I was playing against an IG player and at the start of my shooting phase the IG player announce that he was going to issue the order FRFSRF. I said "how are you doing this?" Then he proceeded to turn to the small rule book on page 9. Right top paragraph "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 ' players turn', otherwise it will clearly state 'game turn'.

Then if you go the IG Codex, and read when issuing the orders and using them. On page 29 the second paragraph " A number of models in the IG army have the ability to issue on or more orders each turn."

I tell him to read the third and fourth paragraph of the book on when and how to issue them. But, the only thing he says is that the Rule book backs his statement up and he proceeds to shoot his squad again at me. At that time I just pick my models up and went home.

Is he right about this, can squads shoot twice in the same game turn? Did GW leave this big loop hole for use to fill in? I hope I have given enough information so anyone can come up with a good explanation for me to say back and not have this done again to me. Because he is planning on doing this in the Hard boyz tournament. And the guy running it believes he will can do this also.

Please help this lost soul in finding some light in this world of darkness call Warhammer 40k.

No he doesn't. Tell him to stop being an donkey-cave or you won't play him anymore.

That guy was a dirty cheater. Take his mother on a nice date then NEVER CALL HER AGAIN.

If someone tried that on me.. i would probably do the same.

TBH I have not played a game with the new IG dex but have looked at it a lot and made some lists. It just does not seem right that they could do that.

However I do believe that they could do other things like issue the INCOMING order but it would have to be at the START of the shooting phase similar to SOB. Not after the opponent declares that he is shoot x squad at you. However I am not 100% on this. I do not have the dex in front of me.

smart_alex wrote:TBH I have not played a game with the new IG dex but have looked at it a lot and made some lists. It just does not seem right that they could do that.

However I do believe that they could do other things like issue the INCOMING order but it would have to be at the START of the shooting phase similar to SOB. Not after the opponent declares that he is shoot x squad at you. However I am not 100% on this. I do not have the dex in front of me.

No, just because he can issue orders in the shooting phase, does not mean he can do it in the opponents turn. INCOMING! is meant for you to forgo shooting in your turn to get +2 in the next. Notice how the sisters power specifies the opponents turn

Again, just tell him you will never play him again and he will stop doing it sharpish.

Thanks Gwar!. But, if you could please give a reason why he can't. I believe he can't. But I have to give a reason why he can't so I might have a foot to stand on.

the real big e wrote:Thanks Gwar!. But, if you could please give a reason why he can't. I believe he can't. But I have to give a reason why he can't so I might have a foot to stand on.

Because you may not do ANYTHING unless specifically allowed on your opponents turn.

it is a stupid "loophole" that does not work but people just shout loudly and loudly until the opponent quits or gives in. Tell him it doesn't work and that you will make sure no-body ever plays him again if he keeps doing it

Yep. There is no ability that works on the opponents turn that doesn't say either 'opponents turn' or, sometimes, 'any players turn'.

To frame it in a better logical context, I would explain it like this.

The rules are specific on when your models can take any sort of action. As all of the model's action is specifically done in players turn, you need a specific rule that over rides the general. I.E. It saying specifically that it can be used in your turn.

I just want to clear that up because the argument that was being made is that the rules have to specifically tell you everything, whilst that is true, you need to also examine the context of how the rules are telling you to do things. In this instance, he was violating the specific rules on when your models can take action.

So technically the order can be given on any turn, but the unit can only actually fire on their own turn

shrug

I see lots of rabble and conjecture but no one actually quoting any rules to invalidate this loophole.

It's quite obviously an oversight, but seems legitimate. Just don't count on any TOs (or opponents, for that matter) letting you get away with it. Kind of like the whole Terminators don't have Terminator Armor thing.

The guy was cheating, plain and simple.

Even if you interpret orders as being able to be issued during an opponents turn (which I believe is a gross misinterpretation of the rules), there is nothing that would allow him to fire during your turn. So basicaly, he would be issuing an order that was unusable by the unit recieving it.

Danny Internets wrote:I see lots of rabble and conjecture but no one actually quoting any rules to invalidate this loophole.

It's quite obviously an oversight, but seems legitimate. Just don't count on any TOs (or opponents, for that matter) letting you get away with it. Kind of like the whole Terminators don't have Terminator Armor thing.

Wow, you all are right in what the RAI is trying to do. But with RAW taking presence and no rules invalidating this loophole. I will never play this person again and I will have to find another shop to play at for the Hard Boyz tournament. But, before I go some where else I have to see how they are letting their IG players play the Codex.

Or, a FAQ will come out and clear this right up before then.

I would like to thank everyone that took time out and gave a reply back. I know that this is one of the questions that Yakka face put in the top thread. I was just trying to see if their was a easy way handling this situation.

Alerian wrote:The guy was cheating, plain and simple.

Even if you interpret orders as being able to be issued during an opponents turn (which I believe is a gross misinterpretation of the rules), there is nothing that would allow him to fire during your turn. So basicaly, he would be issuing an order that was unusable by the unit recieving it.

Actually, the specific rules for the order says the unit receiving the order immediately gets to shoot at the target unit. It's very explicit.

IG codex, p.30: "The ordered unit immediately shoots at the nominated target."

Yes, it says "The ordered unit immediately shoots at the nominated target."

Does it say "The ordered unit immediately shoots at the nominated target and ignores any other rule they wish to ignore."?

No it does not. The shooting rules only let you fire in your own Shooting phase. If your IG orders can let you shoot in my turn, my Monstrous Creature Rules can let me fire in yours

This is such rules lawyering its naeseating.

It also says that orders can only be issued,

" before you move or shoot"

can you move or shoot in your opponents phase, No.

The only way to make this work is to streatch a phrase in the BRB apply it to the codex and then work your way back to trying to justify something that is obviously broken.

The tournament I was at this last weekend took the position I liked. Anyone trying this would be given one warning then banned from the store for life.

Way to go Adventureres Guild of Harrisburg PA for making sure this kind of ridiculous BS is not allowed in your store.

In my club you don't even get a warning you just get a kick in the balls. And my Club is mostly 12 year olds. I'm such a big man!

Gwar! wrote:In my club you don't even get a warning you just get a kick in the balls. And my Club is mostly 12 year olds. I'm such a big man!

In my club, we kick each other in the balls until one conceeds. I always go first, then immediately conceed the arguement before reprisal.

Wow, horrible. I probably would have done exactly the same as you. If this was an organized event or something in the future all I can recommend is find someone who is an authority on the rules in your area and have them explain it to the IG player.

People should try to play the game, not try to play the rules.

It must be the beginning of the shooting phase for an order to be used, correct?

Just shoot something. Interrupt him, say that you shoot something at something else. It's no longer the beginning of the shooting phase, your opponent can't issue any orders.

Piece of pie.

Or even better, say at the beginning of the game:
I declare in advance that I shall nominate this unit to shoot with exactly one Planck time after I declare that I have begun my shooting phase. If this unit is not present or unable to fire, I shall nominate this unit. If that unit is etc etc...

Since your opponent cannot by the laws of nature declare his orders before that, it means he cannot issue orders in your phase (he can't anyway, but just to be safe)

Or just Kick him in the balls as a premtive strike in anticipation of his D.B.ery

Oh, god, no, don't hit any player who tries to issue orders during someone else's turn.

To really hurt them, force them to read through the forum posts discussing that rule until they agree to never do it again.

Wait wasnt there a 12+ page discussion on this ?

There was. It came down to (IIRC)," It has to specifically tell you that you can do something in an enemies turn." There were a lot of examples of other similar situtations that used the same logic and were more ridonkulous, such as the MC's firing in "every turn". Go go Dakkafex!

Here's one such argument. I could've sworn that there was a longer one that got locked.

Danny Internets wrote:Actually, the specific rules for the order says the unit receiving the order immediately gets to shoot at the target unit. It's very explicit.

IG codex, p.30: "The ordered unit immediately shoots at the nominated target."

You might also check all of the stuff related to Orders and notice that when an IG officer fails to give orders he or the ordered squad may not give/receive more orders that turn, BUT BOTH SQUADS MAY STILL ACT AS NORMAL THAT SHOOTING PHASE. What is your normal action in the enemy shooting phase? Exactly. :-)

Yes, it says "The ordered unit immediately shoots at the nominated target."

Does it say "The ordered unit immediately shoots at the nominated target and ignores any other rule they wish to ignore."?

No it does not. The shooting rules only let you fire in your own Shooting phase. If your IG orders can let you shoot in my turn, my Monstrous Creature Rules can let me fire in yours

Codex rules trump rulebook rules. You know this.

Once again, lots of rabble but no quoting of rules. Your opinion is noted, but not relevant to whether or not the loophole is legitimate within the rules. Hell, I don't like it either nor would I even consider letting someone get away with it in a game, but I at least recognize it as a problem in how the rules are written.

Spetulhu wrote:

You might also check all of the stuff related to Orders and notice that when an IG officer fails to give orders he or the ordered squad may not give/receive more orders that turn, BUT BOTH SQUADS MAY STILL ACT AS NORMAL THAT SHOOTING PHASE. What is your normal action in the enemy shooting phase? Exactly. :-)

You might want to re-read that yourself. You said when an officer FAILS to give orders, blah blah blah. What happens if he succeeds? According to the rules, the unit receiving the orders immediately gets to shoot at the nominated target.

If it's my player turn and I choose not to select any of your IG units to move, shoot, or assault while only selecting only my units to move, shoot, and assault (per the 5th Ed rule book my units may only be selected during my player turn), how is it that you would ever have the chance to gave an order during my player turn? Last I checked, it's the player who's turn it is that determines which units do what and in which order unless a specific rule creates an interrupt to my (or your) turn sequence.

Does the new IG codex specifically say that you may interrupt your opponent's player turn to give orders? If so, please quote.

SJ

This topic has been brought several times in my play group. RAW and RAI are always a debate for 40k-ers.

My thoughts.

There is a presidence, 2nd edition Overwatch rule, firing on opponents turn. Is this this similar? Maybe, maybe not. I see both sides of argument. Saying your opponent can't do because you say so isn't valid. Need to back up with a ruling.

Codex rules override BRB always.

GW needs to FAQ this ASAP. Not surprised is this is way they intended with the way codex was written. Another example of overpowering codex trumping previous books.

Christ all mighty, we're using 2nd edition Books as precedence now???

And here I thought people using the Eldar FAQ for the Guard Army were bad....

You want a Real "precedent"? Inquisitors with Mystics. it is EXPLICITLY stated it happens in the opponents turn. Orders do not, so they don't work in the opponents turn.

bigtmac68 wrote:This is such rules lawyering its naeseating.

It also says that orders can only be issued,

" before you move or shoot"

can you move or shoot in your opponents phase, No.

The only way to make this work is to streatch a phrase in the BRB apply it to the codex and then work your way back to trying to justify something that is obviously broken.

This. Since you have to issue orders before doing anything else. And since you cannot actually do anything during your opponents movement or shooting phase. Then you cannot issue orders on your opponents turn.

There are just too many things that rely on the words "per turn" or whatever that would automatically become completely stupid if you tried to apply this logic.

Something this big would be explicitly stated. GW would be announcing it on TV "Imperial Guard can shoot in your opponents turn! Buy Buy Buy! Flavor of the Month!!". If you have to use a fine tooth comb to find it, chances are it's not there.

Trasvi wrote:There are just too many things that rely on the words "per turn" or whatever that would automatically become completely stupid if you tried to apply this logic.

Something this big would be explicitly stated. GW would be announcing it on TV "Imperial Guard can shoot in your opponents turn! Buy Buy Buy! Flavor of the Month!!". If you have to use a fine tooth comb to find it, chances are it's not there.

This
Seriously though just dont play him. If he tries to pull it on you smack him over the head with BRB or fire with your MCs

Trasvi wrote:There are just too many things that rely on the words "per turn" or whatever that would automatically become completely stupid if you tried to apply this logic.

Something this big would be explicitly stated. GW would be announcing it on TV "Imperial Guard can shoot in your opponents turn! Buy Buy Buy! Flavor of the Month!!". If you have to use a fine tooth comb to find it, chances are it's not there.

Examples? I'm curious. I tried to find some myself, but came up short.

He can't just not play him. The TO for their 'Ard Boyz is allowing it. So, he needs to have rules, specific rules, to back him up. If he comes there and says "these guys on the internet say it is okay" then he'll have problems.

What I'm saying is that you guys need to provide rules and page numbers to explicitly state why IG can't issue orders in the opponents turn.

Because the rules for Orders do not say they can.
because you may not do anything without express permission in your opponents turn.
Because if they can then Dakkafexes can shoot in the enemy shooting phase too etc etc.

But seriously, if the TO of an 'Ard Boys is allowing it, i question the TO's fitness to be a TO.

Gwar! wrote:Because the rules for Orders do not say they can.
because you may not do anything without express permission in your opponents turn.

Codex rules > rulebook rules.

- Rulebook says that "turn" refers to "player turn" unless otherwise specified.
- Rules for orders say that they may be issued each turn
- Rules for orders allow unit to shoot IMMEDIATELY after receiving order

The logic is clear. You may not like it, but not liking it doesn't invalidate it.

Furthermore, the special rule for orders provides all of the "express permission" you need.

Because if they can then Dakkafexes can shoot in the enemy shooting phase too etc etc.

Dakkafexes don't have a special rule that they can invoke each player turn that allows them to shoot immediately.

Danny Internets wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Because the rules for Orders do not say they can.
because you may not do anything without express permission in your opponents turn.

Codex rules > rulebook rules.

Wrong. Sweeping Advance Proves it. Just because your codex says "You may do X" does not mean you also get to ignore Restrictions Y,Z and W

Danny Internets wrote:The logic is clear. You may not like it, but not liking it doesn't invalidate it.

Attack the Argument, not the person. Or do I need to get the Modhammers in here? The logic is not clear. The logic is convoluted and incorrect.

Danny Internets wrote:

Because if they can then Dakkafexes can shoot in the enemy shooting phase too etc etc.

Dakkafexes don't have a special rule that they can invoke each player turn that allows them to shoot immediately.

Gwar! wrote:Wrong. Sweeping Advance Proves it. Just because your codex says "You may do X" does not mean you also get to ignore Restrictions Y,Z and W

Deflect the argument all you want, but you and I both know that if the two come into contradiction, as they do here, then the codex wins out.

Attack the Argument, not the person. Or do I need to get the Modhammers in here? The logic is not clear. The logic is convoluted and incorrect.

If you had an argument, I would attack it, but you don't. You have an opinion. And, furthermore, attacking your method of arguing is not an ad hominem attack. I suggest you read up on it before making idle threats.

Oh but they Do!

Not per Turn, not per owners shooting phase, but Per shooting phase. The Dakkafex just got a whole lot scarier huh?

Fair enough--I'll recognize that as a rules blunder. Your turn!

You miss the point, it is not a rules blunder at all. It is worded like that because the entire game is based around the concept of you only doing stuff in your own turn.

When you CAN do something in the opponents turn (like Assault or Mystics) then it is CLEARLY spelt out.

You're citing precedent, not rules. Where does the rulebook say that any action performed out of the normal turn sequence must be explicitly described? Please quote the passage, or at least refer to a page number.

All I see is the following:

"TURN SEQUENCE EXCEPTIONS
There are times when a player is allowed to perform
actions during their opponent’s turn (fighting in an
assault being the most common example)."

-Sigh- Ok then, but you still can't order in my shooting phase, because orders must be done at the START of the shooting phase. If I nominate a unit to fire, even if I do it while you attempt to tell me you are using orders, the "beginning" has already come and gone.

It is a Moot Point. It cannot be done.

Gwar! wrote:-Sigh- Ok then, but you still can't order in my shooting phase, because orders must be done at the START of the shooting phase. If I nominate a unit to fire, even if I do it while you attempt to tell me you are using orders, the "beginning" has already come and gone.

Agreed. That would be the easiest way to circumvent the problem in the event of a hard-line RAW TO siding with the IG player.

I am with Gwar on this one. I am in South Carolina and a game came to blows because a guard player insisted he could shoot during his opponent's turn. It turned into a gang up on the guard player and they literally threw him out the door and chucked his army on the concrete.

G

If Guard are able to shoot on the opponent's turn, then anything that Deep Strikes and fires an Assault weapon can Assault that turn, because under the entry for Assault weapons it says "A unit may fire an Assault weapon and still Assault on that turn."

Still - without change, interruption, or cessation.

"A unit may fire an Assault weapon and, without change, interruption or cessation, Assault on that turn."

And obviously the deep strike rules change, interrupt and cease assaults, but "still," so not quite.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:If Guard are able to shoot on the opponent's turn, then anything that Deep Strikes and fires an Assault weapon can Assault that turn, because under the entry for Assault weapons it says "A unit may fire an Assault weapon and still Assault on that turn."

Still - without change, interruption, or cessation.

"A unit may fire an Assault weapon and, without change, interruption or cessation, Assault on that turn."

And obviously the deep strike rules change, interrupt and cease assaults, but "still," so not quite.

Specific rules > general rules.

"In that turn’s Assault phase, however, these units may
not launch an assault (even if they have the ‘fleet’
special rule), unless clearly stated in their special rules –
they are too disrupted by their deep strike move."

Unless the model using the assault weapon has a special rule that clearly states an exception to the deep strike restriction then they may not assault.

Look at the basic movement rules, and the basic assault rules. They do not say they can only be done during your turn.

But this is a *turn* based game. The entire concept of the game is based around each player taking a turn. the rules also don't instruct you in how to roll dice, or that a tank is supposed to have the tracks on the bottom. It is a basic aspect of the game.

Okay I'm gonna go through this piece by piece.

1) You can issue orders every turn, which by the BRB is every player turn.

Okay any probem with the rules so far? No? Moving along.

2) You attempt to issue the order, and for the sake of argument let say you pass.

I see no rules prohibiting this.

3) That order tells you to immediately do ______.

As codex surperceds the BRB, you must do _____. If you can do A, and B, you have to do C.

I don't see where the rules prhibit this in any way? Yes it is unfavorable, yes it is wierd, and yes it is unusual. However, the rules still support it. I truly don't see why it is that big a deal. IG won't be broken by any stretch of the imagination, and IMO, infrantry IG would be on a better playing field with it's mounted brethern (Air Cav and Mechinized).

I welcome anyone to pick apart my train of logic, but please provide page number and cite rules.

Quoting from 4-28

LunaHound wrote: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....

Somnicide wrote:

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.

Case closed.

You can issue orders in a Chimera, to a squad outside a Chimera. If it required you to run(since you can still shoot out of a Chimera), then wouldn't this not work? The Chimera's rules states nothing about it waving or changing how orders work, it just says they may issue orders. There are no alterations to how orders work other then you meassure from the Chimera's hull.

arinnoor wrote:You can issue orders in a Chimera, to a squad outside a Chimera. If it required you to run(since you can still shoot out of a Chimera), then wouldn't this not work? The Chimera's rules states nothing about it waving or changing how orders work, it just says they may issue orders. There are no alterations to how orders work other then you meassure from the Chimera's hull.

So you are telling me IG can run and shoot in both player's and enemy's turn. Yes or No?

Because by saying you can give order in enemy's turn thats also validating they can also run and shoot during enemy's turn.

I am not saying you can run or shoot in the enemy's turn. I am saying that if running is a requirment then the Chimera's rule is redundent as you wouldn't then be able to use the order as you can't run in a vehicle. The Chimera doesn't remove anything about issuing orders. You follow all the rules for issuing orders, except that you replace meassuring from whoever is issuing the order, to meassuring from the Chimera's hull.

Do you honestly think GW would create an army that could potentially fire twice as much and twice as often as any other army in the game, and NOT make a big advertising campaign about it?
GW was all like "OMG get a load of this! Heavy 15 tanks OMG!!!1!! Buy it now!"
If a rule like this truly did exist, then GW would be milking it for all the profit they could for selling a Flavor of the Month army.

Again: i generally find that if a rule interpretation is controversial and you need to search and apply weird inflections of other rules to make it work, the more conservative view wins out.

arinnoor wrote:Okay I'm gonna go through this piece by piece.

1) You can issue orders every turn, which by the BRB is every player turn.

Okay any probem with the rules so far? No? Moving along.

2) You attempt to issue the order, and for the sake of argument let say you pass.

I see no rules prohibiting this.

3) That order tells you to immediately do ______.

As codex surperceds the BRB, you must do _____. If you can do A, and B, you have to do C.

I don't see where the rules prhibit this in any way? Yes it is unfavorable, yes it is wierd, and yes it is unusual. However, the rules still support it. I truly don't see why it is that big a deal. IG won't be broken by any stretch of the imagination, and IMO, infrantry IG would be on a better playing field with it's mounted brethern (Air Cav and Mechinized).

I welcome anyone to pick apart my train of logic, but please provide page number and cite rules.

Your missing the part that says...

"before you move or shoot."

When can you move during your opponents turn? When can you normally shoot during your opponents turn? Since you can't do either, its impossible to issue orders because there is no moving or shooting to be done later. Also to prevent this all your opponent has to do is shoot or move anything on his side of the table and you can no longer be said to be doing anything before moving and shooting.

Also since its the player that controls the events of his turn he can technically go straight from his movement phase to his assault phase. Bypassing his shooting phase all together if he has no shooting to do.

@Trasvi- Were I live we don't recive much hype from GW. Just White Dwarf and the Email Newsletter and niether of those seam to adevertise anything more then hey look at these new models.

What wierd infections are you talking about? Is it the whole turn=player turn thing? That is defined in the BRB. No one can argue that I am wrong there.

@Jayden63- The ability to move or shoot (it is actually before you shoot or run) is not a requirement to issue an order, you just must do it before. As I explained to LunaHound, to quote myself.

I am saying that if running is a requirment then the Chimera's rule is redundent as you wouldn't then be able to use the order as you can't run in a vehicle. The Chimera doesn't remove anything about issuing orders. You follow all the rules for issuing orders, except that you replace meassuring from whoever is issuing the order, to meassuring from the Chimera's hull.

So are you saying I cannot issue orders out of a Chimera?

Also to prevent this all your opponent has to do is shoot or move anything on his side of the table and you can no longer be said to be doing anything before moving and shooting.

Also since its the player that controls the events of his turn he can technically go straight from his movement phase to his assault phase. Bypassing his shooting phase all together if he has no shooting to do.

I hate to say it, but other abilities can simply be skipped over if that was the case. As I said in the last thread, all the IG player has to say is that he is going to use the ability at the begining of your shooting phase. If you deny him this it is you (I don't mean you personaly) that is being a jerk. For example, Warptime (the Chaos Space Marine Psychic Power) can be used only at the begining of each players turn. As a player fighting Chaos Marines I can perfectly and legaly just skip his ability even if he expressed interst to use said rule before hand. What would that make me though, a jerk.

Then I am moving in your movement phase, and assaulting in your assault phase.

The rules say I can.

.

coredump wrote:Then I am moving in your movement phase, and assaulting in your assault phase.

The rules say I can.

.

Quote me this...oh wait...you can't.

Che-Vito wrote:

coredump wrote:Then I am moving in your movement phase, and assaulting in your assault phase.

The rules say I can.

.

Quote me this...oh wait...you can't.

coredump is right , read my post a few paragraphs up.

Che-Vito wrote:

coredump wrote:Then I am moving in your movement phase, and assaulting in your assault phase.

The rules say I can.

.

Quote me this...oh wait...you can't.

It is kind of fun when people are snide and arrogant. But it is BIG FUN when thwy also don't know what they are talking about...

to wit

The rules in Movement state that infantry moves upt to 6" in the movement phase. It does not say it has to be your movement phase.
The rules for assault, details assaulting in the assault phase. They do not say it has to be your assault phase.
Shooting, however, does say it only happens in your shooting phase.


Now, of course, this is all ridiculous when someone realizes that this is a *turn* based game, and that you will need a very explicit rule to change that. But some people are apparently not that picky. So if you want your Guard to issue orders in both phases. My Stealers are moving and assaulting in your turn also.

Actually, the movement section starts with "In your turn".

That is a misquote. A minor one, but it starts "In his turn". I guess that means only guys can move their models around? (rhetorical)

The language in the order may be somewhat loose, but clearly you are not supposed to shoot in your opponents turn, just like chicks can move their models.

Danny Internets wrote:

Codex rules trump rulebook rules. You know this.

quote]

Yes, but only if the codex SPECIFICALLY overrules the rulebook. It would have to say that the order (First rank fire, etc) CAN be used in the OPPONENTS turn. Not just ANY turn. Like SOB. For them it specifically states when you can use it in thier phase.

It is a mere oversight at the most. The codex in this case is not SPECIFIC enought to trump the rulebook. Anyway I know of no shooting that can occur in anothers shooting phase. It is THIER shooting phase, not yours.

Rulebook rules are PERMISSIVE. Just becuase it doesn't say you CAN'T deepstrike straight into close combat doesn't mean you can.

P.S. Wouldn't that rule work both ways then?

And I recognize that now Gwar, but running has nothing to do with it. So, there is no point in bringing it up.

arinnoor wrote:And I recognize that now Gwar, but running has nothing to do with it. So, there is no point in bringing it up.

It kind of does in a roundabout way, but anyway, glad to see you realise now why it can't be done

My real intent on argeing was to get a good argument for the big e. I know this guy and his store and wanted to give him a good and long list of reasons why it doesn't work and were to find that info.

A Swift Kick to the testicles is by far a more effective argument.

Yeah, but that can be so messy.

Again Arinnor , i point back to you something i already said on page 2 of this thread , and also page 2 of the other thread.
You either : chose to ignore what i said , or you didnt see what i was saying , or you put me on ignore and didnt see it , but i'll quote again:

LunaHound wrote:Quoting from 4-28

LunaHound wrote: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....

Somnicide wrote:

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.

Case closed.

Like I said luna:
It's because you're a girrrrrrrrrl!!!!
You're icky and have a vagoo!
And you're scary and 90% of the people on the forums have never spoken to a woman other than their own mums

I didn't ignore it. I argued that ability to shoot or run wasn't needed. The ability to run isn't, but the ability to shoot is.

arinnoor wrote:Good point. From what I get from what you said. Ican issue the order, but since nothing permits me to shoot I can't follow through.

Your close. What I said was, if we stipulate for the sake of argument that you can issue the order, we then have to look at the action you are trying to take from said order. In the case of shooting, the order itself is not giving an explicit exception to override the rule that says you can't shoot on your opponents turn. So even if the order was issued, it wouldn't do anything.

As to issuing the order itself though, it is not allowed in the first place. The conventions of the game are that the only actions you may take are ones you are given permission to attempt.

By default, you can do nothing in your opponents turn. To do something in your opponents turn would require you to have an ability that gives you permission to attempt it, with an explicit exception to the general rule for it to be able to complete. Where there is a rules conflict, general wins. Where there is an explicit override, that wins. These overrides are in the codex's as applicable.

So IG gives you permission to issue one or more Orders each turn. This conflicts with the rule of not being allowed to take any actions in your opponents turn though, so it does not work. It has no explicit exception to allow it to override the general rule it is in conflict with. For this same reason, Space Marine Librarians cannot use their powers in the opponents turn either.

An example of codex > rulebook is the psychic power Word of the Emporer from the Witchhunters codex. The power itself says "can be used at the beginning of the enemy assault phase". That is an explicit exception that overrides the rulebook rule of not being able to do anything in your opponents turn.

Gwar! wrote:

arinnoor wrote:As I said earlier running isn't a requirment. Why do people think it is? You can't run in a Chimera, yet you can issue orders out of it.

Erm, read his post. You have to issue orders before shooting OR running. As you can neither fire nor shoot, you cannot issue orders.

By this logic you must also conclude that officers must either shoot or run after issuing their orders, otherwise they did not satisfy the conditions for being able to issue those orders in the first place. This presents a problem for, say, an officer embarked on a Chimera in the backfield who has nothing to shoot at. This situation would prevent that officer from being able to issue any orders.

Anyways, if you really want to get strict with language you should note that it doesn't specify when they run or shoot as long as it is after they issue this order. They could issue the order on Turn 1 and run on Turn 5 and still satisfy the condition, as it is worded.

This conflicts with the rule of not being allowed to take any actions in your opponents turn though, so it does not work.

Please quote this rule as I cannot find it. I do, however, see a rule that explicitly says that "There are times when a player is allowed to perform actions during their opponent’s turn".

Incorrect. The rules for shooting say that you may elect to not fire your weapon if you want. Therefore, if you declare that unit A is shooting now, but elects to not fire any of its weapons, unit A will still count as shooting, it just has not shot any of its weapons. Being able to shoot and not shooting is VERY different to not being able to shoot.

Gwar! wrote:Incorrect. The rules for shooting say that you may elect to not fire your weapon if you want. Therefore, if you declare that unit A is shooting now, but elects to not fire any of its weapons, unit A will still count as shooting, it just has not shot any of its weapons. Being able to shoot and not shooting is VERY different to not being able to shoot.

Can't have your cake and eat it too, Gwar.

If you're going to argue that the unit cannot issue the order simply because they cannot satisfy the condition of it coming BEFORE running or shooting, then you must conclude that running or shooting must follow. If shooting or running does not follow then the order did not come before shooting or running and was therefore illegal.

This extends to normal turns as well. If you argue that the mere possibility of being able to shoot or run is enough to satisfy the condition then you are inventing your own rules.

Danny Internets wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Incorrect. The rules for shooting say that you may elect to not fire your weapon if you want. Therefore, if you declare that unit A is shooting now, but elects to not fire any of its weapons, unit A will still count as shooting, it just has not shot any of its weapons. Being able to shoot and not shooting is VERY different to not being able to shoot.

Can't have your cake and eat it too, Gwar.

If you're going to argue that the unit cannot issue the order simply because they cannot satisfy the condition of it coming BEFORE running or shooting, then you must conclude that running or shooting must follow. If shooting or running does not follow then the order did not come before shooting or running and was therefore illegal.

This extends to normal turns as well. If you argue that the mere possibility of being able to shoot or run is enough to satisfy the condition then you are inventing your own rules.

What part of "You can declare you are shooting but elect not to fire any weapons" did you not understand? That does count as shooting. It's even in the rulebook.

Page 16:
A player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers(as some models may have one-shot weapons, for example), This must be declared before checking range, as all of the models in the unit fire at the same time.

See, you can declare A is going to shoot at B, measure range, then decide to not shoot any weapons. You still count as shooting (as you cannot now go shoot at another Target) but did not fire anything. This is different than not being allowed to shoot.

My apologies, I misread what you had said and was too hasty to reply. I'll concede that point.

Gwar! wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Incorrect. The rules for shooting say that you may elect to not fire your weapon if you want. Therefore, if you declare that unit A is shooting now, but elects to not fire any of its weapons, unit A will still count as shooting, it just has not shot any of its weapons. Being able to shoot and not shooting is VERY different to not being able to shoot.

Can't have your cake and eat it too, Gwar.

If you're going to argue that the unit cannot issue the order simply because they cannot satisfy the condition of it coming BEFORE running or shooting, then you must conclude that running or shooting must follow. If shooting or running does not follow then the order did not come before shooting or running and was therefore illegal.

This extends to normal turns as well. If you argue that the mere possibility of being able to shoot or run is enough to satisfy the condition then you are inventing your own rules.

What part of "You can declare you are shooting but elect not to fire any weapons" did you not understand? That does count as shooting. It's even in the rulebook.

Page 16:
A player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers(as some models may have one-shot weapons, for example), This must be declared before checking range, as all of the models in the unit fire at the same time.

See, you can declare A is going to shoot at B, measure range, then decide to not shoot any weapons. You still count as shooting (as you cannot now go shoot at another Target) but did not fire anything. This is different than not being allowed to shoot.

I think what Danny Internets is arguing is that you are mistakenly conflating the ability to shoot or run with issuing Orders. There are X numbers of conditions that must be satisfied in order to issue an Order:

1. Must be the first thing done in the Shooting Phase
2. Issued by CCS(s) first, then PCS(s)
3. Unit issuing Order must not have ran or shot
4. [Insert validity checks for target unit receiving order]

Danny is suggesting that for #3, the condition can be met both on the IG plyer's turn and his opponents turn. On your turn, so long as you haven't yet violated any of the checks, you good to go. On you opponents turn, you automatically pass #3.

-Yad

No, you do not Automatically pass #3 because you can never Shoot or Run in the opponents turn. This is different to not choosing to do so, as I have shown.

You Auto FAIL #3 because you do not have the chance to Not Shoot Or Not Run.

Passing #3 on the opponent's turn assumes that your 'moveing/shooting' ability resets at the end of your turn. On the other hand, we have not reason to take that as being any more valid than any other time, such as the begining of your next shooting phase.

Indeed, if we want to be corpreate lawyer literal about the rules, the rules for orders don't specify 'this turn' when saying the Officer must not have run or shot. Which means once a command squad runs or shoots the first time, they may not give orders for the remainder of the game, no matter what or whos turn it is.

(the same logic could be used to allow Tau battlesuits or eldar jetbikes to move 6" in the opponents Assult phase.)

Remember when someone tried to argue that bikes can assault 12"?

G

Gwar! wrote:No, you do not Automatically pass #3 because you can never Shoot or Run in the opponents turn. This is different to not choosing to do so, as I have shown.

You Auto FAIL #3 because you do not have the chance to Not Shoot Or Not Run.

But it's not "so long as the unit hasn't choosen to shoot or run" is it? Orders doesn't inherently care whether or not you have the ability to shoot or run, it just cares if it was done.

The fact it cares IF it was done implies there must be a choice about it.

And as I already showed, the game does make a distinction between not being able to fire and choosing not to fire.

And yet Yad does not address my argument.

Mars.Techpriest wrote:And yet Yad does not address my argument.

Don't worry, I get it all the time. It usually happens when the other person knows they are wrong but refuse to admit it, so they just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALALALA OMG UR TRYING TO DERAIL T3H THREADZ!" instead of answering.

Naw Gwar!, I think it more has to do with your lack of citations that support your arguments, and your relentless repeating of opinions you have.

Not that your batting average is poor for giving correct answers, but you give them in a way that makes you hard to talk to and debate. You seem to often take a "my opinion is law" standpoint.

Anyways thats just the impression I get, so maybe others get that too.

hmmm, Interesting thought happened when I read through the IG Codex. Could you use "Get Back in the Fight!, Incoming!, or Move!, Move!, Move! in the opponents turn? None of these require you to break any rules.

Get Back in the Fight!, ignores any restriction on regrouping.

Incoming!, Would be rather pointless during your turn.

Move!, Move!, Move!, this is the only one I don't know about as it requires you to run.

arinnoor wrote:Incoming!, Would be rather pointless during your turn.

No, its rather simple, you give up two turns of shooting for a +2 Cover Save (as you become pinned and cannot do anything until the end of the FOLLOWING turn). So not pointless, just not as good as people thought it would be.

Dracos wrote:Naw Gwar!, I think it more has to do with your lack of citations that support your arguments, and your relentless repeating of opinions you have.

Not that your batting average is poor for giving correct answers, but you give them in a way that makes you hard to talk to and debate. You seem to often take a "my opinion is law" standpoint.

Anyways thats just the impression I get, so maybe others get that too.

I don't ever give my opinion. I give what the rules actually state.

But, that doesn't adress my question. As far as I can tell nothing prevents me from using it in my opponents turn.

arinnoor wrote:But, that doesn't adress my question. As far as I can tell nothing prevents me from using it in my opponents turn.

The fact that you cannot Shoot or do ANYTHING in your opponents turn unless expressly allowed is one. If you can't shoot (as we have proved) why would you assume you can run?

I repeat.

Passing #3 (must not have moved or shot) on the opponent's turn assumes that your 'moveing/shooting' ability resets at the end of your turn. On the other hand, we have not reason to take that as being any more valid than any other time, such as the begining of your next shooting phase.

Indeed, if we want to be corpreate lawyer literal about the rules, the rules for orders don't specify 'this turn' when saying the Officer must not have run or shot. Which means once a command squad runs or shoots the first time, they may not give orders for the remainder of the game, no matter what or whos turn it is.

(the same logic could be used to allow Tau battlesuits or eldar jetbikes to move 6" in the opponents Assult phase.)

Gwar! wrote:

arinnoor wrote:But, that doesn't adress my question. As far as I can tell nothing prevents me from using it in my opponents turn.

The fact that you cannot Shoot or do ANYTHING in your opponents turn unless expressly allowed is one. If you can't shoot (as we have proved) why would you assume you can run?

Okay so this is what I was referring to. I have not been able to find in this thread the rule you are citing to bring validity to these claims. Is what you are saying verbatim from the text? It does not sound like it, which is why it comes off as your opinion rather than the text which would support your opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the side you are arguing for. But the way you go about debating it I don't think is very helpful to people who don't already agree with you.

Run I was unsure about, but what prevents you from regrouping (exspecialy when it says it ignores restrictions). I hope I don't have to prove that you can go to ground in your opponent's turn.

arinnoor wrote:Run I was unsure about, but what prevents you from regrouping (exspecialy when it says it ignores restrictions). I hope I don't have to prove that you can go to ground in your opponent's turn.

You don't have to prove it, as the rulebook says SPECIFICALLY that you can.

It stems from the fact that giving an order is a Shooting Phase option for IG commanders. (not unlike using some psychic powers). It is an action they may perform in addition to shooting or runing, so long as it takes place prior to anyone shooting or running. As such, Officers are unable to issue orders during the opponent's turn, the say way one can not shoot or run during the opponent's turn.

At the very least, Occum's Razor sugests this reading, as calling this into question creates a myriad of issues within the main rule books and across several codieces.

As ridiculous as the argument is still going on in this thread , i must place an equally ridiculous blame at GW.

The least they should do is provide a place where they can address players issues fast.

Of course , i know why they dont. It'll just make it even more obvious (how much GW sucks ) when it gets flooded with questions

Huh? I don't get it. Orders may be used each player turn. So, as long as the action the order is making them immediately do is legal then it is fine.

arinnoor wrote:Huh? I don't get it. Orders may be used each player turn. So, as long as the action the order is making them immediately do is legal then it is fine.

Quote it up...quote it up...

Arinnoor, just apply the standard criteria for using the rules to all of your questions and you will have your answers.

That criteria being:

-You cannot do anything in 40K without permission to try.
-Where a step of an action that you have permission to try comes into conflict with a general rule, the action fails.
-An explicit exception from the codex will override a conflict with the general rules.

Now fit Orders in to that:

-Do you have permission to try to issue an order during either player turn? Yes, it looks like you do.
-Does this conflict with a general rule? Yes, it does, as in general you cannot do anything during your opponents turn.
-Do you have an explicit exception from your codex to override the conflict? No, you do not, so the action of issuing an order fails.

That method is how the entire game works. It is why that 'fex mentioned earlier can't shoot in the opponents turn, and why a Space Marine Librarian can't use any of his powers in the opponents turn. It is all identical language of when you have permission to try to use those actions, and all with the same result. The only actions that work in an opponents turn say so explicitly. One example from the main rulebook is Going to Ground. An example from a codex would be Word of the Emperor psychic power in the Witchhunters codex.

arinnoor wrote:Huh? I don't get it. Orders may be used each player turn. So, as long as the action the order is making them immediately do is legal then it is fine.

No, they cannot give orders every turn, because it must be done before the Ordering units Shoots or Runs. Because the Ordering unit CANNOT shoot or run in the opponents turn, there is not a point where it is "Before they shoot or run".

Also what Kaaihn said

Gwar! wrote:

arinnoor wrote:Huh? I don't get it. Orders may be used each player turn. So, as long as the action the order is making them immediately do is legal then it is fine.

No, they cannot give orders every turn, because it must be done before the Ordering units Shoots or Runs. Because the Ordering unit CANNOT shoot or run in the opponents turn, there is not a point where it is "Before they shoot or run".

Also what Kaaihn said

I tried hammering it into their head like people suggested a month ago.

Its not working @_@ ... im staying out of it i give up.

LunaHound wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

arinnoor wrote:Huh? I don't get it. Orders may be used each player turn. So, as long as the action the order is making them immediately do is legal then it is fine.

No, they cannot give orders every turn, because it must be done before the Ordering units Shoots or Runs. Because the Ordering unit CANNOT shoot or run in the opponents turn, there is not a point where it is "Before they shoot or run".

Also what Kaaihn said

I tried hammering it into their head like people suggested a month ago.

Its not working @_@ ... im staying out of it i give up.

As I said, its because you're a girl. Nobody knows what they are here

Hold on guys, I just thought of something.

Have you noticed that you have to issue orders before you shoot or run? You can't shoot or run in your opponent's shooting phase, so that might mean you can't issue orders either!

Gwar! wrote:Because if they can then Dakkafexes can shoot in the enemy shooting phase too etc etc.

Actually, that would make every Tyranid able to fire during the opponent's shooting phase (also), not just the dakkafexes.
The only thing needed is two (or more!) ranged bio-weapons.


Good stuff.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Hold on guys, I just thought of something.

Have you noticed that you have to issue orders before you shoot or run? You can't shoot or run in your opponent's shooting phase, so that might mean you can't issue orders either!

Well Bugger me sideways with a Spoon made from Depleted Uranium! I hadn't thought of that!

I'm just on top of things, I guess!

Also, I emailed the question answering guy. (Not that anyone will change their position based on his answer.)

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm just on top of things, I guess!

Also, I emailed the question answering guy. (Not that anyone will change their position based on his answer.)

Whatever the responce, I implore you to not post the answer please. It Will say "no don't be so EFFing stupid" and the Guys who think you can will use the "OMG HE IS NOT A DEV AND NOT OFFICIAL WAAAAAAAA!" argument to try and "prove" their view

@Kaaihn- Can you quote me a page that says I cannot make ANY actions in my opponents turn? Things like the Orders Fire on my Target!, Bring it Down!, and Librarians' psychic powers cannot be done, as you cannot fire in the opponent's turn unless specificly stated so.

Incoming!, is different though. It says you go to ground which you can do in your opponent's turn. No part of the order goes against any rules.

Move!, Move!, Move! I didn't think would work as it would require you to run which you cannont normal do in the opponent's turn.

Get Back in the Fight!, ignores restrictions on regrouping. Thus it can as well be used in the opponent's turn.

arinnoor wrote:@Kaaihn- Can you quote me a page that says I cannot make ANY actions in my opponents turn? Things like the Orders Fire on my Target!, Bring it Down!, and Librarians' psychic powers cannot be done, as you cannot fire in the opponent's turn unless specificly stated so.

Incoming!, is different though. It says you go to ground which you can do in your opponent's turn. No part of the order goes against any rules.

Move!, Move!, Move! I didn't think would work as it would require you to run which you cannont normal do in the opponent's turn.

Get Back in the Fight!, ignores restrictions on regrouping. Thus it can as well be used in the opponent's turn.

-Bangs head against brick wall to relieve the pain-

You are misunderstanding the point!
You cannot give orders every turn, because it must be done before the Ordering units Shoots or Runs. Because the Ordering unit CANNOT shoot or run in the opponents turn, there is not a point where it is "Before they shoot or run".

Do you understand now? not being able to issue orders has NOTHING to do with the effect. they just CANNOT issue the order.

Ok, as far as breaking the game goes, it shouldnt be used.

My poor grey knights really cant do anything in the other players phase with any of these rules (libby, dakkafex, ect...).

I invoke rule #1- I want the game to be fun for everyone.

This rule was used with the dark angels FAQ, guilting everyone into letting the angels use the new updated SM codex rules for assault cannons and the like.

Because it is the most important rule it trumps every other rule. So regardless of the Heavy Metal tourney, Play the way that everyone can be the most happy. this does not mean that the IG player cannot still have fun but when he ruins it for the opposing player the most important rule is not being fulfilled. If you want a rule to claim, use that one, because in the end blatant use of RAW over RAI is never fun for anyone.

If I ever face an opponent who actually wants to try to say that IG can give orders in my turn, then I will break out my Saim-Hann army and insist that I can move my Bikes 6" in each of his assault phases, as well. I don't think that he will like it....

arinnoor wrote:@Kaaihn- Can you quote me a page that says I cannot make ANY actions in my opponents turn? Things like the Orders Fire on my Target!, Bring it Down!, and Librarians' psychic powers cannot be done, as you cannot fire in the opponent's turn unless specificly stated so.

Incoming!, is different though. It says you go to ground which you can do in your opponent's turn. No part of the order goes against any rules.

Move!, Move!, Move! I didn't think would work as it would require you to run which you cannont normal do in the opponent's turn.

Get Back in the Fight!, ignores restrictions on regrouping. Thus it can as well be used in the opponent's turn.

Can I quote you a specific passage? No. It is simply the function of how 40K works. I can't quote you a passage that says the 40K ruleset is a permissive type ruleset, but it is. That's just the way the overall rules work. Logical deduction is what shows you that these are the premises the whole game framework is based on.

You can't issue the order because it is an action in the other players turn without an explicit exception overriding the conflict of not being able to perform actions in the other players turn.

In the case of Incoming!, that order (like all orders) cannot be successfully issued at that time, and fails there. You may Go to Ground since Go to Ground has a an exception allowing that specific rule to work over the general prohibition of not performing actions in yoru opponents turn. But you can only get the +2 to your cover save over the regular +1 by using this order and Going to Ground during your own turn. Note that the cover save and effect of Incoming! is one of the few things that has an effect that continues after your turn ends, and through your opponents turn. The use of Incoming! is to give a unit that you assume is going to get shot up when your opponent goes a better save.

No order can be successfully issued because performing that action is in conflict with the general rules, and you don't have an exception to override the general rule. Because you have no exception, the action then fails. No order issued.

I think you are still having trouble with the concept that if an action has a conflict with general rules, it fails. Just because the action is something in your codex doesn't mean it overrides the general rule it is in conflict with. Only explicit exceptions override rules conflicts. Usually these exceptions come from your codex, and this is one of places the idea of Codex > Rulebook comes from, but that is a misleading simplification.

GW was just ambiguous.
The rule states that Orders must be issued before the Officer's Squad shoots or runs, and issuing orders does not prevent those actions afterwards. It doesn't make sense that the "before" means the opponent's turn ahead of the Guard Player's turn. Were that true, the game would be FUBAR.
You're only allowed to issue orders on your own turn...

Bob the Hobo wins for having an avatar of a flaming Alf.

arinnoor wrote:@Kaaihn- Can you quote me a page that says I cannot make ANY actions in my opponents turn? Things like the Orders Fire on my Target!, Bring it Down!, and Librarians' psychic powers cannot be done, as you cannot fire in the opponent's turn unless specificly stated so.

Incoming!, is different though. It says you go to ground which you can do in your opponent's turn. No part of the order goes against any rules.

Move!, Move!, Move! I didn't think would work as it would require you to run which you cannont normal do in the opponent's turn.

Get Back in the Fight!, ignores restrictions on regrouping. Thus it can as well be used in the opponent's turn.

There is nowhere in the BGB that says you can take a Move or Shooting action (Falling Back, Consolidating, and firing Defensive Weapons don't count as these), and since an Order requires you to do at least have the ABILITY to do those, (aka, you cannot Move or Shoot in your opponents turn), so therefore you cannot issue an order.

Period. I am not sure why you would even try to argue for this, as it takes the spirit of a fair game, rapes it, and feeds it to the Grots....

Che-Vito wrote:Period. I am not sure why you would even try to argue for this, as it takes the spirit of a fair game, rapes it, and feeds it to the Grots....

Coincidently, that doesn't matter two gaks. What does matter is that Issuing orders in the opponents turn is braking the rules.

Gwar! wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:Period. I am not sure why you would even try to argue for this, as it takes the spirit of a fair game, rapes it, and feeds it to the Grots....

Coincidently, that doesn't matter two gaks. What does matter is that Issuing orders in the opponents turn is braking the rules.

Gwar, if they accidently printed a rulebook that gave Fire Warriors 9 wound instead of 1...you might play it as "RAW", but I don't know a single person who would play anyone who played these rules. The case that we are discussing is not a misprint, but lather a lack of print, an assumption that gamers will have common sense.

Coincidently, it absolutely matters. You (and others) talk all the time on this forum about quality of gamers, and this ties directly in to that. TFG is the guy who will want to play Fire Warriors with 9 wounds, for 10 points apiece.

Che-Vito wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:Period. I am not sure why you would even try to argue for this, as it takes the spirit of a fair game, rapes it, and feeds it to the Grots....

Coincidently, that doesn't matter two gaks. What does matter is that Issuing orders in the opponents turn is braking the rules.

Gwar, if they accidently printed a rulebook that gave Fire Warriors 9 wound instead of 1...you might play it as "RAW", but I don't know a single person who would play anyone who played these rules. The case that we are discussing is not a misprint, but lather a lack of print, an assumption that gamers will have common sense.

Coincidently, it absolutely matters. You (and others) talk all the time on this forum about quality of gamers, and this ties directly in to that. TFG is the guy who will want to play Fire Warriors with 9 wounds, for 10 points apiece.

If that is what the rules say, that is what the rules say unless they errata it. Oddly enough GW tend to errata these typos rather quickly. It's one of the few things they do competently

This whole thing really comes down to the definition of "player turn". I've always read that as "my turn". Not "my turn or my opponents turn".

Now there's no problem with monsterous creatures, orders, librarian shooting powers, etc.

Are there any examples which would invalidate this interpretation?

The definition of "turn" is crystal clear. Please, brush up on the rules before contributing.

Really, would you care to quote a definition of "player turn" because I don't believe that there is one.

ETA, there are examples of the usuage of "turn" to support it's meaning as "controlling player's turn" - for example the monsterous creature's shooting rules.

Are there any examples of "turn" being used to mean "controlling player's turn or other player's turn"?

coredump wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

coredump wrote:Then I am moving in your movement phase, and assaulting in your assault phase.

The rules say I can.

.

Quote me this...oh wait...you can't.

It is kind of fun when people are snide and arrogant. But it is BIG FUN when thwy also don't know what they are talking about...

to wit

The rules in Movement state that infantry moves upt to 6" in the movement phase. It does not say it has to be your movement phase.
The rules for assault, details assaulting in the assault phase. They do not say it has to be your assault phase.
Shooting, however, does say it only happens in your shooting phase.


Now, of course, this is all ridiculous when someone realizes that this is a *turn* based game, and that you will need a very explicit rule to change that. But some people are apparently not that picky. So if you want your Guard to issue orders in both phases. My Stealers are moving and assaulting in your turn also.

Scott-S6 wrote:Really, would you care to quote a definition of "player turn" because I don't believe that there is one.

ETA, there are examples of the usuage of "turn" to support it's meaning as "controlling player's turn" - for example the monsterous creature's shooting rules.

Are there any examples of "turn" being used to mean "controlling player's turn or other player's turn"?

Steelmage99 wrote:The definition of "turn" is crystal clear. Please, brush up on the rules before contributing.

Scott-S6 wrote:This whole thing really comes down to the definition of "player turn". I've always read that as "my turn". Not "my turn or my opponents turn".

Now there's no problem with monsterous creatures, orders, librarian shooting powers, etc.

Are there any examples which would invalidate this interpretation?

Would you guys just give it a rest, and read all that has been written previously in this thread?
I swear, if the BGB didn't define what a "model" was, then you'd have people arguing that WH40K can't be played because GW didn't define what a model is...

If you're bored of the debate then that's fine. However, we do not currently have a clear and concise reason for not allowing opponent's turn orders except that Gwar says so.

While the lack of permission to act in the opponent's shooting phase is a perfectly valid argument I'd prefer a bigger, simpler hammer to use on TFG.

If there are no counter-examples to disprove the point that Turn=Player Turn=Controlling Player Turn (where it doesn't say Game Turn) then we've got a nice simple point to put down and kill the order issue dead.

Pretty sure that by implication of it being YOUR turn or THEIR turn, you're not allowed to do anything.

Provide an example of a piece of wargear, a codex-specific special rule or unit that allows you to move, shoot, assault or any other action, where it isn't explicitly and clearly stated the codex rules.

Exactly what I'm thinking.

Unless someone can find an example of "turn" (not "game turn") being used to mean in either player's turn then we've got a nice simple reason why orders are controlling player's turn only.

Remember when the dude said bikes can assault 12"?

G

Scott-S6, the definition of "Turns", as divided into "Player turns" and "Game turns" is clearly made on page 9 in the rulebook.

This time, please, go read it before continuing.

Scott-S6 wrote:If you're bored of the debate then that's fine. However, we do not currently have a clear and concise reason for not allowing opponent's turn orders except that Gwar says so.

Then you have not been reading all the posts. I have spelled it out exactly why orders do not work.

Forget the specific issue of orders for a moment, and discuss how the mechanics of the rules even work. As I said in a previous post, this is how the game works:

just apply the standard criteria for using the rules to all of your questions and you will have your answers.

That criteria being:

1. You cannot do anything in 40K without permission to try.
2. Where a step of an action that you have permission to try comes into conflict with a general rule, the action fails.
3. An explicit exception from the codex or rulebook will override a conflict with the general rules.

That method is how the entire game works. It is why that 'fex mentioned earlier can't shoot in the opponents turn, and why a Space Marine Librarian can't use any of his powers in the opponents turn, and why Orders can't be issued in an opponents turn. It is all identical language of when you have permission to try to use those actions, and all with the same result. The only actions that work in an opponents turn say so explicitly. One example from the main rulebook is Going to Ground. An example from a codex would be Word of the Emperor psychic power in the Witchhunters codex.

Scott-56, do you disagree that those three criteria are the overall method of how 40K rules work?

Kaaihn: I don't disagree with any of that. I have never been of the opinion that IG orders can be issued in the opponents turn.

However, the rules are generally explicit ("the librarian's assault phase", "the model's movement phase", "your shooting phase") but in this case are not ("the shooting phase").

While the points above are completely correct and are utterly implicit in the rules in order to allow them to function they are not explicit in the rules and, as such, are not particularly useful when dealing with TFG. (I can't turn to page x and point to the paragraph stating those points although there have been many times that I wished I could!)

Steelmage - I have the rulebook in front of me, it describes the two player turns that make up a game turn. However, there is no statement in there to explicitly state that wording such as "every turn" or "once per turn" means solely in the controlling player's turn.

Indeed, it muddies the waters as an ability that can be used once per player could be inferred to be usuable twice per game turn - once in each player's turn.

I think the valid response to someone who tries this rule interpretation is to drop your hard cover BRB from a few feet above the table on to the offending squad and ask him to show you the rule. Then ask if there are any more units taking special orders on your turn that didn't come from you.

Point to page 9, where it specifically says that players alternate taking turns moving and fighting with their units. So, one player will move and fight with his forces first, then his opponent will move and fight. The the process repeats with the first player moving and fighting again, and so on until the end of the game.

There you go. It says right in the first rule that you alternate; it establishes the default ruling of no simultaneous action. To then have a simultaneous action (both players conducting an action during the same turn) you would need a rule to specifically override the general prohibition already in place.

Going to Ground gives this override. Word of the Emperor gives this override. Issuing orders does not.

Kaaihn wrote:Point to page 9, where it specifically says that players alternate taking turns moving and fighting with their units. So, one player will move and fight with his forces first, then his opponent will move and fight. The the process repeats with the first player moving and fighting again, and so on until the end of the game.

There you go. It says right in the first rule that you alternate; it establishes the default ruling of no simultaneous action. To then have a simultaneous action (both players conducting an action during the same turn) you would need a rule to specifically override the general prohibition already in place.

Going to Ground gives this override. Word of the Emperor gives this override. Issuing orders does not.

"TURN SEQUENCE EXCEPTIONS
There are times when a player is allowed to perform
actions during their opponent’s turn (fighting in an
assault being the most common example)."

Doesn't say anything about turn sequence exceptions needing to be so explicit. Requiring that a rule specifically make mention of any general rule that it happens to override is your own invention.

Only a complete douche bag would try to shoot during the opponent's turn.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Only a complete douche bag would try to shoot during the opponent's turn.

G

Already established from the very first post. The point of the thread is to definitively show that the so-called loophole isn't legal.

And has everyone forgotten that it doesn't make a shred of difference about the turns because you cannot order in the opponents turn because orders must be done before you shoot or run and as you cannot shoot nor run on the opponents turn there is never a point "before" you shoot or run?

Danny Internets wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Point to page 9, where it specifically says that players alternate taking turns moving and fighting with their units. So, one player will move and fight with his forces first, then his opponent will move and fight. The the process repeats with the first player moving and fighting again, and so on until the end of the game.

There you go. It says right in the first rule that you alternate; it establishes the default ruling of no simultaneous action. To then have a simultaneous action (both players conducting an action during the same turn) you would need a rule to specifically override the general prohibition already in place.

Going to Ground gives this override. Word of the Emperor gives this override. Issuing orders does not.

"TURN SEQUENCE EXCEPTIONS
There are times when a player is allowed to perform
actions during their opponent’s turn (fighting in an
assault being the most common example)."

Doesn't say anything about turn sequence exceptions needing to be so explicit. Requiring that a rule specifically make mention of any general rule that it happens to override is your own invention.

Is that supposed to be a joke? Or just bad trolling?

Read the most common example of actions allowed to be performed during your opponents turn, it explicitly tells you that you fight in an assault your opponents turn.

Seriously, if I can just do whatever the codex says without caring if it specifically overrides a general rules conflict, that's farking AWESOME. My Librarians can now toss Doom on your guys in your turn if you are within it's range.

You missed the point entirely.

There are many codex rules that conflict with general rules and do not make specific mention of them, but you are still required to follow the codex rule regardless.

Example: Lash of Submission. Enabling the opponent's models to move in your own movement phase breaks the turn sequence, however the rule for Lash of Submission does not explicitly say that the turn sequence rule is being overriden. It simply says "the target is moved 2D6" by the Chaos player." The specific rule overrides the general rule of these models only being able to move on their own turn.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that each special rule must go through the list of all existing rules and note each one that it breaks. I suppose another way of putting this is that the phrasing of the rule itself, that you may use an order each [player] turn, is sufficient to demonstrate that it breaks the normal turn sequence. It does not need to say that you may make an order on the other player's turn because being able to make an order on EVERY player turn is inclusive of that situation.

One of us is indeed under a mistaken impression, but it isn't me. The correct function of a permissive ruleset turn based game is to check each step of any action against the general rules. If in conflict, the action fails without an explicit permission to override the conflict. That's just how the game functions.

Orders use the identical language as Space Marine Librarians. If your method of using the rules allows IG to issue orders during the opposing players turn, then your method also allows Space Marine Librarians to use some psychic powers in the opposing players turn.

You can't have one without the other. So which is it? Your really arguing that I can cast Doom on you during your shooting phase?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:Example: Lash of Submission. Enabling the opponent's models to move in your own movement phase breaks the turn sequence, however the rule for Lash of Submission does not explicitly say that the turn sequence rule is being overriden. It simply says "the target is moved 2D6" by the Chaos player." The specific rule overrides the general rule of these models only being able to move on their own turn.

Except that I am not taking an action in your turn, you are taking an action and following the rules of your ability. I can't move my models in your turn. You can't move my models, ever, unless something gives you explicit permission to do so. Lash gives that explicit permission.

Got another example you think is valid? Because Lash isn't one.

Kaaihn wrote:You can't have one without the other. So which is it? Your really arguing that I can cast Doom on you during your shooting phase?

First of all, Doom is an Eldar power, not a Space Marine power. Secondly, the rules for Eldar psychic powers explicitly say that they must be cast at the beginning of the Eldar turn. So, no, I'm not really arguing that you can cast Doom on me in my shooting phase.

Now, on to your argument. Are you really arguing that you can't move models using Lash of Submission because the rule doesn't explicitly say that the turn sequence is allowed to be broken?

You can't move my models, ever, unless something gives you explicit permission to do so. Lash gives that explicit permission.

The rules for orders explicitly say that orders can be used in every player turn. Note: the enemy's turn is also a player turn.

@Danny: Stop being so bloody Obtuse, he was talking about Vortex of Doom.

Gwar! wrote:And has everyone forgotten that it doesn't make a shred of difference about the turns because you cannot order in the opponents turn because orders must be done before you shoot or run and as you cannot shoot nor run on the opponents turn there is never a point "before" you shoot or run?

Hopefully if people post this enough, the issue will not be raised again.

As for the lash question, that probably belongs in another discussion thread.

So to summarise:-Can I use Orders in my opponents turn?

NO

Well, if he meant that he should have said it.

I don't have the Space Marine codex in front of me so I don't know the specific wording, which is obviously what that hinges on.

Regardless of potential problems in other armies, the rules for orders do very clearly state that orders can be issued each player turn. The argument made using the language "before shooting or running" is strong, however this particular line of reasoning is not.

I would disagree that the rules for orders clearly state that orders can be issued each player turn. They do not actualy specify which kind of turn they are refering to. And while the Main Rule Book does state that the word 'turn' is to be taken as 'player turn', its well known that codecies often leave out the designations the main rule book states they should have. (how the stormbolter is mounted on a Rhino is a good example of this)

And in the case of a rule with is not explicit, we must go to implicit reasoning to determane the effect or extent of the rule.

Reasoning 1: The restrictions on the use of orders refer to conditions which only take place during the owning player's shooting phase, such as Shooting and Running. (Or not being able if you executed an order) In addition, these are refered to in the indefinent, indicating that the entire issue is confined to the normal sequance of play. (ie. Orders must be issued before the squad shoots or runs. Not Orders must be issued before the squad shoots or runs this turn)

Resoning 2: The orders are worded in the same way as several other indefinite rules, all of which have been taken to be during the owning players turn. Example include Jetpack & Jetbike assault phase movements and several psychic powers. On the other hand, several other rules which do allow for action during the opposing player's turn explicity say so, such as 'Go to Ground'. Therefore, the absence of specific rules stating that the action is permissable during the opponent's turn are a very strong indicator it is not possable.

Yes, sorry, it was shorthand for Vortex of Doom, the only Doom power the Space Marine Librarians have.

Danny, the rule for issuing orders is identical in every word to the rule for when Space Marine Librarians can use their powers. It is also identical to when some things like the aforementioned 'fex can shoot.

Nobody is going to let you cast any Librarian powers in their turn that don't specifically say "can be used in opponents turn", or let you shoot the guns of your 'fex in their turn. The language "each turn" in and of itself is not sufficient to to override the general rule of no actions in your opponents turn.

Please provide examples from the rulebook or any codex's of any abilities that are accepted to be able to be used in your opponents turn, but that do not explicitly state "can be used in opponents turn", or "opposing player turn", etc. Orders does not say that. What examples do you have to support your claim?

"TURN SEQUENCE EXCEPTIONS
There are times when a player is allowed to perform
actions during their opponent’s turn (fighting in an
assault being the most common example)."

I think this is the crux of why the language is not solid enough (in and of it self) for turn based play to stop orders from working.

The requirement of doing it before running or shooting is probably the strongest reason to disallow orders on opponents turn by RAW as it indicates that we are intended to interpret the sentence, and use them in your turn only. But NOT because you have to be able to run or shoot, merely because of the context it provides.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:And has everyone forgotten that it doesn't make a shred of difference about the turns because you cannot order in the opponents turn because orders must be done before you shoot or run and as you cannot shoot nor run on the opponents turn there is never a point "before" you shoot or run?

But I also think there is a pretty big logical fallicy in what Gwar! has ordered by pure RAW:

P1:Action A must come before Action B,
P2:Action B is not possible
C: Action A is not possible.

It just doesn't work like that. If I never eat lunch for whatever reason, I can still eat breakfast. The restriction comes into effect only if I try to eat breakfast after lunch - can't do it.

IF you have not yet shot or ran, it is a point in time before doing that. It does not mean that shooting or running is necessarily possible, nor does it have to.

LunaHound wrote:
Again Arinnor , i point back to you something i already said on page 2 of this thread , and also page 2 of the other thread.
You either : chose to ignore what i said , or you didnt see what i was saying , or you put me on ignore and didnt see it , but i'll quote again:

LunaHound wrote:Quoting from 4-28

LunaHound wrote: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....

Somnicide wrote:

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.

Case closed.

Ketara wrote:

Gwar! wrote:And has everyone forgotten that it doesn't make a shred of difference about the turns because you cannot order in the opponents turn because orders must be done before you shoot or run and as you cannot shoot nor run on the opponents turn there is never a point "before" you shoot or run?

Hopefully if people post this enough, the issue will not be raised again.

As for the lash question, that probably belongs in another discussion thread.

So to summarise:-Can I use Orders in my opponents turn?

NO

Apparently we all agreed this to be hammered over and over again

As I JUST stated, trying to argue that is a logical fallacy. Just because an action A must come before action B, does not limit the action A save in the event action B has already occurred. The possibility of Action B occurring is irrelevant.

Although, I definitely agree that the before run or shoot part does tell us how to interpret when orders can be done, it is not implicit in the text that it is not allowed. Raw is loose on this one guys, IMHO.

That being said, I wouldn't allow it either.

On the other hand, Dracos, the letter of the Orders rule would indicated that if you've ever shot or moved, you cannot issue orders. I'd argue it is implicit, just not explicit.

There doesn't actualy seem to be a single person who would allow it, were just arguing for arguing's own sake now.

Mars.Techpriest wrote:On the other hand, Dracos, the letter of the Orders rule would indicated that if you've ever shot or moved, you cannot issue orders. I'd argue it is implicit, just not explicit.

There doesn't actualy seem to be a single person who would allow it, were just arguing for arguing's own sake now.

I completely agree with you

I just wanted to make sure people realize that its not "air tight" like they seem to be arguing. Too much of "my opinion is law" around here when RAW just isn't that tight IMO

Dracos wrote:

Mars.Techpriest wrote:On the other hand, Dracos, the letter of the Orders rule would indicated that if you've ever shot or moved, you cannot issue orders. I'd argue it is implicit, just not explicit.

There doesn't actualy seem to be a single person who would allow it, were just arguing for arguing's own sake now.

I completely agree with you

I just wanted to make sure people realize that its not "air tight" like they seem to be arguing. Too much of "my opinion is law" around here when RAW just isn't that tight IMO

My Opinion is Law because I don't have an opinion, I just reiterate what the rules tell us.

Gwar! wrote:My Opinion is Law because I don't have an opinion, I just reiterate what the rules tell us.

So you keep saying, most often without the rules you are reiterating cited.

Which is what makes it your opinion rather than "reiterating rules". At best you paraphrase rules, at worst you just assume what ever you think is raw.

Dracos wrote:

Gwar! wrote:My Opinion is Law because I don't have an opinion, I just reiterate what the rules tell us.

So you keep saying, most often without the rules you are reiterating cited.

Which is what makes it your opinion rather than "reiterating rules". At best you paraphrase rules, at worst you just assume what ever you think is raw.

Someone is bitter.

I see. So your only response to my criticism of your debating tactics is to attack me personally. Well, at least you went a distance to prove me right.

GJ

Dracos wrote:I see. So your only response to my criticism of your debating tactics is to attack me personally. Well, at least you went a distance to prove me right.

GJ

I did no such thing. I was just making an observation. It was in no way intended to be an attack. Of course, your immediate reaction to class it as an attack speaks droves in my humble opinion.

Although, if you worry about me not citing my sources, I shall do that now for you.

Codex: Imperial Guard (ISBN: 978-1841549231), Page 29, The Box Labelled "Imperial Guard Orders", Paragraph 4, Sentence 2:
"Orders must be issued before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run (whether the order was successful or not)."

Now, If you would be so kind as to show me where it says they can Run or Shoot on the opponents turn. I'll keep it quick, you cannot. Therefore, there is never a point in the opponents shooting phase where the Officer is before shooting or running, because he cannot shoot nor run.

That good enough for you?

Dracos wrote: trying to argue that is a logical fallacy. Just because an action A must come before action B, does not limit the action A save in the event action B has already occurred. The possibility of Action B occurring is irrelevant.

You are operating on a logical fallacy by claiming that in to issue orders you must also be able to run or shoot. Instead, the limitation (by wording of the text) only states as above, that action A is only limited if action B has already happened.

That argument is not logical.

edit: And yes, it was a personal attack. If you were attacking one of my posts, you would have had to say "That sounds rather bitter" or "your post is bitter"

You made a remark regarding my person that was unfavorable, and as such it was a personal attack. Not that your attacks matter to me, but it just goes to show how you debate.

Che-Vito wrote:Would you guys just give it a rest, and read all that has been written previously in this thread?
I swear, if the BGB didn't define what a "model" was, then you'd have people arguing that WH40K can't be played because GW didn't define what a model is...

I have conceded to my local friends/gamer group perspective that, according to my Daemonhunters codex, the Chaos Deamons deamons do not actually fall into any of the categories that Codex Daemonhunters' description of Deamons specifies. Since doing so they have now gotten to the point where they are disputing that "Chaos models" which can be affected by Sacred Incense have not been clearly defined enough to merit that their Chaos Space Marines or Chaos Daemons will be subject to the -1 initiative under its effects.

Sorry if this is veering off topic. I just felt it was worth chiming in that this is getting dangerously similar to the scenario mentioned by Che-Vito, imo. Flame on.

Back on topic

Dracos wrote:

Dracos wrote: trying to argue that is a logical fallacy. Just because an action A must come before action B, does not limit the action A save in the event action B has already occurred. The possibility of Action B occurring is irrelevant.

You are operating on a logical fallacy by claiming that in to issue orders you must also be able to run or shoot. Instead, the limitation (by wording of the text) only states as above, that action A is only limited if action B has already happened.

That argument is not logical.

edit: And yes, it was a personal attack. If you were attacking one of my posts, you would have had to say "That sounds rather bitter" or "your post is bitter"

You made a remark regarding my person that was unfavorable, and as such it was a personal attack. Not that your attacks matter to me, but it just goes to show how you debate.

Your Post is Bitter

And once again, you ignore an argument you cannot provide evidence against. I am annoyed with your debating tactics, not bitter.

Dracos wrote:And once again, you ignore an argument you cannot provide evidence against. I am annoyed with your debating tactics, not bitter.

Your post displays annoyance at my debating tactics.

I am ignoring it because my argument is not a logical fallacy.

Okay I explained why it is a logical fallacy. Please elaborate on how my explanation of the logical fallacy exhibited in you post is incorrect. If you are able to, I will concede the point or offer a refutation of my own.

When debating, normally one side will postulate something and it is either excepted or refuted. Generally if it is refuted, in order to attempt to still validate it you need to refute the refutation. This is the part that you normally skip in your debating and just repeat that you are correct.

Let's start with what I think we can agree on:

Page 9 clearly defines what a turn is with respect to Game Turn and Player Turn. From this we can easily conclude that IG Orders may be issued at the start of each player's Shooting Phase. (Hold on to your head Gwar, I'm not done yet) It remains to be seen if said Order(s) can be resolved in your opponents Shooting Phase.

Kaaihn presents 3 points which I think are worth discussing:

1. 40k has a permissive rule set, you cannot do anything unless you are specifically instructed to do so (though I would argue that in certain actions, there are implied steps that must be taken to complete that action)

2. Where a step of an action that you have permission to try comes into conflict with a general rule, the action fails.

3. An explicit exception from the codex or rulebook with overide the conflict with the general rule.

In regards to IG Orders, I take issue with Kaaihn's point 2 and how he applies it to Orders.

"TURN SEQUENCE EXCEPTIONS
There are times when a player is allowed to perform actions during their opponent’s turn (fighting in an assault being the most common example)."

Here we have a general rule that allows a player to perform actions during their oponent's turn.

So we've got IG Orders that can be issued during each player's Shooting Phase per the definition of a turn (Player Turn being the case here), and we have a general rule that allows players to take actions on their opponents turn.

I accept point 3 from Kaaihn.

Finally, we've got Gwar and company arguing that having the ability to Run or Shoot is a necessary requirement to issuing Orders. As Dracos has pointed out, this is not a logical assertion based upon the actual wording of the rule. The rule does not assert or imply that you must have the ability to Run and/or Shoot in order to issue an Order. It is a conditional statement only.

I think we can all agree on the statement to the effect of "Orders must be issued before the unit Runs or Shoots". I don't have the rulebook with me right now, so I can't provide an exact quote. Like I just stated though, this does not imply or assert a necessary requirement. You check to see if this particular condition, among the others, is satisfied, prior to issuing on Order (not resolving the order).

Here's an example of what I mean:

CCS is hemmed in on all sides, they cannot move or run. LoS is blocked to all enemy units, they cannot shoot. In this scenario they do not have the ability to shoot or run. From a metagame perspective they do have it though. It is after all, the IG player's turn where moving and shooting occur. CCS can issue one or more Orders. What is key here though is that the Order system doesn't care whether or not the unit has the ability to issue an order, it just cares whether the condition has been met to issue one. No Run, no Shoot == Issue Order. This is irrespective of whether you may actually run or shoot.

I've got an IG army and I have not yet tried to play issuing orders on both player turns. To be honest though, I've only played one game with the new codex. My group is open to trying this, and I'm curious to see what effect it has on the overall game play.

-Yad

So we have two options according to RAW, and some narrow interpretations of what the RAW have implied:

Either
A) the IG player can only do an order each of their own shooting phases before shooting or running as implied by the "before [..] shoots or runs", or
B) in every player turn the player can do an order up to the point that they take their first shooting or run action at which point they can make no more orders for the remainder of the game as implied by the "before [..] shoots or runs".

Am I following this right?

Mars.Techpriest wrote:I would disagree that the rules for orders clearly state that orders can be issued each player turn. They do not actualy specify which kind of turn they are refering to. And while the Main Rule Book does state that the word 'turn' is to be taken as 'player turn', its well known that codecies often leave out the designations the main rule book states they should have. (how the stormbolter is mounted on a Rhino is a good example of this)

And in the case of a rule with is not explicit, we must go to implicit reasoning to determane the effect or extent of the rule.

Reasoning 1: The restrictions on the use of orders refer to conditions which only take place during the owning player's shooting phase, such as Shooting and Running. (Or not being able if you executed an order) In addition, these are refered to in the indefinent, indicating that the entire issue is confined to the normal sequance of play. (ie. Orders must be issued before the squad shoots or runs. Not Orders must be issued before the squad shoots or runs this turn)

Resoning 2: The orders are worded in the same way as several other indefinite rules, all of which have been taken to be during the owning players turn. Example include Jetpack & Jetbike assault phase movements and several psychic powers. On the other hand, several other rules which do allow for action during the opposing player's turn explicity say so, such as 'Go to Ground'. Therefore, the absence of specific rules stating that the action is permissable during the opponent's turn are a very strong indicator it is not possable.

Yeah Goat, you basicly have it.

Gentlemen this post has been reported. This is a reminder to everyone to post in accordance with Rule #1: and not attack other posters. Argue the issues not the personalities gentlemen and boors.

Majesticgoat wrote:So we have two options according to RAW, and some narrow interpretations of what the RAW have implied:

Either
A) the IG player can only do an order each of their own shooting phases before shooting or running as implied by the "before [..] shoots or runs", or
B) in every player turn the player can do an order up to the point that they take their first shooting or run action at which point they can make no more orders for the remainder of the game as implied by the "before [..] shoots or runs".

Am I following this right?

I would disagree with this. While the results of some of your actions on YOUR player turn do indeed carry over (e.g., moving a vehicle Flat Out), in no way do the rules imply that all of your actions (i.e., Move, Run, Shoot, etc) themselves remain 'on' for lack of a better word.

Yad wrote:

Majesticgoat wrote:So we have two options according to RAW, and some narrow interpretations of what the RAW have implied:

Either
A) the IG player can only do an order each of their own shooting phases before shooting or running as implied by the "before [..] shoots or runs", or
B) in every player turn the player can do an order up to the point that they take their first shooting or run action at which point they can make no more orders for the remainder of the game as implied by the "before [..] shoots or runs".

Am I following this right?

I would disagree with this. While the results of some of your actions on YOUR player turn do indeed carry over (e.g., moving a vehicle Flat Out), in no way do the rules imply that all of your actions (i.e., Move, Run, Shoot, etc) themselves remain 'on' for lack of a better word.

I would normally agree. I think that it is absurd to think that they can shoot every turn, but that is just me and my first gut instinct when faced with the prospect of it happening to me.

My concern is that if we do not allow for some basic assumptions such as implied turn order and turn restrictions, then how is it fair to take advantage of it each player turn, RAW, while not also adhering to only being able to do it before the command squad shoots or runs, RAW? It feels like people are picking and choosing what they like about the lack of clarity while not following their own strict/loose rules of interpretation all the way throughout.

Now you are using selective interpreatation, taking literal in one section of the rule, and implicit in the other. Where does it say that your history of actions does not carry over between player turns, or even between game turns?

Mars.Techpriest wrote:Now you are using selective interpreatation, taking literal in one section of the rule, and implicit in the other. Where does it say that your history of actions does not carry over between player turns, or even between game turns?

First off, I can't refute your statement that I'm using selective interpretations of the rules. You haven't providing any justification for that (unless that's what you mean your following question to be?). In which case, I would agree that it doesn't say so one way or the other. However, I believe that I have a better position in regards to your question. Taking my example of vehicle movement for instance. On my move I go flat out. My Player Turn ends and you decide to assault my vehicle on your Player Turn/Assault Phase. The effects of my previous action (i.e., vehicle movement) 'spill over' into your turn, making it more difficult to assault my vehicle. What I'm trying to say is, that the actions I take in my turn don't remain 'on', but their effects may have to be taken into account on your turn.

-Yad

Tyranid Codex:

"A creature with two or more ranged bioweapons 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."

You get your orders on my shooting phase, my whole army fires on yours.

Sounds fair to me!

kirsanth wrote:Tyranid Codex:

"A creature with two or more ranged bioweapons 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."

You get your orders on my shooting phase, my whole army fires on yours.

Sounds fair to me!

And my Librarians get to Vortex of Doom you as well

Sorry it wasn't clearer,

Literal Interpretation: Turn refers to player turn and shooting phase refers to all shooting phases, it is not possable it was intended to be own shooting phase

Implicit Interpretation: Orders must be given before moving or shooting refers only to that particular turn, even though the rules do not specify the condition is contained within the turn the order is given.

As for your vehicle example, that's exactly my point. Something you do in one turn can continue to effect things in later turns. Given no other bounds, if we take a litteral intepretaion of the rules, once the unit has shot or run, it will no longer be able to issue orders for the remainder of the game.

Gwar! wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Tyranid Codex:

"A creature with two or more ranged bioweapons 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."

You get your orders on my shooting phase, my whole army fires on yours.

Sounds fair to me!

And my Librarians get to Vortex of Doom you as well

Sorry, thought this thread was about the IG Orders, not Tyranids or Marines. What I mean is those codex specific rules have no bearing on the IG Order system. But if you want to debate those, feel free to fire up another thread, I'll be happy to join in.

-Yad

He is citing precedence on rules interpretations, which IS relevant. This rule is not in a vacuum.

Dracos wrote:He is citing precedence on rules interpretations, which IS relevant. This rule is not in a vacuum.

It's not even a matter of precedence, its just proof of how the exact same wording actually works. If Orders DO allow you to fire in the enemies turn, then so can Tyranids.

And I do not recall seeing hundreds of threads about tyranids.

Oh snap!

Dracos wrote:He is citing precedence on rules interpretations, which IS relevant. This rule is not in a vacuum.

Again, I disagree. Tyranid shooting, and Marine use of wargear have no bearing on the execution of the IG Order system, unless the debate is using rules common to all. What I see as being common, is the:

Definition of Turn
General Rule allowing a player to take actions in another player's Player Turn

Its the debate about the IG Order system that is causing Gwar and company to claim Tyranid bio-weapons can shoot in every Player Turn. I'm interested in resolving this first [IG Orders] before tackling other codecies.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Dracos wrote:He is citing precedence on rules interpretations, which IS relevant. This rule is not in a vacuum.

It's not even a matter of precedence, its just proof of how the exact same wording actually works. If Orders DO allow you to fire in the enemies turn, then so can Tyranids.

And I do not recall seeing hundreds of threads about tyranids.

If it was the exact same wording, then yes, I would agree with you. But based off of what Kirsanth posted, it's not. IG Orders references every [Player Turn]. Kirsanth quotes, per Shooting Phase. I'm being very particular here, pointing out that they are indeed not the, as you say, 'exact same words'.

Gwar! wrote:

Dracos wrote:He is citing precedence on rules interpretations, which IS relevant. This rule is not in a vacuum.

It's not even a matter of precedence, its just proof of how the exact same wording actually works. If Orders DO allow you to fire in the enemies turn, then so can Tyranids.

And I do not recall seeing hundreds of threads about tyranids.

Is that not exactly what precedence is? Using past parallel judgments to validate present ones?

I would apreciate it if you'd adress the remainder of my arguments regarding literal vs. implicit interpretation of the rules.

(damn simaltanious posting)

The point behind the 'nid and marine issues is that all they state is that they occur during the shooting phase, and there is one shooting phase per player turn.

Dracos wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Dracos wrote:He is citing precedence on rules interpretations, which IS relevant. This rule is not in a vacuum.

It's not even a matter of precedence, its just proof of how the exact same wording actually works. If Orders DO allow you to fire in the enemies turn, then so can Tyranids.

And I do not recall seeing hundreds of threads about tyranids.

Is that not exactly what precedence is? Using past parallel judgments to validate present ones?

Yes it is.

Shush I'm Mildly Inebriated

Mars.Techpriest wrote:I would apreciate it if you'd adress the remainder of my arguments regarding literal vs. implicit interpretation of the rules.

(damn simaltanious posting)

The point behind the 'nid and marine issues is that all they state is that they occur during the shooting phase, and there is one shooting phase per player turn.

QFT. To Dracos, in particular, and others...take this into account. This is why the argument has started to involve Marines and Nids.

Yad wrote:Again, I disagree. Tyranid shooting, and Marine use of wargear have no bearing on the execution of the IG Order system, unless the debate is using rules common to all. What

I think the part we have not been able to communicate to you is that the precedence for general rules interpretations is that unless otherwise specified, you can never take a voluntary action during your opponent's turn. That is the general rule (as denoted by the reference to taking turns one at a time) that is preventing those from being used on another person's turn.

If we take your interpretation that you do not need an explicit statement to exempt you (something like "you may issue orders every turn, even your opponent's turn") then these other things which we know to be incorrect must actually be true.

This is a case of using precedence in the general rules interpretation which prevents you from taking this voluntary action during an opponents turn. If you think you can give orders during my turn, then you must think the MC shooting every player turn etc must also be valid.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Che-Vito wrote:QFT. To Dracos, in particular, and others...take this into account. This is why the argument has started to involve Marines and Nids.

I'm not sure why I got singled out there, but okay.

Dracos wrote:

Yad wrote:Again, I disagree. Tyranid shooting, and Marine use of wargear have no bearing on the execution of the IG Order system, unless the debate is using rules common to all. What

I think the part we have not been able to communicate to you is that the precedence for general rules interpretations is that unless otherwise specified, you can never take a voluntary action during your opponent's turn. That is the general rule (as denoted by the reference to taking turns one at a time) that is preventing those from being used on another person's turn.

Now that I find to be a curious thing to say. I don't have my book with me, so take this for what it's worth, but I don't believe that there is an explicit rule to that effect. I do think it is implied in how the rules define Player Turn, Game Turn, and the actions taken therein. But, there is an explicitly stated rule that allows players to 'occasionally' take actions on their oponents turns. Yes?

Dracos wrote:
If we take your interpretation that you do not need an explicit statement to exempt you (something like "you may issue orders every turn, even your opponent's turn") then these other things which we know to be incorrect must actually be true.

But there is an explicit statement allowing IG Orders to be issued, again resolution is another matter, on each Player Turn. I'd quote it for you if I had my codex

Dracos wrote:
This is a case of using precedence in the general rules interpretation which prevents you from taking this voluntary action during an opponents turn. If you think you can give orders during my turn, then you must think the MC shooting every player turn etc must also be valid.

I had thought, that those individuals pulling the Tyranid codex and Marine codex into this were doing so as a result of the IG Order discussion, not the other way around. Meaning, for me at last, that you resolve the IG Orders, then move on to other codecies. If we all feel it's appropriate to discuss fallout from the IG Order discussion and how it affects other codecies, that's fine by me.

-Yad

To me, its precisely how interpreting the rules that way affects the rest of the game that prevents me to agreeing with it.

I've seen people make statements similarily about "resolving" things in this thread. I have to say, I don't think anywhere in the book it gives an order of operations to use when taking voluntary actions except those described in the rules for the action itself. Saying something can be done but not resolved is not supported in the rules anywhere AFAIK.

If you are talking about trying to take an action and not being able to resolve it, you are outside of RAW already as the BGB makes no distinction. Taking an action IS resolving it, as there are no intermediate steps unless outlined in the rules for the action itself.

Is there a rule you are aware of that separates when you start taking an action and when it is resolved?

I think I may see an issue that's continuing this argument. You beleave that "Officers have a number of orders they may issue every turn." is explicit. I, for one, do not beleave it is.

Everything else in the orders section sugests that orders only occur in the players own shooting phase. Every other time a codex or rulebook refers to a unqualified shooting phase, it refers to the players own. Every other time you are allowed to take a volitanry action during the opponents turn, it has specifily stated 'Opponent's turn'. All the prohabitions are only logical if it takes place during the players own shooting phase.

In addition, you have yet to state why you think your able to add an implied "this player turn" to the must not have run or shot reqirement.

There is an explicit allowance for psychers to make psychic tests each turn, which means each player turn.

Several psychic powers are listed simply as 'used in the shooting phase'. These include Lash of Submission and Nurgle's Rot.

So, as the reasoning goes, if the IG can issue orders during their opponent's shooting phase, CSM players can use Lash of Submission and Nurgle's Rot during their opponent's shooting phase as well.

But, of course, this was already covered in the other threads which discussed this, and I'm sure that some distinction has been found since then.

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

The context of when the orders are given is clearly right here! It gives you the players turn right there that orders can be issued.

When can a IG player shoot or run?

Their turn!!

GW doesn't list the myriad of times that IG players cannot issue orders (opponents assault, opponents movement, opponents shooting, opponents deployment, opponents scout move, opponents drink break, opponents making saving throws, opponents pile in move, opponents consolidation) it only lists when they can issue orders, IE, prior to specific actions that can only happen during the IG players turn!!

Between Luna and Gwar's explanation, how did this thread go so long?

Brother Ramses wrote:Between Luna and Gwar's explanation, how did this thread go so long?

She is a Girl and I am too sexy. People are jealous of us I guess

Since there seems to be some question about the commonality of the Librarian psychic powers to IG Orders, here are the specific rules from the each codex (emphasis mine).

Librarian:

He can only use one power each player turn unless he has been upgraded to an Epistolary, in which case he can use up to two psychic powers each turn.

IG Orders:

...have the ability to issue one or more orders each turn...

If IG can issue orders in their opponents turn, Space Marine Librarians can absolutely use some of their powers in their opponents turn. Yes, this thread is about IG Orders, not Marine Librarians. The point is, Orders in your opponents turn aren't allowed because of the way the game itself functions. If you play the game in such a way that Orders work in the opponents turn, then Librarians powers work there as well. And Tyranid shooting, and many other examples. It just isn't how the game works.

Each player turn means "each of your turns" in function. Please feel free to invalidate this by citing examples of abilities accepted to work in your opponents turn that do not explicitly say so. "Each turn" doesn't cut it.

it was mentioned earlier that if an order was failed, that no more orders may be issued. this is only if you were to roll two 6's.

Anyway;
"Orders must be issued at the start of the shooting phase and in a strict order yadda yadda yadda, orders must be issued before the officer and his comm squad shoot or run, likewise for the receiving squad."

While the rules for ordering say "The command squad may issue X amount of orders each turn" it is assumed the reader/player is intelligible enough to understand that the said-turn is their own, and NOT their opponent's.

For someone reason, I thought there was a specific order where the guard could fire during the opponent's shooting phase, but would forfeit their next shooting phase. But after carefully reviewing my dex, I could find nothing of the sort.

So no, the IG can not shoot during their opponents turn, and if you meet another guard player who says they can, then they must truly fail.

Hhhm...as much as I believe that the IG cannot issue orders on other peopl's turns, Luna's and gwar's point doesnt quite stop them.

IG player: On your turn my command squad is giving the order Fire on my target.

Other player: But you cant do that, you can only give orders before your command squad runs or fires.

IG player: The command is being given to the command squad that the leader is a part of, so they will then be firing.

As long as the command squad is ordered to fire, it will meet this criteria for issueing the order before running or firing.



The whole point that one cannot do anything on the oppoenents turn without explicit permission would seem to be a better arguement.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:The whole point that one cannot do anything on the oppoenents turn without explicit permission would seem to be a better arguement.

Yep. No one yet has produced an example of an ability that works in the opponents turn with only the wording of "each turn" to justify the position that "each turn" is sufficient to allow it.

"Each turn" doesn't allow SM Librarian powers in the opponents turn, and neither does it allow IG Orders in the opponents turn.

Dracos wrote:
I'm not sure why I got singled out there, but okay.

You are one of only a couple of individuals who are continuing to ignore what others are posting. Therefore, I hoped that you would read and respond to what they had written. You have still failed to do this, and as Luna and Gwar have shown several times....this thread was settled quite some time ago.

Che-Vito wrote:

Dracos wrote:
I'm not sure why I got singled out there, but okay.

You are one of only a couple of individuals who are continuing to ignore what others are posting. Therefore, I hoped that you would read and respond to what they had written. You have still failed to do this, and as Luna and Gwar have shown several times....this thread was settled quite some time ago.

Also Pudding.

But seriously, Luna was the one who original settled it, I just used my Boyish Charm and Rugged Good Looks to remind people about it.

Che-Vito wrote:

Dracos wrote:
I'm not sure why I got singled out there, but okay.

You are one of only a couple of individuals who are continuing to ignore what others are posting. Therefore, I hoped that you would read and respond to what they had written. You have still failed to do this, and as Luna and Gwar have shown several times....this thread was settled quite some time ago.

I have offered a REFUTATION of what they have said, yet it is being completely ignored. I agree with their side of the argument, but the "proof" they are using is FALSE.

Not even responded to by one of them, simply ignored.

Then, I tried to ask why it was ignored and got the reply basically saying 'cause I'm right and you're wrong'.

And then you say that I'm ignoring other people's posts? You need to learn to read friend. That is not at all what has transpired over the last several pages.

One more thing... you don't have authority to decide when a thread is over.

*Giggle , i knew some how it would get to this point .

Thats like saying if someone shot and run in the earlier turns , it count as its been done.

Hence they are able to give order in opponent's turn.
I just didnt bother replying to that since now thats a new lvl of silliness .

Dracos wrote:One more thing... you don't have authority to decide when a thread is over.

Sure he does, he is the Queen of Gindadlandia!

Just because an action A must come before action B, does not limit the action A save in the event action B has already occurred. The possibility of Action B occurring is irrelevant.

Although, I definitely agree that the before run or shoot part does tell us how to interpret when orders can be done, it is not explicit in the text that it is not allowed. Raw is loose on this one guys, IMHO.

That being said, I wouldn't allow it either.

Saying that its explicitly not allowed is false. The language of the rules is loose enough to allow the interpretation that IG can use orders in their opponent's turn.

Applying that interpretation however reveals it is immediately false because of how it affects other well known similar wordings.

I'm not sure how replying directly to a point made by the poster can be called ignoring that poster.

Gwar! wrote:

Dracos wrote:One more thing... you don't have authority to decide when a thread is over.

Sure he does, he is the Queen of Gindadlandia!

Hey, I am a big believer that gender-persona is all by choice, so Queen it is...

Of course I don't have the authority to decide when a thread is over, but I am able to say that the point has clearly been spelled out.

If you cannot move and shoot in any turn, then you cannot give an order.
What needs to be proved? That you can't move and shoot in an opponents turn?

This thread has raised your post count by quite a bit though Draco.
http://www.yatahonga.com/data/media/27/2004110/cave_troll.jpg

Dracos wrote:Just because an action A must come before action B, does not limit the action A save in the event action B has already occurred. The possibility of Action B occurring is irrelevant.

Although, I definitely agree that the before run or shoot part does tell us how to interpret when orders can be done, it is not explicit in the text that it is not allowed. Raw is loose on this one guys, IMHO.

That being said, I wouldn't allow it either.

Saying that its explicitly not allowed is false. The language of the rules is loose enough to allow the interpretation that IG can use orders in their opponent's turn.

Applying that interpretation however reveals it is immediately false because of how it affects other well known similar wordings.

I'm not sure how replying directly to a point made by the poster can be called ignoring that poster.

In other words: " If it looks like a dog, barks like a dog , acts like a dog , its still not a dog. Because it could be an undiscovered alien specie "

well , if you want to be that radical about it , go for it no one is stopping you . But im sure GW didnt go that far to mess with the customers.

You fail at analogies and/or reading comprehension.

(edit: this is an analogy of the reasoning Luna and Gwar are applying to the rule)

Breakfast must come before Lunch.

If I am going to DIE before Lunch, Am I then unable to eat breakfast?

Obviously NOT.

That would be a much better analogy.

edit: The limitation of "must come before" only comes into effect of the event it must come before has already happened. That is why your argument holds no merit.

Your side of the argument is correct I feel, as I have elaborated on previously, but your reasoning for it is FALSE.

Dracos wrote:You fail at analogies and/or reading comprehension.

You shouldnt be so quick to tell me that. You seem to be the only one confused at the concept.

LunaHound wrote:

Dracos wrote:You fail at analogies and/or reading comprehension.

You shouldnt be so quick to tell me that. You seem to be the only one confused at the concept.

So basically, you are unable to present a reason why you reasoning is correct? No refutation of my refutation?

..............
..............

Who is the one doing the ignoring again?

Dracos wrote:Saying that its explicitly not allowed is false. The language of the rules is loose enough to allow the interpretation that IG can use orders in their opponent's turn.

No one said that issuing an Order in your opponents turn is explicitly not allowed. What was said is that any action in your opponents turn is generally not allowed, and the language of "each turn" contained in the instructions for issuing orders is not explicit to override the conflict with the general rule.

Just like it is not explicit enough to let SM Librarian psyckic powers be attempted in the opponents turn, or Tyranids to shoot in the opponents turn.

"Each turn" is not your opponents turn plus your turn, it is just your turn. For the third time asking, please show any examples of actions allowed in an opponents turn that are granted with no other language other than "each turn" to successfully refute that.

Dracos wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Dracos wrote:You fail at analogies and/or reading comprehension.

You shouldnt be so quick to tell me that. You seem to be the only one confused at the concept.

So basically, you are unable to present a reason why you reasoning is correct? No refutation of my refutation?

..............
..............

Who is the one doing the ignoring again?

Im not ignoring you , i just have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

If anyone understands what you are trying to say please explain . I sure dont.

@ KaahlinYour argument is sound and I agree with it.

I am disagreeing with Luna and Gwar who seem to be arguing that it is explict by the wording 'must come before run or shooting'.


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

This does not mean that they have to be able to shoot or run, explicitly.

It simply means that if they have shot or run already, they cannot issue orders.

That is the logical fallacy of your argument.

Kaaihn I believe has the correct reasoning. Although, saying 1 turn = 1 game turn is explicitly false. Don't do it, cause p.9 says otherwise.

Most correct would be to argue the precedence here, how other rules (like nids shooting and marines libbys) with similar wordings are played. That precedent is that in order to take a voluntary action during an opponents turn, you must have explicit permissive phrasing to allow it (such as Going to Ground).

Then I present this questin to Gwar and Luna. If I move my Chimera 12 inches can I issue orders out of it?

This... is incredible. Absolutely stunning.

I got through four pages of this cluster and just couldn't, for the sake of my faith in the race of man, continue. So, in advance, my apologies if this repeats a previous comment.

Both sides seem to want to find a rule, one singular rule, that is, arguably, the underpinning of an entire system of rules. Let's say that in this turn based game system they never actually explicitly say you cannot fire on you opponents turn. Did they do this out of forgetfulness? Twisted sense of pleasure? A wish to leave wriggle room for future codices?

No.

They did this because it's something that everyone currently in possession of a brain should inherently understand and acknowledge.

We don't count out four pennies every time we want to prove that 2+2=4, we simply understand this incredibly basic and crucial facet of our advanced mathematical knowledge base and move the feth on.

arinnoor wrote:Then I present this questin to Gwar and Luna. If I move my Chimera 12 inches can I issue orders out of it?

Ah, now you are falling into the logical fallacy trap. Being Prevented by an effect from shooting is NOT the same as being unable to shoot at all.

Dracos wrote:You fail at analogies and/or reading comprehension.

(edit: this is an analogy of the reasoning Luna and Gwar are applying to the rule)

No, your analogy is just terrible. Brining RL situations only muddles things, and your analogy was not correct anyways...

In game terms, it is simple. Gwar and Luna have explained it numerous times...the thread has turned into a beautiful flame war, filled with trolling and pissing contests...

Sorry Che-Vito , im not trying to flame ><

Its just i have explained this since back in april , and that thread ended.

And now its reborn -_-

maybe they should re-read the previous thread.

Im now trying to figure out AT-43 rules while scratching my sun burns :'D

LunaHound wrote:Sorry Che-Vito , im not trying to flame ><

Its just i have explained this since back in april , and that thread ended.

And now its reborn -_-

maybe they should re-read the previous thread.

Im now trying to figure out AT-43 rules while scratching my sun burns :'D

Canada has Sun?

At where i live , Vancouver BC .

The sun is very deadly. Even though we live by the coast, the winds are blocked off by something ( forgot what )

So yes, it reaches 36 c just by sun .

Kaaihn wrote:
Each player turn means "each of your turns" in function. Please feel free to invalidate this by citing examples of abilities accepted to work in your opponents turn that do not explicitly say so. "Each turn" doesn't cut it.

Exactly what I said.

I've been through the BRB and the handful of codexes I own and have not found any examples of "turn" or "the shooting phase" being used to mean in your or your opponent's player turns.

Unless anyone can find one then I think that's a nice clear-cut solution to this issue (and monsterous creatures and certain psyker's powers)

Rules for 40k are permissive.
They ALLOW you to do things. They can't possibly name everything that you can't do.
Just becuase it doesn't mention the rule doesn't mean that you can do it. If it says you can, then you can. If it says you can't then you can't. If It doesn't even approach the fething subject then NO, you can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would have to actually say that you can shoot in both shooting phases.

P.S. I've often referred to different shooting phases as 'mine' and 'his/hers' (big clue)

Dracos wrote:Kaaihn I believe has the correct reasoning. Although, saying 1 turn = 1 game turn is explicitly false. Don't do it, cause p.9 says otherwise.

Did I say 1 turn = 1 game turn somewhere? If so, it's definitely a typo, let me know which post and I will edit it.

So are we done with the thread now?

Anyone who still thinks they can issue Orders in their opponents turn, please show examples to refute the statement that "each turn" is not sufficient permission to perform an action in your opponents turn, and explain why you think that identical wording would allow Orders in your opponents turn, but not SM Librarians to attempt to use some of their psychic powers.

Kaaihn wrote:

Dracos wrote:Kaaihn I believe has the correct reasoning. Although, saying 1 turn = 1 game turn is explicitly false. Don't do it, cause p.9 says otherwise.

Did I say 1 turn = 1 game turn somewhere? If so, it's definitely a typo, let me know which post and I will edit it.

So are we done with the thread now?

Anyone who still thinks they can issue Orders in their opponents turn, please show examples to refute the statement that "each turn" is not sufficient permission to perform an action in your opponents turn, and explain why you think that identical wording would allow Orders in your opponents turn, but not SM Librarians to attempt to use some of their psychic powers.

Page 9 specifically states that when the use of the word turn is used in a rule and it is not explicitly called out as either 'game' turn or 'player' turn, it is to be taken as 'player' turn. Simple proof:

P1. General rule --> Occasionally players may take actions in their opponents Player Turn (don't have my rulebook with me so I can't give a page reference)
P2. Rules that reference 'turn' without specifying either 'Game' or 'Player' are always taken as being 'Player'. (Page 9 BRB)
P3. One or more Orders can be issued each turn (not an exact quote from the IG Orders system, but the reference to the use of 'turn' is accurate)
P4. The use of 'turn' with regards to when Orders can be issued is not specified to be either 'Game' turn or 'Player' turn.
C. Orders can be issued each 'Player' turn.


I don't play marines and don't have access to their Codex, so I'd need to rely on you to provide the relavent rules quote.

Orders ask that you issue them before the Unit has Shot or Run. Show me a point in my turn where it is before you shoot or run.

Gwar! wrote:Orders ask that you issue them before the Unit has Shot or Run. Show me a point in my turn where it is before you shoot or run.

As has been explained time and time again, most effectively by Dracos. You are incorrectly conflating the ability to Run or Shoot with the ability to issue Orders. You logic is flawed and unsupportable. What your referencing is a conditional. Issuing Orders only cares if the condition is met. On the IG player's turn the condition is met by not Running or Shooting prior to issuing Orders. On the opponent's turn, the condition is automatically met.

Yad wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Orders ask that you issue them before the Unit has Shot or Run. Show me a point in my turn where it is before you shoot or run.

As has been explained time and time again, most effectively by Dracos. You are incorrectly conflating the ability to Run or Shoot with the ability to issue Orders. You logic is flawed and unsupportable. What your referencing is a conditional. Issuing Orders only cares if the condition is met. On the IG player's turn the condition is met by not Running or Shooting prior to issuing Orders. On the opponent's turn, the condition is automatically met.

No, it is not met at all, because it MUST come before shooting or Running. As you cannot shoot or run in the opponents turn, there is never a chance for it to satisfy the condition.

its obvious that this is not allowed, otherwise a multitude of units would be allowed to use abilities in opponents turns.

For instance:

Farseers could cast in Opponents turns, Page 26 under the psychic power entry on the eldar codex states
"A farseer may use a single psychic power per turn"

Warp Spiders would be able to make a jump during the opponents shooting phase, as it only states on page 36:
"if unengaged the unit may make a second jump during the assault phase instead of assaulting"

combo wrote:its obvious that this is not allowed, otherwise a multitude of units would be allowed to use abilities in opponents turns.

For instance:

Farseers could cast in Opponents turns, Page 26 under the psychic power entry on the eldar codex states
"A farseer may use a single psychic power per turn"

Warp Spiders would be able to make a jump during the opponents shooting phase, as it only states on page 36:
"if unengaged the unit may make a second jump during the assault phase instead of assaulting"

Not to mention Librarians using Vortex of Doom in the opponents turn, The whole Tyranid Army shooing in the opponents turn, Eldar jetbikes flying about 6" in your assault phase yadda yadda

combo wrote:its obvious that this is not allowed, otherwise a multitude of units would be allowed to use abilities in opponents turns.

For instance:

Farseers could cast in Opponents turns, Page 26 under the psychic power entry on the eldar codex states
"A farseer may use a single psychic power per turn"

Warp Spiders would be able to make a jump during the opponents shooting phase, as it only states on page 36:
"if unengaged the unit may make a second jump during the assault phase instead of assaulting"

First, I'd dispute your second point about Warp Spiders, and likewise any other rule that references phase instead of turn. The cores rules are very specifc about how to treat the term turn. The crux of allowing IG Orders to be issued on each player turn is based off of the generic use of turn.

What I find most interesting is that none of you have tried to square how GW defines turns on Page 9 with the various codex entries that reference turns. Basically it's extremely poor wording on GW's part that creates holes you can drive a battleforce through. The consequences of following RAW in this instance are hideous and none of us want to accept it (including me).

We all have an intuitive understanding of how the game turn and player turns work, and for the vast majority of the time they coincide perfectly well with how they are defined on Page 9. But when you get down to it, there are some serious problems with reconciling the generic use of term turn with various abilities and rules that use it.

Yad wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Orders ask that you issue them before the Unit has Shot or Run. Show me a point in my turn where it is before you shoot or run.

As has been explained time and time again, most effectively by Dracos. You are incorrectly conflating the ability to Run or Shoot with the ability to issue Orders. You logic is flawed and unsupportable. What your referencing is a conditional. Issuing Orders only cares if the condition is met. On the IG player's turn the condition is met by not Running or Shooting prior to issuing Orders. On the opponent's turn, the condition is automatically met.

Ease up on the debate classes you took for a second and look not at the logical process but at the context of the rule:

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

In the rule itself it gives you the moment in the game time line when orders must be issued. Here, how about this:

Before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run, orders must be issued (whether the order was successful or not).

Now explain to me how that is not clearly pointing to when you can issue orders?

Gwar! wrote:

Yad wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Orders ask that you issue them before the Unit has Shot or Run. Show me a point in my turn where it is before you shoot or run.

As has been explained time and time again, most effectively by Dracos. You are incorrectly conflating the ability to Run or Shoot with the ability to issue Orders. You logic is flawed and unsupportable. What your referencing is a conditional. Issuing Orders only cares if the condition is met. On the IG player's turn the condition is met by not Running or Shooting prior to issuing Orders. On the opponent's turn, the condition is automatically met.

No, it is not met at all, because it MUST come before shooting or Running. As you cannot shoot or run in the opponents turn, there is never a chance for it to satisfy the condition.

This is the problem Gwar, you are asserting something that is not explicit. The text does not require the ability to shoot or run, just that shooting or running does not precede the order. That is what is explicit in the text. Arguing that it never has a chance to satisfy the condition is false, because simply by not running or shooting in that opponents turn the explicit condition is met (whether you have the option to run or shoot is irrelevent to the explicit meaning of the text).

However, that part of the text does give some CONTEXT that implicit in the order is that it can only be done on your turn, citing uncountable other rules that use similar wording yet can only be done on the active players turn.

Making false arguments does not help the debate. Again strict RAW is loose, but how that RAW is applied to other similiar rules is NOT.

You cannot issue orders on someone else's turn because that's not how the game works - one person moves and fights with his guys at once. The second reason you can't issue orders on another person's turn is because of how the same wording (perhaps even erroneous wording) is applied in other situations - the precedent set is that if you want to take a voluntary action during your opponent's turn, your special rule must have explicit permissive phrasing ('even during your opponent's turn').

If you would stop focusing on the arguments that are false and go with the ones that make sense, this thread would be better for it.

How is this still going on?

I don't care what avowed reasons the people who are arguing are giving for arguing, but you've gone past any reasonable 'devil's advocate', and are simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

This is nine pages of the same 5 posts over and over again. I mean really. Especially since, according to what people are saying, EVERYONE AGREES.

In trying to get others to provide an argument against TFG, you are being That Fething Guy yourself. End this madness, apply your brains, and stop being ridiculous. I can practically feel the blood pressure in everyone's heads rising from way up here in Canada.

Yad wrote:
Page 9 specifically states that when the use of the word turn is used in a rule and it is not explicitly called out as either 'game' turn or 'player' turn, it is to be taken as 'player' turn. Simple proof:

P1. General rule --> Occasionally players may take actions in their opponents Player Turn (don't have my rulebook with me so I can't give a page reference)
P2. Rules that reference 'turn' without specifying either 'Game' or 'Player' are always taken as being 'Player'. (Page 9 BRB)
P3. One or more Orders can be issued each turn (not an exact quote from the IG Orders system, but the reference to the use of 'turn' is accurate)
P4. The use of 'turn' with regards to when Orders can be issued is not specified to be either 'Game' turn or 'Player' turn.
C. Orders can be issued each 'Player' turn.

P1 and P2 as above.
P3. Psykers can make one or more psychic tests per turn.
P4. Some psychic powers are shooting attacks.
C. Psykers can use psychic shooting attacks during their opponent's shooting phase.

or

P1 and P2 as above.
P3. Obliterators are able to fire one weapon 'each shooting phase.'
C. Obliterators can shoot during their opponent's turn.

Orkestra wrote:How is this still going on?

I don't care what avowed reasons the people who are arguing are giving for arguing, but you've gone past any reasonable 'devil's advocate', and are simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

This is nine pages of the same 5 posts over and over again. I mean really. Especially since, according to what people are saying, EVERYONE AGREES.

In trying to get others to provide an argument against TFG, you are being That Fething Guy yourself. End this madness, apply your brains, and stop being ridiculous. I can practically feel the blood pressure in everyone's heads rising from way up here in Canada.

QFT.

Yad wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

Dracos wrote:Kaaihn I believe has the correct reasoning. Although, saying 1 turn = 1 game turn is explicitly false. Don't do it, cause p.9 says otherwise.

Did I say 1 turn = 1 game turn somewhere? If so, it's definitely a typo, let me know which post and I will edit it.

So are we done with the thread now?

Anyone who still thinks they can issue Orders in their opponents turn, please show examples to refute the statement that "each turn" is not sufficient permission to perform an action in your opponents turn, and explain why you think that identical wording would allow Orders in your opponents turn, but not SM Librarians to attempt to use some of their psychic powers.

Page 9 specifically states that when the use of the word turn is used in a rule and it is not explicitly called out as either 'game' turn or 'player' turn, it is to be taken as 'player' turn. Simple proof:

P1. General rule --> Occasionally players may take actions in their opponents Player Turn (don't have my rulebook with me so I can't give a page reference)
P2. Rules that reference 'turn' without specifying either 'Game' or 'Player' are always taken as being 'Player'. (Page 9 BRB)
P3. One or more Orders can be issued each turn (not an exact quote from the IG Orders system, but the reference to the use of 'turn' is accurate)
P4. The use of 'turn' with regards to when Orders can be issued is not specified to be either 'Game' turn or 'Player' turn.
C. Orders can be issued each 'Player' turn.


I don't play marines and don't have access to their Codex, so I'd need to rely on you to provide the relavent rules quote.

But, "turn", meaning "player turn" is consistently used to mean the controlling player's player turn.

There are many examples of this usuage. So far, no one has offered an example of your usuage (either players' player turn)

Just let it die, it was on it's last breath already.

They aren't going to answer the relevant questions, it would mean admitting they are wrong, that Orders don't work in the opponents turn. I've lost track now of the number of times I have cited examples of abilities that have identical language to Orders, but don't work in the opponents turn. No one has an explanation on why the difference, and no one has brought forth any examples of abilities that do work in the opponents turn (as has been asked for repeatedly) with nothing more than "each turn", or "each player turn" to allow it.

I thought you could only nominate a target during your turn? the rule says you get to shoot... but you can't nominate a target unless it is your shooting phase

Kaaihn wrote:Just let it die, it was on it's last breath already.

They aren't going to answer the relevant questions, it would mean admitting they are wrong, that Orders don't work in the opponents turn. I've lost track now of the number of times I have cited examples of abilities that have identical language to Orders, but don't work in the opponents turn. No one has an explanation on why the difference, and no one has brought forth any examples of abilities that do work in the opponents turn (as has been asked for repeatedly) with nothing more than "each turn", or "each player turn" to allow it.

I was willing to let this die, but what you just said is complete nonsense. I've been debating, in good faith, the various points of contention within the IG Order system. I could easily take the same position that I've quoted from you.

In that case, can you give an example where "turn" or "the [whatever] phase" is used to mean in either player's player turn?

Yad wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Just let it die, it was on it's last breath already.

They aren't going to answer the relevant questions, it would mean admitting they are wrong, that Orders don't work in the opponents turn. I've lost track now of the number of times I have cited examples of abilities that have identical language to Orders, but don't work in the opponents turn. No one has an explanation on why the difference, and no one has brought forth any examples of abilities that do work in the opponents turn (as has been asked for repeatedly) with nothing more than "each turn", or "each player turn" to allow it.

I was willing to let this die, but what you just said is complete nonsense. I've been debating, in good faith, the various points of contention within the IG Order system. I could easily take the same position that I've quoted from you.

Yad, I have put forth two questions, repeatedly. Those two questions being:

1. Please provide examples of abilities that work in your opponents turn with nothing more specific than the language of "each turn".

2. I have provided multiple examples of abilities that do NOT work in your opponents turn, with the exact language of "each turn", identical to Orders. Please explain why Orders would work, while the examples provided do not. Examples are in multiple previous posts.

Neither of those two questions have been answered, not once.