebook giving us permission to do something!

Permission Based System, even if we are using said Permissions to change the System.
Wait, how did I end out of You Make The Call?
RUN AWAY.....

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Permissive ruleset + restrictive elements = Permissive/Restrictive rulesets.

You cannot take pieces from a second source and claim the original, doesn't work that way.

I tell you that laws are Restrictive (which is a fact). Does that mean a law can never, ever grant permission?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
I'm saying you can actually come to a mutual agreement between everyone stop acting like children and stop being wilfully dense.

Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should exercise your right to not post in the thread?
I'm not being childish here, I'm trying to explain how rules actually work to someone who has demonstrated a flaw in his understanding of how they work, and refuses to see that flaw.

Rules work by telling you what you CAN do and what you CANNOT do. This concept is both PERMISSIVE and RESTRICTIVE, not just permissive.

Until you can prove otherwise, your argument is null and void.

I know how rules work, I know how games work and I also know how logic works. Do you?

Because you have failed to use simple logic at every stage and you insist on something that is an impossibility. A Purely permissive game falls apart because it does not tell me specifically what I cannot do. A Purely restrictive game falls apart because it does not specifically tell me what I cannot do. Hence the need for a COMBINATION of both PERMISSIVE and RESTRICTIVE elements. Not one ruleset with a little of another, but a balance of both.

You continue claiming that we are using a permissive ruleset with elements of restrictive when in fact the balance is 50/50, we are clearly told what we can and cannot do in everything but the most minuscule thing, hence our ruleset is a combination of permissive and restrictive until you can logically prove otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
is accepted that unless told otherwise, you can do something.

What games? Name them. Please. I'd love for you to.
Oh - perhaps you shouldn't include RPGs because they are special snowflakes in that your character can do anything a person can do.

Magic the Gathering, Chess, War Machine, Lord of the Rings Miniatures, all of which I play, the first two competitively.

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
is accepted that unless told otherwise, you can do something.

What games? Name them. Please. I'd love for you to.
Oh - perhaps you shouldn't include RPGs because they are special snowflakes in that your character can do anything a person can do.

Magic the Gathering, Chess, War Machine, Lord of the Rings Miniatures, all of which I play, the first two competitively.

MTG does not let you do anything unless told otherwise - the rules for that are very, very laid out and specific.
Chess is again - very laid out and specific. There's nothing telling you that you're not allowed to chunk your King at your opponent's head and challenge him to a dance off. Are you saying you can do that?
Warmachine - again, same thing. It's almost like not a single one of these games allow you to do anything you want unless told otherwise.

And MTG is the very definition of a permissive rule set, btw. Once granted permission, you can do things unless that permission is denied. edit: But unless granted permission, you cannot do things.

Like look through your opponent's library any time you want.

MTG isn't a permissive ruleset? Huh? Hang on for a second while I look through my library during the game...

"In a game of the size and complexity of Warhammer 40,000, there are bound to be occasions where a situation is not covered by the rules" by GW

This is the biggest BS PR statement since the dawn of object oriented modeling (systems).

A basic UML diagram would resolve those design flaws in 2 seconds flat, if they ever cared to make one while designing the game.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
is accepted that unless told otherwise, you can do something.

What games? Name them. Please. I'd love for you to.
Oh - perhaps you shouldn't include RPGs because they are special snowflakes in that your character can do anything a person can do.

Magic the Gathering, Chess, War Machine, Lord of the Rings Miniatures, all of which I play, the first two competitively.

MTG does not let you do anything unless told otherwise - the rules for that are very, very laid out and specific.
Chess is again - very laid out and specific. There's nothing telling you that you're not allowed to chunk your King at your opponent's head and challenge him to a dance off. Are you saying you can do that?
Warmachine - again, same thing. It's almost like not a single one of these games allow you to do anything you want unless told otherwise.

And MTG is the very definition of a permissive rule set, btw. Once granted permission, you can do things unless that permission is denied. edit: But unless granted permission, you cannot do things.

Like look through your opponent's library any time you want.

MtG specifically tells you what you CAN and CANNOT do, thus making it a combination of permissive and restrictive, as does Chess for that matter.

Now do you have any facts to go with anything you say, specifically disproving that this and other games are not a combination of permissive and restrictive elements?

Because as I said before, which I will rephrase so you can understand better.

You can have 50% permissive ruleset with 50% restrictive elements mixed in, you can have 10% permissive ruleset with 90% restrictive elements, hell, you can even have a 99% permissive rulesets with even 1% of restrictive elements, it doesn't matter which, if you have a piece of either one in combination with the other you have a combination of both. Not just a permissive ruleset. Since no game exists like that we'll toss the % out. This game is BOTH permissive and restrictive, it tells you specifically what you can and cannot do, MtG does a better job as if you look through the comprehensive rules, all 100+ pages of them, you will find that it is indeed a permissive and restrictive ruleset.

Now, until you can prove that this game is not a combination of both, Ima paint my models that just came in.

I'll check back every 15 min or so to see if you come with anything new.

Ignoring anything else, if you want to do something in 40k, MTG, Chess, or Warmachine, what do you look for in the rules?

Permission to do it?
or
Restriction from doing it?

rigeld2 wrote:
Ignoring anything else, if you want to do something in 40k, MTG, Chess, or Warmachine, what do you look for in the rules?

Permission to do it?
or
Restriction from doing it?

In an ideal object oriented system, neither, you would look for how things interact and which object class they belong to.

Thanks for not actually reading the post? Where did I mention object oriented systems or anything even alluding to that?

rigeld2 wrote:
Ignoring anything else, if you want to do something in 40k, MTG, Chess, or Warmachine, what do you look for in the rules?

Permission to do it?
or
Restriction from doing it?

I look for both.

As a MtG competitive player I look to see what I can do with certain card combinations, then I look at the Comprehension Rules to see what I cannot do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Thanks for not actually reading the post? Where did I mention object oriented systems or anything even alluding to that?

Actually he is right, especially in MtG, you need to know how the cards interact together to know if you can or cannot do something.

rigeld2 wrote:
Thanks for not actually reading the post? Where did I mention object oriented systems or anything even alluding to that?

You didnt, but that is how this games, tries to be implemented and fails miserably and that is how it should be read, not this allowed not allowed thing.


For instance, and i am going to writte this very badly.

You have the class infantry and the class jump infantry which in a uml representation would be something like this:

Infantry (parent class)
Procedure Move (terrain)
Function Assault (target)
Function Shoot (target)
^
l
l
Jump infantry (child class)
Procedure Move (terrain)
Function Assault (target)

Which means that for every action made by a Jump infantry model, you use the Infantry rules unless they are overwritten (virtual in the parent class is the technical term) by a jump infantry rule.
All possible interactions are defined with in each Class. If it is not defined you can not do it. In this representation, child classes inherit all procedures and functions from parent classes, thus it means that Jump infantry can shoot, even thou it does define how it does it, because it inherits it from the parent class (infantry) and uses the same function/procedure

An immovile piece of artillery would look like this:

Artillery
Function Shoot (target)

It does not declare/describe a method for moving, nor does it inherits it from a parent class (since it has none), thus it can not move.


Thus what really matters are what interactions are defined for each class, not whether they are positive or negative.

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Ignoring anything else, if you want to do something in 40k, MTG, Chess, or Warmachine, what do you look for in the rules?

Permission to do it?
or
Restriction from doing it?

I look for both.

Evasive answer. Which do you look at first?
Hint: You look for permission. I say that because you don't look for something that denies you the ability to look at your opponent's hand.

It's that basis that means it's a permissive rule set. You can't do anything unless something says you can. Your example of looking at cards shows that as well - the cards give you permission to do something specific, and then you go look for restrictions in the CR. That's my point.

You keep saying that "permissive rule set" can never include restrictions when in reality it always has... and that's the way we've been treating it.
I'm also interested to know if you still agree with your statement earlier that - and I'll quote - "If a rule does not state you cannot do something, then you can."
CR 101.2 is an example of a permissive rule set.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Thanks for not actually reading the post? Where did I mention object oriented systems or anything even alluding to that?

Actually he is right, especially in MtG, you need to know how the cards interact together to know if you can or cannot do something.

Sure. Just like knowing how rules interact with each other - since card text is simply rules.

xxvaderxx wrote:For instance, and i am going to writte this very badly.
<snip>
Thus what really matters are what interactions are defined for each class, not whether they are positive or negative.

You're seriously overcomplicating it. Because permission/denial is an interaction and as such you're just calling it something else in an attempt to... I don't know why. It's definitely not easier to understand (although I do).

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Ignoring anything else, if you want to do something in 40k, MTG, Chess, or Warmachine, what do you look for in the rules?

Permission to do it?
or
Restriction from doing it?

I look for both.

Evasive answer. Which do you look at first?
Hint: You look for permission. I say that because you don't look for something that denies you the ability to look at your opponent's hand.

It's that basis that means it's a permissive rule set. You can't do anything unless something says you can. Your example of looking at cards shows that as well - the cards give you permission to do something specific, and then you go look for restrictions in the CR. That's my point.

You keep saying that "permissive rule set" can never include restrictions when in reality it always has... and that's the way we've been treating it.
I'm also interested to know if you still agree with your statement earlier that - and I'll quote - "If a rule does not state you cannot do something, then you can."
CR 101.2 is an example of a permissive rule set.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zodiark wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Thanks for not actually reading the post? Where did I mention object oriented systems or anything even alluding to that?

Actually he is right, especially in MtG, you need to know how the cards interact together to know if you can or cannot do something.

Sure. Just like knowing how rules interact with each other - since card text is simply rules.

xxvaderxx wrote:For instance, and i am going to writte this very badly.
<snip>
Thus what really matters are what interactions are defined for each class, not whether they are positive or negative.

You're seriously overcomplicating it. Because permission/denial is an interaction and as such you're just calling it something else in an attempt to... I don't know why. It's definitely not easier to understand (although I do).

You're misinterpreting my statement and as you have provided nothing to dispute that what is really being used is a combination of permissive and restrictive elements, you forfeit the debate.

Now Ima go play with my new Sammael and Predator.

rigeld2 wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:For instance, and i am going to writte this very badly.
<snip>
Thus what really matters are what interactions are defined for each class, not whether they are positive or negative.

You're seriously overcomplicating it. Because permission/denial is an interaction and as such you're just calling it something else in an attempt to... I don't know why. It's definitely not easier to understand (although I do).

I am sorry to tell you i am not, this is how systems are designed. If an interaction is not described in the class hierarchy (aka unit type) you can not do it. Whether the rest of the interactions are defined through a positive (you do it this way) or a negative (you can not do it) is irrelevant and anecdotal to the particular rule.

That is why 99% of the issues stem from interactions that should be described because they happen, but they are not. Aka Wolf Tooth necklace vs walkers, 2 contradictory interactions with no priority lvl, 7th addressed this by always giving priority to Army books (no i dont remember the page).

Zodiark wrote:
You're misinterpreting my statement

Then clarify it.

and as you have provided nothing to dispute that what is really being used is a combination of permissive and restrictive elements

.... I've admitted that from the start. You just got hung up on the name.

you forfeit the debate.

Classy. Pro skillz right here. Well done. A++ man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xxvaderxx wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:For instance, and i am going to writte this very badly.
<snip>
Thus what really matters are what interactions are defined for each class, not whether they are positive or negative.

You're seriously overcomplicating it. Because permission/denial is an interaction and as such you're just calling it something else in an attempt to... I don't know why. It's definitely not easier to understand (although I do).

I am sorry to tell you i am not, this is how systems are designed. If an interaction is not described in the class hierarchy (aka unit type) you can not do it. Whether the rest of the interactions are defined through a positive (you do it this way) or a negative (you can not do it) is irrelevant and anecdotal to the particular rule.

Go ahead - UML out the rulebook. I'll wait.

It doesn't fit every single situation ever. And it's tangential to the current discussion because it's simply a different method to get the same result, not a more correct one.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
You're misinterpreting my statement

Then clarify it.

and as you have provided nothing to dispute that what is really being used is a combination of permissive and restrictive elements

.... I've admitted that from the start. You just got hung up on the name.

you forfeit the debate.

Classy. Pro skillz right here. Well done. A++ man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xxvaderxx wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:For instance, and i am going to writte this very badly.
<snip>
Thus what really matters are what interactions are defined for each class, not whether they are positive or negative.

You're seriously overcomplicating it. Because permission/denial is an interaction and as such you're just calling it something else in an attempt to... I don't know why. It's definitely not easier to understand (although I do).

I am sorry to tell you i am not, this is how systems are designed. If an interaction is not described in the class hierarchy (aka unit type) you can not do it. Whether the rest of the interactions are defined through a positive (you do it this way) or a negative (you can not do it) is irrelevant and anecdotal to the particular rule.

Go ahead - UML out the rulebook. I'll wait.

It doesn't fit every single situation ever. And it's tangential to the current discussion because it's simply a different method to get the same result, not a more correct one.

Dude, as per you in numerous threads.

Words mean things.

You have made a claim that this game is a permissive ruleset when in fact it is a combination of permissive and restrictive. You now claim that all along you have been stating that the ruleset is in fact a combination of both, I have highlighted where you have stated this in your post.

You are therefore going back on your original claim and therefore not only lose the debate, but you are lying about the game being a permissive ruleset, it is both, as per your own words.

rigeld2 wrote:

It doesn't fit every single situation ever. And it's tangential to the current discussion because it's simply a different method to get the same result, not a more correct one.

This is the main gripe with GW, yes it does, because you DEFINE every interaction and situation. You seriously believe that Warhammer 40k has a more complex set of interaction with its internal elements than say Windows? or BF4 or what ever have you?, programs crash when they reach an unsolvable situation, either because of data corruption or undefined/unsalvable situation. 40k Crashes (or at least crashed back in 5th, have not played in a while) why more often than my PC does, with several orders of magnitude less interactions.

If you want i can make up a basic UML diagram for say class hierarchy, they are not that many, the interactions while certainly not impossible, take more than i am willing to invest in this.

Zodiark wrote:
Dude, as per you in numerous threads.

Words mean things.

Yup.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/599722.page#6916510
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/599722.page#6916543
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/599722.page#6916612

Did you just not read the thread?

You have made a claim that this game is a permissive ruleset when in fact it is a combination of permissive and restrictive. You now claim that all along you have been stating that the ruleset is in fact a combination of both, I have highlighted where you have stated this in your post.

It's called a permissive rule set because as a baseline, you need permission to do things.

You are therefore going back on your original claim

No, I'm not and haven't.

and therefore not only lose the debate, but you are lying about the game being a permissive ruleset, it is both, as per your own words.

I'm not lying at all. And haven't been.

Congrats, you both win the internet today, now go have a drink or somethin jeez...

xxvaderxx wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It doesn't fit every single situation ever. And it's tangential to the current discussion because it's simply a different method to get the same result, not a more correct one.

This is the main gripe with GW, yes it does, because you DEFINE every interaction and situation. You seriously believe that Warhammer 40k has a more complex set of interaction with its internal elements than say Windows? or BF4 or what ever have you?, programs crash when they reach an unsolvable situation, either because of data corruption or undefined/unsalvable situation. 40k Crashes (or at least crashed back in 5th, have not played in a while) why more often than my PC does, with several orders of magnitude less interactions.

If you want i can make up a basic UML diagram for say class hierarchy, they are not that many, the interactions while certainly not impossible, take more than i am willing to invest in this.

I think that, given 40ks current written rules it would take assumptions about how they're supposed to interact to build any kind of viable UML.
That still doesn't mean it's a more correct method - it's just different and for many, many people far more confusing and complicated.

Right. We're done here.