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.

rigeld2 wrote:

GoliothOnline wrote:
I'm sorry, but 220 points for a S6 T6 5W 2+ model is absolute horse plop.

So you would have been excessively outraged at a 160 point S6 T6 4W 2+ model as well? That one moves 6" a turn. 235 to make it move 12" and teleport 30" once/game. With a Torrent S6 AP4 weapon. Who's also amazing in combat.

Nah, they're not comparable at all.

They're really not though.

The torrent flamer is good against 4+ or worse saves but it's not (potentially ignores cover) AP2, so to really do damage to anything other than 4+ or worse saves you need to get in close while the Riptide can sit back and destroy pretty much everything and anything from across the table.

They have two completely different roles, and to make the DK useful it needs to be at least 205pts (that's with no shooting) and will still not be able to assault until turn 2 at the best with a invul that can't be better than 5+. Unless you run 3 of them, Tau makes a DK cry long before it gets into assault. To make them as good as they get it will run you 260 pts, which is pretty damn high.

 Smacks wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Then what direction are you permitted to move your models? What are the listed benefits of night fight? Where is the permission to use Forgeworld models?

The fact that the 40k rules are badly written doesn't change the basic principle.

However humans are much better at interpreting instructions, putting them in context and understanding the purpose.

Tell me, have you had a look in the 40k YMDC forum recently?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Then what direction are you permitted to move your models? What are the listed benefits of night fight? Where is the permission to use Forgeworld models?

The fact that the 40k rules are badly written doesn't change the basic principle.

However humans are much better at interpreting instructions, putting them in context and understanding the purpose.

Tell me, have you had a look in the 40k YMDC forum recently?

Oh! I have! It's a $#!%#@^% mess.

Seriously, about half of YMDC is all arguments over rules that could be cleared up if people would back down and just admit that they'd play it differently than it reads but a lot of threads drag on and on because of no one wanting to stray from a reading so strict of the rule that it ends up breaking the game most of the time.

The Ion Accelerator does have the better AP, but it does scatter and it does require support to ignore cover. The torrent flamer will never scatter and will always ignore cover while never getting hot. It may only be AP4, but always having the ability to deny the enemy getting a 3+/2+ cover save by going to ground is always good.

 rabidguineapig wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

GoliothOnline wrote:
I'm sorry, but 220 points for a S6 T6 5W 2+ model is absolute horse plop.

So you would have been excessively outraged at a 160 point S6 T6 4W 2+ model as well? That one moves 6" a turn. 235 to make it move 12" and teleport 30" once/game. With a Torrent S6 AP4 weapon. Who's also amazing in combat.

Nah, they're not comparable at all.

They're really not though.

The torrent flamer is good against 4+ or worse saves but it's not (potentially ignores cover) AP2, so to really do damage to anything other than 4+ or worse saves you need to get in close while the Riptide can sit back and destroy pretty much everything and anything from across the table.

They have two completely different roles, and to make the DK useful it needs to be at least 205pts (that's with no shooting) and will still not be able to assault until turn 2 at the best with a invul that can't be better than 5+. Unless you run 3 of them, Tau makes a DK cry long before it gets into assault. To make them as good as they get it will run you 260 pts, which is pretty damn high.

Why does a weapon have to have a low AP to kill things with a good armor save?
Brainleech Devourers have no AP and I kill stuff all the time with them.

Yes, they have different roles. That's absolutely correct. The statement I quoted and addressed didn't talk about roles, just numbers.

 Smacks wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Idolator wrote:

Then what direction are you permitted to move your models? What are the listed benefits of night fight? Where is the permission to use Forgeworld models?

The fact that the 40k rules are badly written doesn't change the basic principle.

I can agree that that if rules are being written for something like a computer then they need to follow a strict structure, and every eventuality needs to be covered no matter how banal. Even minor spelling mistakes will throw a computer off.

However humans are much better at interpreting instructions, putting them in context and understanding the purpose. It is obvious that you can check LOS at any time. In fact just by looking at the table most people will instantly see all but the most difficult shots without even consciously trying. To say that you can't do this without permission is on a par with saying that "You can't stand in the same room as the game" and "you can't breath while playing (or hold your breath either) because the rules don't permit it".

I'm not saying that humans don't deserve well written rules, and there are certainly many examples from 40k that are unclear or need to be FAQed. However the Rage example I quoted was never one of them. It is beyond clear how it works. The people who insist it can't be played are either insane pedants of just being deliberately difficult.

There is also the issue that rules (especially for humans) should be concise, so they are easy to learn and digest. I would disagree that making a rule (that is already clear) longer just to appease pedants constitutes "better" writing. People don't need or want rules that are written in the painful kind of detail required by computers, it would be far more annoying to sift through than it would ever be helpful.

This is the best summation of the rules situation I have ever read. In 6 years I have not had a rule situation come up that wasn't able to be settled by simply looking at the books, there is a certain point at which we as humans trying to play a game together enters into the equation. Theoretically the book doesn't say how to do a lot of things and if you are going to walk such a literal line everything falls apart, Which is why I have always found the old unplayable schtick to be hilarious.

You can get down to every little variable between the Riptide and Dreadknight, but if you guys are honestly arguing that the DK is on par with the Riptide for effectiveness vs. point cost... I will be leaving.

The torrent flamer still only has a 12" + Template range with AP4 vs. the 72" with the IA. You have to get it into CC to really start doing damage, and when running only 1 I have rarely had luck getting them there without a massive amount of terrain.

The Riptide is cheaper (unless you want to deep strike your DK with no PT and then have it slog around 6" at a time), just as mobile, has an extra wound, can take drones, can get FNP, etc... It obviously isn't going to be destroying anyone in CC, but it doesn't have to. It sits back and is effective from turn 1 until the end of the game.

On paper, yeah they're both S6 T6 monstrous creatures with a 2+, but that is just about the extent of the similarities...

The problem is that when you start having to interpret the rules different people will have different interpretations.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The problem is that when you start having to interpret the rules different people will have different interpretations.

Anytime you read or hear someone speak you're interpreting it. Even strict RAW arguments run into this eventually where people interpret how the strict RAW works or how it all interacts (Ordnance vs PotMS for example).

There were far too many good points made by too many people for me to quote them all supporting the "permissive rule set is a fallacy" stance for me to quote them all. Good examples though.

I'm not a huge fan of GW or their policies and I think that many of their policies of late are terrible, that being said, by and large the basic rules of the 40K are fairly well written. I may not agree with some of their inclusions (flyers,allies,etc) or the mechanics thereof but they are for the most part, clear. (This is from a mechanics standpoint not from a balance standpoint, which is poo.)

Until, someone makes the assertion that; actions not specifically enumerated are forbidden. It is only through this mindlessly narrow view that the rules appear to be unplayable. It's the crux of my point. That view doesn't even allow humans to play the game as there is nothing stating that the players may breath or touch the models with their hands. Let's get beyond that and look at the mechanics. As I pointed out, following that incredibly narrow view, there is no way to move the models as there is no general instruction on which direction the models may move.

Then there's the rule book itself stating that the rules don't cover everything that can happen. Which is impossible if the rules forbid any action not listed, because that would be everything.

Meaning that the first thing that you have to do, in order to play the game, is ignore the rules.

Then there is the ridiculous use of language that really kills me. Permission can only be given after limits (restrictions) have been put into place. Stating "You can't do anything unless I tell you that you can." Is the antithesis of permissive. It is however a good example of oppressive. One also has to absolutely torture the English language beyond recognition to classify compulsory mandates as "permission".

Or........it could just be a set of rules that give instructions, sets limits and dictates certain actions.

It also doesn't say I just can't simply knock you out and declare myself automatic winner if we're going down that stupid route.

English is already a tortured language. I mean "literally" now can mean "figuratively".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The problem is that when you start having to interpret the rules different people will have different interpretations.

Anytime you read or hear someone speak you're interpreting it. Even strict RAW arguments run into this eventually where people interpret how the strict RAW works or how it all interacts (Ordnance vs PotMS for example).

Or even things that are crystal clear, but someone just has some reading comprehension trouble, and then feels like being stubborn. There was a thread in YMDC the other day where one guy was arguing that weapons with the ignore cover rule don't ignore cover.

 Portugal Jones wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The problem is that when you start having to interpret the rules different people will have different interpretations.

Anytime you read or hear someone speak you're interpreting it. Even strict RAW arguments run into this eventually where people interpret how the strict RAW works or how it all interacts (Ordnance vs PotMS for example).

Or even things that are crystal clear, but someone just has some reading comprehension trouble, and then feels like being stubborn. There was a thread in YMDC the other day where one guy was arguing that weapons with the ignore cover rule don't ignore cover.

That's the other half of them.

And I saw that one. It was aimed at Ignores Cover vs Vehicles.

 Portugal Jones wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The problem is that when you start having to interpret the rules different people will have different interpretations.

Anytime you read or hear someone speak you're interpreting it. Even strict RAW arguments run into this eventually where people interpret how the strict RAW works or how it all interacts (Ordnance vs PotMS for example).

Or even things that are crystal clear, but someone just has some reading comprehension trouble, and then feels like being stubborn. There was a thread in YMDC the other day where one guy was arguing that weapons with the ignore cover rule don't ignore cover.

Of course. It doesn't say I can't ignore the ignore cove rule anywhere in the rulebook.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The problem is that when you start having to interpret the rules different people will have different interpretations.

Anytime you read or hear someone speak you're interpreting it. Even strict RAW arguments run into this eventually where people interpret how the strict RAW works or how it all interacts (Ordnance vs PotMS for example).

Or even things that are crystal clear, but someone just has some reading comprehension trouble, and then feels like being stubborn. There was a thread in YMDC the other day where one guy was arguing that weapons with the ignore cover rule don't ignore cover.

Of course. It doesn't say I can't ignore the ignore cove rule anywhere in the rulebook.

Actually the argument was that it didn't apply to vehicles because the rule mentions "wounds".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Actually the argument was that it didn't apply to vehicles because the rule mentions "wounds".

I'm doing a callback to another individual's daft assertion in this thread.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Actually the argument was that it didn't apply to vehicles because the rule mentions "wounds".

I'm doing a callback to another individual's daft assertion in this thread.

Like I said, YMDC is a mess.

 Grimtuff wrote:
It also doesn't say I just can't simply knock you out and declare myself automatic winner if we're going down that stupid route.

This is hard for you, I can tell, because you didn't address any of the points. But, I will address your fully thought out and cogent point (that had absolutely nothing to do with my statements) with all deserving respect.

So sure, you can commit the crime that you mentioned any time that you wanted and you would indeed be the winner of the match (not automatic winner though, you did have to perform an extreme action to cause your opponent to lose). I wouldn't suggest it however. As the rules for 40K don't exist in a vacuum. Provided that you survived the attempt, it would probably be the last game that you actually played for a while.

The rules are not a binary function. The "all or nothing" argument is hogwash.

As is the "argument" of "It doesn't say I can't"...

Rulebooks tell you what you can do. Nothing more.

 Grimtuff wrote:
As is the "argument" of "It doesn't say I can't"...

Rulebooks tell you what you can do. Nothing more.

I still see that you're having a tough time. Could you please point out when I made that statement.

That statement is just as wrong headed as the fallacious and oxymoronic "permissive rule set" argument.

Edit

Plus, the second part "Rulebooks tell you what you can do. Nothing more" is just plain incorrect. As evidenced with this statement from the rules.

"immobilized walkers cannot pivot"

Edit again.

Come to think of it, that second statement destroys your own argument. Since requiring an enumerated allowance immediately disallows all other actions.

 Idolator wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
As is the "argument" of "It doesn't say I can't"...

Rulebooks tell you what you can do. Nothing more.

I still see that you're having a tough time. Could you please point out when I made that statement.

That statement is just as wrong headed as the fallacious and oxymoronic "permissive rule set" argument.

Edit

Plus, the second part "Rulebooks tell you what you can do. Nothing more" is just plain incorrect. As evidenced with this statement from the rules.

"immobilized walkers cannot pivot"

For the game to work, he is right. And having a rulebook flat out say it doesn't cover every occurance that comes up is bad. You should look at other games. Yes, Warmachine still has a dice off mechanic, but I've never had a situation in that game that required it nor is it lacking to cover almost any gap that comes up.

And yes, games must be a permissive ruleset in general. Otherwise the game would be "free to do whatever you want until told otherwise." The argument of "Well I can do this because it doesn't say I can't" is quite pervasive if you choose to walk down the other path. Stop acting like your smug and/or high and mighty for "figuring something out" that's usually debated at length. Unless you're an accredited game designer with some sort of actual insight, then you're at best fanning flames and at worst being absolutely counter productive to the discussion at hand.

The most ridiculous thing in 40k is usually whatever is the newest printed item. Pretty much everything from the December to Remember event forward is a case of "of course you can do X now... lemme guess, you paid $15 to do X, right?" GW is selling special rules now. Take units outside of the force org at standard points cost with almost zero llimitations that get extra benefits for free. That's the most ridiculous thing in 40k as it's completely outside any form of rational thought or design.

 TheKbob wrote:


For the game to work, he is right. And having a rulebook flat out say it doesn't cover every occurance that comes up is bad. You should look at other games. Yes, Warmachine still has a dice off mechanic, but I've never had a situation in that game that required it nor is it lacking to cover almost any gap that comes up.

And yes, games must be a permissive ruleset in general. Otherwise the game would be "free to do whatever you want until told otherwise." The argument of "Well I can do this because it doesn't say I can't" is quite pervasive if you choose to walk down the other path. Stop acting like your smug and/or high and mighty for "figuring something out" that's usually debated at length. Unless you're an accredited game designer with some sort of actual insight, then you're at best fanning flames and at worst being absolutely counter productive to the discussion at hand.

You guys make excellent arguments against statements that I never made and against position that I have not taken. My hat's off to you.

The rest becomes a bit convoluted after the word "path".

Especially since the discussion at hand is "ridiculous things that you've heard from people in 40k"

Honestly, though! If you can give me a definition of "Permissive rule set" from a legitimate source I would be surprised.

PS. I don't have a Spanish Mastiff/Pug mix. I did have a cat but he passed away last year.

 TheKbob wrote:
For the game to work, he is right. And having a rulebook flat out say it doesn't cover every occurance that comes up is bad. You should look at other games. Yes, Warmachine still has a dice off mechanic, but I've never had a situation in that game that required it nor is it lacking to cover almost any gap that comes up.

You are mixing up points here. We all agree that 40k has rules which are unclear. That does not mean that all parts which are not written according to the "permissive" paradigm are unclear. It is not unreasonable for the creators to make certain assumptions about the reader when writing. Things like:

- They are human,
- They are alive,
- They understand what a 'game' is,
- They have played games before involving turns

These (and a million others that aren't worth mentioning) are all reasonable assumptions. They don't need to be written in the rules, and if they were it would just be annoying because as readers we don't want to be patronized with irrelevant nonsense.

And yes, games must be a permissive ruleset in general. Otherwise the game would be "free to do whatever you want until told otherwise." The argument of "Well I can do this because it doesn't say I can't" is quite pervasive if you choose to walk down the other path.

This is only true if you have absolutely no powers of reasoning or judgement. All the examples like "I could just beat-up my opponent and declare myself the winner, because the rules don't say I can't" are contrived and silly. The people who spout these know that they are absurd, so I can only suppose that they do this on purpose to prove a point (reductio ad absurdum). This would work against someone arguing that the rules are "restrictive", but against someone arguing that the rules require a reasonable level of judgement, the argument is self defeating because it implies none.

The rules don't need to say anything about "beating-up" your opponent, because that is outside the scope of the game. The rules assume that both players are alive and conscious for the duration of the game, this is a reasonable assumption that doesn't need to be written down. Even if players do have a fight during the game, what difference does it make? So long as they return to conclude the game: none. The rules also list victory conditions for the game, declaring yourself the winner on turn one is not among them, but that does not mean it is not allowed, we just generally assume that it isn't because it is A: absurd, and B: quite an important exception not to be on the the list. However if your opponent decides to abandon the game... Well then you might be justified in declaring yourself the winner, and I'm sure many players and TOs would agree with you. Even thought the specific circumstances might not have been anticipated by the designer (opponent spontaneously turned into a bowl for fruit).

I ask again, have you actually been in the YMDC forum? You're placing far too much faith in people's interpretations syncing up 100% of the time, and by extension excusing 40k's gak rule writing.

 Grimtuff wrote:
I ask again, have you actually been in the YMDC forum? You're placing far too much faith in people's interpretations syncing up 100% of the time, and by extension excusing 40k's gak rule writing.

Seconded, thirded an so forth.

 Smacks wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
For the game to work, he is right. And having a rulebook flat out say it doesn't cover every occurance that comes up is bad. You should look at other games. Yes, Warmachine still has a dice off mechanic, but I've never had a situation in that game that required it nor is it lacking to cover almost any gap that comes up.

You are mixing up points here. We all agree that 40k has rules which are unclear. That does not mean that all parts which are not written according to the "permissive" paradigm are unclear. It is not unreasonable for the creators to make certain assumptions about the reader when writing. Things like 'they are human' and 'they are alive' and that they understand what a game constitutes, and have played games before involving turns. These are reasonable assumptions. They don't need to be written in the rules, and if they were it would just be annoying because as readers we don't want to be patronized with irrelevant nonsense.

And yes, games must be a permissive ruleset in general. Otherwise the game would be "free to do whatever you want until told otherwise." The argument of "Well I can do this because it doesn't say I can't" is quite pervasive if you choose to walk down the other path.

This is only true if you have absolutely no powers of reasoning or judgement. All the examples like "I could just beat-up my opponent and declare myself the winner, because the rules don't say I can't" are contrived and silly. The people who spout these know that they are absurd, so I can only suppose that they do this on purpose to prove a point (reductio ad absurdum). This would work against someone arguing that the rules are "restrictive", but against someone arguing that the rules require a reasonable level of judgement, the argument is self defeating because it implies none.

The rules don't need to say anything about "beating-up" your opponent, because that is outside the scope of the game. The rules assume that both players are alive and conscious for the duration of the game, this is a reasonable assumption that doesn't need to be written down. Even if players do have a fight during the game, what difference does it make? So long as they return to conclude the game: none. The rules also list victory conditions for the game, declaring yourself the winner on turn one is not among them, but that does not mean it is not allowed, we just generally assume that it isn't because it is A: absurd, and B: quite an important exception not to be on the the list. However if your opponent decides to abandon the game... Well then you might be justified in declaring yourself the winner, and I'm sure many players and TOs would agree with you. Even thought the specific circumstances might not have been anticipated by the designer (opponent spontaneously turned into a bowl for fruit).

It doesn't matter. You cannot give reasoning and logic as an argument for situations within the game with conflicting rules that are purely mechanics based. Or times when GW has purely FAQd against reasoning and logic.

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't apply to "game logic".

Chess is a definitive permissive ruleset. Each piece may only move in set number of fashions. It's the perfect example. As complexity increases, to even include random number generation, the idea of game development is the same: the rules limit to what you are allowed to do.

When the company fails to use this judgement, they shift into a non-permissive mentality, and this can flaw the game and introduce conflict. Complexity lends to this happening.

It's essentially law, but inverse. Proper law functions under the mentality that you must define what is illegal. Trying to write laws for everything that is legal would be asinine and would be a nanny state; nanny laws don't work. See prohibition for this fact, the US alcohol prohibition of the 1920s and the current drug prohibition. Yes, this is a bit off topic, but the it's the extreme example of the opposite.

A good game is a permissive ruleset and only uses non-permissive in very, very rare circumstances. Since a game is less complex than Real Life™, it's much easier to write what you can and are allowed to do within the confines then to build the ruleset around what you aren't allowed to do. Warhammer 40k is written by trying to do both. What people mean when they say 40k is a permissive ruleset, it means it SHOULD be permissive as this is good game design. My guy is in close combat with your guy. When is he allowed to punch? At his iniative. How many times can he punch? As many as his attack profile allows for. Does my opponent get armor saves? Yes, unless I my melee attacks have an armor penetration value equal to or "greater" than their armor save value (greater in the AP2> AP3 > Ap4, etc. context).

It's when you cannot do one of these things within standard application becomes wonky and must be addressed. I have a power fist but I consolidate into combat "at initiative". My iniative is stat is 4 on a space marine, but I'm at initiative 1 because of unwieldy. This caused confusion for a long time, it wasn't clear what was intended, and was later FAQd for clarity. This was when they used non-permissive rules. The examples of such are pervasive throughout Warhammer 40k and I'd bet a major cause of butthurt within YMDC.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
GW has pretty much said "no, don't do that" when strict RAW pops up.

Well, except for the times they've said 'Oops, yeah, go with what the book says...'

 Grimtuff wrote:
You're placing far too much faith in people's interpretations syncing up 100% of the time, and by extension excusing 40k's gak rule writing.

If it makes you happy: yes I have been there, and I have argued with Gwar ad topic lock...

But I'm actually not placing too much faith in people at all. I clearly stated that we all agree that there are parts of the rules that are unclear. And I am not excusing the 40k rule writing at all. I agree with you that there is vast room for improvement. We are in agreement on these points.

What I don't agree with however is that the rules are expressly "permissive" because they clearly aren't. Most need some level of interpretation. Some as you say need clarification. Others can only reasonably be misunderstood on purpose (usually by rules lawyers trying to make a point).



Hi, yes I complete agree with you. It should be permissive to an extent. My point is really that even a permissive ruleset would probably depend on some reasonable assumptions. And the case I was discussing of not being able to check LOS during the movement phase, is an example of that. However there were "certain rules lawyers" who insisted that this wasn't possible because the rules are 'permissive' and this was NOT expressly 'permitted'. Even though anyone with the ability to see, would likely do it anyway just by looking at the table.

 insaniak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
GW has pretty much said "no, don't do that" when strict RAW pops up.

Well, except for the times they've said 'Oops, yeah, go with what the book says...'

But only when the feel that it fits the "Spirit of the Game" better and isn't basically "cheesedickery".