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:

Zodiark wrote:
There is no game that has a pure permissive or pure restrictive ruleset and you will not find any because they would never work.

This game, you are told clearly, what you can and cannot do. If a rule does not state you cannot do something, then you can. If it states you can, then you can. If it states you cannot, then you cannot.

There is no argument here, zero room for debate or interpretation.

This is critical thinking, logic at its core and you cannot debate this.

The underlined is false.
No rule states I cannot hit your models with a hammer. According to the underlined sentence, I can.

Seriously - the underlined sentence shows your problem in understanding how rules work. It's simply, incontrovertibly, 100% false. In any game system.
When talking about laws, it's true - there's no law saying you can't have a dance competition, so you can. That doesn't work for game rules however, so it's simply not true.

Hollismason wrote:
Read my previous statement, it's not just a Permissive ruleset, it by it's very nature is interpretive and restrictive as well as permissive.

This whole idea of "permissive" is a false ideology that people are holding onto like it's some sort of eternal flame of truth they will burn away all doubts with.

It's not the games meant to be interpretitive.

If was actually a permissive ruleset. We would not have YMDC at all.

Chess is a Permissive ruleset or you could call it Restrictive.

You can start a game of chess and then start playing the pawns like queens because you only have permission to move them a certain way.


Again, if it was an actual permissive ruleset we would not have YMDC. That's the huge logical fallacy this whole idea is built on.

No, the reason we have YMDC is because of how poorly the rules are worded.

Who cares about chess? We're talking about 40k.

That link I posted explains the basic premise quite clearly.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
There is no game that has a pure permissive or pure restrictive ruleset and you will not find any because they would never work.

This game, you are told clearly, what you can and cannot do. If a rule does not state you cannot do something, then you can. If it states you can, then you can. If it states you cannot, then you cannot.

There is no argument here, zero room for debate or interpretation.

This is critical thinking, logic at its core and you cannot debate this.

The underlined is false.
No rule states I cannot hit your models with a hammer. According to the underlined sentence, I can.

I think a better example would be that the rules don't say I can't have my models stand on top of a Land Raider, therefore I can have devastators stand on a Land Raider.

Zodiark, 40k is a permissive ruleset with restrictive elements. That does not, however, change that it is a permissive ruleset. As rigeld has pointed out, if 40k is not a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable.

And if it is treated only as a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable as well. Believe it or not you can actually have a compromise.

Everyone together now, C - O - M - P - R - I - S - E

Okay children again!

C - O - M - P - R - I - S - E


Now isn't it great to work together , Hurray!

Hollismason wrote:
It you follow the rules,only holding to the idea that it is a permissive ruleset the game breaks because at some point if you do not interpret a rule or the way a specific situation is carried out and you don't interpret it then you can not move forward your "stuck". You have to actually at some point interpret what you are reading and how a situation should resolve or how you think it should resolve.

That's called 'poor rules writing'. It has nothing to do with being permissive or restrictive.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
2. It is common knowledge to all gamers, except the one in 40k for some reason, that games are a combination of permissive/restrictive. No arguing this point.

Yes - but they are at a base permissive. Unlike laws which are, at a base, restrictive.

You're not understanding what "premissive" means. It doesn't mean that the only thing existing is permission - it means that if you don't have a rule allowing it, you can't do it. If you do, and there's nothing removing that permission, you can do it.

Permissive: Granting or inclined to grant permission; tolerant or lenient

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/permissive

The definition changes depending on where you look hence why YMDC restricts the use of dictionary definitions.

Permissive as an adjective according to google is: allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behavior.


We have the freedom to decide how to play things in this game when conflict arises, we all agree on this.

Zodiark wrote:
Is hitting my models with a hammer a valid tactic in the game, no, then you cannot.

What rule says that? According to you, if there isn't a rule saying I can't, then I can.
There's no rule saying I can't. Why can't I?

You are looking for an exact sentence stating what you can and cannot do in every situation and this is physically impossible.

No, I'm not. Again, you're misunderstanding.
I have permission to ignore Nightfighting with a Searchlight. So of course I can just ignore it at will, right? Oh, I need permission to ignore the Nightfighting rules? Gee, I wonder if the rules tell me that...

When something comes into question, unless you see a sentence stating in the affirmative you claim that you cannot because you are looking for that specific sentence.

Please reword this as I don't understand it.

GW has allowed the players to find their own solutions to solves issues when something does not specifically state a yes or no answer, you roll for it.

Even this though is still a permissive/restrictive based system as you need a roll or an agreement of some sort to proceed to the next step.

YMDC Tenet #1.

Hollismason wrote:
And if it is treated only as a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable as well.

What? No.

There's a difference between debating if the game is permissive/restrictive, and understanding that the game can also just be awfully written.

 erick99 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
There is no game that has a pure permissive or pure restrictive ruleset and you will not find any because they would never work.

This game, you are told clearly, what you can and cannot do. If a rule does not state you cannot do something, then you can. If it states you can, then you can. If it states you cannot, then you cannot.

There is no argument here, zero room for debate or interpretation.

This is critical thinking, logic at its core and you cannot debate this.

The underlined is false.
No rule states I cannot hit your models with a hammer. According to the underlined sentence, I can.

I think a better example would be that the rules don't say I can't have my models stand on top of a Land Raider, therefore I can have devastators stand on a Land Raider.

Zodiark, 40k is a permissive ruleset with restrictive elements. That does not, however, change that it is a permissive ruleset. As rigeld has pointed out, if 40k is not a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable.

The last sentence is false.

Games are a combination of permissive and restrictive, telling you what you can or cannot do.

Why do you keep asserting that they are not?

Hollismason wrote:
And if it is treated only as a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable as well.

No one is saying to treat it as purely permissive. There clearly are restrictive elements, but treating it as anything else doesn't work. Though it has a lot to do with the poor wording of the rules.

Hollismason wrote:
And if it is treated only as a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable as well.

No, it doesn't. Well, it only does because of poor rules writers. With correctly written rules it wouldn't be unplayable - I can point to plenty of games where that's true.
Because this isn't a 40k specific thing - it's a fact of game design.

rigeld2 wrote:
It doesn't mean that the only thing existing is permission - it means that if you don't have a rule allowing it, you can't do it. If you do, and there's nothing removing that permission, you can do it.

This is the self-evident answer. As such, debate on the matter is purely academic. I am therefore moving the thread out of YMDC to 40k Discussions.

Zodiark wrote:

 erick99 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
There is no game that has a pure permissive or pure restrictive ruleset and you will not find any because they would never work.

This game, you are told clearly, what you can and cannot do. If a rule does not state you cannot do something, then you can. If it states you can, then you can. If it states you cannot, then you cannot.

There is no argument here, zero room for debate or interpretation.

This is critical thinking, logic at its core and you cannot debate this.

The underlined is false.
No rule states I cannot hit your models with a hammer. According to the underlined sentence, I can.

I think a better example would be that the rules don't say I can't have my models stand on top of a Land Raider, therefore I can have devastators stand on a Land Raider.

Zodiark, 40k is a permissive ruleset with restrictive elements. That does not, however, change that it is a permissive ruleset. As rigeld has pointed out, if 40k is not a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable.

The last sentence is false.

Games are a combination of permissive and restrictive, telling you what you can or cannot do.

Why do you keep asserting that they are not?

I underlined where he literally said exactly that. Like - almost word for word.

Friend just asked a good question as I read through the responses.

How old, roughly speaking are all of you.

Older mindsets tend to favor the concept of a permissive ruleset for games as they came from an era when permission for everything was required, whereas younger mindsets realize that things are both permissive and restrictive.

Don't tell me your ages, just think about that for a second, the longer you've been playing this, you are more biased towards a permissive ruleset as this is how you have been playing for years, but this does not make it a permissive ruleset game, just a mindset.

Hollismason wrote:
And if it is treated only as a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable as well. Believe it or not you can actually have a compromise.

Everyone together now, C - O - M - P - R - I - S - E

Okay children again!

C - O - M - P - R - I - S - E


Now isn't it great to work together , Hurray!

Fully supported, Mr Mason. Thought I'd just mention this before the page 3 lock!

Hollismason wrote:
And if it is treated only as a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable as well.

It is, at its core, a permissive ruleset.

A permissive ruleset is one where you can not take actions unless the rules allow for those actions to take place. all permissive rulesets will have certain rules that override the basic permissions.

In chess we see we can only move our pawn forward one space. When using a pawn to capture however it can only capture diagonally. this is a rule that overrides the basic permission. The same goes for Knights, pieces can not move through other pieces, except for the knight.

We see this in Monopoly as well. The basic rules tell us to roll the dice and move that many number of spaces, if you roll doubles you get to roll again. However there is a restriction that if you roll 3 doubles in a row, you do not move on the third pair and instead proceed directly to jail without passing Go.

Zodiark wrote:
Older mindsets tend to favor the concept of a permissive ruleset for games as they came from an era when permission for everything was required, whereas younger mindsets realize that things are both permissive and restrictive.

Even Monopoly has its restrictions...

Permissive rulesets will have some restrictions, but they are still, at their core, permissive. you can not do anything unless the rules allow you to take that action. That, at its core, is what a permissive ruleset is. This includes the restrictions that override already given permissions.

Restrictive rulesets are different. They tell you what you can not do, and everything else is allowed. Say there is a game where you can do anything you want, except you may not sing while you are within the confines of the bathroom at any time, this includes the door being open or closed, there is no singing in the bathroom. so you can stand outside the bathroom and sing into it, but once you are within the confines of the bathroom at any time you may no longer sing.

Playing the age card eh?

"Oh well I'm a veteran of 30 years of hard gaming. Got these scars from the great Die Casting of '67. Was a pretty rough time for gamers back in the day. We didn't have fancy things like permissions or restrictions. Just good ole fashioned Calvin Ball antics.

You kids these days have it much nicer."

Please.

The ruleset is permissive. There are restrictions to further define the game. Its that simple.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 erick99 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
There is no game that has a pure permissive or pure restrictive ruleset and you will not find any because they would never work.

This game, you are told clearly, what you can and cannot do. If a rule does not state you cannot do something, then you can. If it states you can, then you can. If it states you cannot, then you cannot.

There is no argument here, zero room for debate or interpretation.

This is critical thinking, logic at its core and you cannot debate this.

The underlined is false.
No rule states I cannot hit your models with a hammer. According to the underlined sentence, I can.

I think a better example would be that the rules don't say I can't have my models stand on top of a Land Raider, therefore I can have devastators stand on a Land Raider.

Zodiark, 40k is a permissive ruleset with restrictive elements. That does not, however, change that it is a permissive ruleset. As rigeld has pointed out, if 40k is not a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable.

The last sentence is false.

Games are a combination of permissive and restrictive, telling you what you can or cannot do.

Why do you keep asserting that they are not?

I underlined where he literally said exactly that. Like - almost word for word.

A permissive ruleset with restrictive elements is in fact a combination of permissive and restrictive.

He, like you continues to think that it is not a combination, though you both agree that permissive can have things you cannot do as well.

1. Permissive rulesets tell you what you can do, anything not listed there you cannot do.
2. Restrictive rulesets tell you what you cannot do, anything not listed there you can do.

Neither of these works alone, ever. The game breaks every time.

Hence.

3. Combination of permissive and restrictive, games telling you what you can and cannot do, hence what we have for 40k and every game ever made.

Otherwise games would fall apart or worse, we end up bickering like old hens.

Zodiark wrote:
Friend just asked a good question as I read through the responses.

How old, roughly speaking are all of you.

Older mindsets tend to favor the concept of a permissive ruleset for games as they came from an era when permission for everything was required, whereas younger mindsets realize that things are both permissive and restrictive.

Don't tell me your ages, just think about that for a second, the longer you've been playing this, you are more biased towards a permissive ruleset as this is how you have been playing for years, but this does not make it a permissive ruleset game, just a mindset.

...
Seriously? After all the examples showing you that you're wrong, you bring age into it? I'm not even that old!
Found a reason I can't smash your models with a hammer yet?

Hollismason wrote:
And if it is treated only as a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable as well. Believe it or not you can actually have a compromise.

Everyone together now, C - O - M - P - R - I - S - E

Okay children again!

C - O - M - P - R - I - S - E


Now isn't it great to work together , Hurray!

Man, the embarrassment of making a snarky post with two significant spelling errors.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
And if it is treated only as a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable as well.

It is, at its core, a permissive ruleset.

A permissive ruleset is one where you can not take actions unless the rules allow for those actions to take place. all permissive rulesets will have certain rules that override the basic permissions.

In chess we see we can only move our pawn forward one space. When using a pawn to capture however it can only capture diagonally. this is a rule that overrides the basic permission. The same goes for Knights, pieces can not move through other pieces, except for the knight.

We see this in Monopoly as well. The basic rules tell us to roll the dice and move that many number of spaces, if you roll doubles you get to roll again. However there is a restriction that if you roll 3 doubles in a row, you do not move on the third pair and instead proceed directly to jail without passing Go.

Except in chess you are told explicitly how units cannot move as well. For instance a Knight can never move straight, a Bishop on a Black square can never go on a White and vice versa. You see how this is a combination of both?

 Blacksails wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
And if it is treated only as a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable as well.

What? No.

There's a difference between debating if the game is permissive/restrictive, and understanding that the game can also just be awfully written.

In order to communicate our thoughts and feelings like I am doing now, we as human beings use English which is what we call the language that we speak. Other countries like France, speak different languages than us. Have you ever been to France?

Now, when we write words down like I am doing now, this creates a sentence. It's very important to read a sentence carefully and understand the words that are in that sentence. If you don't you can refer to a dictionary.

It's important to be as clear and precise as you can when you leave written instructions for someone, but sometimes you may not be clear enough for them to understand. They will have to interpret those words and that sentence to understand what you mean.

That's easy though we interpret words and their meanings ever day in the world through the use of context. It's important to understand the context of some sentences in order to get their full meaning. If say Bobby left you a note asking you to shut the door when you left and you took a nail gun, murdered a cow, then used it's body to seal the door shut that would not be correct even if you interpreted that note to mean that, you would have to use common sense to know that Bobby did not want you to take a nail gun, kill a cow, and use it to seal the door shut. We would also put you in special class and possibly counseling.

Zodiark wrote:

Spoiler:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 erick99 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
There is no game that has a pure permissive or pure restrictive ruleset and you will not find any because they would never work.

This game, you are told clearly, what you can and cannot do. If a rule does not state you cannot do something, then you can. If it states you can, then you can. If it states you cannot, then you cannot.

There is no argument here, zero room for debate or interpretation.

This is critical thinking, logic at its core and you cannot debate this.

The underlined is false.
No rule states I cannot hit your models with a hammer. According to the underlined sentence, I can.

I think a better example would be that the rules don't say I can't have my models stand on top of a Land Raider, therefore I can have devastators stand on a Land Raider.

Zodiark, 40k is a permissive ruleset with restrictive elements. That does not, however, change that it is a permissive ruleset. As rigeld has pointed out, if 40k is not a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable.

The last sentence is false.

Games are a combination of permissive and restrictive, telling you what you can or cannot do.

Why do you keep asserting that they are not?

I underlined where he literally said exactly that. Like - almost word for word.

A permissive ruleset with restrictive elements is in fact a combination of permissive and restrictive.

He, like you continues to think that it is not a combination, though you both agree that permissive can have things you cannot do as well.

1. Permissive rulesets tell you what you can do, anything not listed there you cannot do.
2. Restrictive rulesets tell you what you cannot do, anything not listed there you can do.

Neither of these works alone, ever. The game breaks every time.

Hence.

3. Combination of permissive and restrictive, games telling you what you can and cannot do, hence what we have for 40k and every game ever made.

Otherwise games would fall apart or worse, we end up bickering like old hens.

Didn't I just say basically that?

erick99 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
And if it is treated only as a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable as well.

No one is saying to treat it as purely permissive. There clearly are restrictive elements, but treating it as anything else doesn't work. Though it has a lot to do with the poor wording of the rules.

Zodiark wrote:
3. Combination of permissive and restrictive, games telling you what you can and cannot do, hence what we have for 40k and every game ever made.

...
Which is what people have been saying literally from the start. You have a permissive base and can add restrictions or additional permissions on top of that.
It's still a permissive rule set because you have to have permission to do something in the first place. If you don't have permission, you can't do it. How hard is that to understand?

Wait - you're simply hung up on the name? It's called a permissive rule set because at its basis, you have to have permission to do things. You can't just drive a tank onto the board (like - a literal 65 ton tank) and claim you won - that'd be cheating.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Friend just asked a good question as I read through the responses.

How old, roughly speaking are all of you.

Older mindsets tend to favor the concept of a permissive ruleset for games as they came from an era when permission for everything was required, whereas younger mindsets realize that things are both permissive and restrictive.

Don't tell me your ages, just think about that for a second, the longer you've been playing this, you are more biased towards a permissive ruleset as this is how you have been playing for years, but this does not make it a permissive ruleset game, just a mindset.

...
Seriously? After all the examples showing you that you're wrong, you bring age into it? I'm not even that old!
Found a reason I can't smash your models with a hammer yet?

Sorry, where was I proven wrong? Still not seeing it lol.

All I have seen are claims that this game is a permissive ruleset with elements of restrictive rulesets which in fact makes it a combination of both, thus proving my point.

Everything else has been opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
3. Combination of permissive and restrictive, games telling you what you can and cannot do, hence what we have for 40k and every game ever made.

...
Which is what people have been saying literally from the start. You have a permissive base and can add restrictions or additional permissions on top of that.
It's still a permissive rule set because you have to have permission to do something in the first place. If you don't have permission, you can't do it. How hard is that to understand?

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.

When something uses a combination of more than one thing, it is considered to be both, not one with a little bit of another.

Hence, a combination of permissive and restrictive. Again, this is LOGIC man, you cannot dispute logic with anything but logic

Hollismason wrote:

-snip-

So you write a condescending post with the intention of...what?

If you have a point to make, make it.

If not, leave out the condescension and post somewhere else.

 erick99 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

Spoiler:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 erick99 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
There is no game that has a pure permissive or pure restrictive ruleset and you will not find any because they would never work.

This game, you are told clearly, what you can and cannot do. If a rule does not state you cannot do something, then you can. If it states you can, then you can. If it states you cannot, then you cannot.

There is no argument here, zero room for debate or interpretation.

This is critical thinking, logic at its core and you cannot debate this.

The underlined is false.
No rule states I cannot hit your models with a hammer. According to the underlined sentence, I can.

I think a better example would be that the rules don't say I can't have my models stand on top of a Land Raider, therefore I can have devastators stand on a Land Raider.

Zodiark, 40k is a permissive ruleset with restrictive elements. That does not, however, change that it is a permissive ruleset. As rigeld has pointed out, if 40k is not a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable.

The last sentence is false.

Games are a combination of permissive and restrictive, telling you what you can or cannot do.

Why do you keep asserting that they are not?

I underlined where he literally said exactly that. Like - almost word for word.

A permissive ruleset with restrictive elements is in fact a combination of permissive and restrictive.

He, like you continues to think that it is not a combination, though you both agree that permissive can have things you cannot do as well.

1. Permissive rulesets tell you what you can do, anything not listed there you cannot do.
2. Restrictive rulesets tell you what you cannot do, anything not listed there you can do.

Neither of these works alone, ever. The game breaks every time.

Hence.

3. Combination of permissive and restrictive, games telling you what you can and cannot do, hence what we have for 40k and every game ever made.

Otherwise games would fall apart or worse, we end up bickering like old hens.

Didn't I just say basically that?

erick99 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
And if it is treated only as a permissive ruleset then the game becomes unplayable as well.

No one is saying to treat it as purely permissive. There clearly are restrictive elements, but treating it as anything else doesn't work. Though it has a lot to do with the poor wording of the rules.

Permissive ruleset + restrictive elements = Permissive/Restrictive rulesets.

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

Zodiark wrote:
Except in chess you are told explicitly how units cannot move as well. For instance a Knight can never move straight, a Bishop on a Black square can never go on a White and vice versa. You see how this is a combination of both?

It isnt because chess is not a restrictive ruleset.

It has some restrictions, but that is not the same as being a restrictive ruleset.

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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Zodiark wrote:
Except in chess you are told explicitly how units cannot move as well. For instance a Knight can never move straight, a Bishop on a Black square can never go on a White and vice versa. You see how this is a combination of both?

It isnt because chess is not a restrictive ruleset.

It has some restrictions, but that is not the same as being a restrictive ruleset.

No, chess is both permissive and restrictive