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.

There is a certain disconnect here. As I read the thread, Happyjew was pointing out the ambiguity, and then told it does not exist.

No reason to cover up the ambiguity. Acknowledge it, give your solution and move on. Refusing to admit it exists, or attacking those who do, serves no purpose imo. /shrug

Can anyone point to the rules page that states "Cannot" trumps "Must". If not, what is the basis for this reasoning.

Edit: Seriously, I can think of one instance where the word "May" trumps "cannot" and two others where cannot is disregarded without the use of "must" or "may".

Eihnlazer wrote:
Everyone plays it that way. Because that is the only way to play it.

Even if you interpret the RAW to mean you somehow stop moving your remaining models into assault, you really have no reason to argue it.

I don't know about everyone. I play it the same way the majority plays it - once the unit finishes its Charge, then the units are considered to be locked.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

You must check for locked status before you can determine if it applies, correct?

No, it applies at all times when the unit fulfills the condition.

And how do you know if the unit fulfills the condition?

It applies at all times when the condition for the unit is met as per the rules.

 Idolator wrote:
Can anyone point to the rules page that states "Cannot" trumps "Must". If not, what is the basis for this reasoning.

Edit: Seriously, I can think of one instance where the word "May" trumps "cannot" and two others where cannot is disregarded without the use of "must" or "may".

It is a function of a permissive ruleset.

If you are forced to move 6 inches every movement phase with a vehicle and that vehicle is immobilized, can you move the vehicle?

Also, in general can't trumps must.

However if there is a specific exception then can trumps cant, like a transport vehicle with the assault vehicle rule. You can not assault if you have disembarked from a transport. However if the vehicle has the assault vehicle rule you can assault even if you disembarked from said transport.

 Idolator wrote:
Can anyone point to the rules page that states "Cannot" trumps "Must". If not, what is the basis for this reasoning.

Edit: Seriously, I can think of one instance where the word "May" trumps "cannot" and two others where cannot is disregarded without the use of "must" or "may".

The rules never say this, just like the rules do not say it is a permissive ruleset.

However, generally, in order for "may" to trump "cannot" it will specifically mention the "cannot" rule. As a counter example, an Immobilised Walker cannot move. A Hllbrute that rolls Blood Rage must Run if not within 12" of an enemy. Which takes precedence?

I think with the Hellbrute there is an implied "if it is able" that would overrule must

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
Can anyone point to the rules page that states "Cannot" trumps "Must". If not, what is the basis for this reasoning.

Edit: Seriously, I can think of one instance where the word "May" trumps "cannot" and two others where cannot is disregarded without the use of "must" or "may".

The rules never say this, just like the rules do not say it is a permissive ruleset.

However, generally, in order for "may" to trump "cannot" it will specifically mention the "cannot" rule. As a counter example, an Immobilised Walker cannot move. A Hllbrute that rolls Blood Rage must Run if not within 12" of an enemy. Which takes precedence?

Ork Codex PG 35.
3,3 Gah: the exit hole materialises in the wrong place. Resolve this shot upon the nearest unit to the intended target, be it friend or foe.

Pg 33 BRB Blast templates: You cannot place the blast marker so that the base or hull of any friendly model is even partially under it.

Note that this is not a scatter, you place the marker right where you're forbidden.

Please, some one define "Permissive rule set", a real definition and where I can find it.

Once that is done, could someone tell me what direction I am permitted to move my models in a normal movement phase. Truth is, it's just a rule set with permissive and restrictive rules in tandem. Otherwise there would never be a need for words such as "cannot".

Here's the definition of Permissive ( i figure that the actual definition is acceptable since it occurs no where in the game and applies to no game mechanic)
per·mis·sive [per-mis-iv]
adjective
1.
habitually or characteristically accepting or tolerant of something, as social behavior or linguistic usage, that others might disapprove or forbid.
2.
granting or denoting permission: a permissive nod.
3.
optional.
4.
Genetics. (of a cell) permitting replication of a strand of DNA that could be lethal, as a viral segment or mutant gene.

In fact, since I need specific permission in order to complete any task, wouldn't that be a restrictive rule set. Since, I am restricted from doing anything not given permission in the rules.

 Idolator wrote:
In fact, since I need specific permission in order to complete any task, wouldn't that be a restrictive rule set. Since, I am restricted from doing anything not given permission in the rules.

That is the very definition of a permissive rule set. You cannot do anything unless you have permission to do it. A restrictive rule set is one where you can do anything you want unless told you cannot.

 screaminskull wrote:
We play it that all intended assault moves against a unit are declared first. Overwatch is then resolved with the player on the receiving end of the assault deciding against which unit. Then assault moves are made.

If you were looking for a quote to the contrary, pg 20 BRB.

1. Declare Charge.
2. Resolve Overwatch.
3. Roll Charge Range
4. Charge Move.
5. Declare next charge or finish.

Then, the fight subphase begins, where you

1. Choose your combat.
2. Fight the combat.
3. Determine results.
4. Repeat the fight phase for your other units, or finish if you all the fights are done.

There's a huge tactical difference than this method and the, "declare all charges then move" method.

Idolator,
Specific Exceptions also trump General Restrictions, if they did not then things like 'Assault Vehicles' would not work. Many other rules also exist to be nothing but Specific Exceptions to specific situations or even naming the rule they are an exception of. Should they lack the ability to trump the restriction in question then these rules would have no purpose, they literally would be impossible to evoke, and that is clearly not the Writers intentions.

In the rule you quoted we are told to place the marker in a set position, with specific permission for this marker to be placed where it would otherwise be illegal by the fact the rule in question informed us we must target friendly units if they meet the requirements.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Idolator wrote:
In fact, since I need specific permission in order to complete any task, wouldn't that be a restrictive rule set. Since, I am restricted from doing anything not given permission in the rules.

That is the very definition of a permissive rule set. You cannot do anything unless you have permission to do it. A restrictive rule set is one where you can do anything you want unless told you cannot.

That's nonsense, I even put the definition of permissive up there. Requiring specific permission to complete a task is the very antipathy of permissive. I believe you fellows have your terms backward. Requiring permission is the very definition of restrictive.

re·stric·tive adjective \ri-ˈstrik-tiv\
: limiting or controlling someone or something

I am limited as to what I can do. Hence, restrictive.

And it doesn't address the question of: Since I require permission to do something, why is the word "cannot" ever used? If it's not permitted then it's not permitted.

Where is the permission to move my units in any direction that I wish?

I would like an actual definition. I don't think that there is one.

Citadel,
The issue is likely the gold old question of 'when does a unit get locked in combat?' and the unusual breaks which occur for charges no matter what interpretation is used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Idolator:
To put forth restrictions on actions they have just given a player permission to carry out.

To quote Tyr Grimtooth (from about a year ago.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

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.

JinxDragon wrote:
Idolator,
Specific Exceptions also trump General Restrictions, if they did not then things like 'Assault Vehicles' would not work. Many other rules also exist to be nothing but Specific Exceptions to specific situations or even naming the rule they are an exception of. Should they lack the ability to trump the restriction in question then these rules would have no purpose, they literally would be impossible to evoke, and that is clearly not the Writers intentions.

In the rule you quoted we are told to place the marker in a set position, with specific permission for this marker to be placed where it would otherwise be illegal by the fact the rule in question informed us we must target friendly units if they meet the requirements.

Ah, but I was giving an example of when the term "cannot" is overridden by other text. It is a matter of opinion that the word "Cannot" always overrides "Must", nothing more than opinion. As "Must" is just as restrictive as "Cannot" if not more restrictive, as it precludes all other choices.

It applies here to this discussion, as it is made clear in the rules for assault, that a unit is considered "locked in combat" the moment that it touches an assaulting unit. Preventing it from shooting or moving other than to pile-in. It even uses y'all favorite word "cannot". As you pointed out, there is no specific rule that over rides this, not even the word "must" it stands that a unit would then be unable to fire anything, much less over watch once contact is made.

Idolator,
The statement that 'Can Not' Always over-writes 'Must' is too vague to be accurate, it is an absolute and does not take into account all the interactions that can occur in a game this complex. It is far better to state that a General Restriction will always over-writes General Permissions unless a Specific Exception is in play. As for the topic itself, it is already recognized as a 'broken rule' because the timing involved makes the rule... wonky.

 Happyjew wrote:
To quote Tyr Grimtooth (from about a year ago.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

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.

So, there isn't a definition. Some dude's pontification is not a source. 12 people saying the same wrong thing doesn't make it true.
On top of that, he's wrong. It's exceptionally easy make a list of things that you cannot do. Here ya go: You can't do anything, except what you're told you can do.
That just about covers everything, except what you're told you can do. Which is what we have. a restrictive rules set. It restricts all activity except those that are expressly granted.

You're restricted from declaring that a roll of 2+ wins you the game, because you were never told that you can do that. TADA!

JinxDragon wrote:
Idolator,
The statement that 'Can Not' Always over-writes 'Must' is too vague to be accurate, it is an absolute and does not take into account all the interactions that can occur in a game this complex. It is far better to state that a General Restriction will always over-writes General Permissions unless a Specific Exception is in play. As for the topic itself, it is already recognized as a 'broken rule' because the timing involved makes the rule... wonky.

I think the problem with the "timing" is that it is often suggested that the timing is a rigid and strict sequence when it simply isn't, it's much more abstract.

JinxDragon wrote:
Idolator,
The statement that 'Can Not' Always over-writes 'Must' is too vague to be accurate, it is an absolute and does not take into account all the interactions that can occur in a game this complex. It is far better to state that a General Restriction will always over-writes General Permissions unless a Specific Exception is in play. As for the topic itself, it is already recognized as a 'broken rule' because the timing involved makes the rule... wonky.

I concur.

 Idolator wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
To quote Tyr Grimtooth (from about a year ago.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

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.

So, there isn't a definition. Some dude's pontification is not a source. 12 people saying the same wrong thing doesn't make it true.
On top of that, he's wrong. It's exceptionally easy make a list of things that you cannot do. Here ya go: You can't do anything, except what you're told you can do.
That just about covers everything, except what you're told you can do. Which is what we have. a restrictive rules set. It restricts all activity except those that are expressly granted.

You're restricted from declaring that a roll of 2+ wins you the game, because you were never told that you can do that. TADA!

I'd content that the rules set is neither, it is much more of an implied ruleset as many of the rules are written in that frame of mind.

The only comment in the entire rulebook that makes any statement about the nature of the principals of the game is: "if your not sure what the rules is or how to apply it, make one up with you opponent"

Uptopdownunder wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Idolator,
The statement that 'Can Not' Always over-writes 'Must' is too vague to be accurate, it is an absolute and does not take into account all the interactions that can occur in a game this complex. It is far better to state that a General Restriction will always over-writes General Permissions unless a Specific Exception is in play. As for the topic itself, it is already recognized as a 'broken rule' because the timing involved makes the rule... wonky.

I think the problem with the "timing" is that it is often suggested that the timing is a rigid and strict sequence when it simply isn't, it's much more abstract.

the timing is rigid. But fall within the accepted rigidity of the game. In truth all units on all sides would be moving, firing and assaulting at the same time. But it's broken down into sections for ease of play. After movement, the shooting, during the shooting you declare a target with one unit at a time, fire and remove casualties. If that unit is wiped out you don't target it with the next unit because it has been removed. Therefore the target unit never gets a chance to roll saves against the units that would have shot at it, had it not been wiped out.

The same paradigm is used in the assault phase. The assaulted unit looses the ability to shoot when it has a unit all up in it's grill. This is because of the mechanic of assault. We don't declare all assaults then work it out, we do it one unit at a time, just like shooting. Does it give an advantage to the assaulting player. Yes, but it gives it to either player that is assaulting and is upfront for all to know.

That illustrates the fluidity of the timing quite nicely.

In some instances there is a sequential manner to the game, Unit shoots and destroys something and a second unit can shoot as if it was never there, but in other instances it isn't sequential such as units charging the same unit at "different times" thus disallowing overwatch on both YET both Hammer of Wrath attacks by two charging units would be resolved at the same moment in time, Init Step 10, against all members of the target unit without casualties being removed.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
That illustrates the fluidity of the timing quite nicely.

In some instances there is a sequential manner to the game, Unit shoots and destroys something and a second unit can shoot as if it was never there, but in other instances it isn't sequential such as units charging the same unit at "different times" thus disallowing overwatch on both YET both Hammer of Wrath attacks by two charging units would be resolved at the same moment in time, Init Step 10, against all members of the target unit without casualties being removed.

That's only because GW included the Initiative aspect that breaks the assault phase into different segments and has no other instance in the game. The assault phase, in truth should be handled just like shooting, where each unit completes it's assault in total before any other charges are made. But hey! Whadayagonnado?

There are plenty of instances where things flip flop between sequential and simultaneous though out the game.

Point is time is rubbery in 40k

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

You must check for locked status before you can determine if it applies, correct?

No, it applies at all times when the unit fulfills the condition.

And how do you know if the unit fulfills the condition?

It applies at all times when the condition for the unit is met as per the rules.

And how do you know the condition is met?

You know the condition is met when it is met.

The requirement is to move the first charger into base contact so you keep checking if he is in base contact until such time as he is.

ok, but the general restriction of being locked is overridden by the specific application of charge moves on p21.

i.e. you are told that you must move all models in the unit the charge distance, within the given restrictions, in a particular way.

ergo there is no ambiguity within the rules in this case.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
ok, but the general restriction of being locked is overridden by the specific application of charge moves on p21..

Or is the general application of charge moves overridden by the specific restriction of being locked?

 nutty_nutter wrote:
ok, but the general restriction of being locked is overridden by the specific application of charge moves on p21.
i.e. you are told that you must move all models in the unit the charge distance, within the given restrictions, in a particular way.
ergo there is no ambiguity within the rules in this case.

How does that mean that a unit with an enemy model/s in B2B is not locked in combat ? Despite that being the specific definition.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
ok, but the general restriction of being locked is overridden by the specific application of charge moves on p21.

i.e. you are told that you must move all models in the unit the charge distance, within the given restrictions, in a particular way.

ergo there is no ambiguity within the rules in this case.

To be specific it would have to state "even if locked..." , otherwise the very explicit prohibition on moving other than to make pile in moves would override.

The rule book specifically tells you to move into base to base contact, it compels all models in the charging unit to move into base to base contact that's all you need.