It would seem that orders can be issued on your opponents turn. Most people I have spoken with are under the impression that you can as orders are simply issued 'in the shooting phase' and the order: 'Incoming!' would have absolutely no point if it was issued on your own turn. Opinions, Comments, Questions?! GO! GO! GO!

... In comming would be used for when you see bunch of DA with doom seer comming into their shooting range.

Then you use that and pray there are some guards still left in 1 piece.

So no i dont think its used on opponent's turn.

Of course you can not issue orders during your opponents turn.

Incoming! has to be issued in your turn in anticipation of enemy aggression.

Huge long discussion on this on other forums. IMO, intent is NO.
BUT! It does indeed seem as if you can issue orders in your opponent's turn, per RAW. An officer can issue orders "each turn". Per page 9 of the main rulebook, "turn" means Player turn. SO an officer can issue orders each player turn. And most of the shooting orders say something like the unit immeditaely does so-and-so, so not only can you issue orders in your opponents turn, but you can shoot as well.

Again, I don't believe that you are supposed to be able to issue orders in your opponents turn, but they loused up the rule phrasing enough that those who want to push it do have an argument.

Not that I have a codex yet (what happened to an officie 5/5 release date?)... an argument against by RAW seems to be some place where it says the officer gives the order before firing or shooting. Which an officer does not do on the other player's turns without something saying it does. If you assume that it does, this makes sense, if you assume that it doesn't, this makes sense.

I'm quite confident it's not intended, as if you could issue orders in both player turns it would mean each commander and platoon commander gets to issue his set number of orders for shooting and then can proceed to force the same number of units to go to ground with the bonus in the enemys phase.

But as it's written since turn defaults to player turn, not game turn, yes it's allowed to be done in the opponents turn by RAW.

edit: Even worse you can use the orders in your turn then use the exact same orders in the enemies turn to get something like 12 of your units to have an extra round of shooting in the opponents shooting phase. That would be utterly gamebreaking

If the wording allows you to issue orders on enemy turns, then my Carnifex can also shoot in the enemy turn, call the Waaaagh! turn 1 if you go second and all other nonsense.

At the point where you're suggesting you can shoot in the enemies shooting phase its pretty obvious that you're barking up the wrong tree.

Hymirl wrote:At the point where you're suggesting you can shoot in the enemies shooting phase its pretty obvious that you're barking up the wrong tree.

If you can use any orders in the enemy shooting phase, you can use ALL orders in the enemy shooting phase.

I'm not saying you can, I would never play it that way. But it's definitely all or nothing, which is part of the reason I feel it's definitely not meant to be used in both players' turns

don_mondo wrote:And most of the shooting orders say something like the unit immeditaely does so-and-so, so not only can you issue orders in your opponents turn, but you can shoot as well.

The word "immediately" seemed to leap off the page to me and is what brought me to question this rule as possible RAI. "like the wind" (Pg. 63) is a special order used by Al Raheem the has the effect 'Immediately make a shooting attack... when it has been resolved move d6" in a direction of your choice." THis order seems fairly fluffy IMHO as the platoon shots its enemy and falls back 'like the wind' when threatened. While powerful I have seen more busty things out there, by far, that act as intended.

Now that I look at it FRFSRF says immediately too... yikes.

as written I think that there may be virtually no argument against this.

Drunkspleen wrote:
If you can use any orders in the enemy shooting phase, you can use ALL orders in the enemy shooting phase.

Incoming, FRFSRF and Like the wind are examples of orders that are useful in the enemy phase.

Incoming gives you good cover saves by going to ground, gtg is done during your opponents turn normally.

FRFSRF allows you to fire lasgun shots only, not exactly game breaking unless we are talking about a 50 man platoon.

Like the wind I already described and is by far the most potent 'on opponents turn' order as it is not limited to lasguns (yay!) and allows you to consolidate up to 6" possibly allowing the squad to avoid an assault. (I am running a 50 man al raheem platoon with a comissar and 5 powerfists though, so I like the assault phase!)

Gwar! wrote:If the wording allows you to issue orders on enemy turns, then my Carnifex can also shoot in the enemy turn, call the Waaaagh! turn 1 if you go second and all other nonsense.

Nope, cause nowhere in those (Carnie/Waaagh) entries does it say they can perform those actions "each turn", while the IG orders do say that they can be performed "each turn".
As for the before moving/shooting bit, nope again. Merely says that they have to issue orders before they can move (I'm assuming run) or shoot, not that the ability to move or shoot is a prerequisite to issuing an order. Otherwise, an officer in a Chimera that moved over 6" could not issue an order.

Again, I do not believe that the intent is to allow orders to be issued in the opponent's turn, but I cannot find any valid argument that disproves the possibility. It's the "each turn" bit in the line about officer's being able to issue orders that screws things up royally.

Thw wording for Waaagh! says I cannot do it on the first turn, it doesnt say the first ork turn. So if i go second, its the second turn so i can call the waaagh

Kungfuhustler wrote:It would seem that orders can be issued on your opponents turn. Most people I have spoken with are under the impression that you can as orders are simply issued 'in the shooting phase' and the order: 'Incoming!' would have absolutely no point if it was issued on your own turn. Opinions, Comments, Questions?! GO! GO! GO!

My first read through the Orders section would have me completely agreeing with. As the Orders section is written, and how the Orders themselves are written, make it difficult if not down right impossible to suggest otherwise. Now with that said, the only place I can see a discrepency is in the 'Could You Repeat That, Sir?' section.

It reads "If the test is failed, there had been a breakdown of communications. The order does not take effect, although both the officer's squad and the ordered squad may otherwise act normally (emphasis mine).

I'm stretching it a bit here, but I infer this to mean that since the only time my officer's squad (command/platoon) and ordered squad 'act normally' are on my turn, orders can only fail on my turn. Hence, orders may only be given on my turn. Bit of a stretch, and the rest of the Orders section seems to fly in the face of this, but what the , that's what YMTC is for

-Yad

Also, what about the 4th paragraph in the Orders section:

"Orders must be issued before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run (whether the order was successful or not)."

Pretty straighforward here. If, on my Shooting phase, I shoot or run my Command Squad before issuing Orders, I cannot then issue Orders. So if, on my turn I issue orders and then run or shoot, I should not be able to issue orders until my next Shooting phase. Does this mean though that if I issue orders first and then do not shoot or run I can issue orders again on my opponents Shooting phase? For me that's a bit of a stretch. The quoted piece above tells me that Orders are only issued in the controlling IG players turn.

-Yad

Yad.
Act normally, ok, so they do nothing, just like they would normally do nothing.

shoot or run. OK. And? Both can be done through receiving orders. If orders can indeed be issued in the opponent's turn, then the officer's squad can indeed run or shoot in the opponent's turn. They just have to be sure to issue any orers they are going to issue before receiving orders telling them to do something. Besides, even if they can't run or shoot due to receiving no orders, they would still be issuing their orders before performing non-existant actions. The quoted section does indeed, IMO, IMPLY that orders are meant to be issued only in the IG player's own shooting phase, but it's not quite strong enough to overturn the "each turn" phrase, given everything else. Or are you going to say that the ability to run or shoot is required for an officer to issue an order. Think carefully and consider an officer in a chimera that has moved over 6" before answering. Also, (and I'll try to remember to scribble it down tonight) there is already a list of actions that prohibit an officer from issuing orders, locked in hth, in a vehicle (except of course chimera's), etc. Unable to run or shoot is not on that list.

THis whole thing is people easter egg hunting for something that does not exsist.

As I said on other forums, there is no way they gave IG the ability to have double the number of shooting phases as the rest of 40k, and no matter who gets to roll first turn.. they shoot you before you go.

Stop the insanity. Please.

C'mon Xerxes, let us talk about the way this is written w/o just naysaying. ALWAYS NAYSAYING! GO SIT IN YOUR TOWER!

Xerxes, as I said before, I agree that intent is likely that IG cannot issue orders during their opponent's turn. But the rule as written says they can. Personally, I won't do it. But how can I tell someone else they can't when the codex and main rulebook say they can?

Because they don't? To say they can is twisting the wording and easter egg hunting.

OK, Gwar, which part of "each turn" is twisting the wording or easter egg hunting? Per page 9 of the main rules?

Perhaps learning to read the whole rule would be nice, especially the bit that happens if you fail an order, which cannot happen if you do it in the opponents turn, but anyway.

As I have said, if you claim your guard can shoot in my shooting phase, my dakkafex can shoot in yours:

Page 51 wrote:Instead of firing a single weapon, monstrous creatures can fire two of their weapons once per Shooting phase.

It never says the shooting phase has to be mine, therefore I can shoot in every shooting phase, even yours!

don_mondo wrote:OK, Gwar, which part of "each turn" is twisting the wording or easter egg hunting? Per page 9 of the main rules?

Hi, are you new? Welcome to the GW hobby. Some common sense required.

Seriously, this wouldn't be at all annoying to me, except your first post in this thread was all "Oh, I know this is wrong, but it's worded in such a way that it might confuse other people."

Stop waffling and take a position: You are either going to issue orders during your opponents turn, or you are not. If you're not going to, it proves that the rules aren't as clear as you claim they are.

The word phase does not equal the word turn. Nowhere in the main rules does it say tht the word phase means "each player phase" It does say that for the word "turn". Therein lies the rub. As written, an IG officer can issue orders each (player) turn. This is the line that has to be broken. Not by whining and throwing hissy fits, "Oh if you doi that then I'll do this", but by proving, per the rules themselves, why it is not allowed.

Dave, no, I'm not new, I've been playing for about 14 years now. Former Outrider. Kommando. Main rules judge for the Baltimore Games Day 40K RTT for the last 4 or 5 years. Been around so long my first Dakka account died of old age and I had to get a new one. But welcome to the hobby yourself............ How long did you say you've been playing....? Now, are we done pissing on each other so we can discuss the rules or should we trade few more veiled insults?

And what does "common sense" have to do with how the rule is actually written. Many rules make absolutely no common sense when viewed logically. And I did take a position, or have you just decided it's more fun to jump on me. I will not take advantage of the loophole that says I can issue orders during my opponent's turn. What, you've never decided to not use a rule that you thought was wrong due to the advantage it gave you? However, this forum is for discussing what the rule actually IS, not how we play it or what we would like it to say. So I have to admit to the OP that yes, as written, an IG officer can issue orders during his opponent's turn. And that those orders take effect immediately. After all, we do already have a precedent. A Daemonhunter Inquisitor with Mystics can tell another unit to shoot during the opponent's turn if he detects deep striking /summoned units. And I do use that one!

Pg. 9 in the big rule book Headline "The Turn" second section "Game Turns and Player Turns."

"In a complete game turn, both players get a player turn, each one divided into Movement, Shooting and Assault phases (see Turn Sequence below). Exactly what is going to happen in each phase is described in the following sections of this book.

Hence one game turn will comprise two player turns. Whenever a rule uses the word 'turn', both in this rule book and in the Codexes, it means 'player turn', otherwise it will clearly state 'game turn'."

Now look at the Company command squad or any other officers special rules it states:

"The company commander may issue up to two orders per TURN." (Refer to BRB for what comprises a turn)

don_mondo wrote:Xerxes, as I said before, I agree that intent is likely that IG cannot issue orders during their opponent's turn. But the rule as written says they can. Personally, I won't do it. But how can I tell someone else they can't when the codex and main rulebook say they can?

Two ways to say No.

1) Explain that while your ok with it, others might not be, and the less civilized will beat his brains out with a club. No one wants that, it's painful, and even you aren't using your brain (hence the confusion about orders in the opponents turn), they are tough to clean off the scenery.

2) Beat his brains out with a club.

don_mondo wrote:The word phase does not equal the word turn. Nowhere in the main rules does it say tht the word phase means "each player phase" It does say that for the word "turn". Therein lies the rub. As written, an IG officer can issue orders each (player) turn. This is the line that has to be broken. Not by whining and throwing hissy fits, "Oh if you doi that then I'll do this", but by proving, per the rules themselves, why it is not allowed.

Well, let's see. "Py the rules themselves" the orders "must be issued at the start of the shooting phase." So your opponent can prevent you from issuing order merely by doing something during the shooting phase. At which point it's too late for you to issue your orders.

Of course, you can try to "beat him to the punch" by issuing your orders first. At which point you realize that this isn't Magic: The Gathering, and we don't actually have any rules for resolving "the stack." So the game just stalls.

This isn't RAW versus RAI. Playing Orders this way literally breaks the game. Which is actually a really good argument for not playing this way.

Dave47 wrote: At which point you realize that this isn't Magic: The Gathering, and we don't actually have any rules for resolving "the stack." So the game just stalls.

AmIDoiingItRite?

Gwar! wrote:AmIDoiingItRite?

Ehh, good enough.

Actually, I'm kind of digging on this concept. It's especially cool for Guard vs. Guard matches:

Player 1: Ok, I'm ordering "Bring it down!" on your Basilisk using my Lascannon Squad.
Player 2: Not so fast! In response to that, I tap my own Command Squad to order my Psykers to "Fire on My Target!"
Player 1: Damn!

Next Turn

Player 2: Ok, I fire with my Leman Russ.
Player 1: Not this time! Now I'm using my orders during your turn! I tap my HQ to "Fire on my Targer!"
Player 2: You've fallen into my trap! In response to your response, I'm going to tap my HQ to issue orders!
Player 1: Damn!

I, for one, welcome our new stack-based overlords.

But, you mean my Instants don't go right now? I know, let's play Iron Man MTG. Every card that goes to the graveyard is torn in half (real rule from the only MTG tourney I ever played in, it was just so much fun to tear the cards in half!) Yeah, it's silliness, but ain't it fun!!

Oh, re the start of the shooting phase thing, if the IG player announces, during his opponent's movement phase, that he has actions to take at the beginning of the shooting phase.................. Well, you see what I'm getting at?

I love how in every type of game genre there are people attempting to abuse a rule because they lack common sense . Maybe GW didnt feel like they need to word it any more clear .


"Orders must be issued before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run (whether the order was successful or not)."

So quoting that , it would mean they are also able to run and shoot in their enemy's phase.

Right....

Pg. 9 in the big rule book Headline "The Turn" second section "Game Turns and Player Turns."

"In a complete game turn, both players get a player turn, each one divided into Movement, Shooting and Assault phases (see Turn Sequence below). Exactly what is going to happen in each phase is described in the following sections of this book.

Hence one game turn will comprise two player turns. Whenever a rule uses the word 'turn', both in this rule book and in the Codexes, it means 'player turn', otherwise it will clearly state 'game turn'."

Now look at the Company command squad or any other officers special rules it states:

"The company commander may issue up to two orders per TURN." (Refer to BRB for what comprises a turn)

Originally quoted by Dave47....



Does this settle the matter?


Clay

No not really, because its not taking the whole rule into consideration

Good lord, I just got through trying to explain why even if a vehicle moves 12" and gets illmobleised It would still be auto-hit in combat, before that I had to explain why you cant fly a raider sideways one turn then turn it back staight to gain 4" on you next turn, and before thatis was 12" assault Biker Nobs. Is this what the hobby has become, the Loop-hole patrol? Do you really have to pick and choose, then twist, words to win on the table?

Gwar,


I guess I am missing something here. Can you explain it to me? The post by Dave seems to clear it all up, the premise in the rulebook states that "turn" refers to player turn, not game turn unless specified.

Unless I am missing something really obvious, that was what the OP was banking on, the wording of "every turn". If not, please point it out.



Thanks,


Clay

Paraphrasing here.

Rule says before they shoot or run. Last time I checked, using a very literal translation you are prohibited from shooting or running during your opponents turn. Now the timing check just says before they shoot or run. I may attempt to shoot with my command squad in your turn, but when I do my rules check I am not allowed because its not my shooting phase. This is how it is possible to issue orders during my opponents turn.

I would never allow this, nor would I ever have even attempted it. The wording does allow this though.

For the sake of argument.....

What if you had a pair of Mystics..


lol

No, that ability is used in the movement phase.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Paraphrasing here.

Rule says before they shoot or run. Last time I checked, using a very literal translation you are prohibited from shooting or running during your opponents turn. Now the timing check just says before they shoot or run. I may attempt to shoot with my command squad in your turn, but when I do my rules check I am not allowed because its not my shooting phase. This is how it is possible to issue orders during my opponents turn.

I would never allow this, nor would I ever have even attempted it. The wording does allow this though.

Problem is, IF you can issue orders in the opponents turn, then those orders would allow you to shoot or run in your opponent's turn. And it doesn't say you MUST shoot or run or even be able to do so to issue an order. Only that you must issue orders before you perform those actions, if you are going to perform them or are able to perform them. By your reasoning, an officer in a chimera that moved over 6" cannot issue an order during his own turn, because he cannot shoot or run. And we do already have precedents for units being able to shoot in the opponents turn (DH Inq with Mystics) and I have no doubt someone can find a unit that can move in the opponent's turn. So the shoot/run argument falls flat as it is merely a timing clause saying that you must issue orders before doing these things, if you're going to do them, and does not say that the ability to do these things is a prerequisite to being able to issue orders.

InquisitorFabius wrote:No, that ability is used in the movement phase.

And? It's still during the opponent's turn, just his movement phase instead of his shooting phase. Point being, it's during the opponent's turn. So we have and established precedent regarding the ability to shoot during our opponent's turn................

don_mondo wrote:

InquisitorFabius wrote:No, that ability is used in the movement phase.

And? It's still during the opponent's turn, just his movement phase instead of his shooting phase. Point being, it's during the opponent's turn. So we have and established precedent regarding the ability to shoot during our opponent's turn................

Actually, no we havent, since the Mystics ability EXPLICITLY states you do it in the Opponents turn. Orders do not, so you cannot.

Gwar! wrote:Actually, no we havent, since the Mystics ability EXPLICITLY states you do it in the Opponents turn. Orders do not, so you cannot.

Except for the 1st line of the second paragraph where it states "A number of models in the Imperial Guard army have the ability to issue one or more orders each turn." Where turn is then explicitly defined in the rules as always meaning player turn unless otherwise stated.

So this rule should actually read, A number of models in the Imperial Guard army have the ability to issue one or more orders each player turn. Personally, I'm not inclined to play it in the literal sense. I believe that by 'each player turn', it means the turn in which the owning player goes through the Movement/Shooting/Assault phases (i.e., the owning player's turn).

I get what you're saying though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your thinking is that because he Order system doesn't come right out and say, "hey you can use this during each player's turn." It simply can't be done. But I've think it's been demonstrated pretty clearly that the rules, specifically the definition of 'turn', permit the Orders to be used in this way.

I would have expected to read something like the following (seems kind of obvious):

5th paragraph, 4th sentence --> "Orders cannot be issued to squads that are embarked in a transport vehicle, or units that have already run, made a shooting attack, or have already received an order that turn (whether or not the prior order was successful). Also, orders may not be issued during the opposing player's turn."

Basically I can easily see both sides of the argument. My personal feelings on the matter aside, the RAW suggests strongly that orders work during each player's turn.

-Yad

Gwar! wrote: Orders do not, so you cannot.

"each turn", explicitly stated.....................

Yes, and monstrous creatures say I can shoot "In the shooting phase". Not "in your own" but "in the shooting phase". This is also "explicitly stated".

I know it is not Specifically stated, but the whole concept of the game revolves around you only doing actions in your own turn unless specifically allowed to otherwise.

Its...

don_mondo wrote:explicitly stated

... in the imperial guard codex that you use orders during your own turn.

It may not be blindly obvious but its there, through a bit of logical reading & cleverness.

Stating otherwise would be simple testement to either fishing for nonsense rule or/and sillyness.

Deleted by the Modquisition as flaming

In my opinion unless it says "game turn" the "each turn" statement defaults to that players turns only (not both players). Wouldn't that be a major change in the game if it was both players turns? Why would a major change in the game be hidden in a lonely sentence and not be broadcasted as a major special ability?

This reminds me of the former Dark Eldar loophole of the Archon taking combat drugs on a skyboard. People insisted that the Archon could ride the skyboard for 12", fleet for d6" and then use combat drugs to assault 12". Despite one of the GW designers saying it was "silly" to suggest that combat drugs could make a skyboard move faster people still believed what they wanted to believe and RAW allowed it.

Of course we have it FAQ'd now saying you can't do that and most of us DE players are doing a "I told you so" to the other DE players who hid behind RAW. Of course, these were the players who were using Archon/skyboard combo.

Why are people still arguing that the RAW lets you do this? As I've stated, trying to issue orders during your opponent's turn breaks the game, by creating a need to be the "first" to act in the turn, and thus creating a need for rules to resolve the order of ability activation. Since there are no such rules in the main rulebook or the IG Codex, it is impossible to issue orders during your opponent's turn without creating a rules paradox.

This is not a battle between the Skyboard fluff and the Rules As Written. This isn't even a battle between the clear and obvious intent of the rules and the exact wording. Trying to issue orders during your opponents turn breaks the game.

While I personaly feel that you shouldn't be able to issue orders on your opponents turn, Don Mondo and the others have pointed out per page 9 of the BRB, it is quite clear that the word "turn" is defined as player turn, unless specificly stated otherwise. It does not say each players turn but just player turn. Prior to that it says that a game turn is made up of two player turns. The IG codex says "each turn", which would imply that the orders may be used every player turn. It also says that the unit immediately takes the action ordered to them. Would this be necicary if the the rule was meant to be used in your shooting phase? No, as the shooting sequence says that your shooting phase is done on a unit by unit basis, and thus each unit performs its action immediately. It is widely acepted that in order to use RAW for any rule that it must be used for all rules. RAW says that it may done each turn, and there is no evidence presented to the contrary.

@Gwar!- There are specific problems with each of your arguements. For your argument of using the Waaagh! by taking second and using it on your first turn, the rules say otherwise. On page 9 of the BRB it says in the example right above the title WHO GETS THE FIRST TURN?, "in game turn 1 a player will take his player turn 1 and go through his Movement, Shooting, and Assault phases. The the other player will take his player turn 1 and go through his Movement, Shooting, and Assault phases, thus ending game turn 1." So, the rules prove that you cannot choose to go second and get your Waaagh! during your first turn.

In regards to your argument of MC being able to fire because it just says Shooting phase, it is flawed. On page 15 of the BRB it says that "In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, we split up the firing so that each player's force fires during the Shooting phase of his own turn." Therefore, a Carnifex cannot fire in the opponents shooting phase as it doesn't have a rule to the contrary.

Well, not that it matters, GW will errata it to say its only on your own turn, and anyone who claims otherwise until then will get a Rulebook to the face.

As soon as they do the argument will be dead. Until then RAW supports this arguement. Simple as that.

GW Imperial Guard FAQ/Errata.. Comming soon in May 2020!

How funny would it be if GW does FAQ the Imperial Guard, and they skip this question.

I would laugh my ass off!

I'll be €50 Richer if they don't

For those that think you can issue orders on both players turn.


How would your resolve that? That was a valid question to which I havent seen an answer to. What if you are playing IG v IG? Could get super ugly trying to figure out who goes first.



Clay

Wow. OP here. I haven't looked at this thread for a minute but people opposed to the RAW got even uglier than I imagined, good thread! After talking about this rule at my flgs with several players and debating on how, truly, "broken" it is we came to the agreement that it's perfectly RAW with no legitimate argument holding up against it AND that it's only moderately broken. The IG still have the same weaknesses as they had before barring KP... kind of.

The most logical thing for a guardsmen to do when the enemy is charging in to chop his bits off is shoot, shoot, shoot. They (guardsmen) actually do that now provided their morale doesn't break in the face of certain death.
It is my opinion that this is not only raw, this is rai. I have used orders in this fashion in about a half dozen games now and have not found it to be game breaking.

In one game an outflanking al'raheem platoon blasted a outflanking kroot squad that followed it onto the board. that was cool! in another I used frfsrf to shoot at advancing orks... the guard were killed in assault.

Okay, nerdrage now.

Kungfuhustler,
So let me get this straight, your actually useing the orders during the enemies turn if im understanding this correct right?

Would you mind telling me how you argued this point so I can use it to convince my FLGS!

no problem. show them the book. and the BRB, sit down and then play an exhibition game against one of the 'veteran' 40k guys tournament lists. Don't bring out the psychic choir! After the game is all said and done you will see that this isn't broken and so will your opponent. the things you can shoot and shoot at are fairly limited and only al'raheem really lets you go nuts with this.
Don_Mondo has done an excellent job of making the case for the raw, you need to make the case for RAI. You need to show your local friendly game store that this isn't broken and back it up with raw because the faq/eratta is a Loooong ways away.

Sounds Great!

Espically since im pretty good friends with most of the staff of my FLGS.

Western Washington eh? Anywhere near Seattle?

State Capitol, Olympia Washington. Really great town aside from all the hippies! We are lucky to have either the largest or 2nd largest "nerdshop" on the westcoast of the u.s.a. here: Olympic Cards & Comics.

There would be no nerd rage sorry.

Have fun with your flgs using that rule.

/thread

Does anyone else believe that this could be WAI? With the current BGB and this codex release being so closely released and the orders that work during opponents turn being fairly specific in nature (for the most part) and making a fair amount of sense fluffwise (for whatever THAT'S worth) it does not seem to be a streatch at all really.

Kungfuhustler wrote:Does anyone else believe that this could be WAI? With the current BGB and this codex release being so closely released and the orders that work during opponents turn being fairly specific in nature (for the most part) and making a fair amount of sense fluffwise (for whatever THAT'S worth) it does not seem to be a streatch at all really.

No, the BRB and the Chaos Daemons Codex were closely released, this doesn't qualify.

So, wait, you are cheating and still can not beat Tau?

Kungfuhustler wrote:Wow. OP here. I haven't looked at this thread for a minute but people opposed to the RAW got even uglier than I imagined, good thread! After talking about this rule at my flgs with several players and debating on how, truly, "broken" it is we came to the agreement that it's perfectly RAW with no legitimate argument holding up against it AND that it's only moderately broken.

I like the cut of your jib, Kungfuhustler. "Oh, hey guys, I'm back. I only spent a minute glancing over this thread, but boy did some people get angry at me! I didn't read what they posted, or anything, but I talked it over with my FLGS, and they agree with me. This must be working as intended!"

Go back and read the full thread: playing orders this way is not supported by the rules. I agree that the rules appear to create a RAW opening, but reading them that way also produces a paradox that brings the game to a screeching halt. I'll say it one more time: Issuing orders during your opponents turn breaks the game. The rules do not support it, and common sense does not support it. If you want to make fun house rules at your local store, go nuts, but please stop trying to pretend that this is anything but an incredible stretch of an interpretation.

Kungfuhustler wrote:Does anyone else believe that this could be WAI? With the current BGB and this codex release being so closely released and the orders that work during opponents turn being fairly specific in nature (for the most part) and making a fair amount of sense fluffwise (for whatever THAT'S worth) it does not seem to be a streatch at all really.

Yes, Kungfuhustler. GW intended you to be able to issue orders during your opponents turn, but instead of explicitly saying that, they used language implying that you couldn't, failed to make any reference to this incredibly powerful ability in the Codex or their other materials, and just for good measure threw in a rules paradox to ensure that only casual gamers who were pure of heart could ever actually complete a game of 40k.

They did this to test the faith of the true believers.

Look, I know sarcasm is the poor man's wit, but let's get real. The notion that this is WAI is just laughable. There's not a single other ability in 40k that allows players to violate the basic concept of the IGO / UGO turn system that does not explicitly allow for the exception. GW just doesn't write rules like this.

I can understand the genesis of the RAW argument, even if I disagree with it. But the WAI argument is just indefensible.

BoxANT wrote:So, wait, you are cheating and still can not beat Tau?

lol. I tied them the only time I played against them under 5th.

@Davee47.I read the thread... You are just wrong dave. At lease till we see a faq

Hmmm, can't get the multi-quote function to work.

Gwar, I certainly hope they FAQ this, and rule AGAINST issuing orders in your opponent's turn.

All, re using phase to justify every phase in both player's turn as a counter-argument. Doesn't work, Page 9, same page that gives us turn = player turn, gives us phase = your own turn.

Dave, it may indeed break the game. But that's not what is under discussion. The rule is under discussion, not how over-the-top it might be.

Kwi, turn = player turn, means each player turn, not that player's turn.

Hymirl, is it trolling to argue for RAW or trolling to call someone a troll? You (and the mods) can decide.

Razerous, where in the new IG codex does it specifically state "you use orders during your own turn". That's the problem that we've been discussing. It doesn't say that and in fact says the opposite with the "each turn" statement.

Modquisition on:

Gentlemen, the #1 Rule of Dakka is, be polite. There have been multiple posts flaming other posters. This will not be tolerated. Further flmaing posts after this public warnign will be dealt with harshly. I will contineu to monitor this thread.

don_mondo wrote:.

Razerous, where in the new IG codex does it specifically state "you use orders during your own turn". That's the problem that we've been discussing. It doesn't say that and in fact says the opposite with the "each turn" statement.

Imperial guard codex, p29, that whole box.

Imperial guard codex p30, the officer orders description - further reinfornces the points.

Imperial guard codex p36, the platoon command squad description - more of the same.

BGB p15 & 16 - Using identical terminology. Clear what is intended. Please pay close attention to the first paragraph.

BGB P51 - Monsterous creature, again using identical terminology - Does anyone else say monsterous creature can fire 2 weapons every single shooting phase.. No. Ofcourse not. Its obvious, like the guard codex.

I could give you countless more referances. Theres no need. Its clear, unless you are trying to find alterior 'interpritations'.

it is clear unless you are trying to find ulterior interpritations, you're right! Guard can use orders on any players turn, ws written. that's been proven. Now how do we determine intent?

Gee, no they can't. See what I did there?

Unless someone is actively looking for some hidden easter egg, or desperately looking for some way to creatively interpret the rules, it's very clear from the wording in the codex that you cannot use orders in the enemies turn. Yes, GW screwed up. But I think the screw up is in the "turn means either players turn", not in the IG codex. Everyone knows GW can fail to state the obvious, and isn't totally clear on rules. Doesn't suddenly mean the rules of the game have taken a left turn.

The problem might be that YMDC has changed from "how i'd play the game" to "how I'd argue on the internet that the rules might let you play the game". It makes for an interesting theoretical discussion. But also makes YMDC less and less useful.

"But they said on Dakka Dakka..." is taken about as seriously now as "But the redshirt at GW said....".

mikhaila wrote:"But they said on Dakka Dakka..." is taken about as seriously now as "But the redshirt at GW said....".

No Offence, but that has always been the case tbfh.

Probably the best single argument I've heard against this, is that it is such a change from the norm, GW would have mentioned it as a "feature" of the new Codex. They wouldn't have hidden it, so you had to search and search for it, then argue about intent to get people to let you use it.


Is that a rock solid argument? No. I know GW screws things up by the numbers most times, but this is a pretty big miss if indeed that's what it is.



Clay

Razerous wrote:

don_mondo wrote:.

Razerous, where in the new IG codex does it specifically state "you use orders during your own turn". That's the problem that we've been discussing. It doesn't say that and in fact says the opposite with the "each turn" statement.

Imperial guard codex, p29, that whole box.

Imperial guard codex p30, the officer orders description - further reinfornces the points.

Imperial guard codex p36, the platoon command squad description - more of the same.

BGB p15 & 16 - Using identical terminology. Clear what is intended. Please pay close attention to the first paragraph.

BGB P51 - Monsterous creature, again using identical terminology - Does anyone else say monsterous creature can fire 2 weapons every single shooting phase.. No. Ofcourse not. Its obvious, like the guard codex.

I could give you countless more referances. Theres no need. Its clear, unless you are trying to find alterior 'interpritations'.

IG Codex pages 29, 30, and 36, all use the phrasing each turn. Which as stated on page 9 of the BRB mean each player turn.

BGB pages 15 and 16, since the BRB say on Page 9 to treat "turn" as player turn then it still makes sense as it specifilty says the turn is yours, thus only in your shooting phase may you fire.

BGB Page 51, say they may do so once per shooting phase. If we go bak to page 15 it specificly refer to the shooting phase as yours, and that is the only one they can fire in.

As shown the RAW are quite clear on this point. I welcome anyone to point out the flaw in my logic. I don't even play Guard, but I feel that if this is what the rules say that is how we should play. No matter how much sense it does or doesn't make.

arinnoor wrote:I welcome anyone to point out the flaw in my logic. I don't even play Guard, but I feel that if this is what the rules say that is how we should play. No matter how much sense it does or doesn't make.

...Go back and read the thread. this has all been covered.

I have read the thread where were these points disproven?

Pretty much everywhere. If you cant see it, you have bigger problems.

What do you mean? I see nowhere any one disputing what is said on page 9 or Page 15 of the BRB.

Why are you reading the fantasy book?

What do you mean? BRB is Big Rule Book, but now that I check the glossary it calls it Big Red Book. Geuss I'll just call it the BGB from now on.

don_mondo wrote:Dave, it may indeed break the game. But that's not what is under discussion. The rule is under discussion, not how over-the-top it might be.

Often, when people say something "breaks the game," they are using hyperbole. IE, the statement "Valkyries are totally broken!" is used as a stand-in for the statement "Valkyries are overpowered for their points cost." I was not using the phrase in that context. My contention is not that "Using orders in your opponent's turn is over-the-top and unfair!" My contention is that it is impossible to use orders during your opponent's turn and still obey the RAW.

I do not deny that the main book's definition of "turn" supports your argument. However, attempting to play the rules that way contradicts other parts of the RAW. Specifically it violates the rule that orders must be issued at the "beginning" of a turn. If your opponent attempts to "block" your orders by doing something first in the shooting phase, the game "breaks" in the sense that you and your opponent are each attempting to do something, and there are no rules that dictate how your actions should be resolved. As I joked, you can go borrow some rules from Magic: The Gathering if you want, but the 40k rulebook will not help you.

And things get even crazier in IG vs. IG match-ups.

Instead of flatly stating that I am wrong, please explain to me how you would use orders during an opponent's turn. I am especially interested in seeing how this would work in an IG vs. IG match-up.

Gavinator wrote:Pg. 9 in the big rule book Headline "The Turn" second section "Game Turns and Player Turns."

"In a complete game turn, both players get a player turn, each one divided into Movement, Shooting and Assault phases (see Turn Sequence below). Exactly what is going to happen in each phase is described in the following sections of this book.

Hence one game turn will comprise two player turns. Whenever a rule uses the word 'turn', both in this rule book and in the Codexes, it means 'player turn', otherwise it will clearly state 'game turn'."

Now look at the Company command squad or any other officers special rules it states:

"The company commander may issue up to two orders per TURN." (Refer to BRB for what comprises a turn)

that work? It specifically says that the usage of turn in the IG dex means player turn! I.E. Orders in your shooting phase.

IG vs. IG w/ orders sounds like a lot of fun! I'd resolve it with an I go you go strategy, personally. Really though, IG vs. IG is always fun regardless as it's a hilarious bloodbath!

Kungfuhustler wrote:that work?

No, of course not. Read my post.

Dave47 wrote:
attempting to play the rules that way contradicts other parts of the RAW. Specifically it violates the rule that orders must be issued at the "beginning" of a turn.

um, this post? because orders are at the beginning of the shooting phase. Remember that 'Faith' is used in the same way as orders (at the beginning of the shooting phase) so the player merely states that he has faith/orders to issue at the beginning of his opponents shooting phase.

Well, look at the 5th edition cover (I assume you are playing 5th edition) and you will see it is mostly red.

I know my point have been brought up, however, I don't see how they are wrong.

@Dave47- Couldn't that be simply stopped by telling your opponent? Just say "Hey I have something to do at the start of your shooting phase." I mean it is like a Inquisitor with Mystics the ablity to shooting at your deep striking unit. If your opponent went ahead and moved his models, cause the Inquisitor player didn't say anything about his ability. Then shouldn't he not get his shots? How can they refuse when what your doing has to be done before their actions?

Don't try and use the Mystics as an argument. That has a specific rule that says you can do it in their turn, but orders do not. Since you must have specific permission to do things in your opponent turn, and orders do not, therefore you cannot.

Dave47 wrote:

Kungfuhustler wrote:that work?

No, of course not. Read my post.

I did, a couple of times, and I think you were wrong, a couple of times.

Dave47 wrote:I do not deny that the main book's definition of "turn" supports your argument.

When you concede that the main rules support that Orders can be issued each player's turn...well doesn't bode well for the rest of your argument.

Dave47 wrote:However, attempting to play the rules that way contradicts other parts of the RAW. Specifically it violates the rule that orders must be issued at the "beginning" of a turn.

Nope, it's not at the beginning of the a turn it is at the beginning of the Shooting phase (on each player's turn). Per your previous admission/acceptance.

Dave47 wrote:If your opponent attempts to "block" your orders by doing something first in the shooting phase, the game "breaks" in the sense that you and your opponent are each attempting to do something, and there are no rules that dictate how your actions should be resolved.

Like how when I'm running an Inquisitor with Mystics and my Opponent Deep Strikes and then immediately starts shooting so as to deliberately deny me a chance to shoot.... oh wait sorry that doesn't happen (or more importantly, once both players have a clear understanding of the rules that doesn't happen).

Dave47 wrote:Instead of flatly stating that I am wrong, please explain to me how you would use orders during an opponent's turn.

Ok, following the RAW, after my opponent has completed his/her Movement phase and announces that he/she is going to start shooting, I would politely point out that, just as we had previously discussed prior to the start of the game, the Imperial Guard have an opportunity to issue Orders, and then follow the rest of the rules for the Order system.

Yad wrote:Ok, following the RAW, after my opponent has completed his/her Movement phase and announces that he/she is going to start shooting, I would politely point out that, just as we had previously discussed prior to the start of the game, the Imperial Guard have an opportunity to issue Orders, and then follow the rest of the rules for the Order system.

I would tell you that "Sorry, I started my Shooting Phase already it's too late for you" and if you dont like it, I pack up my minis and play someone who is not an Asshat. If you tried to argue, I would ask you a very simple question: "Where does it say you can do it in my turn? Do not use other rules or trying to interprate the "turn" rules, but a very simple 'Is there a rule saying you can do it in my turn, yes or no?'"

And if you STILL argue and whine about it, you get the Old-Space-Wolf-Ven-Dread-Sock'd

It is not that difficult. The IG player would simply inform his oponent that he has actions to take at the begining of the oponents shooting phase. At the begining of the oponents shooting phase, the oponent would get the priority as it is their shooting phase. If they have nothing to do at the start of the shooting phase then the IG player would be free to make his orders. On that same note if the IG player said nothing about the orders until after the oponent had made an action in the shooting phase then his orders could not be used.

Edit: Beaten to the punch. Also, Gwar! you are completely within your rights to pick up your models and leave. The other player is also within his rights to use this rule as it is supported by RAW.

Well, that's utterly wrong. Priority is part of M:TG not 40k.

40k = Models
M:TG = Cardboard that costs more then gold

Get it right please.

Edit: Beaten to the punch. Also, Gwar! you are completely within your rights to pick up your models and leave. The other player is also within his rights to use this rule as it is supported by RAW.

No, it is not. Please show me the part of the orders rule that says you may do anything in my turn? I'm looking at my copy here and cannot see anything about it. As We have said, if your rules allow you to do anything in my turn without explicit permission, I can do it too, so I can shoot my Dakkafex in your turn and move my models in your turn too.

Sorry Gwar, but those are the rules. While none of us may try that it is still perfectly legal. I am not interprating the "turn" rules, that is simply what they say and just because that causes a problem doesn't change that that is how it works.

My point in bringing the Mystics in the argument was not to say hey they can do it too, but to say that the opponent being able to skip your stuff can happen. Also I feel as I proposed that just telling your opponent in advance stops the problem of breaking the game.

But they are NOT the rules. The rules say you can issue them each turn. Woop de doo. Issue them, they wont DO anything because you CANNOT fire in my shooting phase. If you claim that, then I can fire in yours, Period.

Gwar! you are wrong. I am not firing in your shooting phase. I am issuing an order that says: the unit that was ordered immediately fires upon the chosen target.

I think we're all going to have to agree to disagree as to what the rules say at this point.
Enjoy!

sephiroth00055 wrote:the unit that was ordered immediately fires upon the chosen target.

Even if firing on that target is not possible?

Kungfuhustler wrote: Remember that 'Faith' is used in the same way as orders (at the beginning of the shooting phase) so the player merely states that he has faith/orders to issue at the beginning of his opponents shooting phase.

Actually, Acts of Faith are very explicit about whether or not they can be used during an opponent's turn. Only one Act ("Spirit of the Martyr") is used during the Opponent's shooting phase, and the rules are very clear. ("Phase: Enemy shooting phase.... Roll at the beginning of the phase.")

I guess it's true that a player could try to get the turn started quickly and deny you a chance to use your Act, just like arinoor's example of trying to deny a Mystic a shot by moving on with the turn. The difference in both cases in that the rules explicitly allow for an exception to the normal turn order by letting you act in your opponent's turn. If that's not "good enough," then perhaps these rules, too, are not entirely playable under a "pure" RAW interpretation, and need a small injection of common sense to be effective.

Regardless, neither of these examples create the same level of paradox that would be created by a Guard vs. Guard match-up under your interpretation. Your IGO / UGO solution to Guard vs. Guard order disputes, while playable, is very much a house rule. There is no legal way to resolve this paradox.

sephiroth00055 wrote:Gwar! you are wrong. I am not firing in your shooting phase. I am issuing an order that says: the unit that was ordered immediately fires upon the chosen target.

Oh gee, I'm sorry. You firing your Lasguns in my Shooting phase CLEARLY isnt Firing (even though the rule says "fires upon the chosen target"). I must be wrong after all. Oh Woe is me.

P.S. Why in The God-Emperor's name are you adding me as a friend? I would prefer if you didn't.

There, I added you as a friend.

I personally say that orders are only able to be given during the controlling players turn. They do not say they may be used during your opponents turn, The chosen wording is very loose, and this is where the confusion lies.

InquisitorFabius wrote:There, I added you as a friend.

<3 You I don't mind, you seem to have more than half a Brain And I am in your sig, always good for brownie points

@Gwar!, while firing maybe a byproduct what he is doing is issuing an Order, which an IG special rule. As we know Codexes supersede the main rulebook. As RAW states Orders may be issued on your opponents turn, you must then (if the order goes through) immediately fire. RAW says that IG Orders work on your opponents turn and therfore you must follow the rules for whatever order you choose.

@Dave47, My example was to show that your opponent can skip your stuff if you do not annnounce your action. Another example that is easier to follow is a Daemon Prince using Warp Time. Warp Time is done at the begining of either players' turns. Once my opponent says that he ends his turn, If I move my models he would lose his ability to use Warp Time. However, I would be the one at fault if before he ended his turn he had indicatedto me that he had an action to do at the begining of my turn.

arinnoor wrote:@Gwar!, while firing maybe a byproduct what he is doing is issuing an Order, which an IG special rule. As we know Codexes supersede the main rulebook. As RAW states Orders may be issued on your opponents turn, you must then (if the order goes through) immediately fire. RAW says that IG Orders work on your opponents turn and therfore you must follow the rules for whatever order you choose.

RAW says no such thing. RAW says you MUST issue orders at the beginning of the shooting phase. NOWHERE is it listed whose shooting phase, that is the problem.

arinnoor wrote:@Dave47, My example was to show that your opponent can skip your stuff if you do not annnounce your action. Another example that is easier to follow is a Daemon Prince using Warp Time. Warp Time is done at the begining of either players' turns. Once my opponent says that he ends his turn, If I move my models he would lose his ability to use Warp Time. However, I would be the one at fault if before he ended his turn he had indicatedto me that he had an action to do at the begining of my turn.

And this line of thinking makes you TFG. To purposely rush your turn to remove an allowed action of your opponent is being a poor sport.

So wait, Firing is not firing if it has any special rules? How the hell does that make sense?

@InquisitorFabius, RAW says that Orders are used each turn, which as stated in the BGB "turn" is always player turn unless otherwise specified. And my example is what someone could do, not what I do. In fact we have a player at our local game store who constantly forgets to use Warp Time at the begining of the turn. We just remind him when to use it and do one of two things. If it is a friendly game we let him go ahead and try for Warp Time, but if it's a tournament or a serious game (I.E. preparing for a tournament) we just remind him when it is suposed to be used.

@Gwar!, Firing isn't the action, the action is issuing the Order. The IG player issues the order and then does what it says, if that contradicts the rulebook then, as the FAQ suggests, were are to use the Codex rule.

I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that. By your logic, we can fire in your shooting phase. Nowhere does it say "your shooting phase" when firing with, say, a Dakkafex, it only says "may fire in the shooting phase" so I obviously can fire in yours yes?

Ahh..

the identical terminology is not (well, was not what I was pointing to) about turns.. its simply 'shooting phase' & 'movement phase'. Baiscally nowhere does it say your shooting phase. It just says things like 'during the shooting phase' ... The terminology is identical between the BGB & the IG codex.

Anyone saying they can fire weapons in the shooting phase (of an enemies turn) due to orders are also saying, by definition, that monsterous creatures can shoot twice each & every shooting phase. Due to RAW.

Obviously this is wrong. Its obviously wrong before I brought in monsterous creatures but, its even more obvious now.

No as when you go to the rules for the shooting phase on page 15 of the BGB, you find that it specificly mentions it has to be your shooting phase to fire. The reason Orders work is that they are a Special Rule. RAW dictates that they may be used each turn and thus it overrides the normal restrictions.

Yeah. So in short the question posed in this thread has been anwswered: Rules as written allow the IG to issue orders on any players turn.

There has been no evidence presented that would suggest otherwise.

This is how the guard should be played unless a FAQ states otherwise IMHO.

Furthermore tournaments should not bar this as it is CLEARLY AND DEFINITIVELY the rule concerning when orders can be issued as per pg. 9 in the BRB.

Kungfuhustler wrote:Yeah. So in short the question posed in this thread has been anwswered: Rules as written allow the IG to issue orders on any players turn.

Wrong

Kungfuhustler wrote:There has been no evidence presented that would suggest otherwise.

There is plenty, or can you not read?

Kungfuhustler wrote:This is how the guard should be played unless a FAQ states otherwise IMHO.

Certainly oh great King of the World </Sarcasm>

Kungfuhustler wrote:Furthermore tournaments should not bar this as it is CLEARLY AND DEFINITIVELY the rule concerning when orders can be issued as per pg. 9 in the BRB.

In case you didn't realise, tournaments can do whatever the hell they want. If I run a tournament and want to ban orks, or pink models or Vulkan, I can. If I want to say "you can only order IG orders on your turn" I can as well.

Quoting page 30 of the Tyranid Codex, "A creature with two or more ranged bio-weapons may only choose to fire one of them per shooting phase unless it is a Monstrous Creature, in which case two weapons may be fired." That says I'm allowed to fire a bio-weapon per shooting phase. It specifically states per shooting phase, thusly, I can fire them in your shooting phase.

Oh, that's too shaky as it never explicitly states that I can in the enemiees shooting phase? Neither do IG orders, they just say "every". The moral of the story is, GW does NOT hide things like this.

Oh Snap! Is that a Codex Rule? Dayum! I guess Codex > BRB so we can fire in your shooting phase!

RustyKnight wrote:Quoting page 30 of the Tyranid Codex, "A creature with two or more ranged bio-weapons may only choose to fire one of them per shooting phase unless it is a Monstrous Creature, in which case two weapons may be fired." That says I'm allowed to fire a bio-weapon per shooting phase. It specifically states per shooting phase, thusly, I can fire them in your shooting phase.

Oh, that's too shaky as it never explicitly states that I can in the enemiees shooting phase? Neither do IG orders, they just say "every". The moral of the story is, GW does NOT hide things like this.

That has been covered and debunked earlier in this thread.

Gwar! wrote:In case you didn't realise, tournaments can do whatever the hell they want. If I run a tournament and want to ban orks, or pink models or Vulkan, I can. If I want to say "you can only order IG orders on your turn" I can as well.

This is the first time you have been right over the course of this thread. I'm not trying to stoop to your level and be rude here...
Log off, take a deep breath, come back, take a look at what has been presented and delete your stupid posts

Kungfuhustler wrote:

Gwar! wrote:In case you didn't realise, tournaments can do whatever the hell they want. If I run a tournament and want to ban orks, or pink models or Vulkan, I can. If I want to say "you can only order IG orders on your turn" I can as well.

This is the first time you have been right over the course of this thread. I'm not trying to stoop to your level and be rude here...
Log off, take a deep breath, come back, take a look at what has been presented and delete your stupid posts

Gee, with that attitude you'd think he owned the place.. oh wait, he doesn't. You claim my point about the Shooting has been debunked. I also claim your point has been debunked. Doesn't make you right though.

And as Razerous has pointed out:
Anyone saying they can fire weapons in the shooting phase (of an enemies turn) due to orders are also saying, by definition, that monstrous creatures can shoot twice each & every shooting phase. Due to RAW.

Now of course, I shall not stoop to your level by telling what to do, go and do whatever you want, log off, dont log off, it makes no difference to me.

Ok guys , let me interupt your heated discussion with a semi OT question.

When ever game rule issue occurs , GW fix it via ( is it called game errata )? that or wait till next codex ?

I mean, im sure GW staff knows whats the intended rules should be, so what takes them so long to fix it?

LunaHound wrote:Ok guys , let me interupt your heated discussion with a semi OT question.

When ever game rule issue occurs , GW fix it via ( is it called game errata )? that or wait till next codex ?

I mean, im sure GW staff knows what's the intended rules should be, so what takes them so long to fix it?

HAHAHAH! GW? Errata? They should never be placed in the same sentence. By the time GW get round to issuing a FAQ for the Guard we'll be in 7th edition, and Dark Eldar still wont have a new codex.

There is a difference between "each turn" and "per shooting phase." It doesn't say each shooting phase, but per shooting phase. In the BGB page 15 it says, "In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, we split up the firing so that each player’s force fires during the Shooting phase of his own turn." This mean that your MC cannot fire each shooting phase, but only in your shooting phases.

To move back to the topic of IG and thier orders. There is nothing in the BGB that says you cannot fire in your opponents shooting phase. As we all know though just because it doesn't say that you can't, that doesn't mean you can. However, IG Orders can be used each turn, at the begining of the shooting phase. The Orders immediately force the ordered unit to perform an action, which may be shooting. The lack of a rule that prevents me from firing along with a rule that says I can means that I can.

arinnoor wrote:The lack of a rule that prevents me from firing along with a rule that says I can means that I can.

40k is a Restrictive Ruleset, in that you are restricted only to actions that you are specifically allowed to so. The lack of a rule that prevents you from doing XYZ does not mean you can, you must have a rule that says you may do XYZ. Guard have no rule saying they can Fire in the enemy Shooting Phase.

The definition of "per" according to Microsoft Word, "for each or for every thing mentioned". So, my TMC may fire in each or every shooting phase. Codex trumps rulebook, sooo...

So does this mean that if an Orc player goes second, the orc player get's to declare Waagh in his first shooting phase since it's the second turn? After all, the orc codex simply says "Cannot be used in the first turn." That's great!

Yup. But apparently that doesn't work according to the Orders camp, because its not fair!

@Gwar! 1st IG do have a rule that say they can. Their orders may be used eachturn and you must immediately do the order. there is no rule that says you can't.

Secondy open the book to page 9 and look at the second coloum, second paragraph, and read the following. "So, for example, in game turn 1 a player will take his player turn 1 and go through his Movement, Shooting and Assault phases. Then the other player will take his player turn 1 and go through his Movement, Shooting and Assault phases, thus ending game turn 1. Game turn 2 will then follow."

Yay! Copypaste from Pirate Rulebooks is fun! Glad to see you bothered to edit out the linebreaks.

And again, tell me why I cannot shoot with my Carnifex in your shooting phase. I can shoot 2 weapons PER shooting phase. This is the codex, so it trumps any and all rules in the BRB.

And what's with the Page 9 stuff? Are you referring to the Waaagh! argument or something else or what? How can you expect us to take you seriously at all if you are not taking us seriously?

Gwar!, you left out the qualification that a Tyranid creature requires two ranged weapon symbiots to be able to fire every shooting phase, as described on page 30 of their codex. So, yay for Dakkafexen!

That is only one definition. I'm sure we could find ten different ones all over the web. The problem is the difference between the relationships of each and per. If the Tyranid Codex said that a MC could do so per turn then I would give it to you, as RAW you'd be right. However, that is not what it says and we are left to infer on our own. What you infer is different then me and we'll just ave to agree to disagree on that point.

How is "per turn" and "per Shooting Phase" different? We using a different definition for "per" each time?

It is not "per turn" vs "per shooting phase." It is "each turn" vs "per shooting phase." "Per turn" would, by the rules, allow you to do the action per player turn.

Errr, "Each turn" is the EXACT SAME as "Per turn".

Do you even speak English?

"Each turn" would be the same as "per turn", but your rule says "per shooting phase", which is different.

Also why it may no be your intent I find some of your coments rather insulting, such as the "Do you even speak English?" comment, to which I haven't done anything to deserve.

It says "per shooting phase"...why would "per turn" make it more valid?

Defitinition of "per" from Webster's New World College Dictionary 4th Edition, per...2)for each, for every". The others don't make sense in the context. How many times do I have to show you the definition?

@Solkan- Yes, it really does make Dakkafexes look better. Of course, this is a ridiculous argument (just like the notion that IG get to fire and run in the enemies turn). I'd never even think of trying this in a game.

Edit- !?!?! It states "PER SHOOTING PHASE" (emphasis mine). It doesn't say only in the Tyranid player's, it says in every shooting phase.

So, "Each Turn" is the same as "Per Turn", but "Per Shooting Phase" is not the same as "Each Shooting Phase"?

How does that work?

Wow, this is absolutely ridiculous. They obviously can't shoot in the enemy phase, nor can they run since it says before they do it.

If that is the case, why not just have them issue that order infinite times, because, you know, why not?

As proven "turn" by the rules should be read as "player turn." If your argument had this I would support it as RAW would.

Gwar! wrote:So, "Each Turn" is the same as "Per Turn", but "Per Shooting Phase" is not the same as "Each Shooting Phase"?

How does that work?

Thats what i want to know , because thats the whole point here.

IF IG can issue order that way , so can your carnifex.

Ppl are saying its rediculous and i agree, which is why IG shouldnt be allowed to for the same common sense reasoning.

Sure, it is per player turn, that is fine, however, since you can't actually run or shoot in your players turn you never meet the "before" condition.

arinnoor wrote:As proven "turn" by the rules should be read as "player turn." If your argument had this I would support it as RAW would.

And why would "Per Shooting Phase" be read any different? Do Enlighten us oh Wise one.

Somnicide wrote:Sure, it is per player turn, that is fine, however, since you can't actually run or shoot in your players turn you never meet the "before" condition.

Yup, but apparently being able to shoot twice as much as any army and totally break the I-Go-You-Go structure of 40k was just so awesome that GW didn't want to tell us explicitly. Oh those crazy northerners!

The key here is not per or each but, the use of turn. Turn=player turn unless specified otherwise. When I see per shooting phase I see something that could mean every shooting phase or every shooting phase your allowed.

@Somnicide-There is no rule disallowinf firing in an opponents shooting phase. While normal this wouldn't all shooting the IG Orders say that they can be used each turn (which should read each player turn) and they do the action immediately.

Kinda off-topic, but where does one fill out the Dakka Code? I searched but couldn't find it in my profile, did I miss it?

Back on topic, arinoor, you still haven't proven why this doesn't work for the Carnifex when it works for the IG. Your whole "doesn't say turn" argument doesn't explain squat.

Edit- It says "every shooting phase". It never states only the ones allowed, it says EVERY shooting phases.

Errr... OK? It doesn't say "Your Shooting Phase", so therefore it must mean each and every one, otherwise they would have said "your shooting phase" wouldn't they?

arinnoor wrote:
@Somnicide-There is no rule disallowinf firing in an opponents shooting phase. While normal this wouldn't all shooting the IG Orders say that they can be used each turn (which should read each player turn) and they do the action immediately.

If there is no rule disallowing it, then everyone can do it not just guard. Rules are permissive.

You are right there isn't a rule I can think of that says it doesn't work for your Carnifex. However, you must also realize the IG rule is worded differently and by RAW it does work.

@Somnicide- Exactly rules are permissive, so the must say you can before you can.

So it does work for the Carnifex? Or it doesn't? If it doesn't, that disallows your entire "IG shooting in other peoples turns".

Psychers are allowed to make one (or more, depending on the codex) psychic test per player turn, and several psychic powers count as ranged weapons, and commonly that is listed as "instead of firing another weapon." Running is done instead of firing a weapon, and can be done even by models which have no weapons to fire. So, what's preventing a Fzorgle sorcerer from lashing units around during the opponent's turns? Also note that not being able to fire is appearantly no barrier to using Fzorgle because a Fzorgle prince has no weapons to fire at all.

The point is that a player is not allowed to do anything during their opponent's player turn unless explicitly authorized to do so.

arinnoor wrote:You are right there isn't a rule I can think of that says it doesn't work for your Carnifex. However, you must also realize the IG rule is worded differently and by RAW it does work.

Oh gee, well Now I am sold. "Oh, yeah, its, um, different and stuff, so it works!" BRILLIANT!

Please, tell me, where have you been all these years? Why are you not using your great capacity for debate and diplomacy to bring about world peace!

Oh, and in case that was too subtle:
</Sarcasm>

Sorry, but mumbling about how "oh, its, err, different lalalalalaala" is not very convincing.

Like I said I can think of no reason or rule as to why the Carnifex shouldn't work.

@Solkan, please show me the rule where it says you cannont do anything in the opponents turn unless specified. If you could provide a page number as well so I can find it in my BGB.

Edit-Gwar!-Is there a need for such sarcasm? Anyway you cannont look at those rulse and say they are exactly the same. Example fearless and synapse for morale and pinning they both do the same thing except they are still different rules.

LunaHound wrote:
Ppl are saying its rediculous and i agree, which is why IG shouldnt be allowed to for the same common sense reasoning.

"Common Sense" - why is it called that again when it's so rare?

Back on topic:

I would agree with Gwar!, RustyKnight and others who have said that it is rather rediculous to give orders in durring the opponents turn. Look guard players just got a new codex that trumps your last one, and imo it can really put the hurt on a bunch of armies. Is it that bad that you (nobody specific) really have to hunt for rules that aren't there?

arinnoor wrote:Like I said I can think of no reason or rule as to why the Carnifex shouldn't work so it should.

@Solkan, please show me the rule where it says you cannont do anything in the opponents turn unless specified. If you could provide a page number as well so I can find it in my BGB.

So, it's okay if I start using Fzorgle and Doombolt during your shooting phases, then?

This entire argument reminds me of the fleeting out of transports debacle.

Arinoor, you wouldn't have any problem with an opponent's Dakkafex firing in your turn?

No because Fzorgle doesn't have a rule that says he does.

Please could someone tell me how this doesn't make since.

Part 1- Page 9 says turn=player turn, so Orders can be used each turn, should read each player turn.

Part 2- There is no rule that says you can or can fire during your opponents turn in the BGB.

Part 3-Using Part 1 and 2 you can therefor use your orders each turn and myou must immediatly do what they say. Which is a rule allow you to fire, when it is given.

Please point out the flaw, but I request rules be given with page numbers as I cannot find ules that prevent this.

Edit: Whatever the rules say, then that is how I would play, no exceptions. So since I can't find anything that says otherwise you can and I wouldn't mind.

arinnoor wrote:No because Fzorgle doesn't have a rule that says he does.

I'm not even gonna bother linking lex this time.

WRONG.

It does. Fzorgle is a Psychic power.

Page 50 BRB: Psykers can use one psychic power per player turn.

So I can use it once in my turn and once in yours yes? Or does turn mean something different now?

arinnoor wrote:No because Fzorgle doesn't have a rule that says he does.

Please could someone tell me how this doesn't make since.

Part 1- Page 9 says turn=player turn, so Orders can be used each turn, should read each player turn.

Part 2- There is no rule that says you can or can fire during your opponents turn in the BGB.

Part 3-Using Part 1 and 2 you can therefor use your orders each turn and myou must immediatly do what they say. Which is a rule allow you to fire, when it is given.

Please point out the flaw, but I request rules be given with page numbers as I cannot find ules that prevent this.

Part 1 - Psykers can use one psychic power per player turn. BGB, page 50.
Part 2 - Lash of Submission, "A psyker may use this psychic power in the Shooting phase instead of using another ranged weapon." The requirement to be able to shoot can't be required because a Lash prince can't shoot because it has no weapons.
Part 3 - Using parts one and two, a Lash Prince can use Lash of Submission every single player turn, including the opponent's player turns.

Please point out the flaw in my reasoning.

You are totally ignoring the restriction given in the IG codex. "Orders must be issued before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run..." That is pretty obvious and straight forward. I can only assume that you are choosing to ignore that for the purposes of your argument because it absolutely invalidates your argument.

Somnicide wrote:I can only assume that you are choosing to ignore that for the purposes of your argument because it absolutely invalidates your argument.

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUR!

Ya know, this whoe argument is hillarious. It's like the one where people say Plaugebearers can never take their FnP roll (^^,)

Somnicide wrote:You are totally ignoring the restriction given in the IG codex. "Orders must be issued before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run..." That is pretty obvious and straight forward. I can only assume that you are choosing to ignore that for the purposes of your argument because it absolutely invalidates your argument.

Gwar! wrote:

Somnicide wrote:I can only assume that you are choosing to ignore that for the purposes of your argument because it absolutely invalidates your argument.

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUR!

Guys , i brought that up on page 2 first post xD

I'll just stay out of this thread now, as I don't need the ridicule. I really don't care which way it goes as long as RAW supports it and I apreciate those like Slokan and Somnicide who conducted themseves properly and by providing rules not just saying that it doesn't work.

Just because the lash prince has no weapons does not mean that it does not have the ability to fire. In the rule book it does not say that you must have a weapon in order to fire. ON Pg.9 the BGB says: "During the shooting phase any and all of your units may fire." Nowhere does it mention having to have a ranged weapon. Thus all of your units have the ability to fire and thus can give it up to make other actions.

Edit: @ Somnicide - Don_Mundo has already addressed this issue earlier in this thread.

LunaHound wrote:Guys , i brought that up on page 2 first post xD

It's because you're a girrrrrrrrrl!!!!

arinnoor wrote:I cannont so I guess my reasoning is flawed I'll withdraw myself from this dicussion. I must be missing something in the rules that I just can't find right now.

Yes, your reasoning IS flawed. Leaving a debate because you can't defend your argument is childish and petty. At least admit you are wrong or you do come off as childish.

Gwar! wrote:

Ya know, this whoe argument is hillarious. It's like the one where people say Plaugebearers can never take their FnP roll (^^,)

I only argued that because it illustrated how wrong toxic_wisdom's interpretation of FnP was.

RustyKnight wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Ya know, this whoe argument is hillarious. It's like the one where people say Plaugebearers can never take their FnP roll (^^,)

I only argued that because it illustrated how wrong toxic_wisdom's interpretation of FnP was.

That wasn't aimed at you, I didn't know you argued that lol. But yeah, it's beyond idiotic.

Somnicide wrote:You are totally ignoring the restriction given in the IG codex. "Orders must be issued before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run..." That is pretty obvious and straight forward. I can only assume that you are choosing to ignore that for the purposes of your argument because it absolutely invalidates your argument.

Aaarrrghhhh, being sucked back in...........
We're ignoring it because it means nothing. As long as they issue orders before they run or shoot, they can issue orders. Doesn't say they must be ABLE to run or shoot. And as well, the orders can give them the ability to run or shoot "immediately", so all it says is that they must issue their orders before they can receive orders telling them to do one of those two things. By your logic, an officer in a Chimera that moved more than 6", meaning he cannot run or shoot, cannot issue orers. In his OWN turn. Bzzzztttt, I disagree.

What do you mean did I not make it clear enough that I was wrong? If not then here.... I apologize for taking up two pages with my flawed logic. I am abvoisly wrong with my argument.

@Gwar!-Childish and petty am I now? Do the insults really need to keep pileing.

don_mondo wrote:By your logic, an officer in a Chimera that moved more than 6", meaning he cannot run or shoot, cannot issue orers. In his OWN turn. Bzzzztttt, I disagree.

And you do realise this is just as legitimate as saying you can issue them in the opponents shooting phase?

So don, When you play Against Lash will you let people Fzorgle you every turn? Or against Nidzilla let the dakkafex's shoot at you every shooting phase? Because if you don't, why are you trying to use orders?

arinnoor wrote:@Gwar!-Childish and petty am I now? Do the insults really need to keep pileing.

Observations on Behaviour are childish now? Whatever floats your boat buddy.

Gwar! wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Guys , i brought that up on page 2 first post xD

It's because you're a girrrrrrrrrl!!!!

arinnoor wrote:I cannont so I guess my reasoning is flawed I'll withdraw myself from this dicussion. I must be missing something in the rules that I just can't find right now.

Yes, your reasoning IS flawed. Leaving a debate because you can't defend your argument is childish and petty. At least admit you are wrong or you do come off as childish.

That was kind of unnecessary. That is what this forum is for, he debated it for a while and seems to have come around. Leaving a debate because you can see that perhaps your initial thoughts might have been flawed to do more research is not childish, it is actually pretty mature rather than just sticking with it no matter what.

edit: LunaHound, I missed your post on page 2, you just need to hammer it repeatedly :-p Here, I will say it. LunaHound was right and her argument was absolutely valid and supportable by the rules. I took her idea and ran with it.

Somnicide wrote:That was kind of unnecessary. That is what this forum is for, he debated it for a while and seems to have come around. Leaving a debate because you can see that perhaps your initial thoughts might have been flawed to do more research is not childish, it is actually pretty mature rather than just sticking with it no matter what.

Well, the way he said "oh I guess my reasoning is flawed" seemed more of a "lalalala I'm not listening" than a "Ok, I was wrong, My bad".

So, Sorry bout that, guess I misread the tone.

don_mondo wrote:

Somnicide wrote:You are totally ignoring the restriction given in the IG codex. "Orders must be issued before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run..." That is pretty obvious and straight forward. I can only assume that you are choosing to ignore that for the purposes of your argument because it absolutely invalidates your argument.

Aaarrrghhhh, being sucked back in...........
We're ignoring it because it means nothing. As long as they issue orders before they run or shoot, they can issue orders. Doesn't say they must be ABLE to run or shoot. And as well, the orders can give them the ability to run or shoot "immediately", so all it says is that they must issue their orders before they can receive orders telling them to do one of those two things. By your logic, an officer in a Chimera that moved more than 6", meaning he cannot run or shoot, cannot issue orers. In his OWN turn. Bzzzztttt, I disagree.

And neither does the phrase "Instead of firing a weapon" or "Instead of firing another weapon" require the ability to fire, using the precedent of the running rules. The phrase "Instead of firing another weapon" in psychic shooting powers only prevents the psyker from using another shooting weapon during his turn. A unit can run, even though the requirement for running is "instead of firing a weapon" when it cannot fire a weapon, after all.

So psychic shooting attacks, or abilities done instead of shooting, should have the same lack of timing conflict as Imperial Guard orders. After all, the sorcerer is doing something instead of something he can't do and the guard player is just doing something before something he can't do as well.

@ solkan - Please see my above post.

don_mondo wrote:

Somnicide wrote:You are totally ignoring the restriction given in the IG codex. "Orders must be issued before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run..." That is pretty obvious and straight forward. I can only assume that you are choosing to ignore that for the purposes of your argument because it absolutely invalidates your argument.

By your logic, an officer in a Chimera that moved more than 6", meaning he cannot run or shoot, cannot issue orers. In his OWN turn. Bzzzztttt, I disagree.

Actually, that is covered specifically by the rule for Chimeras (since the orders rule specifically says he cannot give orders while mounted in a vehicle) - "Mobile Command Vehicle - An officer embarked in a Chimera may still issue orders to squads."

Before everyone jumps on the flame wagon, keep in mind in my original post I asserted that I don't intend to play the Guard using Orders on each player's turn. I simply saw the OP question/assertion, did the reading and thought it was worth exploring. That said, I'm putting on my Devil's Advocate had and having a go:

1. Unless otherwise specified, turn refers to player turn. BRG Pg.9
2. A game turn consists of two player turns, each with a Movement, Shooting, and Assault phase.
2a. A 'player turn' is not a player(human).
3. Each player(human) has one player turn per game turn.
4. Imperial Guard officers may issue one or more orders each turn.
4a. Imperial Guard officers may issue one or more orders each 'player turn'.
5. Orders may be issued during each player's(human) turn.

Your argument is flawed because it focuses on the definition of turn to the exclusion of all other rules, much like the counter Dakkafex or Fzorgle claims.

The rules for orders say they must do it before they shoot or run, because they cannot shoot or run in the enemy shooting phase (at least, I hope not) they cannot issue orders. This appears to create the issue of the officer in the speeding chimera being unable to tell the grunts to GTFO, but the rules for chimeras state that an officer may issue orders from a chimera, so may do so even if moving 12", because the chimera's rules say so.

Gwar! wrote:Your argument is flawed because it focuses on the definition of turn to the exclusion of all other rules, much like the counter Dakkafex or Fzorgle claims.

The rules for orders say they must do it before they shoot or run, because they cannot shoot or run in the enemy shooting phase (at least, I hope not) they cannot issue orders. This appears to create the issue of the officer in the speeding chimera being unable to tell the grunts to GTFO, but the rules for chimeras state that an officer may issue orders from a chimera, so may do so even if moving 12", because the chimera's rules say so.

Hmm, I guess I would counter by saying that your incorrectly linking shooting and running to being able to issue an order. In other words you must issue an order before you shoot or run, but you don't need to be able to shoot or run to issue an order.

The argument seems to be another teleport homer, chaos icon issue...figured somebody had already brought that up, guess not after rereading the entire thread....

That's not the point at all. The point is, you must issue the order "before you shoot or run". Since you never have a chance to either Shoot/Run nor Not Shoot/Not Run.

The argument isn't "If you can't shoot you can't issue orders" its "You cannot issue the orders before you shoot in the enemies shooting phase because you never get a chance to even say 'I can't shoot BAWWWW'"

So its settled? no more issues?

darn i was hoping OP and his lfgs would stick to their rule
so the thing i pm you about would happen xD

It's not ever said explicitly, but I think the implication of player turn is your player turn. Everything in the BRB is written and directed at the reader, not both the reader and his or her opponent at the same time. This is the context of the entire rulebook. To focus on page 9's definition of "player turn" as meaning either player's turn denies the implied you.

So if is something is going to be used on an opposing player turn, it has to be mentioned explicitly. If it's used on a turn, it means player turn, which means your turn to play.

Somnicide wrote:You are totally ignoring the restriction given in the IG codex. "Orders must be issued before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run..." That is pretty obvious and straight forward. I can only assume that you are choosing to ignore that for the purposes of your argument because it absolutely invalidates your argument.

This is the whole point...since you cannot normally run or shoot in your opponents turn, you cannot use orders in your opponents turn.

This is just like the Eldar Jetbikes moving in any assault phase stupidity that popped up awhile ago, because it doesn't say that they move during THIER assault phase.

You can only take actions in your turn unless something specifically says you can do it in yout opponents turn, like Mystics...this is not the case for IG orders. People are just trying to read something into them that is not there.

Can you run or shoot in your opponents turn? NO...so you cannot issue orders then....and don't try the whole "but orders let me shoot" argument, because that is only circular reasoning and therefore flawed.

If you want a rules-based thing for what I said prior to this, by the way, try page xii (before page 1) on "Taking Turns": "Both players alternate taking their turn. First one player moves, shoots and assaults with his army. Once he's finished ,the other player does the same with his own army."

By pg. 9, turn in that sentence means "player turn." Both players alternate taking their player turn. References to turn for IG orders must refers to your player turn, as mentioned in page xii.

It is these type of threads that make me laugh at the general lack of common sense of the loophole seeking fools that play this game. If you want to play the game use some common sense and stop trying to break the game at every opportunity. We all know that GW does not take the greatest care in making sure that the use and meaning of every possible word is argued and analyzed to the nth possible degree as some of the the bigger knuckleheads in the gaming community do.

I personally think that if I came across anyone that wants to argue this type of interpretation I would just bag the game then and there, as god only knows what other interpretations you are going to end up having to sit through. I would just look at them, tell them nice game and go find another reasonable person to game with and avoid that person like the plague in the future. Isn't the first rule of this game supposed to be have fun? This sort of argument seems to be raised only to see how you can best try and screw someone over during a game, not to improve the game and certainly not to have fun. I swear that all some people must do is sit around and look for foolish arguments to raise just to see what responses they get or maybe to get a survey of how many people they can try and pull this crap on before they get smacked.

Somnicide wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

Somnicide wrote:You are totally ignoring the restriction given in the IG codex. "Orders must be issued before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run..." That is pretty obvious and straight forward. I can only assume that you are choosing to ignore that for the purposes of your argument because it absolutely invalidates your argument.

By your logic, an officer in a Chimera that moved more than 6", meaning he cannot run or shoot, cannot issue orers. In his OWN turn. Bzzzztttt, I disagree.

Actually, that is covered specifically by the rule for Chimeras (since the orders rule specifically says he cannot give orders while mounted in a vehicle) - "Mobile Command Vehicle - An officer embarked in a Chimera may still issue orders to squads."

That's my whole point. Being able to run and shoot is not a requirement to issue orders. So the whole 'before they shoot or run' bit does not disqualify them from issuing orders in an opponent's turn.

You don't think that caveat was added because of the requirement? You are usually pretty level headed so I am surprised at your intractability on this one. I think you are just too close to the IG codex ;-)

Somnicide wrote:You don't think that caveat was added because of the requirement? You are usually pretty level headed so I am surprised at your intractability on this one. I think you are just too close to the IG codex ;-)

What I think he's saying, and don correct me if I'm wrong, is that an officer (and his squad's) ability to shoot or run is not a necessary condition to issue orders, but a conditional one. Meaning whether or not the ability to shoot or run is there is irrelevant to being able to issue orders.

-Yad

Exactly, whether the officer can shoot or run has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the officer can issue an order. So that line means nothing in the debate on whether or not orders can be issued in the opponent's turn.

The reason that they said you can't run or shoot first is because they don't want you moving to isuue an order to far far off squad, it has nothing to do with who's turn it is.
For the record, and hopefully the last time, there are orders that allow you to run/shoot! so it's saying that you must issue orders before you run/shoot, big deal. It has no relevance to the rules lawyering but hey, whatever, cling to straws if you have to!
My final thoughts are: RAW is RAW is RAW. RAI is RAI. they don't always sink up and Firefoxes make me angry... Ignorant, stubborn firefoxes! Nasty creatures!

This is the kind of thing that makes people not want to play this game.

And honestly anyone who would try to pull this is not only someone I would never play against again, but back when I owned my store, would be banned for life.

That this is very clearly not the intent of the rule is beyond obvious. That you can make a convoluted argument by deliberately streatching the interpretation of the rules is fair.

As a theoretical argument about GW's habit of not writting solid rules, fine.

As to any discussion of actually doing this in a game, serioulsy guys thats just blatant cheating, no two ways about it.

Anyone who tried to pull this against me in a game (friendly or tournament) would get one firm warning, then a broken kneecap.

No I am not being figurative.

It is possible for a player to attempt to deny a Witch Hunter's player a chance to use "Spirit of the Martyr" by trying to do something else at the "beginning" of the shooting phase. Since the Warhammer 40,000 Rules do not include rules on resolving the timing of competing actions, you've encountered a paradox, and there is no clear way to proceed under the RAW. The reason this is not a big issue is because, while the RAW is unclear, the RAI is very clear: "Spirit of the Martyr" is explicitly allowed to be used during the opponent's turn. So "Spirit" should be usable under the RAI unless the rules clearly prevent it.

Now, let's look at what happens when you try to issue orders during your opponent's turn: Since orders must be issued at the beginning of the shooting phase, you attempt to issue your orders, and your opponent attempts to do something so as to prevent you from issuing any orders. (Or, if your opponent is also IG, he tries to issue orders of his own.) At this point, you've once again encountered a paradox, and there is no clear way to proceed under the RAW.

This is what I mean when I say that issuing orders during the opponent's turn is not supported by the RAW. In order to force a RAW rules interpretation on an unwilling opponent, you need more than some RAW support: You need a clear path to allow your interpretation. If the rules are contradictory and give no hint as to how to proceed, you can state that "The RAW supports my interpretation" but you cannot state that "the RAW forces you to accept my interpretation."

Dave47 wrote:It is possible for a player to attempt to deny a Witch Hunter's player a chance to use "Spirit of the Martyr" by trying to do something else at the "beginning" of the shooting phase. Since the Warhammer 40,000 Rules do not include rules on resolving the timing of competing actions, you've encountered a paradox, and there is no clear way to proceed under the RAW. The reason this is not a big issue is because, while the RAW is unclear, the RAI is very clear: "Spirit of the Martyr" is explicitly allowed to be used during the opponent's turn. So "Spirit" should be usable under the RAI unless the rules clearly prevent it.

Now, let's look at what happens when you try to issue orders during your opponent's turn: Since orders must be issued at the beginning of the shooting phase, you attempt to issue your orders, and your opponent attempts to do something so as to prevent you from issuing any orders. (Or, if your opponent is also IG, he tries to issue orders of his own.) At this point, you've once again encountered a paradox, and there is no clear way to proceed under the RAW.

This is what I mean when I say that issuing orders during the opponent's turn is not supported by the RAW. In order to force a RAW rules interpretation on an unwilling opponent, you need more than some RAW support: You need a clear path to allow your interpretation. If the rules are contradictory and give no hint as to how to proceed, you can state that "The RAW supports my interpretation" but you cannot state that "the RAW forces you to accept my interpretation."

Is it RAW if it's an interpretation? I think i get what you're saying though. It's not so much explaining my interpretation, it is explaing the RAW and the associated impact to the game.

By page xii, it's RAW that you don't shoot or move on your opponent's player turn. Orders don't specifically say this goes away.

While you can assume that it does go away, when you do the Order argument becomes sort of like circular reasoning. You can only use an Order before you can move or shoot. But after you issue the Order, the Order tells you to shoot or move immediately. But can you shoot or move on an opponent's turn? It says to shoot immediately after you issue an Order, so you can Order before you move or shoot. And we're back at the start of that cycle.

So if what allows shooting on an opposing player's turn is that it says Orders are used on a turn, and turns are considered player turns by pg 9, I'd argue player turns are considered your player turn unless otherwise specified by the system - which Orders do not do.

So , ant the bottom of page 30, under the "Get back in the fight" Order. it say, and I Qoute: As a result, the ordered squad may shoot and assault as normal this turn.

So all I have to do go to ground and get a free shooting and assault phase....

Kung-fu, Yad, you're okay with my Carnifex shooting in your turn? 'Cause I have an argument just as strong as yours (which, doesn't really make it that strong).

sexiest_hero wrote:So , ant the bottom of page 30, under the "Get back in the fight" Order. it say, and I Qoute: As a result, the ordered squad may shoot and assault as normal this turn.

So all I have to do go to ground and get a free shooting and assault phase....

Well, seeing as this turn really means this 'player' turn, what would then be 'as normal'. If I were use this on my opponents turn (i.e., his player turn), what would be normal for my squad is to not be able to shoot and assault. The order is issued and executed, then whatever is 'normal' for that 'player turn' is then done. So no, you don't get a free shooting and assault phase on your opponents turn.

RustyKnight wrote:Kung-fu, Yad, you're okay with my Carnifex shooting in your turn? 'Cause I have an argument just as strong as yours (which, doesn't really make it that strong).

Well seeing as how this thread is, or should be focused on the IG Codex and Core Rules, I haven't given any thought or attention to other Codecies. What's your argument?

Yad wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:Kung-fu, Yad, you're okay with my Carnifex shooting in your turn? 'Cause I have an argument just as strong as yours (which, doesn't really make it that strong).

Well seeing as how this thread is, or should be focused on the IG Codex and Core Rules, I haven't given any thought or attention to other Codecies. What's your argument?

Hey guys, this guy hasn't bothered to read the thread!

If you can claim you can issue orders in my turn, a Carnifex can shoot in yours, because Page 30 of the Nid Codex says a Monstrous Creature can fire 2 Bioweapons per Shooting Phase, not just my own shooting phase.

Yad wrote:
Well seeing as how this thread is, or should be focused on the IG Codex and Core Rules, I haven't given any thought or attention to other Codecies. What's your argument?

Did you entirely skip everything in between this page and your last post? We spent quite a bit of time examining it, as it is a very similar situation. Basically, the Tyranid Codex says that a TMC with two ranged weapons can fire both PER shooting phase. Thus, allowing a Dakkafex to fire in my shooting phase and yours. We already discussed the meaning of per, and found that there is nothing that would allow the IG orders and ban a Carnifex from shooting in your shooting phase. Of course, the very notion that a Carnifex can fire in my opponent's phase is stupid, and a nasty piece of rule abuse. It could get very fun in a three way battle though...

RustyKnight wrote:

Yad wrote:
Well seeing as how this thread is, or should be focused on the IG Codex and Core Rules, I haven't given any thought or attention to other Codecies. What's your argument?

Did you entirely skip everything in between this page and your last post? We spent quite a bit of time examining it, as it is a very similar situation. Basically, the Tyranid Codex says that a TMC with two ranged weapons can fire both PER shooting phase. Thus, allowing a Dakkafex to fire in my shooting phase and yours. We already discussed the meaning of per, and found that there is nothing that would allow the IG orders and ban a Carnifex from shooting in your shooting phase. Of course, the very notion that a Carnifex can fire in my opponent's phase is stupid, and a nasty piece of rule abuse. It could get very fun in a three way battle though...

I don't have a Tyranid codex, so would you mind quoting the exact rule?

It's already been posted in the thread...maybe you should've read the thread to see what you missed.

RustyKnight wrote:Quoting page 30 of the Tyranid Codex, "A creature with two or more ranged bio-weapons may only choose to fire one of them per shooting phase unless it is a Monstrous Creature, in which case two weapons may be fired." That says I'm allowed to fire a bio-weapon per shooting phase. It specifically states per shooting phase, thusly, I can fire them in your shooting phase.

Oh, that's too shaky as it never explicitly states that I can in the enemiees shooting phase? Neither do IG orders, they just say "every". The moral of the story is, GW does NOT hide things like this.

*Bolded for emphasis*

I know I've come in pretty late to this argument, but my opinion is that by RAW (that’s “Rules as Written, right? I’m kinda new to this terminology) the OP is right. His argument cannot be properly countered by the "Orders must be issued before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run..." clause because being able to shoot or run isn’t a requirement, only a condition for the order. In the opponent’s turn, I have neither shot nor ran, so I technically fulfill that condition and can pass orders.

I can’t really enter the discussions about lash and carnifex firing on the opponent’s turns. However, I personally think that the argument “if you can pass orders on my turn, I can shoot my MC in yours” is a weak argument as it doesn’t really undermine the whole orders thing.

However, I strongly believe that the ability to pass orders on your opponent’s turn was NOT intentional and I would never try it when playing with the new Imperial Guard. I don’t think Games Workshop meant to allow this at all and fully expect it to be errata’d in the next FAQ. As some earlier posters have pointed out, if intentional, this ability would have been likely highlighted somewhere instead of being discovered by loopholes in the rulebook.

I cannot see it breaking the game, and I would probably allow friendly Imperial Guard casual opponents to pull this trick in normal games. Tournaments? No way. =]

Thanks. This is my first post on DakkaDakka. I apologise for any arguments that I've missed out in my reply and I’m fully prepared for the ensuing flame which will be inevitably be directed at me =p

That is the problem, some orders allow your units to shoot. Suddenly Overwatch is back in the game.

The TMC's firing in the enemies phase is as strong as the Orders argument (course, it is weak...as weak as the Order argument).

I'd just like to say that I'm really disappointed in this thread. The discussion on WarSeer got to fifteen pages, and I can't tell whether Dakka Dakka has fallen behind or gotten ahead on the topic.

Does someone need to get out the argument "Power of the Machine Spirit allows Land Raiders to fire in the opposing player's shooting phase because it lets them fire one more weapon than normally allowed" before this discussion can be declared over?

solkan wrote:I'd just like to say that I'm really disappointed in this thread. The discussion on WarSeer got to fifteen pages, and I can't tell whether Dakka Dakka has fallen behind or gotten ahead on the topic.

Does someone need to get out the argument "Power of the Machine Spirit allows Land Raiders to fire in the opposing player's shooting phase because it lets them fire one more weapon than normally allowed" before this discussion can be declared over?

Ha, now that's a good one. I'll be sure to bring that up next time I play with 5 Land Raiders (^^,)

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:I'd just like to say that I'm really disappointed in this thread. The discussion on WarSeer got to fifteen pages, and I can't tell whether Dakka Dakka has fallen behind or gotten ahead on the topic.

Does someone need to get out the argument "Power of the Machine Spirit allows Land Raiders to fire in the opposing player's shooting phase because it lets them fire one more weapon than normally allowed" before this discussion can be declared over?

Ha, now that's a good one. I'll be sure to bring that up next time I play with 5 Land Raiders (^^,)

The other big one is "Obliterators may fire one weapon from those available in each shooting phase" on page 35 of the CSM codex. Can't let those pesky MC's have all the fun, obviously.

solkan wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:I'd just like to say that I'm really disappointed in this thread. The discussion on WarSeer got to fifteen pages, and I can't tell whether Dakka Dakka has fallen behind or gotten ahead on the topic.

Does someone need to get out the argument "Power of the Machine Spirit allows Land Raiders to fire in the opposing player's shooting phase because it lets them fire one more weapon than normally allowed" before this discussion can be declared over?

Ha, now that's a good one. I'll be sure to bring that up next time I play with 5 Land Raiders (^^,)

The other big one is "Obliterators may fire one weapon from those available in each shooting phase" on page 35 of the CSM codex. Can't let those pesky MC's have all the fun, obviously.

Oh Snap! Well, in that case I don't mind Orders in both turns, so Long as I can Fzorgle / Obliterate in both too!

Wow, based on the strength of these arguments, I change my previous position because I would really like to shoot twice in my opponents phase with my Tzeentch sniper princes.

Somnicide wrote:Wow, based on the strength of these arguments, I change my previous position because I would really like to shoot twice in my opponents phase with my Tzeentch sniper princes.

Haha, you're not the only one.