Librarium Online Forums banner

"The rules don't say, I can't do ...."

Tags
rules
2K views 20 replies 15 participants last post by  Henshini 
#1 ·
Hey all. As some of you may know, I'm only a friendly player. I don't enter tournaments, I haven't even brought my army to a game store and played with people I don't know.

I was however at my local gaming store and there were several games going on, and I decided to watch in on a few, essentially to learn more, and to see armies that my buddies and I don't have in action. These were all non-tournament games, just friendly practice games or whatever. Nothing at stake. A few rules discussions started, and as a good bystander, I stood by, precisely keeping my mouth shut.

I believe after studying this game for over a year now and being pretty active here, that I've learned a great deal about the game and its basics and the general flow of the game. Well the great Gate of Infinity rule debate began. You all know the one. GoI to move out of combat.

There seemed to be two factions. It came down to 1) The rules don't say X can be done. 2) The rules don't say I can't do X.

Now regardless of the actual rule in question here, fundamentally #2 is what I'd like to touch on. I've actually seen it used here, on both sides(right and wrong) of the same rule.

Rules are defined as a set of principles or regulations governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.: the rules of Warhammer 40k. Another clarifying definition is: A generalized statement that describes what is true in most or all cases.

Rules can and should only spell out what can be done. When an exception is present a rule will then state what cannot be done. But it is an impossibility to list out everything that cannot be done in every given circumstances.

The debate was getting way out of control, and the younger member had the stronger argument rules-wise. Then the older participant used the phrase, "The rules don't say, I can't do ....", which made my right eye twitch. As I was thinking about it, I kinda just blurted out, "The rules don't say I can't slap you." Now I don't really condone physical altercations, but I was just being funny. And the older participant was getting a little confrontational. Everyone laughed, and it lightened the mood. Now engaged, I explained what I meant by that, and finally they just decided to roll off for it.

Didn't mean to ramble on, but for debating rules, I thought the situation might shed some light on some of the sensitive subjects.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
i have a friend who does that constantly. he is always trying to take advantage of the system to in turn take advantage of the battle. drives me nuts and we have to stop the game many times so i can pull out the rules and prove him wrong. im very OCD about rules and ive read the book a bazillion times and i always ask online for questions i dont know the answer for.

my rule of thumb is this: if the book doesnt say you CAN do it, you cant do it.
 
#4 ·
On the other hand, once something has permission it keeps that permission (within the limits specified) unless specifically excluded. The gate of infinity, for instance, may not have permission to pull units out of CC, but it doesn't necessarily need it. After all, it also doesn't have permission to pull units off the table if they're touching yellow terrain or if someone is looking at them. I'm not trying to reopen that debate of course!

EDIT: @Stella Cadente - That show rocks!
 
#5 ·
It all depends on the situation. Generally, I agree that if the rule doesn't say that you can do it, then you can't. However, there are some instances where the other way around makes sense also:

1) One time my opponent had 2 rhinos side-by-side with both fronts even. I then proceeded to ram both with my Land Raider. He argued that I couldn't do it, that the rules didn't say I could ram more than 1 vehicle. I said that it didn't say I couldn't either. My reasoning was if 1 unit can assault 2 or units, my tank should be able to ram more than 1 vehicle as well as long as they all touch the tank on impact.

2) Claiming objectives. From my own thread http://www.librarium-online.com/forums/40k-rules-help/156478-unit-cohesion-objectives.html Can a unit claim more than 1 objective? If an objective is 12.01" away from another objective, I can stretch out my unit to be within 3" of each. While doing so what if I take casualties from shooting and remove the middle models, therefore breaking coherency. Now, it's "can a non-coherent unit claim more than 1 objective?" The book doesn't say a squad cannot claim more than 1 objectives. It also doesn't say a non-coherent unit is not able to claim objectives. My claim is that, though non-coherent, the unit is still a valid troop choice, and being within 3" of the objectives, it satisfies the basic requirements to claim an objective. And the book doesn't say that I can't do it.

You just have to take it on a case-by-case basis.
 
#7 · (Edited)
1) One time my opponent had 2 rhinos side-by-side with both fronts even. I then proceeded to ram both with my Land Raider. He argued that I couldn't do it, that the rules didn't say I could ram more than 1 vehicle. I said that it didn't say I couldn't either. My reasoning was if 1 unit can assault 2 or units, my tank should be able to ram more than 1 vehicle as well as long as they all touch the tank on impact.
Sorry but,
pg 69 said:
"...moving top speed towards one enemy vehicle."
2) Claiming objectives. From my own thread http://www.librarium-online.com/forums/40k-rules-help/156478-unit-cohesion-objectives.html Can a unit claim more than 1 objective? If an objective is 12.01" away from another objective, I can stretch out my unit to be within 3" of each. While doing so what if I take casualties from shooting and remove the middle models, therefore breaking coherency. Now, it's "can a non-coherent unit claim more than 1 objective?" The book doesn't say a squad cannot claim more than 1 objectives. It also doesn't say a non-coherent unit is not able to claim objectives. My claim is that, though non-coherent, the unit is still a valid troop choice, and being within 3" of the objectives, it satisfies the basic requirements to claim an objective. And the book doesn't say that I can't do it.
This is still handled by the rules of what CAN be done. pg 91. If your one of your units is within 3" and no enemy unit, you "control" that objective. It makes no provisions for unit coherency, meaning that it doesn't include an exclusion, then the rule is the rule.

This could only occur on the rare event that this happened on the last turn of the game mind you, as you are forced to move within coherency.

Notice the phrase is a double negative, therefore, creating a positive equivalent. Taking and actual rule and turning it into a double negative is still valid, however the rule was printed in the first place. Its the double negative rules, that people are implying as to create a rule that is not there that causes the issue.
 
#6 ·
I then proceeded to ram both with my Land Raider. He argued that I couldn't do it, that the rules didn't say I could ram more than 1 vehicle. I said that it didn't say I couldn't either.
Actually you are right. Not just from interpretation either. The rules do state on page 69 at the very end of the last paragraph. "The rammer continues its move until it reaches its maximum move distance or another enemy (which it will tank shock or ram again!)"
 
#8 ·
Sorry but,

Originally Posted by pg 69, BRB Ramming:
"...moving top speed towards one enemy vehicle."
Even that quote is not definitive. You can say that you're moving towards one vehicle but when you collide, you actually hit 2 vehicles since my Landraider has a bigger hull than the rhino and since both rhinos are side by side and both evenly lined up in the front. Like if you fire a plasma cannon at one unit, it hits directly, but because another unit is nearby, that unit also get affected. In my case, both rhinos made contact with me upon impact.

Originally Posted by pg 69, BRB Ramming:
"Units other than vehicles in the way of a ramming tank are tank shocked as normal. However, if the ramming tank comes into contact with an enemy vehicle, the collision is resolved as follows.

Each vehicle immediately suffers a hit against..."
Notice in the quote above it mentions vehicles. In my case, my tank came into contact with 2 vehicles. As per above, each vehicle suffers the consequences.
 
#10 · (Edited)
Even that quote is not definitive. You can say that you're moving towards one vehicle but when you collide, you actually hit 2 vehicles since my Landraider has a bigger hull than the rhino and since both rhinos are side by side and both evenly lined up in the front. Like if you fire a plasma cannon at one unit, it hits directly, but because another unit is nearby, that unit also get affected. In my case, both rhinos made contact with me upon impact.
The rule still states 1 vehicle can be targeted...

The following paragraphs also state after a first ram is resolved and the vehicle explodes, you can then continue and hit remaining vehicles.

Notice in the quote above it mentions vehicles. In my case, my tank came into contact with 2 vehicles. As per above, each vehicle suffers the consequences.
This mention of vehicles is referring both vehicles (the rammer and the rammee) involved in the singular collision.

In any case, unless you've got a gridded play surface, where all the measurements are visible, the likelihood of exactly lining up a land raider to come across straight at two rhino's and precisely contact both of them simultaneously is very improbable. There are way too many factors to consider, the movement angle measured for each set of movement, the modelling of the LR itself ( are the tracks exactly parallel. ) Yes on paper your question, and subsequent rules discussion is very valid, however the practicality of the 0.0000001% this will ever happen is probably too small to waste time on it.

Still my point being, there is not really a valid way to interpret, "well there's not a rule that says I can't do X, so therefore I can?. The rules are still there. If you can't find a rule that say you CAN do something, then you can't.
 
#9 ·
Ref that thingy about one unit claiming two objectives: that's now covered by the updated FAQ for the rulebook. The unit can indeed do this, but the FAQ also suggests that it would be extremely difficult to pull this one off. I think one of the reasons why it would be difficult is being discussed here now: the problem of coherency being broken.

E.
 
#11 ·
I like this topic. It clarifies something that confuses a lot of players, even rules lawyers.

When do the rules need to say you can do something, and when do they need to say you can't?

You need permission FIRST, before you can reference a lack of exclusion.

Otherwise, you could do ANYTHING not mentioned in the rulebook, and we know that's not true.

Good stuff Xpyre.
 
#12 ·
I admit, a lot of people will try to take advantage of some questionable rules sometimes and bend it to suit their needs via the "the rules doesn't say I can't do this...". Their intepretation of the rules are more than a little iffy.

However, there are times in which there are some validity in their claims. I think as long as what they're saying is reasonable and makes sense, and there isn't a blatant mistake on their rationalization, I'd let them. I've even let people do things in games that I knew was wrong as long as it didn't have too great an impact on the outcome of the game.

Instead of just dismissing them as being exploitive, I'd hear them out on a case-by-case basis. Sure it's tedious in the middle of a game, but by doing so, you learn a little bit more about the game yourself.
 
#13 ·
Completely agree jy2. It usually comes down to how the person is communicating their point. Yes, there are times when the statement is completely correct, its just their phrasing of the rule. Usually there is another rule, that allows the action in general, and a new specific rule allows an additional branch. This second specific rule is usually where it is argued that, "<Specific Rule B> doesn't say I can't fire/move/assault .... "

I had no intention of dismissing your point, My intention was merely to point out the nature of Rule precedence.
 
#14 ·
So all of this has come down to RAI or ‘read as indicated.’

But there must be some form of ‘indication’ or indirect RAW to refer to in the first place to act as some form of valid starting point.

(As to the Ramming of two enemy vehicles in the same turn, it must be done in sequence so just pick one, resolve the attack and if you survive move onto the other if you can.)
 
#15 ·
Really how I deal with it whenever it comes up instead of arguing about it, I just go with what they're trying to do. Unless it's clearly against the rules or I can't call them out on it and show them were in the rules that it clearly states something isn't allowed. I don't want to start a debate and I just play to have fun.
 
#16 ·
Wicky said:
(As to the Ramming of two enemy vehicles in the same turn, it must be done in sequence so just pick one, resolve the attack and if you survive move onto the other if you can.)
That's the way to do it :D

Nobody's yet mentioned the rule that GW says is the most important-est rule of all; the rule that tells us we should have fun first and foremost! I think I would have more fun if I could put 8" barrels on all my guns to extend their range. The rules don't say I can't as far as I'm aware.

You hear that, Mr Gate of Infinity? That's what you sound like to the average person :p
 
#18 ·
Yep they can ‘Run’ due to the general allowance found on page 16 and no denial found within the rules for Monstrous Creatures, the Codex or the FAQ.
 
#19 ·
I was actualy just thinking of a way that you can keep a squad thats out of coherency in the case of the two objectives.

Just keep going to ground if your oponent is kind enough to keep shooting at that unit. becuase then you are pinned and cannot move, but your still claiming the objective.

A running carnifex is scary, but so are avatars and wraithlords.

as for what can and cant be done in game, my local gaming group has a general census of certain things and if we cant decide we talk it out and get a 3rd party in the game.
 
#20 ·
There's always the little thing called context.

The "don't say I can't" and the "don't say I can" might each be true for different rules. The trick is to understand which applies in the context of the rule.

We all agree that the rules rely on permission. Allow me to put forth the idea of two different concepts of permission; general permission and specific permission.

General Permission- These are rules sets that give permission to perform an action without providing strictly limiting guidelines on how to do so. Players must use the rule within the general confines of the BRB, with any modifications provided by the rule itself.

I believe that Gate of Infinity is one such rule. As it does not come with specific limitations on how its used, one must match it as best they can to the BRB.

Specific Permission- These are rules that come with very strict circumstances to its use. The player is told in the rules text exactly when and how it is to be utilized, with very specific limitations, restrictions, and guidelines.

Good examples of these are rules such as the Orks' WAAAAAGH! and Turboboost.

Considering rules in this fashion can save us a lot of time in rules debates. A good rule of thumb: If the rule is restrictive, be restrictive. If not, ease up a little.
 
#21 ·
This is the one place I will give Wizards of the Coast some credit. In their Axis & Allies miniatures game, they explicitly state at the begining of the rulebook that if a situation arises where something is not stated one way or another, always assume that you can't do what ever it was you're trying to do. Somebody there actually plays games!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top