Inclusive vs. Exclusive Clause

[Zedrenael]

You know what I have noticed mostly about what is going on with 6th Edition and all the rules debate. Is that every argument can be solved by an Inclusive vs. Exclusive clause in the rulebook. For example:

 

Does a flying monstrous creature glide after a failed grounding test?

Due to losing its jink save and ability to not be assaulted. Is it:

A ) Inclusive - Now Gliding

B ) Exclusive - Still Swooping

 

Does a transport vehicle that wrecks/explodes prevent the assault squad from assaulting in the next player turns assault phase?

Disembarkation Restrictions (p.79)

"After disembarking, models can shoot, counting as having moved, or choose to Run in their subsequent Shooting phase, but cannot declare a charge in their subsequent Assault phase."

A ) Inclusive - They can assault in the next player's turn. Being that the subsequent Assault phase is in the same player's turn in which the vehicle was destroyed during the shooting phase.

B ) Exclusive - No they are not allowed to assault. Being that they next subsequent assault phase in which they can "act" they are unable to.

 

Does a Archon recieve the fortune power from being with a squad of Harlequins to get a re-rollable 2+ save?

Harlequins can be found in both codexes. They share an entry in the BRB.

A ) Inclusive - Becuase they can be found in both codexes they are consider, for all intensive purposes, the same entry. So the Archon benefits from the 2+ FnP.

B ) Exclusive - They are not the same entry. They are bought seperately and the Archon is never consider to be part of a "Eldar" squad so will not benefit from fortune.

 

What all this truly breaks down to is

Inclusive: If it doesn't say you can't do it. It means that you can by not arguing that you can't.

Exclusive: If it doesn't say you can't do it. It means you can't do it.

 

What do you guys think? Would this clause solve a lot of the current rules issues that people are having? Does it make sense or should I elaborate more?

[Gentlemanloser]

40k has always been a permissive ruleset.

 

You can only do it if you're told you can.

[Zedrenael]

Where is the rule for this then?

 

Why are there so many arguments about it doesnt say I can't so I can.

 

Grey Knight Death Cult Assassins two power weapons being Power Axe and Power Sword instead of just two swords? These all stem from an inclusive vs exclusive argument.

[Gentlemanloser]

What rule?

 

40k tells you how to play, and what to do to play. If the BRB doesn't tell you something, you don't do it.

 

Why are there so many arguments about it doesnt say I can't so I can.

 

People still need to get used to the new rules, especially the silly Codex > Advanced > Basic ruling.

 

Grey Knight Death Cult Assassins two power weapons being Power Axe and Power Sword instead of just two swords? These all stem from an inclusive vs exclusive argument.

 

What rule issue? We're told for Power Weapons to look at the mini. If yours is modelled with two Power Swords, that DCA has two power swords. If you model with one Axe and one Sword, that's what they have.

 

No rule issue.

[ShinyRhino]

Why are there so many arguments about it doesnt say I can't so I can.

 

It's a side effect of the Edition change. People were comfortable playing the game a certain way. Moving a Land Raider on from reserve, disembarking the unit inside 2" (which was actually 2.9999" due to the 'within' wording), and charging an enemy. All the clampdowns on what you can and cannot do in this edition (shooting at Flyers, modelling weapons, arriving from reserve, etc etc etc) have knocked a lot of folks for a loop, and they're trying to find a way back to their 5th Edition tactics. The easiest way is to attempt to twist wording to one's advantage.

I expect muchof it will go away if the BRB FAQ is as robust as it needs to be.

[Zedrenael]

Well I just think that the first question should be an inclusive/exclusive clause to the book. It would clarify most of the arguments. If it is not specified by the BRB is it allowed or not allowed. A plain and simple clarification of this would solve a lot of problems.

[ShinyRhino]

Well I just think that the first question should be an inclusive/exclusive clause to the book. It would clarify most of the arguments. If it is not specified by the BRB is it allowed or not allowed. A plain and simple clarification of this would solve a lot of problems.

 

It's my honest and truthful opinion that GW made 6th the "Don't Be a Dummy" edition. They made the blanket assumption that folks would apply some common sense and critical thinking to their application of the rules. Sadly, that is not the case. Rules lawyers and general players alike grew used to being led by the nose on rules, and are having a really hard time applying any meaningful amount of sanity to rules disputes. Close-reading rules disputes on the internets are inherently tied to competitive play or the desire to "win the game." Two players lounging around the table with frosty beverages in hand don't tend to need a close reading of the rules to find an amicable middle ground. The find the most fun resolution, and go with it. I actually know players that have that attitude at tournaments as well. The "Eff it, let's try it out!" player is a lot of fun to match up with.

RAW-reading ALLOWS no middle ground, and when there's no middle ground, you get 15 page threads on what rules Assault vehicles let you break via mangled readings of rules.

 

One common counter to the "it doesn't say I can't, so I can!" argument is simply to point out that the rulebook doesn't say you have to read the top of your dice, so now every dice I roll is the number I want. Or, the rulebook doesn't say I can't pick up all of your models and place them precariously on the table edge at the beginning of every Movement phase.

[Gentlemanloser]

Your interpretation is different to my interpretation.

 

We shouldn't be left to argue this out among us. The rules should be robust and solid enough to provide all the information we require. Without us trying to 'guess' what the actual rule is or what a rule is trying to explain.

 

I'm paying a company for a product. If I have to go thorugh thier work, edit it, and put *my* reaosning to thier rules, well, I won't pay for it, and I'll expect to be paid for my time and effort.

 

If GW gave thier rules away fro free (when you purchase a mini form them), I'd be more forgiving.

[LPetersson]

It's my honest and truthful opinion that GW made 6th the "Don't Be a Dummy" edition. They made the blanket assumption that folks would apply some common sense and critical thinking to their application of the rules.

 

Unfortunately:

1) Common Sense is rare enough to be counted as a superpower

 

2) Interpretations differ. What you read in one way I might read in another and someone else might have a third opinion.

 

3) If it really was so clearcut, how come the thread about attacking from reserves is up to three pages? http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...80&start=80

[ShinyRhino]

It's my honest and truthful opinion that GW made 6th the "Don't Be a Dummy" edition. They made the blanket assumption that folks would apply some common sense and critical thinking to their application of the rules.

 

Unfortunately:

1) Common Sense is rare enough to be counted as a superpower

 

2) Interpretations differ. What you read in one way I might read in another and someone else might have a third opinion.

 

3) If it really was so clearcut, how come the thread about attacking from reserves is up to three pages? http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...80&start=80

 

If what was so clear cut?

[Zedrenael]

If the rules on interpertation being inclusive vs exlusive was clear than arguments like the one previously mention would not be three pages long. If it was exclusive (if it doesn't say you can't do it, then you can't do it) then assaulting from reserve would be that you can never no matter what (ie. Assault Vehicle). You can not assault from it. But since it is being interperted as inclusive too (if it doesn't say you can't do it, then you can) then assault vehicle rule trumps the arriving from reserve rule.

 

This is what I was saying. If this clause was included from the start then these arguments would not exist.

[Lysere]

It's actually 5 pages long, and probably not stopping for awhile. To me I think it's clear enough that this ruleset is not meant to be played exactly as written, which to be honest is perfectly fine, assuming everyone would be willing to follow the logical steps, but not everybody does.

[LPetersson]

It's my honest and truthful opinion that GW made 6th the "Don't Be a Dummy" edition. They made the blanket assumption that folks would apply some common sense and critical thinking to their application of the rules.

 

Unfortunately:

1) Common Sense is rare enough to be counted as a superpower

 

2) Interpretations differ. What you read in one way I might read in another and someone else might have a third opinion.

 

3) If it really was so clearcut, how come the thread about attacking from reserves is up to three pages? http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...80&start=80

 

If what was so clear cut?

 

Any rule discussion that goes over the first page, but Zedrenael made my point for me.

 

It's actually 5 pages long, and probably not stopping for awhile. To me I think it's clear enough that this ruleset is not meant to be played exactly as written, which to be honest is perfectly fine, assuming everyone would be willing to follow the logical steps, but not everybody does.

 

Ah, it shows as 4 now in my browser...

 

Different people see things differently. While I see the logic of the steps you outlined in that thread, I disagree with them as I see it differently.

It is one of those things that it would be nice if GW would FAQ properly...

[DarkGuard]

OK guys, I'm not too sure about this thread, but it's staying open for now. I know things are fine now, but just a couple of things to keep in mind though. Lets not make this "me against him", OK? I know this will bring in a lot of personal views and interpretations of the rules, that's fine. But lets not start flaming each other etc, that's not fine. Also, while I can understand using ongoing rules debates as examples will probably be needed, lets not make this thread into another thread for those debates. If that happens, I'll cleanse those posts. All understood?

[Gentlemanloser]

DG, this is totally not a 'me versus you' post, but purely an extrapolation on interpreting rules, and the golden rule.

 

If we use our reasoning or interpretation of a written rule, we get to the situation where a roll of a 4+ not only means I win the game, but that I also have more fun winning the game than you do. ;) (You disagree I'm having fun? Or disagree I'm having *more* fun than you? Dice off! :P)

 

Using the rules as written are the only way to ensure that two players from distinctly seperate backgrounds meet and play the same game, on equal footing.

 

Meeting up beforehand to agree on houserules negates the whole distinctly seperate backgrounds thing. ;)

[DarkGuard]

DG, this is totally not a 'me versus you' post, but purely an extrapolation on interpreting rules, and the golden rule.

 

It was purely a heading off, my spider sense was tingling a bit. :P

 

I know you guys are generally pretty good with this stuff, but I felt it had to be said anyway. Don't worry, I wasn't singling anyone out.

[Grey Mage]

To put the most important rule another way:

 

We kind of assume that everyone playing this game can act like an adult, come to a gentlemans agreement about things, and not get bent out of shape about it. We know this is not actually the case with some people, however those people are probly not the kind we want playing this game anyways.

 

I think people miss that between the lines message.

[Lysere]

To put the most important rule another way:

 

We kind of assume that everyone playing this game can act like an adult, come to a gentlemans agreement about things, and not get bent out of shape about it. We know this is not actually the case with some people, however those people are probly not the kind we want playing this game anyways.

 

I think people miss that between the lines message.

 

This is the biggest thing to me about rules. One of the guys in charge at my LGS and I disagree about how blasts should work regarding models the vehicle can't see. When this issue arose in a game between us we discussed it for a bit, and when we made our points we just rolled off. (Regardless of how I play it I will usually argue RAW then come to an agreement after)

 

We've picked up a couple of house rules as well from this site that people are enjoying quite well. It's all about how to best have fun in this game with the rules we're given.

[Grey Mage]

Im glad we could help.

[Zedrenael]

This is mostly about the rules that are not written into the book. That is the inclusive/exclusive argument.

 

Another thing to point out is can some prove to me where it says that this is a permissive rule set?

[Lysere]

This is mostly about the rules that are not written into the book. That is the inclusive/exclusive argument.

 

Another thing to point out is can some prove to me where it says that this is a permissive rule set?

 

That sir is a very good question. After flipping through the first few pages I see absolutely nothing that says that. I mean I could have missed it, but it wasn't right there in nice bold letters, as you think something saying that would be.

[Zedrenael]

Everybody is saying this is a permissive ruleset and I do not see that.

[Grey Mage]

Everybody is saying this is a permissive ruleset and I do not see that.

All games are by default a permissive rulesset- otherwise youre playing calvinball.

[Acebaur]

Everybody is saying this is a permissive ruleset and I do not see that.

All games are by default a permissive rulesset- otherwise youre playing calvinball.

 

I lol'd at this :P

 

And I agree, I've never played a game(of any kind) that wasn't permissive. The rules always tell you what you can do. Anything else is not allowed.

[Zedrenael]

Everybody is saying this is a permissive ruleset and I do not see that.

All games are by default a permissive rulesset- otherwise youre playing calvinball.

 

I lol'd at this :P

 

And I agree, I've never played a game(of any kind) that wasn't permissive. The rules always tell you what you can do. Anything else is not allowed.

 

That is an exclusive statement. That something that is not included in the rules, then it is not allowed. So how do you handle people that argue that something does not say I can not then I can kind of people? You can not prove you are right. They can not prove they are wrong. So what do you do. Just roll off? If this was included in a general FAQ then most rules arguments will cease to exist.