Inclusive vs. Exclusive Clause

[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.

 

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.

Wait... wait a second.

 

Proof? You want to talk about a nonpermissive ruleset and proof?

 

You cannot, in any way, prove that something does not exist. You can only disprove the ways it could exist. Thats a basic thing with logic and science. If you want to read a 40k manual, or any game, in a RAW context you must assume a permissive ruleset as the basis for it.

 

Show me a counter to this.

 

Now, when I get to my BRB Ill look for an exact quote if you like. In the mean time try to show me how a non-permissive rulesset is capable of functioning. Please not the previous argument- it never tells us wich side of the die to read, so are all my rolls sixes if I want them to be?

[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 :lol:

 

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.

Wait... wait a second.

 

Proof? You want to talk about a nonpermissive ruleset and proof?

 

You cannot, in any way, prove that something does not exist. You can only disprove the ways it could exist. Thats a basic thing with logic and science. If you want to read a 40k manual, or any game, in a RAW context you must assume a permissive ruleset as the basis for it.

 

Show me a counter to this.

 

Now, when I get to my BRB Ill look for an exact quote if you like. In the mean time try to show me how a non-permissive rulesset is capable of functioning. Please not the previous argument- it never tells us wich side of the die to read, so are all my rolls sixes if I want them to be?

 

Well that is the thing that I am trying to point out is that there is no proof that it is a permissive/nonpremissive ruleet. I am saying that using the argument that it is a permissive ruleset does not mean that people can not use the inclusive/exclusive argument. With people using common logic then they can stretch and find the fine line between rules. That the rule "otherwise stated" for reserves means that the Codex>BRB assault vehicle rule means that you can charge out of vehicles outflanking. Or the fact that Thunderwolves IC models cannot join any other squad than a Thunderwolves Calvary unit or Fenerasian Wolves. But with the wording it does not say that I can not join a Wolf Lord with Saga of the Hunter to that squad and outflank. So if it was an exclusive statement then it would mean that one can not because it does not say that you can. While the inclusive argument would say that because it does not say yes or no we assume yes. That is my argument.

 

And I would like a quote for me asking for a reference. Not for me saying this is a nonpermissive ruleset. The dice argument could go one way or the other but common sense will dictate that. If you look at the gray area of rules not the common sense spelled out ones.

[Gentlemanloser]

In that case, whenever I play a game of 40k, before you lay any minis down I get to roll a dice. On a 2-6 I win. On a 1 I get to reroll. In addition, if I roll a 6, you have to give me £20 as well.

 

That's the rules. Show me where it says I can't do that.

 

And if you tell me I can't do it, well, that's a rule disagreement and we get a 4+ dice off.

[Zedrenael]

Or I can decline to play you all together. It does not say you can not add rules to the game. So lets play calvinball then. So if you get a 6 and I have to give you £20. Well then I get a dice in response. So I roll and on anything but a 3 I get to take your army. And on a roll of a 3 I get to take your car instead.

 

That's the rules. Show me where it says I can do that?

 

So it is a rule disagreement so lets roll off.

[Gentlemanloser]

Exactly...

 

Permissive ruleset, or absurdity.

 

You couldn't have made my point for me any better. :)

[Zedrenael]

You are missing my point. This is not an argument about this being a permissive ruleset. This is an argument that people are still using an exclusive mindset to the rules and allowing things that should not be allowed.

[Gentlemanloser]

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

[Zedrenael]

40k has always been a permissive ruleset.

 

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

 

 

I can post quotes too.....

 

I just want to know where people get the idea to say it is a permissive ruleset but then not include an inclusive/exclusive statement.

[Gentlemanloser]

That's the point.

 

If it's not permissive, it's absurd. Take your pick.

 

40k *only* works as a permissive ruleset. My original post (the one you quoted) stands. I've not changed my stance througout this thread, and had to requote you where you changed yours.

[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?

 

 

Any where in here do I say this is a nonpermissive ruleset? This is the original post. The reason that the topic was opened. Now if you have a constructive comment please share otherwise stop taking this off topic.

[ShinyRhino]

I think the point GL is trying to make is that a "permissive ruleset" is the same as your provided definition of "Exclusive." Your definition of "inclusive" is equal to a nonpermissive ruleset, which is the "absurdity" option.

 

The answer to your original question: Exclusive.

[Gentlemanloser]

Actually it's neither Inlcusive nor exclusive, if I'm reading the OP correctly.

 

The OP deals with "If it doesn't say you can't do it" for both clauses, which I'm trying to point out is, under a permissive ruleset, a pointless exercise.

 

We can only deal with what the rules tell you you *can* do (or are restricted from doing).

 

So Inclusive/Exclusive as they are currently defined, is meaningless.

 

As I tried to mention in my OP.

 

As for;

 

Any where in here do I say this is a nonpermissive ruleset?

 

Ever since this was mentioned in my OP, the second post in the thread, you have taken the opposite stance. That the rules *aren't* permissive. I can quote you mutliple times if you'd like.

 

If you agree that the ruleset *is* permissive, and we are explicitly told what we can do, then inclusing a clause in the BRB about rules that aren't mentioned anywhere, is well, redundant at best.