Explanation: Normally, the shooting sequence is: Select a unit to shoot, Declare targets, allocate weapons, then resolve attacks. Unlike many other Stratagems, this one does not let you Shoot as if though it were the Shooting Phase, but has ambiguously-worded RAW.

* Normally, you can only select a unit to shoot with if it did not Advance, Fall Back, and is not engaged in close combat. However, this stratagem simply says you may select a Vior'la Infantry unit to shoot twice, without a qualifier that the unit could be selected in that phase to begin with.

* Likewise, the rules for selecting targets state that in order for an enemy unit to be selected as a target, the enemy unit must be unengaged and at least one model in your unit must be in range and line of sight with a weapon that will be used to attack the enemy unit. However, Hot-Blooded simply states that you MUST target the closest enemy unit, without qualifying "that could normally be targeted as per Selecting Targets in the Shooting Sequence."

Unlike the Focused Fire stratagem where the RAI is easier to reach a consensus on (The stratagem is for focusing on one unit, instead of the entire enemy army), here you can argue that firing Breachers from melee is in fact fluffy while fitting many hot-blooded anime clichés.

I don't see how the unit being chosen to shoot wouldn't still fall under the normal rules of 'choose a unit to shoot (check parameters).

As to the 2nd portion, I grant you there's more an argument there because it literally says the closet enemy unit (not closest legal, or anything else).

Vior'la Sept detachements get Strike Back, which in part says that if they advance they treat rapid fire weapons as assault weapons until the end of the turn, so the Advancing issue probably won't be a big deal most of the time (unless you're playing it on models firing heavy weaponry).

It doesn't say you get to ignore shooting rules. If a unit is engaged in close combat, it could fire pistols twice with this, but wouldn't be firing other weapons due to the restrictions on what can and can't be fired when in close combat. Pistols override the normal prohibition on firing at enemy engaged in close combat. You'd still only be able to fire at the closest unit if there were 2 enemy units in close combat. If the unit you play this on isn't in close combat but the closest enemy unit is, you wouldn't be able to fire non-pistols at them due to the normal restrictions against firing into close combat, which would still apply. You wouldn't waste the command points to play it on a unit that can't legally shoot at the target.

 MagicJuggler wrote:


Explanation: Normally, the shooting sequence is: Select a unit to shoot, Declare targets, allocate weapons, then resolve attacks. Unlike many other Stratagems, this one does not let you Shoot as if though it were the Shooting Phase, but has ambiguously-worded RAW.

* Normally, you can only select a unit to shoot with if it did not Advance, Fall Back, and is not engaged in close combat. However, this stratagem simply says you may select a Vior'la Infantry unit to shoot twice, without a qualifier that the unit could be selected in that phase to begin with.

* Likewise, the rules for selecting targets state that in order for an enemy unit to be selected as a target, the enemy unit must be unengaged and at least one model in your unit must be in range and line of sight with a weapon that will be used to attack the enemy unit. However, Hot-Blooded simply states that you MUST target the closest enemy unit, without qualifying "that could normally be targeted as per Selecting Targets in the Shooting Sequence."

Unlike the Focused Fire stratagem where the RAI is easier to reach a consensus on (The stratagem is for focusing on one unit, instead of the entire enemy army), here you can argue that firing Breachers from melee is in fact fluffy while fitting many hot-blooded anime clichés.

If you have one effect that says "can be selected twice" and another that says "cannot be selected"... the only way to satisfy both rules is to not select the unit. The "can" doesn't override the "cannot". I don't think there's a rules conflict here. There's a huge difference between can and must.

All rules have to say "yes" in order to work. If a rule says "Shoot the closest enemy", unless it lets you ignore the rule that says "You can only shoot visible enemies", the closest non-visible unit can't be shot.

However, much like the Character rule, if the closest unit is not visible, it can't select another unit. It has to try and shoot the closest, then fail because it's not visible.

Is there a precedent?

I imagine the pseudocode looks like:

apublic static void shoot(Unit unit, Unit [] targets) { if (unit.isSelectable()){ for (Target target : targets){ if unit.canTarget(target) { unit.allocateAndResolve(target); } } }

Unit has methods:

public boolean isSelectable() { return didNotAdvance() && (didNotFallBack() || instanceof Fly) && isUnengaged(); } public boolean isTargetable(Unit target) { return inRange(target) && inLos(target) && target.isUnengaged(); }

And HotBlooded would override these with:

@Override public void shoot(Unit tau, Target [] targets) { if (!tau instanceof Viorla) { throw new MostPlaytestedException(); } Unit target1 = findClosestTargetTo(tau); tau.allocateAndResolve(target1); Unit target2 = findClosestTargetTo(tau); tau.allocateAndResolve(target2); }

There is potentially a precedent already with the Flash Gitz 'Gun-Crazy Showoffs' rule. They have to target the closest unit, and this is from the Xenos 2 FAQ :

Q: What happens when a unit of Flash Gitz’ Gun-crazy
Showoffs ability triggers, but the nearest enemy unit is not
a viable target (e.g. it is not visible to the Flash Gitz, or it is
within 1" of a unit from your army)?
A: If the nearest enemy unit is not a viable target then
this ability has no effect this time.

Indeed.

However this could mean that you could run two squads checkerboarded A and B. If the Tau player targets A with the first round of shots, the opponent can remove casualties from A so B is now the closest. Depending on the interpretation of "closest target" (at the start of the stratagem, or each time after the unit has been chosen to shoot), this could mean that the Tau player doesn't get to shoot again and just wasted 2 CP.

Check it and seeee. They got a fever of one hundred and threeee....

Had to.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
I don't see how the unit being chosen to shoot wouldn't still fall under the normal rules of 'choose a unit to shoot (check parameters).

In terms of fluff / RAI, the interpretation that it allows you to shoot regardless of advancement / fallling back / melee is a fair one anyway.

Shooting phase rules:

Core rulebook: "You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit."
Strategem: "That unit may be chosen to shoot twice this phase"

Choose and pick are completely synonymous words. If the core rulebook said, "An unit that advanced, fell back or is within 1" of an enemy unit cannot shoot" this would be a clear delineation and I would agree. But it does not state that.

This is a P¬P paradox in Bayesian logic. However, in terms of game rules the newest rules (or temporary rules) take precedent.

No one argues that someone with the Sniper USR can't shoot a character in a crowd of units because "the rules don't allow you to shoot anything but the closest in a specific direction". They are not fundamentally different examples.

To me the fact this is called hotblooded and uses the term daredevil seems to imply they can ignore normal shooting restrictions about moving, falling back, but I could be wrong.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
To me the fact this is called hotblooded and uses the term daredevil seems to imply they can ignore normal shooting restrictions about moving, falling back, but I could be wrong.

Exactly. I think, RAI, it even suits that interpretation.

Also, is it even worth paying 2CP for an extra shot on a single unit?

 MightyWeasel wrote:
Check it and seeee. They got a fever of one hundred and threeee....

Had to.

Damn your rotten soul to the warp! I wanted to do that joke!

It places no restrictions on which infantry unit you may pick in the first sentence.
This unit may be choosen to shoot twice this phase, but all models in the unit must target the closest enemy unit each time they do so.

So yes it would RAW allow an otherwise ineligible unit to shoot.
E.G bezerkers charge kill screen level 1 and do the consolidate into a new unit. That unit can fall back in the movement phase and I can play the stratageum.
I must target the closest enemy unit, I do not choose my target so to me the must overrides the choose target and subsequent restrictions of the brb, so even into close combat etc.
(This only hesitation I have is that this technically removes the line of sight restrictions as they are part of choose a target.
I think it is ment to be closest visable enemy unit.)
I then resolve the shooting attack as per brb. I then choose a unit to shoot with this could be another unit who can split fire to clear the last couple of models from the closest unit. Then choose the strategumed unit for the second time so they target the closest enemy unit. So casualty shenanigans won't help you.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
To me the fact this is called hotblooded and uses the term daredevil seems to imply they can ignore normal shooting restrictions about moving, falling back, but I could be wrong.

I think the fact my models have the ULTRAMARINES keywords means they can never lose or die. RAI!

Restrictions still apply unless we are told they don't. This stratagem allows a unit eligible to shoot once, to shoot twice, with an added restriction. Seems straightforward.

Captyn_Bob wrote:


Restrictions still apply unless we are told they don't. This stratagem allows a unit eligible to shoot once, to shoot twice, with an added restriction. Seems straightforward.

At no point does it state any restriction that the unit must be eligible to shoot once.

An interpretation in terms of pseudocode is:

while (unit that has not used shots exists) { if (assaulted or fell back) { may be selected during shooting phase = false shots = 0 } else { may be selected during shooting phase = true shots = 1 } if (strategem is used) { may be selected during shooting phase = true shots = 2 } while (shots > 0) { if (strategem is used) { shoot at nearest target } else { shoot at target } shots -= 1 } }

The "may be able to shoot" boolean value is not strictly necessary (as we can base it off the number of shots remaining) but it's useful to illustrate the point.

... you're not joking are you? Playing a game isn't writing a program. Wow.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
... you're not joking are you? Playing a game isn't writing a program. Wow.

It is, in that a game follows (or is at least supposed to follow) a logical set of steps and applying conditional rules at each step.

That's the definition of a ruleset.

Still, code interpretation of a rule isn't very helpful to anyone, to be honest.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Still, code interpretation of a rule isn't very helpful to anyone, to be honest.

It helped me. As a logical thinker and someone with basic programming knowledge, his code example helped me organize the flow of which rules apply and when they apply, as well as how they would logically conclude. Code interpretations have been around for quite some time, not because they're an end-all solution to rules interactions, but because Code allows you to put written rules down as a set of functions so there is less room for misunderstanding from language. I agree that it's not useful for everyone, but to say it's not useful to anyone is unnecessarily dismissive of someone just trying to help.

I am not the rules lawyer some of you are, but here is where I don't get this, so please explain where I am wrong here.
Does a rule have to say "the unit picked must be allowed to shoot" for the rules governing which units may shoot to apply during the shooting phase? So if anything doesn't say "The unit must be allowed to shoot" those rules are thrown out? I disagree with this theory completely. (outside the shooting phase, yes the shooting phase rules do not apply)

Why are we claiming the Stratagem's "pick a unit to shoot with it may shoot twice{sic}" completely replaces the entire paragraph on choose a unit to shoot with? (BRB page 129) Same applies to pick a target. Why does the phrase you must pick the closest..." replace the entire paragraph instead of just add a caveat?

The stratagem takes place in the shooting phase doesn't it? So why wouldn't the rules of the shooting phase apply? So, in the shooting phase it allows you to choose a unit twice, with the addendum they must shoot the closest enemy unit. It doesn't even say consecutively. So you could choose a unit, shoot them, leave two models in closest unit, pick a different unit, finish off closest unit, then pick the first unit to shoot again and maybe shoot the character who has now become closest unit (just for example).

It is a permissive rule set, no? So unless a rule says you can ignore (or the rule replaces contradicts) rule X, Rule X still applies? (like the sniper rule that specifically says you may target a character even if...etc.)

So, I do not see why the normal rules for shooting do not come into play, modified as follows: You pick the unit to fire, then the stratagem tells you you must pick the closest target, so adds to the step of choose target rather than eliminate it, resolve shooting, then pick another unit (and you may pick this unit again in the shooting phase).

Again, my basis is it IS the shooting phase, and so unless the stratagem specifically changes or contradicts or modifies each of the rules in the shooting phase, they remain the same. the only parts the stratagem modifies are: you may pick a unit to shoot twice, and you must target the closest unit. It does not modify the "legal as a target" rules.

The stratagem simply states you select a unit twice. Other stratagems (example, Breach and Clear) state that you use it before actually shooting with the unit.

However, shooting could either mean the shooting sequence as a whole (choose unit, select targets, allocate weapons, resolve attacks), or it could coloquially mean the actual shooting itself (the resolution of attacks). Which could also be interpreted as allowing a stratagem like Breach And Clear to let a unit normally not allowed to shoot actually shoot.

The issue is that the Stratagem itself is stating that you are allowed to select the unit twice, overriding selecting the unit zero times. If GW wanted to write Hot-Blooded to ensure that there was no actual ambiguity, they should have written it as:

Use this Stratagem after Choosing (Step 1) a VIOR'LA INFANTRY unit, but before selecting targets (Step 2). This VIOR'LA INFANTRY unit can be Chosen (Step 1) an additional time during this Shooting Phase; for both shooting sequences the designated VIOR'LA INFANTRY must target the closest enemy unit to it, that can be legally selected as a target (Step 2).

In other words, the fact that the shooting sequence itself is an actual sequence with steps, there is no actual rulebook raw or FAQ ruling that states that stratagems "otherwise follow normal sequence rules," and the RAI even supports it, all leads to the rule itself being terribly-written to the point that until GW rewrites the whole stratagem, technically it allows for melee shooting with the most hot-blooded of shonen Tau.

edwardmyst 752472 9871868 wrote: It does not modify the "legal as a target" rules.

Absolutely.

Captyn_Bob wrote:... you're not joking are you? Playing a game isn't writing a program. Wow.

JohnnyHell wrote:Still, code interpretation of a rule isn't very helpful to anyone, to be honest.

That's how you should interpret rules RAW. It removes any possible misunderstanding / ambiguity of human language.

Look up answer set programming sometime.

edwardmyst wrote:I am not the rules lawyer some of you are, but here is where I don't get this, so please explain where I am wrong here.
Does a rule have to say "the unit picked must be allowed to shoot" for the rules governing which units may shoot to apply during the shooting phase? So if anything doesn't say "The unit must be allowed to shoot" those rules are thrown out? I disagree with this theory completely. (outside the shooting phase, yes the shooting phase rules do not apply)

I'm just snipping out this past because I feel it summarises your whole post.

In this case, we have:
Rule A) Core Rulebook: A unit who advances, falls back or is within 1" of an enemy unit may not be chosen to shoot.
Rule B) Core Rulebook: A unit may shoot once.
Rule C) Stratagem: This unit may be chosen to shoot.
Rule D) Stratagem: This unit may shoot twice.

There are two sets of contradictory rules here. A and C can be contradictory and B and D are directly contradictory (as there is no statement about overriding existing rules on either of them), so much so that they cannot exist within the same game state.

Which ones do you pick to interpret and why? If you interpret [A+D] then [B+C] is an equally valid choice, as either way you are ignoring half the rules in both sources. The only reasonable interpretation is either [A+B] or [C+D], the former of which makes about 90% of stratagems literally useless and the latter of which is the only sensible interaction, as the use of the stratagem overrides all other rules.

It changes more than you think as it doesn't specify the unit must be able to be chosen to shoot normally to be a target of the stratageum.
It then states "This unit may be choosen to shoot twice this phase, but all models in the unit must target the closest enemy unit each time they do so." I may choose this unit because of the stratageum, the reason that this must be overriden by later rules is otherwise units with fly can't shoot, ultramarines can't fallback and shoot despite their rules saying they can. Hence the convention is latest rules overrules BRB.

The second sentence is just GW rues missing thr mark of playable by a mile. If its closest unit but we have to apply the BRB rules it's a strat that can be easily shut down so why even bother including it as you'll never be able yo use it 90% of games.
As I said I believe it should be closest visable (fluff based) or closest legal target (crunch based).

Good points.
In reality, are we really down to GW should have written the rule to say: Choose a unit to shoot, this unit must meet the basic rules for being able to shoot: (as listed here, say) In addition, this Unit must target the nearest unit, but meet the remainder of the requirements for targeting (as listed here, say) Furthermore, this unit may be chosen twice as a unit to shoot during the shooting phase.
If this last is really the bottom line, than forget the rest of this post, it is really just arguing because I like the way you guys/gals? have placed excellent logic out here, and still find some disparity.

Ice_can: I would like to first point out I wasn't arguing against any form of overriding, only I think it is being interpreted to overwrite far more than it does. Overwrite must happen. To compare: White Scars overwrite the portion of the charge rules that say a unit that falls back cannot charge, and that is it. It does not overwrite the rules for 12" distance, etc. I feel the interpretation here is overreaching what is replaced if that makes sense. Hmmm or are people interpreting it exactly that way, and my white scars who fall back can now choose as a target a unit that is outside of 12"? (this could matter with all the consolidate etc shenanigans)

MachinaMandala:
Why isn't there an If? This unit may be chosen to shoot, if (shooting rules are met, etc)? Or are we back to interpretation assumption? As in RAI vs RAW?
I guess my interpretation has always been, in the shooting phase, those rules are followed unless replaced by a later rule. I don't read the stratagems "this unit may be chosen to shoot" as overiding anything but the portion that says choose a unit to shoot (and then adding "you may choose it twice").
On the argument that it negates 90% of choice etc...do you really have games where 90% of your units can't shoot by the rules? If the unit does not meet the remainder of the rules for choosing to shoot, do not choose it or Do not use the stratagem. I thought that was part of the tactics of the game, to put a unit in a position where it can use this stratagem?

So on the ABCD thing earlier where it is suggested only A+B or C+D are realistic choices...why can't it be C if A is met? or D overides B but not A so A must still be met? Because they did not say that?

{edited forgot to delete a section after I moved it}

PS:
I happen to be a History prof, so I completely agree with the GW please write more clearly!!! My field can (and is trained to be) extremely pedantic and anal about such things, And it does drive me nuts that they won't hire me (or people better than me) to edit/clarify. Or at least find the person on the design team who does do this well, and hand them EVERYTHING!
I spend my daily life frustrated by the assumption that writing, explaining, teaching can be done by anyone, rather than someone who spent the time training and working in the field.

MachinaMandala wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:... you're not joking are you? Playing a game isn't writing a program. Wow.

JohnnyHell wrote:Still, code interpretation of a rule isn't very helpful to anyone, to be honest.

That's how you should interpret rules RAW. It removes any possible misunderstanding / ambiguity of human language.

Look up answer set programming sometime.

Except we're discussing rules written in English, with those nuances and ambiguities baked in. Boiling them out when they're clearly there is no longer discussing the rule. That was my point. It's entirely possible to write out an unambiguous explanatory logical flow in English without going into coding.

edwardmyst wrote:Good points.
In reality, are we really down to GW should have written the rule to say: Choose a unit to shoot, this unit must meet the basic rules for being able to shoot: (as listed here, say) In addition, this Unit must target the nearest unit, but meet the remainder of the requirements for targeting (as listed here, say) Furthermore, this unit may be chosen twice as a unit to shoot during the shooting phase.
If this last is really the bottom line, than forget the rest of this post, it is really just arguing because I like the way you guys/gals? have placed excellent logic out here, and still find some disparity.

Pretty much.

edwardmyst wrote:MachinaMandala:
Why isn't there an If? This unit may be chosen to shoot, if (shooting rules are met, etc)? Or are we back to interpretation assumption? As in RAI vs RAW?
I guess my interpretation has always been, in the shooting phase, those rules are followed unless replaced by a later rule. I don't read the stratagems "this unit may be chosen to shoot" as overiding anything but the portion that says choose a unit to shoot (and then adding "you may choose it twice").
On the argument that it negates 90% of choice etc...do you really have games where 90% of your units can't shoot by the rules? If the unit does not meet the remainder of the rules for choosing to shoot, do not choose it or Do not use the stratagem. I thought that was part of the tactics of the game, to put a unit in a position where it can use this stratagem?

So on the ABCD thing earlier where it is suggested only A+B or C+D are realistic choices...why can't it be C if A is met? or D overides B but not A so A must still be met? Because they did not say that?

It doesn't negate 90% of shooting by the rules, but it negates 90% of usefulness of stratagems or special rules for other units since a lot of them (other than the copy and pasted ones that should've been USRs) have the level of interpretation we can see from Hot-Blooded.

You summarised it well in your very last bit. If (to me) means something very, very specific. They didn't state any restrictions and the stratagem rule clearly contradicts the base rulebook (and therefore takes precedence).

JohnnyHell wrote:Except we're discussing rules written in English, with those nuances and ambiguities baked in. Boiling them out when they're clearly there is no longer discussing the rule. That was my point. It's entirely possible to write out an unambiguous explanatory logical flow in English without going into coding.

You are correct, it is possible to do that. However, you cannot write something potentially ambiguous in a unambiguous way in English without fundamentally changing it's meaning.

Current sentence:
"The unit may be chosen to shoot twice."

Possible unambiguous sentences:
"The unit can be chosen to shoot, ignoring core rules. They may shoot twice."
"The unit may shoot twice, if able to be chosen to shoot."

Two sentences that may or may not mean what the original sentence was trying to convey. (And there's probably some level of ambiguity here anyway.)

Writing it out in code interprets the English into a format with no ambiguity. Machines do not accept ambiguity, this is the first lesson of programming.

EDIT: To put it in plain English. There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take apples." What is your interpretation of this?

And once again, the rules aren't written in code, so there's limited benefit in translating into code. All you're doing is codifying your interpretation, which is then no longer the original rule. This forum is not for rewriting the rules, it's for interpreting and figuring out how to play them. YMMV, but that's how I see it.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
And once again, the rules aren't written in code, so there's limited benefit in translating into code. All you're doing is codifying your interpretation, which is then no longer the original rule. This forum is not for rewriting the rules, it's for interpreting and figuring out how to play them. YMMV, but that's how I see it.

No, turning something into pseudocode allows you to remove the ambiguity from the rules by applying the truest meaning of the rules. It's not codifying my interpretation, it's programmatically generating an unambiguous interpretation.

edwardmyst wrote:

Ice_can: I would like to first point out I wasn't arguing against any form of overriding, only I think it is being interpreted to overwrite far more than it does. Overwrite must happen. To compare: White Scars overwrite the portion of the charge rules that say a unit that falls back cannot charge, and that is it. It does not overwrite the rules for 12" distance, etc. I feel the interpretation here is overreaching what is replaced if that makes sense. Hmmm or are people interpreting it exactly that way, and my white scars who fall back can now choose as a target a unit that is outside of 12"? (this could matter with all the consolidate etc shenanigans)

I was trying to think it out in a way that results in a playable stratageum.
It's unfortunately a part of GW rules I have come to just expect and have to spend way too much time trying to interpret what the rules mean when GW should be publishing clear rules given how much money people are spending on rulebookd etc.

MachinaMandala wrote:
To put it in plain English. There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take apples." What is your interpretation of this?

I need a fishing pole or a trash picker so I can grab an apple from the living room, duh! Clearly, I can take an apple and I cannot so I cannot.

MachinaMandala wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
And once again, the rules aren't written in code, so there's limited benefit in translating into code. All you're doing is codifying your interpretation, which is then no longer the original rule. This forum is not for rewriting the rules, it's for interpreting and figuring out how to play them. YMMV, but that's how I see it.

No, turning something into pseudocode allows you to remove the ambiguity from the rules by applying the truest meaning of the rules. It's not codifying my interpretation, it's programmatically generating an unambiguous interpretation.

You verify JohnnyHell's point. "to remove the ambiguity from the rules" means you're changing what the rules are saying in English. if there's ambiguity, you're changing the rules by removing the ambiguity.

 doctortom wrote:

MachinaMandala wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
And once again, the rules aren't written in code, so there's limited benefit in translating into code. All you're doing is codifying your interpretation, which is then no longer the original rule. This forum is not for rewriting the rules, it's for interpreting and figuring out how to play them. YMMV, but that's how I see it.

No, turning something into pseudocode allows you to remove the ambiguity from the rules by applying the truest meaning of the rules. It's not codifying my interpretation, it's programmatically generating an unambiguous interpretation.

You verify JohnnyHell's point. "to remove the ambiguity from the rules" means you're changing what the rules are saying in English. if there's ambiguity, you're changing the rules by removing the ambiguity.

This guy gets it!

 doctortom wrote:
You verify JohnnyHell's point. "to remove the ambiguity from the rules" means you're changing what the rules are saying in English. if there's ambiguity, you're changing the rules by removing the ambiguity.

Completely wrong. If you like, consider it generating the truest interpretation based off of rules writing. Look up technical specification writing if you want to learn about this sort of thing.

Essentially, I'm not removing ambiguity from the sentence, but removing it from possible erroneous human interpretation.

MachinaMandala wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You verify JohnnyHell's point. "to remove the ambiguity from the rules" means you're changing what the rules are saying in English. if there's ambiguity, you're changing the rules by removing the ambiguity.

Completely wrong. If you like, consider it generating the truest interpretation based off of rules writing. Look up technical specification writing if you want to learn about this sort of thing.

Essentially, I'm not removing ambiguity from the sentence, but removing it from possible erroneous human interpretation.

The "truest" interpretation does not make it true. It's only an interpretation which can easily strip out ambiguity. "Possible erroneous human interpretation" - who decides it's erroneous? In some cases it might be obviious, but that could be you injecting your own bias in to strip out what you see as erroneous human interpretation but could be a legitimate alternative interpretaion.

We're here to discuss the rules. We're not here to discuss code. Arguing about whether to talk code is a digression from the actual issue.

 doctortom wrote:
The "truest" interpretation does not make it true. It's only an interpretation which can easily strip out ambiguity. "Possible erroneous human interpretation" - who decides it's erroneous? In some cases it might be obviious, but that could be you injecting your own bias in to strip out what you see as erroneous human interpretation but could be a legitimate alternative interpretaion.

We're here to discuss the rules. We're not here to discuss code. Arguing about whether to talk code is a digression from the actual issue.

It's pretty obvious you've got your own completely wrong idea that, no matter how many times you're shown otherwise, you'll never move away from.

So I'll just summarise once more for anyone who'd actually like to learn:

When we are discussing rules, we are discussing code. Code (and the whole field of computing as a science) is a digital representation of some physical or logical procedure. In this case, we are translating the logical rules into pseudocode form to make the order of activation and the logical operations obvious.

But yeah, arguing about whether to talk code is a digression. It should be a non-issue. We have a clear ruleset that can be represented logically. We have a clear sequence of operations. We have words that can be ambiguous in general English but when represented in logical form are not. Just because you cannot grasp the concept that you have read something wrong and that there's a clear and linear order of operations and results, that does not mean there isn't one. It just means that you are ignorant of it.

TL;DR: Learn what computer science is before arguing with someone who has a degree in it.

MachinaMandala wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
The "truest" interpretation does not make it true. It's only an interpretation which can easily strip out ambiguity. "Possible erroneous human interpretation" - who decides it's erroneous? In some cases it might be obviious, but that could be you injecting your own bias in to strip out what you see as erroneous human interpretation but could be a legitimate alternative interpretaion.

We're here to discuss the rules. We're not here to discuss code. Arguing about whether to talk code is a digression from the actual issue.

It's pretty obvious you've got your own completely wrong idea that, no matter how many times you're shown otherwise, you'll never move away from.

So I'll just summarise once more for anyone who'd actually like to learn:

When we are discussing rules, we are discussing code. Code (and the whole field of computing as a science) is a digital representation of some physical or logical procedure. In this case, we are translating the logical rules into pseudocode form to make the order of activation and the logical operations obvious.

But yeah, arguing about whether to talk code is a digression. It should be a non-issue. We have a clear ruleset that can be represented logically. We have a clear sequence of operations. We have words that can be ambiguous in general English but when represented in logical form are not. Just because you cannot grasp the concept that you have read something wrong and that there's a clear and linear order of operations and results, that does not mean there isn't one. It just means that you are ignorant of it.

TL;DR: Learn what computer science is before arguing with someone who has a degree in it.

The problem with turning anything into pseudo code or actual code is not that the (pseudo) code isn't clear.
The issue is that the transition from concept to code is still an interpretation, and interpretations are always subjective and prone to misunderstandings.

The only one who will be able to judge whether or not the code fits the requirement is the author of the requirement, not the coder.
In other words: just because your program runs well doesn't mean you've succeeded at implementing the requirements.

Tangentially, this reminds me of a classic urban legend about programming.

The army requires a program to notify users that they've been signed up for the draft. To be eligible for the draft, you had to be at least 18 years old "or" less than 25 years old.

The programmer was replaced when he pointed out that the "or" should have been an "and."

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Tangentially, this reminds me of a classic urban legend about programming.

The army requires a program to notify users that they've been signed up for the draft. To be eligible for the draft, you had to be at least 18 years old "or" less than 25 years old.

The programmer was replaced when he pointed out that the "or" should have been an "and."

There's a sign in one of the restrooms at my workplace that says to turn off the light if it's after 5pm or noone's left in the restroom.

nekooni wrote:

The problem with turning anything into pseudo code or actual code is not that the (pseudo) code isn't clear.
The issue is that the transition from concept to code is still an interpretation, and interpretations are always subjective and prone to misunderstandings.

The only one who will be able to judge whether or not the code fits the requirement is the author of the requirement, not the coder.
In other words: just because your program runs well doesn't mean you've succeeded at implementing the requirements.

Hey, sure that's the case if this is me trying to turn a business' poorly understood paper system (with no real process for half of it) into a computational one whilst I have a bunch of conflicting user accounts for how they actually submit everything.

However, it's not the case in a situation where the system is a set of agreed upon clear linear rules.

The only assumption I've made is that later rules overrule earlier rules in terms of contradictions. If that was not the case then even the 2 shots portion of the stratagem wouldn't work, as I pointed out earlier.

And now the whole thread has derailed into discussing someone's coding attempt and not the rule, further illustrating my point.

Shall we just stick to discussing the rule in question, not homebrew code versions of it?

please.

Nevermind, moderator has stepped in and I can't be bothered with someone who's now obviously just trolling.

I've seen zero trolling, just people trying to stay on topic.

On topic, I interpret the rule as not overriding the rest of the Shooting Phase restrictions. So it doesn't permit you to e.g. fire your weapons if within 1" of an enemy, at an enemy unit within 1" of one of your units, shoot closest visible if there's a nearer unit out of LOS etc. So it has a more limited application than it first appears, though can still be very useful in the right circumstances. Just check all that stuff before declaring it so you don't find yourself down 2CP and unable to utilise it.

So you interpret it in a way that it doesn't state at all on the stratagem whilst also ignoring the logic that, in that case, the unit shouldn't be able to shoot twice and should also shoot at any target it wants to within the base rules.

You're trolling.

MachinaMandala wrote:
I'm just snipping out this past because I feel it summarises your whole post.

In this case, we have:
Rule A) Core Rulebook: A unit who advances, falls back or is within 1" of an enemy unit may not be chosen to shoot.
Rule B) Core Rulebook: A unit may shoot once.
Rule C) Stratagem: This unit may be chosen to shoot.
Rule D) Stratagem: This unit may shoot twice.

There are two sets of contradictory rules here. A and C can be contradictory and B and D are directly contradictory (as there is no statement about overriding existing rules on either of them), so much so that they cannot exist within the same game state.

Which ones do you pick to interpret and why? If you interpret [A+D] then [B+C] is an equally valid choice, as either way you are ignoring half the rules in both sources. The only reasonable interpretation is either [A+B] or [C+D], the former of which makes about 90% of stratagems literally useless and the latter of which is the only sensible interaction, as the use of the stratagem overrides all other rules.

MachinaMandala wrote:
EDIT: To put it in plain English. There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take apples." What is your interpretation of this?

The Stratagem gives explicit permission to override the Core Rules to shoot twice, and adds a condition (shoot closest unit only).

It does not give permission to override other rules, so why should they not apply?

(P.S. I am not trolling - you might want to look up the forum's Rule 1. You don't get to call me names just because you disagree.)

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The Stratagem gives explicit permission to override the Core Rules to shoot twice, and adds a condition (shoot closest unit only).

It does not give permission to override other rules, so why should they not apply?

Where does it give permission to override the core rules to shoot twice?

Stratagem wrote:Use this Strategem at the start of your shooting phase. Pick a Vior'la Sept Infantry unit from your army. That unit may be chosen to shoot twice this phase, but all models in the unit must target the closest enemy unit each time they do so.

Can you quote it to me? Because I know you can't, as there's nothing that says "ignoring normal shooting rules". You either accept that concept of the whole stratagem overruling the core rules is valid or you make the whole stratagem void.

This is what your entire argument is based on, by the way. You state that it's necessary to have a specific statement saying that they ignoring normal unit choice shooting rules but then you ignore the reality that none of the other statements have anything stating that they ignore the core rules. You are being self-contradictory and don't seem to understand that.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
(P.S. I am not trolling - you might want to look up the forum's Rule 1. You don't get to call me names just because you disagree.)

I'm not calling you names, I'm stating that you're trolling, which you are. Trust me, I'm giving you the full benefit of the doubt by stating that you're trolling. The other option is much less charitable.

You might like to look up YMDC's "tenets", though, as you repeatedly break several of them throughout this entire thread.

 Lorek wrote:

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate. For more detail on how to actually create a logically supported conclusion, please read this article on how to have an intelligent rules debate.

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

A Few Definitions
For those who haven't seen these terms before.

Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations.

How You Would Play It - This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above.

I am 1 more lazy yelling of the word "troll", or any other rudeness, away from throwing out bans and locking the thread. Take a breath and grow up

"This unit may be chosen to shoot twice"

This gives explicit permission to override a normal core rule, that you may shoot once. If we can't agree on this I'm afraid you're off to a non-starter with the rest of your post.

All special rules override or amend basic rules. It's how they work. But it's entirely possible to override some elements whilst leaving others as usual.

For example, the Ravenwing strat that lets you Advance and shoot with no penalty overrides that element (Advancing and firing non-Assault weapons, and ignoring the -1 associated with Assault normally), but doesn't suddenly let you target Characters who aren't the closest unit. Overriding one core rule doesn't throw them all out with the bath water.

RAW, the Ravenwing example is a false analogy.

Choosing a unit to shoot and choosing targets are separate steps.

The problem is GW uses "shoot" and "choose to shoot" interchangeably.

So "Advance and shoot" presumably means "may be chosen to shoot even if the unit Advanced." "May be chosen to shoot twice" alters/debatably replaces Step 1 (Choose a unit) entirely.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
"This unit may be chosen to shoot twice"

This gives explicit permission to override a normal core rule, that you may shoot once. If we can't agree on this I'm afraid you're off to a non-starter with the rest of your post.

You're right, it gives permission to override normal core rules (two of them, in fact). We can completely agree on that! Good job.

Does it at any point state explicitly it overrides core rules, though?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
All special rules override or amend basic rules. It's how they work. But it's entirely possible to override some elements whilst leaving others as usual.

You're correct! Good job, again! I'm proud of you.

Are we allowed to pick and mix what core rules are overridden? Or do we have to accept all the rules that are contradicted are overridden?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
For example, the Ravenwing strat that lets you Advance and shoot with no penalty overrides that element (Advancing and firing non-Assault weapons, and ignoring the -1 associated with Assault normally), but doesn't suddenly let you target Characters who aren't the closest unit. Overriding one core rule doesn't throw them all out with the bath water.

I'm not sure of this particular example, but you're getting there! Good boy!

However, you're missing a key point which I'll just quote myself back to you again so hopefully this time you'll read it:

MachinaMandala wrote:
I'm just snipping out this past because I feel it summarises your whole post.

In this case, we have:
Rule A) Core Rulebook: A unit who advances, falls back or is within 1" of an enemy unit may not be chosen to shoot.
Rule B) Core Rulebook: A unit may shoot once.
Rule C) Stratagem: This unit may be chosen to shoot.
Rule D) Stratagem: This unit may shoot twice.

There are two sets of contradictory rules here. A and C can be contradictory and B and D are directly contradictory (as there is no statement about overriding existing rules on either of them), so much so that they cannot exist within the same game state.

Which ones do you pick to interpret and why? If you interpret [A+D] then [B+C] is an equally valid choice, as either way you are ignoring half the rules in both sources. The only reasonable interpretation is either [A+B] or [C+D], the former of which makes about 90% of stratagems literally useless and the latter of which is the only sensible interaction, as the use of the stratagem overrides all other rules.

MachinaMandala wrote:
EDIT: To put it in plain English. There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take apples." What is your interpretation of this?

Did you read it this time? I'd read it if I was you.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
RAW, the Ravenwing example is a false analogy.

Choosing a unit to shoot and choosing targets are separate steps.

The problem is GW uses "shoot" and "choose to shoot" interchangeably.

So "Advance and shoot" presumably means "may be chosen to shoot even if the unit Advanced." "May be chosen to shoot twice" alters/debatably replaces Step 1 (Choose a unit) entirely.

Forget the specifics, that not what I was illustrating. The point was a rule can override some core elements whilst not ignoring *all* Core Rules. It illustrates what I wanted it to (but don't dwell on the strat-specific detail as that is very different and has its own threads).

MachinaMandala wrote:

In this case, we have:
Rule A) Core Rulebook: A unit who advances, falls back or is within 1" of an enemy unit may not be chosen to shoot.
Rule B) Core Rulebook: A unit may shoot once.
Rule C) Stratagem: This unit may be chosen to shoot.
Rule D) Stratagem: This unit may shoot twice.

There are two sets of contradictory rules here. A and C can be contradictory and B and D are directly contradictory (as there is no statement about overriding existing rules on either of them), so much so that they cannot exist within the same game state.

The unit may be chosen to shoot twice. That is what the stratagem says, therefore Rule C) and D) don't exist. Rule B) doesn't really exist either, because it simply assumes that you will not activate the same unit twice by saying "choose another unit".
It has to target the closest enemy unit for both 'activations', that's a restriction that doesn't remove the other restrictions.

Therefore:
The stratagem gives us permission to activate the unit a second time (even though that's normally forbidden by the core rules), but only if it targeted the closes enemy unit during it's first activation AND it limits the target options for the 2nd activation to the closest enemy unit (even though normally you might have other options).

If you can't activate it the first time around you won't be able to activate it a second time.
This also means that iif you use the stratagem on a unit and then decide not to shoot at the closest enemy unit, but some other target, you still used the stratagem, but you won't be able to benefit from it.


TL;DR: The stratagem doesn't say "may be chosen to shoot"+"shoot twice". You added a word.

If you cannot be chosen to shoor, yoi cannot be chosen to shoor twice, and the game throws a MostPlaytestedException. The stratagem isn't "choose (>=1?2:default)", it's "choose(2)"

nekooni wrote:
The unit may be chosen to shoot twice. That is what the stratagem says, therefore Rule C) and D) don't exist. Rule B) doesn't really exist either, because it simply assumes that you will not activate the same unit twice by saying "choose another unit".
It has to target the closest enemy unit for both 'activations', that's a restriction that doesn't remove the other restrictions.

Therefore:
The stratagem gives us permission to activate the unit a second time (even though that's normally forbidden by the core rules), but only if it targeted the closes enemy unit during it's first activation AND it limits the target options for the 2nd activation to the closest enemy unit (even though normally you might have other options).

If you can't activate it the first time around you won't be able to activate it a second time.
This also means that iif you use the stratagem on a unit and then decide not to shoot at the closest enemy unit, but some other target, you still used the stratagem, but you won't be able to benefit from it.


TL;DR: The stratagem doesn't say "may be chosen to shoot"+"shoot twice". You added a word.

You are very wrong on Rule B. Rule B exists as an implicit rule. It doesn't need to be stated until we include the ability to be chosen to shoot more than once into the game set.

The rule "The unit may be chosen to shoot twice" is the conjunctive rule of C^D. It is still contradictory to A and B as it is made up of elements contradictory to both those rules.

You are correct! A unit who has advanced or fallen back if chosen to shoot must shoot twice at the closest unit. I'm glad we agree finally and that you've seen the light.

There's nothing to state that the unit chosen must already be able to shoot to have this stratagem applied to it. Nor that they must be able to be chosen to shoot to benefit from it.

TL;DR: You accuse me of adding in a word when you add in a paragraph. But thanks for agreeing with me!

MachinaMandala wrote:

You are very wrong on Rule B. Rule B exists as an implicit rule.

I'm sorry, but isn't that exactly what I said? The rule does not exist in written form, but it is clear that there is such a limitation in the core rules. How am I "very wrong" on that then?

It doesn't need to be stated until we include the ability to be chosen to shoot more than once into the game set.

Of course it should be stated since otherwise we already have the ability to be chosen to shoot multiple times - without using any stratagem - and that's obviously not the intention of the core rules, is it?
But we do not need it to be stated since we're all aware that this "unwritten rule" has to exist.

The rule "The unit may be chosen to shoot twice" is the conjunctive rule of C^D. It is still contradictory to A and B as it is made up of elements contradictory to both those rules.

No, it isn't. The rule "the unit may be chosen to shoot twice" is the written rule. C and D are created by you by interpreting that rule, and while doing that you are changing the meaning. That is why I said earlier that even a translation from text to pseudocode is an interpretation that is prone to "translation errors".

You are correct! A unit who has advanced or fallen back if chosen to shoot must shoot twice at the closest unit.

I fail to see how you got there from what I've written, could you please explain the steps? I literally wrote what's pretty much the opposite of that:
"It (the unit affected by the stratagem) has to target the closest enemy unit for both 'activations', that's a restriction that doesn't remove the other restrictions. "

I'm glad we agree finally and that you've seen the light.

I do not think we agree on this, at least not if your position is that the Stratagem overrides any and all restrictions that would normally apply and replaces them with a mere "must shoot the nearest unit", ignoring e.g. Rapid Fire weapons after an advance.
I also fail to see why you'd say "finally" when this was the first instance of me actually giving a position on the topic.

There's nothing to state that the unit chosen must already be able to shoot to have this stratagem applied to it. Nor that they must be able to be chosen to shoot to benefit from it.

That's absolutely correct. But it's a waste of CP because it won't actually do anything.
*edit* to add an example to clarify what I'm saying:

A unit with Assault weapons that advanced can be selected to shoot*. Models with an Assault weapon can then shoot those at -1 tohit. The stratagem allows the unit to do it twice, but it's still at -1 tohit each time.
A unit with Rapid Fire weapons that advanced cannot be selected to shoot. Even if you introduce the Stratagem and then interpret it so that the unit can be selected to shoot, no model in that unit has an Assault Weapon, and therefore no model will be able to fire a weapon, unless there's a different rule (e.g. Tallarn regimental doctrine) that lifts that restriction.

* = this is technically not RAW, but required to make Assault Weapons work while advancing. It doesn't change the outcome here however, so just roll with it.

You accuse me of adding in a word when you add in a paragraph.

Where exactly did I add a paragraph to a rule? I don't get it.


On a more general note: Can we please return to following Rule 1?

nekooni wrote:
I'm sorry, but isn't that exactly what I said? The rule does not exist in written form, but it is clear that there is such a limitation in the core rules. How am I "very wrong" on that then?

Of course it should be stated since otherwise we already have the ability to be chosen to shoot multiple times - without using any stratagem - and that's obviously not the intention of the core rules, is it?
But we do not need it to be stated since we're all aware that this "unwritten rule" has to exist.

You're contradicting yourself. You say that the rule B doesn't exist but then admit that it's implicit in the ruleset and then say that it's an unwritten rule.

Is it a rule? Is it not a rule? You need to decide on an argument before saying that I'm wrong.

nekooni wrote:
No, it isn't. The rule "the unit may be chosen to shoot twice" is the written rule. C and D are created by you by interpreting that rule, and while doing that you are changing the meaning. That is why I said earlier that even a translation from text to pseudocode is an interpretation that is prone to "translation errors".

Wrong again!

C and D are atomic rules created from the decomposition of the rule E. This is how boolean logic works. It was to illustrate a point, which is that the atomic rules of E are contradictory to the atomic rules of the core rulebook... Which they are.

nekooni wrote:
I fail to see how you got there from what I've written, could you please explain the steps? I literally wrote what's pretty much the opposite of that:
"It (the unit affected by the stratagem) has to target the closest enemy unit for both 'activations', that's a restriction that doesn't remove the other restrictions. "

You didn't write the opposite of that. You pointed out that the unit the stratagem is used on may be used to shoot twice at the closest enemy unit. In the case of units that have advanced or fallen back, that is the only choice they have.

Good job that you caught it so quickly.

nekooni wrote:

There's nothing to state that the unit chosen must already be able to shoot to have this stratagem applied to it. Nor that they must be able to be chosen to shoot to benefit from it.

That's absolutely correct. But it's a waste of CP because it won't actually do anything.
<snip> Where exactly did I add a paragraph to a rule? I don't get it.

You've added in the paragraph (illustrated before the snip) that:

"The unit must already be able to be chosen to shoot even before this stratagem is used, otherwise the stratagem is wasted. The ability to be chosen to shoot twice ignores usual shoot once restrictions."

It doesn't state anything along these lines in the stratagem. You've added it in to your mind in an attempt to justify what you feel the stratagem should do.

I'm pretty sure even RAI it's meant to work like I think it should anyway, so I don't really get the argument.

Dosnt "may" mean that it can happen, so if all the rules are satisfid that it may shoot twice, i dont see anything that forces anything to happen, because every thing after "may" is just a possibilty that could happen whislt following the core rules

MachinaMandala wrote:
Is it a rule? Is it not a rule? You need to decide on an argument before saying that I'm wrong.

I said it is not a rule written down in the rule book, so technically it doesn't exist. It's not a rule as written. Why are we even arguing about that? I never made ANY kind of argument based on that. Nor did I say you're "wrong!", I consistently kept assuming that it is kind of a universal house rule that everyone uses.

MachinaMandala wrote:

nekooni wrote:
No, it isn't. The rule "the unit may be chosen to shoot twice" is the written rule. C and D are created by you by interpreting that rule, and while doing that you are changing the meaning. That is why I said earlier that even a translation from text to pseudocode is an interpretation that is prone to "translation errors".

C and D are atomic rules created from the decomposition of the rule E. This is how boolean logic works. It was to illustrate a point, which is that the atomic rules of E are contradictory to the atomic rules of the core rulebook... Which they are.

It's a sentence and not a boolean expression. Boolean logic doesn't apply, grammar does. What you're doing is still an interpretation of the rule as written.
And yes, I agree, special rules like stratagems do contradict the core rules. But they don't override every single restriction, e.g. being unable to fire Rapid Fire weapons after advancing. That restriction still applies on a model-per-model basis.

MachinaMandala wrote:

nekooni wrote:
I fail to see how you got there from what I've written, could you please explain the steps? I literally wrote what's pretty much the opposite of that:
"It (the unit affected by the stratagem) has to target the closest enemy unit for both 'activations', that's a restriction that doesn't remove the other restrictions. "

You didn't write the opposite of that. You pointed out that the unit the stratagem is used on may be used to shoot twice at the closest enemy unit. In the case of units that have advanced or fallen back, that is the only choice they have.

The crux of the matter (let's forget all the atomic decomposition stuff and the Boolean logic tangent as that has no actual rules basis) is that MachinaMandala believes the Stratagem overrides all restrictions on which units can be selected to shoot, and what it can shoot at. Nekooni and I believe it only overrides those it specifically mentions - such as "shoot twice", an explicit override of the Core Rules. If I've got that wrong just shout... I hate summing up others' position incorrectly as it's poor arguing, and if I've done so it's unintentional.

For MachinaMandala's take to convince me as correct they need to provide Rules backup for why they think the Stratagem overrides rules it doesn't mention anything about overriding. Omission is not permission, so I don't believe saying a unit can shoot twice overrides all the other shooting restrictions (targetting Characters, different weapon types, within 1", etc). If MachinaMandala could stick to discussing this stuff and not Rule A/B/Z, atomic decomposition etc. it would be super useful, as these things have no rules basis and are just muddying their argument. All we have to go on is the wording and the English syntax/grammar. And discussing it politely would be a win-win, as I can't understand the continued hostile tone after so many mod warnings.

I would suggest the intended interpretation is that the unit subject to this Stratagem gets two complete "shooting sequences". Each of these are independent of each other, so target selection, etc, is done afresh for the second shooting sequence. The line about targeting the nearest unit almost certainly means the closest target chosen from amongst all those targets the unit could otherwise legally shoot at. I.e you could ignore a unit out of LOS 10" away in favour of a unit in the open or in cover 14" away.

That means that if you target a squad and wipe it out in the first shooting sequence, you don't waste the second because the "closest unit" is no longer there - you choose a new "closest unit". It also means, to my eye, that the unit doesn't have to be chosen to shot twice immediately; I could nominate a unit with this Stratagem, take their first round of shooting, nominate a second (and third, fourth ...) unit to shoot then come back to this one.

I agree, the rules text as presented can be interpreted differently, but I'd be surprised if any future FAQ supports anything different.

I'd also suggest that if you haven't contacted GW about this that you do so - just in case you're the only person playing it differently and it never gets addressed.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The crux of the matter (let's forget all the atomic decomposition stuff and the Boolean logic tangent as that has no actual rules basis) is that MachinaMandala believes the Stratagem overrides all restrictions on which units can be selected to shoot, and what it can shoot at. Nekooni and I believe it only overrides those it specifically mentions - such as "shoot twice", an explicit override of the Core Rules. If I've got that wrong just shout... I hate summing up others' position incorrectly as it's poor arguing, and if I've done so it's unintentional.

For MachinaMandala's take to convince me as correct they need to provide Rules backup for why they think the Stratagem overrides rules it doesn't mention anything about overriding. Omission is not permission, so I don't believe saying a unit can shoot twice overrides all the other shooting restrictions (targetting Characters, different weapon types, within 1", etc). If MachinaMandala could stick to discussing this stuff and not Rule A/B/Z, atomic decomposition etc. it would be super useful, as these things have no rules basis and are just muddying their argument. All we have to go on is the wording and the English syntax/grammar. And discussing it politely would be a win-win, as I can't understand the continued hostile tone after so many mod warnings.

Well, if it did override all restrictions, that would mean that it would override range restrictions too as well as things mentioned before like advancing and shooting, so by that logic if the closest unit is 48 inches away you could fire at that unit (twice if it's not wiped out the first time), even if all the unit had to shoot with was pistols. Would it mean that it also override the restrictions on getting to shoot all pistols or all other weapons or grenades, so that if you had a grenade, a bolt pistol and a bolter you could fire all three twice? It should be obvious that only rules that are overridden are rules that get mentioned in the stratagem (or psychic power or whatever), saying you can shoot twice is a specific mention that would override the mention of shooting only once, but doesn't affect advancing and shooting with heavy weapons, or affecting the modifiers for advancing and shooting with assault weapons, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I would suggest the intended interpretation is that the unit subject to this Stratagem gets two complete "shooting sequences". Each of these are independent of each other, so target selection, etc, is done afresh for the second shooting sequence. The line about targeting the nearest unit almost certainly means the closest target chosen from amongst all those targets the unit could otherwise legally shoot at. I.e you could ignore a unit out of LOS 10" away in favour of a unit in the open or in cover 14" away.

That means that if you target a squad and wipe it out in the first shooting sequence, you don't waste the second because the "closest unit" is no longer there - you choose a new "closest unit". It also means, to my eye, that the unit doesn't have to be chosen to shot twice immediately; I could nominate a unit with this Stratagem, take their first round of shooting, nominate a second (and third, fourth ...) unit to shoot then come back to this one.

I agree, the rules text as presented can be interpreted differently, but I'd be surprised if any future FAQ supports anything different.

I'd also suggest that if you haven't contacted GW about this that you do so - just in case you're the only person playing it differently and it never gets addressed.

I agree with this. Good point on getting to shoot a different unit the second time if it's a different unit that's closest when you start the second series of shots.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
(let's forget all the atomic decomposition stuff and the Boolean logic tangent as that has no actual rules basis)

<snip>

If MachinaMandala could stick to discussing this stuff and not Rule A/B/Z, atomic decomposition etc. it would be super useful, as these things have no rules basis and are just muddying their argument. All we have to go on is the wording and the English syntax/grammar. And discussing it politely would be a win-win, as I can't understand the continued hostile tone after so many mod warnings.

Can you really not? Right here you're being dismissive of concepts simply because you don't understand them and don't understand how they relate to the concept of rules and to the English language. The "hostile tone" is because, throughout this thread, you've dismissed anything you don't understand as irrelevant instead of trying to understand it or to educate yourself on it.

Like if someone told me, "Hey, everything you know about a topic you're obviously interested in is wrong, go and read these things to learn more about it and then maybe we can discuss it on a more equal level" then I would go and read those things in order to improve myself and gain a better understand of my field of interest.

But, hey, different strokes for different folks.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The crux of the matter is that MachinaMandala believes the Stratagem overrides all restrictions on which units can be selected to shoot, and what it can shoot at. Nekooni and I believe it only overrides those it specifically mentions - such as "shoot twice", an explicit override of the Core Rules. If I've got that wrong just shout... I hate summing up others' position incorrectly as it's poor arguing, and if I've done so it's unintentional.

For MachinaMandala's take to convince me as correct they need to provide Rules backup for why they think the Stratagem overrides rules it doesn't mention anything about overriding. Omission is not permission, so I don't believe saying a unit can shoot twice overrides all the other shooting restrictions (targetting Characters, different weapon types, within 1", etc).

Once again, I'll quote the same thing from earlier in the thread (and, once again, you'll undoubtedly avoid answering it):

MachinaMandala wrote:
EDIT: To put it in plain English. There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take apples." What is your interpretation of this?

If you like, let's fit this a bit more to the situation: There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take two apples as long as you are standing on one leg." What is your interpretation of this?

MachinaMandala wrote:
If you like, let's fit this a bit more to the situation: There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take two apples as long as you are standing on one leg." What is your interpretation of this?

Instead of using an analogy, why not discuss the actual thing?

nekooni wrote:A unit with Assault weapons that advanced can be selected to shoot*. Models with an Assault weapon can then shoot those at -1 tohit. The stratagem allows the unit to do it twice, but it's still at -1 tohit each time.
A unit with Rapid Fire weapons that advanced cannot be selected to shoot. Even if you introduce the Stratagem and then interpret it so that the unit can be selected to shoot, no model in that unit has an Assault Weapon, and therefore no model will be able to fire a weapon, unless there's a different rule (e.g. Tallarn regimental doctrine) that lifts that restriction.

* = this is technically not RAW, but required to make Assault Weapons work while advancing. It doesn't change the outcome here however, so just roll with it.

Do you disagree with this, and if yes, where and why?

nekooni wrote:
Instead of using an analogy, why not discuss the actual thing?

Because the analogy is perfectly suited to the point.

Try answering it instead of asking me to answer one of your's.

MachinaMandala wrote:

MachinaMandala wrote:
EDIT: To put it in plain English. There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take apples." What is your interpretation of this?

If you like, let's fit this a bit more to the situation: There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take two apples as long as you are standing on one leg." What is your interpretation of this?

You're skewing the question towards your desired answer instead of providing a like scenario. You're saying that the rule should override ALL restrictions, but your analogy here provides only a single restriction to override. Let's give it a few more restrictions, and then create a permission that overrides one of those restrictions exactly how the rule in question does.

"Once per day, as long as you are in the kitchen, you may take one apple. You may not take any green apples, and you may not take any bruised apples." Then later: "You may take two apples this time". Can you take any green or bruised apples?

My interpretation is that you would be allowed to take two non-green, non-bruised apples on that day's trip to the kitchen. Now it's entirely possible I've inadvertently skewed this towards my interpretation so please forgive me if i have, or provide your own version of the question that provides several restrictions, and then a permission that specifically mentions one of those restrictions but not the others.


As a side note to this discussion, can you imagine how crazy the rules would be if all rules had to restate every restriction for clarity every time they overruled one of them?

"You can shoot twice this turn but not if you advanced and are firing a rapid fire or heavy weapon and not with pistols or grenades if you fired another weapon and not if youre in combat and not if you fell back this turn and not if you are not on the table and you can't target friendly units or units that are in close combat or units out of range etc etc etc etc etc..."

Bojazz wrote:
You're skewing the question towards your desired answer instead of providing a like scenario. You're saying that the rule should override ALL restrictions, but your analogy here provides only a single restriction to override. Let's give it a few more restrictions, and then create a permission that overrides one of those restrictions exactly how the rule in question does.

"Once per day, as long as you are in the kitchen, you may take one apple. You may not take any green apples, and you may not take any bruised apples." Then later: "You may take two apples this time". Can you take any green or bruised apples?

My interpretation is that you would be allowed to take two non-green, non-bruised apples on that day's trip to the kitchen. Now it's entirely possible I've inadvertently skewed this towards my interpretation so please forgive me if i have, or provide your own version of the question that provides several restrictions, and then a permission that specifically mentions one of those restrictions but not the others.

Your example isn't quite the same because it's sub-classing the apples (and we can assume there are non-green and non-bruised apples), and that changes the problem boundaries a bit. The non-green and non-bruised concept is closer to the "shoot the closest target" thing. I understand your point though.

If you like, I say to you "You may take one apple from the bowl, unless you have ran up to it in which case you may not take any apples from the bowl". Then, one day you run up to the bowl and when you get there I say to you, "This time, you may take two apples from the bowl."

Note that I have not stated that we are ignoring earlier rules, but you can assume that the contradiction is abrogated by the new rule.

I hope I've made it a bit more clear.

Bojazz wrote:
As a side note to this discussion, can you imagine how crazy the rules would be if all rules had to restate every restriction for clarity every time they overruled one of them?

"You can shoot twice this turn but not if you advanced and are firing a rapid fire or heavy weapon and not with pistols or grenades if you fired another weapon and not if youre in combat and not if you fell back this turn and not if you are not on the table and you can't target friendly units or units that are in close combat or units out of range etc etc etc etc etc..."

Most rulesets allow a level of permissiveness that it's not a big deal to override several restrictions.

And, again, there are no statements of any core rulebook rules being specifically overridden. People are just reading "may shoot twice" as "may shoot twice, ignoring usual single shot restrictions". Which is the argument me and MagicJuggler are making for the concept of "may be able to shoot".

MachinaMandala wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Instead of using an analogy, why not discuss the actual thing?

Because the analogy is perfectly suited to the point.

Try answering it instead of asking me to answer one of your's.

MachinaMandela wrote:There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take two apples as long as you are standing on one leg." What is your interpretation of this?

If I'm outside of the kitchen I may take two apples as long as I'm standing on one leg. If there are apples outside of the kitchen, that's great for me - I now have two apples. If there are no apples outside of the kitchen standing on one leg is pointless, because I won't be able to get any apples.

Now that I've commented on your analogy, are you going to comment on my example of an actual situation with the actual rules which is the primary thing that should be discussed in YMDC? I'd really appreciate it if you did, especially since your analogy fails to include the difference between individual models, their equipment and the unit they form.

MachinaMandala wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
(let's forget all the atomic decomposition stuff and the Boolean logic tangent as that has no actual rules basis)

<snip>

If MachinaMandala could stick to discussing this stuff and not Rule A/B/Z, atomic decomposition etc. it would be super useful, as these things have no rules basis and are just muddying their argument. All we have to go on is the wording and the English syntax/grammar. And discussing it politely would be a win-win, as I can't understand the continued hostile tone after so many mod warnings.

Can you really not? Right here you're being dismissive of concepts simply because you don't understand them and don't understand how they relate to the concept of rules and to the English language. The "hostile tone" is because, throughout this thread, you've dismissed anything you don't understand as irrelevant instead of trying to understand it or to educate yourself on it.

Like if someone told me, "Hey, everything you know about a topic you're obviously interested in is wrong, go and read these things to learn more about it and then maybe we can discuss it on a more equal level" then I would go and read those things in order to improve myself and gain a better understand of my field of interest.

But, hey, different strokes for different folks.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The crux of the matter is that MachinaMandala believes the Stratagem overrides all restrictions on which units can be selected to shoot, and what it can shoot at. Nekooni and I believe it only overrides those it specifically mentions - such as "shoot twice", an explicit override of the Core Rules. If I've got that wrong just shout... I hate summing up others' position incorrectly as it's poor arguing, and if I've done so it's unintentional.

For MachinaMandala's take to convince me as correct they need to provide Rules backup for why they think the Stratagem overrides rules it doesn't mention anything about overriding. Omission is not permission, so I don't believe saying a unit can shoot twice overrides all the other shooting restrictions (targetting Characters, different weapon types, within 1", etc).

Once again, I'll quote the same thing from earlier in the thread (and, once again, you'll undoubtedly avoid answering it):

MachinaMandala wrote:
EDIT: To put it in plain English. There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take apples." What is your interpretation of this?

If you like, let's fit this a bit more to the situation: There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take two apples as long as you are standing on one leg." What is your interpretation of this?

If you can't stop taking my disagreement as me being dismissive this might not be the forum for you. I've been discussing politely throughout and continue to do so.

And the apples thing is a tangent - the crux of my advice to you has been "discuss the rule itself" yet you're presenting another analogous take but refusing to provide any Rules backup. That's why I won't discuss the apples thing. It isn't the rule, and isn't necessary for understanding of the rule in question.You are ridiculing my position without any backup for your own. If you could cite some backup we'll discuss it. If not I don't need to discuss hypothetical apples. Keep it calm and on topic and we're golden. Can you cite any rules backup for why you think one permission also grants other unstated permissions that break the core rules? That's the crux of why I believe your take is wrong. No apples please, hit me with rules and let's discuss if you're here to discuss... very up for that.

nekooni wrote:If I'm outside of the kitchen I may take two apples as long as I'm standing on one leg. If there are apples outside of the kitchen, that's great for me - I now have two apples. If there are no apples outside of the kitchen standing on one leg is pointless, because I won't be able to get any apples.

Okay, so you are of the opinion that two contradicting rules favours the earlier rule. In which case, 90% of stratagems (and a lot of special rules) don't function at all (unless they specifically mention overriding rules... which this one doesn't).

Congratulations, you've broken 8th edition.

JohnnyHell wrote:If you can't stop taking my disagreement as me being dismissive this might not be the forum for you. I've been discussing politely throughout and continue to do so.

And the apples thing is a tangent - the crux of my advice to you has been "discuss the rule itself" yet you're presenting another analogous take but refusing to provide any Rules backup. That's why I won't discuss the apples thing. It isn't the rule, and isn't necessary for understanding of the rule in question.You are ridiculing my position without any backup for your own. If you could cite some backup we'll discuss it. If not I don't need to discuss hypothetical apples. Keep it calm and on topic and we're golden. Can you cite any rules backup for why you think one permission also grants other unstated permissions that break the core rules? That's the crux of why I believe your take is wrong. No apples please, hit me with rules and let's discuss if you're here to discuss... very up for that.

It's not disagreement I take as being dismissive, it's your refusal to accept that there are concepts outside of your knowledge that apply to the situation that's blatantly dismissive.

It's not a tangent, it's called a Socratic question. The idea is to demonstrate to you why your concept is unsound through getting your thoughts to examine the concept from another angle, or at least explain your reasoning better for both of us.

You've also missed my point completely. The stratagem gives a very specifically stated permission "You may be chosen to shoot twice", which (in certain situations) contradicts the stated rulebook restrictions of "You may not be chosen to shoot if you have advanced or fallen back".

MachinaMandala wrote:

nekooni wrote:If I'm outside of the kitchen I may take two apples as long as I'm standing on one leg. If there are apples outside of the kitchen, that's great for me - I now have two apples. If there are no apples outside of the kitchen standing on one leg is pointless, because I won't be able to get any apples.

Okay, so you are of the opinion that two contradicting rules favours the earlier rule. In which case, 90% of stratagems (and a lot of special rules) don't function at all (unless they specifically mention overriding rules... which this one doesn't).

Congratulations, you've broken 8th edition.

No, I don't see them as conflicting, and as I've laid out in my examples (which you keep ignoring) they actually work without breaking 8th edition at all.

You however claim that since a unit is allowed to shoot twice, it can ignore any core rule that might conflict with that, even if that rule is not even related to units but to individual weapons and models. If it includes Advancing with non-Assault weapons and Falling Back without the Fly keyword, does that also mean I get to ignore range limitations - as long as the target is still the closest enemy unit?

At least that's what I'm getting from your argument, apologies if I'm mistaken on that.

The issue is that being able to "shoot twice" is ambiguously defined. Does it mean getting to fire your weapons twice after being chosen to shoot, like Fire Frenzy or Lumbering Behemoth, or does it mean you are allowed to be chosen to shoot a second time, like Ecstatic Sensations? It depends on context.

However, RAW Hot-Blooded doesn't mean you shoot twice, but you may be chosen to shoot twice, while the Stratagem can be activated on a Vior'la Infantry unit, without any of the normal qualifiers for it being allowed to be chosen to shoot.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
The issue is that being able to "shoot twice" is ambiguously defined. Does it mean getting to fire your weapons twice after being chosen to shoot, like Fire Frenzy or Lumbering Behemoth, or does it mean you are allowed to be chosen to shoot a second time, like Ecstatic Sensations? It depends on context.

However, RAW Hot-Blooded doesn't mean you shoot twice, but you may be chosen to shoot twice, while the Stratagem can be activated on a Vior'la Infantry unit, without any of the normal qualifiers for it being allowed to be chosen to shoot.

But isn't the stratagem literally "the unit can be chosen to shoot twice" as opposed to eg. the Aggressor Squad Fire Storm rule "Models in this unit can fire twice if they remained stationary". I think it's pretty clear that the stratagem gives a second round of shooting basically, instead of working like Firestorm where you basically roll 4D6 instead of 2D6 per model.

MachinaMandala wrote:

nekooni wrote:If I'm outside of the kitchen I may take two apples as long as I'm standing on one leg. If there are apples outside of the kitchen, that's great for me - I now have two apples. If there are no apples outside of the kitchen standing on one leg is pointless, because I won't be able to get any apples.

Okay, so you are of the opinion that two contradicting rules favours the earlier rule. In which case, 90% of stratagems (and a lot of special rules) don't function at all (unless they specifically mention overriding rules... which this one doesn't).

Congratulations, you've broken 8th edition.

JohnnyHell wrote:If you can't stop taking my disagreement as me being dismissive this might not be the forum for you. I've been discussing politely throughout and continue to do so.

And the apples thing is a tangent - the crux of my advice to you has been "discuss the rule itself" yet you're presenting another analogous take but refusing to provide any Rules backup. That's why I won't discuss the apples thing. It isn't the rule, and isn't necessary for understanding of the rule in question.You are ridiculing my position without any backup for your own. If you could cite some backup we'll discuss it. If not I don't need to discuss hypothetical apples. Keep it calm and on topic and we're golden. Can you cite any rules backup for why you think one permission also grants other unstated permissions that break the core rules? That's the crux of why I believe your take is wrong. No apples please, hit me with rules and let's discuss if you're here to discuss... very up for that.

It's not disagreement I take as being dismissive, it's your refusal to accept that there are concepts outside of your knowledge that apply to the situation that's blatantly dismissive.

It's not a tangent, it's called a Socratic question. The idea is to demonstrate to you why your concept is unsound through getting your thoughts to examine the concept from another angle, or at least explain your reasoning better for both of us.

You've also missed my point completely. The stratagem gives a very specifically stated permission "You may be chosen to shoot twice", which (in certain situations) contradicts the stated rulebook restrictions of "You may not be chosen to shoot if you have advanced or fallen back".

I haven't missed your point - back it up with rules is all, convince me instead of talking about me. I understand your position. As ever, I'm very open to being wrong, always am, I just haven't found anything persuasive or backed up by rules in your arguments. That's not dismissive, it's you failing to convince me. My mind is always open to being changed!

I don't believe the wording means (RAW or RAI) it's a carte blanche permission to shoot, whatever the unit's status. As I see it, a unit with non-Assault weapons that Advanced whose nearest enemy was within 1" of a friendly unit would get no use out of this Stratagem. The Core Rules disqualify both selecting them to fire and selecting the nearest unit as a target. By your take they'd get to ignore both disqualifying conditions and shoot twice. You seem to be interpreting the permission to shoot twice as permission to ignore all the usual selection and targetting limitations. That seems to be the crux of it - again, correct me if I've summed up incorrectly. I think you've read too much into a simple phrase that was never intended to have the meaning you've inferred, and I think it doesn't even hold water using a RAW At All Costs approach.

That's where I'm at with it: specifically overriding the usual shoot once limitation, not overriding all the other Shooting Phase rules. No lack of comprehension, just a fundamental disagreement.

People complain about how GW write rules but I see the biggest problem is how people try to pick any tiny advantage out of any ambiguity there might be. The rule says in the shooting phase so there is no reason to ignore shooting phase requirements, it shouldn't need to state which other rules apply from the core book, every stratagem or special ability would be a books length if they did that.it would say if you had to do anything different, like it does. If every rule had to be checked over by the likes of the people on this board they would be unreadable messes similar to legal documents.

AND translating it into code is not helpful to most people and isn't how rules "should be interpreted". Rules in them selves existed long before code. It might be easier to try to think like a human. .

JohnnyHell wrote:
I haven't missed your point - back it up with rules is all, convince me instead of talking about me. I understand your position. As ever, I'm very open to being wrong, always am, I just haven't found anything persuasive or backed up by rules in your arguments. That's not dismissive, it's you failing to convince me. My mind is always open to being changed!

I don't believe the wording means (RAW or RAI) it's a carte blanche permission to shoot, whatever the unit's status. As I see it, a unit with non-Assault weapons that Advanced whose nearest enemy was within 1" of a friendly unit would get no use out of this Stratagem. The Core Rules disqualify both selecting them to fire and selecting the nearest unit as a target. By your take they'd get to ignore both disqualifying conditions and shoot twice. You seem to be interpreting the permission to shoot twice as permission to ignore all the usual selection and targetting limitations. That seems to be the crux of it - again, correct me if I've summed up incorrectly. I think you've read too much into a simple phrase that was never intended to have the meaning you've inferred, and I think it doesn't even hold water using a RAW At All Costs approach.

That's where I'm at with it: specifically overriding the usual shoot once limitation, not overriding all the other Shooting Phase rules. No lack of comprehension, just a fundamental disagreement.

Which brings us back to the apples question. At least nekooni answered it:

MachinaMandala wrote:
If you like, I say to you "You may take one apple from the bowl, unless you have ran up to it in which case you may not take any apples from the bowl". Then, one day you run up to the bowl and when you get there I say to you, "This time, you may take two apples from the bowl."

I know you're gonna say "IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RULES" but of course it does. This example is probably the best as it requires you to answer based off three things:
1. The meaning of "may be able to do something".
2. The order of activation.
3. The concept of rules abrogation.

Andykp wrote:People complain about how GW write rules but I see the biggest problem is how people try to pick any tiny advantage out of any ambiguity there might be. The rule says in the shooting phase so there is no reason to ignore shooting phase requirements, it shouldn't need to state which other rules apply from the core book, every stratagem or special ability would be a books length if they did that.it would say if you had to do anything different, like it does. If every rule had to be checked over by the likes of the people on this board they would be unreadable messes similar to legal documents.

Not really. The point is that people are arguing in such a way that it would be required. Me and MagicJuggler are actually arguing the opposite.

Andykp wrote:AND translating it into code is not helpful to most people and isn't how rules "should be interpreted". Rules in them selves existed long before code. It might be easier to try to think like a human. .

You're wrong there, kiddo!

Wikipedia wrote:Ancient Near East
Algorithms were used in ancient Greece. Two examples are the Sieve of Eratosthenes, which was described in Introduction to Arithmetic by Nicomachus,[71][8]:Ch 9.2 and the Euclidean algorithm, which was first described in Euclid's Elements (c. 300 BC).[8]:Ch 9.1 Babylonian clay tablets describe and employ algorithmic procedures to compute the time and place of significant astronomical events.

4th time: instead of discussing apples, please discuss the actual rules and rule examples. Or at least respond when someone actually comments on your analogy.

nekooni wrote:
4th time: instead of discussing apples, please discuss the actual rules and rule examples. Or at least respond when someone actually comments on your analogy.

I thought Magic addressed your questions.

But, sure, let's give it a go:

nekooni wrote:
No, I don't see them as conflicting, and as I've laid out in my examples (which you keep ignoring) they actually work without breaking 8th edition at all.

You however claim that since a unit is allowed to shoot twice, it can ignore any core rule that might conflict with that, even if that rule is not even related to units but to individual weapons and models. If it includes Advancing with non-Assault weapons and Falling Back without the Fly keyword, does that also mean I get to ignore range limitations - as long as the target is still the closest enemy unit?

At least that's what I'm getting from your argument, apologies if I'm mistaken on that.

You're conflating several different steps.

You're confusing "being able to be chosen to shoot" (which can be blocked by the status of "Advanced" or "Fallen Back") with the "shooting with this unit" phase.

MachinaMandala wrote:
Shooting phase rules:

Spoiler:

There are several different steps here. The "may be chosen to shoot twice" is in the first step. The "must choose closest target" is in the second step.

You're putting all those steps into one single big phase and assuming they all occur at the same time.

Could you just finally comment on the examples I've provided? It's really hard to argue based on your incomplete analogy if you keep moving the goal posts around. I don't think that it's one big shooting thingy, but your analogy does so i had to go along with it.

Stating I'm wrong isn't the same as me being wrong. Ancient Greeks writing algorithms doesn't mean that they predate rules. 'Rule' is a very loose term to describe many things and a lot of them predate Ancient Greece. All civilisations have rules. All social interactions have rules. Nature and wild animals have rules. The point I'm trying to make is that you should possibly accept that the game is written for two or more humans to play. Humans do not behave like code, it's a good thing about them. They have even written in the first rule to encourage civilised behaviour. This is why I think the rules as written now are fine but they should release a tournament edition of the rule book where every little details is spelled out and clarified. It could even be a living rule book and community lead. I read most FAQs or rule queries and just think the answers are obvious if you're just being civilised and chilled about the 'game'. And I also didn't name names I was commenting on these constant arguments and criticisms of GW in general. Me and my mate play and we don't ever have to discuss RAW vs RAI. ever.

nekooni wrote:
Could you just finally comment on the examples I've provided? It's really hard to argue based on your incomplete analogy if you keep moving the goal posts around. I don't think that it's one big shooting thingy, but your analogy does so i had to go along with it.

It's why I keep avoiding the analogy. It has errors baked in and (strangely) changing the thing being discussed changes the responses.

MachinaMandala, I also asked a simple, rules-based question upthread. If you could answer it we might be able to discuss. If you won't and prefer to post analogies that, frankly, aren't comparing apples with apples... ...I'm not sure how to proceed.

I think you guys need to start arguing from a RAW perspective instead of inventing rules restrictions.

nekooni wrote:Could you just finally comment on the examples I've provided? It's really hard to argue based on your incomplete analogy if you keep moving the goal posts around. I don't think that it's one big shooting thingy, but your analogy does so i had to go along with it.

No, it doesn't and you are conflating things.

You're conflating being chosen to shoot with shooting. If I'm denied the right to shoot by advancing or falling back then I'd agree with everything you've said in this thread so far. However, that's not the case. I'm denied the right to be chosen to shoot, which this stratagem then gives express permission to do.

If you can't accept that this stratagem gives express permission to be chosen to shoot, then we can't continue the discussion. You're obviously arguing from a HYWPI perspective (which is expressly not allowed here), instead of from a RAW perspective.

Andykp wrote:Stating I'm wrong isn't the same as me being wrong. Ancient Greeks writing algorithms doesn't mean that they predate rules. 'Rule' is a very loose term to describe many things and a lot of them predate Ancient Greece. All civilisations have rules. All social interactions have rules. Nature and wild animals have rules. The point I'm trying to make is that you should possibly accept that the game is written for two or more humans to play. Humans do not behave like code, it's a good thing about them. They have even written in the first rule to encourage civilised behaviour. This is why I think the rules as written now are fine but they should release a tournament edition of the rule book where every little details is spelled out and clarified. It could even be a living rule book and community lead. I read most FAQs or rule queries and just think the answers are obvious if you're just being civilised and chilled about the 'game'. And I also didn't name names I was commenting on these constant arguments and criticisms of GW in general. Me and my mate play and we don't ever have to discuss RAW vs RAI. ever.

Hey, great for you and your friend!

However, I don't think YMDC is the place to talk about how 40k would be better if it was played as a co-operative narrative roleplaying adventure.

Also, when we agree on a set of roles, they function algorithmically. That's how they work! You're right that nature has rules! Science has rules! And you know how these rules can be represented? Algorithmically! Shocking!

JohnnyHell wrote:It's why I keep avoiding the analogy. It has errors baked in and (strangely) changing the thing being discussed changes the responses.

MachinaMandala, I also asked a simple, rules-based question upthread. If you could answer it we might be able to discuss. If you won't and prefer to post analogies that, frankly, aren't comparing apples with apples... ...I'm not sure how to proceed.

You're avoiding the question because you know answering it will hurt your argument.

But hey, let's look at your honest question!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
And the apples thing is a tangent - the crux of my advice to you has been "discuss the rule itself" yet you're presenting another analogous take but refusing to provide any Rules backup. That's why I won't discuss the apples thing. It isn't the rule, and isn't necessary for understanding of the rule in question.You are ridiculing my position without any backup for your own. If you could cite some backup we'll discuss it. If not I don't need to discuss hypothetical apples. Keep it calm and on topic and we're golden. Can you cite any rules backup for why you think one permission also grants other unstated permissions that break the core rules? That's the crux of why I believe your take is wrong. No apples please, hit me with rules and let's discuss if you're here to discuss... very up for that.

Can you cite some rules backup for your viewpoint? No? Then you're wrong.

P.S. The only rules backup I need is: The core rules and the stratagem rules. Unless you have something that contradicts those?

MachinaMandala wrote:
I think you guys need to start arguing from a RAW perspective instead of inventing rules restrictions.

nekooni wrote:Could you just finally comment on the examples I've provided? It's really hard to argue based on your incomplete analogy if you keep moving the goal posts around. I don't think that it's one big shooting thingy, but your analogy does so i had to go along with it.

No, it doesn't and you are conflating things.

You're conflating being chosen to shoot with shooting. If I'm denied the right to shoot by advancing or falling back then I'd agree with everything you've said in this thread so far. However, that's not the case. I'm denied the right to be chosen to shoot, which this stratagem then gives express permission to do.

If you can't accept that this stratagem gives express permission to be chosen to shoot, then we can't continue the discussion. You're obviously arguing from a HYWPI perspective (which is expressly not allowed here), instead of from a RAW perspective.

Falling Back wrote:Units starting the Movement phase within 1" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or Fall Back. If you choose to Fall Back, the unit must end its move more than 1" away from all enemy units. If a unit Falls Back, it cannot Advance (see below), or charge later that turn. A unit that Falls Back also cannot shoot later that turn unless it can Fly.

Advancing wrote:When you pick a unit to move in the Movement phase, you can declare that it will Advance. Roll a dice and add the result to the Move characteristics of all models in the unit for that Movement phase. A unit that Advances can’t shoot or charge later that turn.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/40k/warhammer_40000_en.pdf Page three

Thank you and have a great day.

nekooni wrote:

Falling Back wrote:Units starting the Movement phase within 1" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or Fall Back. If you choose to Fall Back, the unit must end its move more than 1" away from all enemy units. If a unit Falls Back, it cannot Advance (see below), or charge later that turn. A unit that Falls Back also cannot shoot later that turn unless it can Fly.

Advancing wrote:When you pick a unit to move in the Movement phase, you can declare that it will Advance. Roll a dice and add the result to the Move characteristics of all models in the unit for that Movement phase. A unit that Advances can’t shoot or charge later that turn.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/40k/warhammer_40000_en.pdf Page three

Thank you and have a great day.

Assault weapons no longer work.

Thank you and have a great day.

MachinaMandala wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Falling Back wrote:Units starting the Movement phase within 1" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or Fall Back. If you choose to Fall Back, the unit must end its move more than 1" away from all enemy units. If a unit Falls Back, it cannot Advance (see below), or charge later that turn. A unit that Falls Back also cannot shoot later that turn unless it can Fly.

Advancing wrote:When you pick a unit to move in the Movement phase, you can declare that it will Advance. Roll a dice and add the result to the Move characteristics of all models in the unit for that Movement phase. A unit that Advances can’t shoot or charge later that turn.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/40k/warhammer_40000_en.pdf Page three

Thank you and have a great day.

Assault weapons no longer work.

Thank you and have a great day.

And that's a counter how? Everyone acknowledges that was bad RAW. It is, however, RAW. Your bringing it up makes it look like you're the one arguing from a HIWPI stance instead of a RAW stance.

EDIT:

MachinaMandal wrote:
P.S. The only rules backup I need is: The core rules and the stratagem rules. Unless you have something that contradicts those?

Could you be a wee more specific? People arguing the other side can just say "well, the core rules and the stratagem rules are all [i]I need to prove you wrong, and the arguement gets nowhere with that attitude.

MachinaMandala wrote:

Assault weapons no longer work.

I know. I've said so in this thread multiple times:

nekooni, like 4 fething times wrote:A unit with Assault weapons that advanced can be selected to shoot*. Models with an Assault weapon can then shoot those at -1 tohit. The stratagem allows the unit to do it twice, but it's still at -1 tohit each time.
(...)
* = this is technically not RAW, but required to make Assault Weapons work while advancing. It doesn't change the outcome here however, so just roll with it.

If you'd had the decency to properly read it you'd have noticed it. But hey, let's keep using apples.

I'm done here.

MachinaMandala wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Falling Back wrote:Units starting the Movement phase within 1" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or Fall Back. If you choose to Fall Back, the unit must end its move more than 1" away from all enemy units. If a unit Falls Back, it cannot Advance (see below), or charge later that turn. A unit that Falls Back also cannot shoot later that turn unless it can Fly.

Advancing wrote:When you pick a unit to move in the Movement phase, you can declare that it will Advance. Roll a dice and add the result to the Move characteristics of all models in the unit for that Movement phase. A unit that Advances can’t shoot or charge later that turn.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/40k/warhammer_40000_en.pdf Page three

Thank you and have a great day.

Assault weapons no longer work.

Thank you and have a great day.

Mostly just been following along - but if you're going to hang out in YMDC I'd assume you'd know this by now. Assault Weapons don't work by virtue of RAW.

Did someone say Assault Weapons don't work RaW?

I don't see why this discussion is continuing. The RaW for hot-blooded doesn't match the "intent", and we need an Errata or Special Snowflake FAQ to fix it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Did someone say Assault Weapons don't work RaW?

I don't see why this discussion is continuing. The RaW for hot-blooded doesn't match the "intent", and we need an Errata or Special Snowflake FAQ to fix it.

No, we just need people like you to stop deliberately breaking very clear rules because GW didn't add, 'closest legal' rather than just 'closest' unit to shoot. Of course it's the closest legal unit. Anything else wouldn't make sense, and since GW aren't writing laws by which people are sentenced to serve time in prison, they're writing rules for a fun miniatures game played between hobbyists, I think they can be forgiven for giving a very clear rule that isn't watertight to the standard of a country's legal system, rather than having wilfully ignorant people trash it.

Ninja edit: yes I am salty about rules lawyers, I think they ruin an otherwise enjoyable game.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Did someone say Assault Weapons don't work RaW?

I don't see why this discussion is continuing. The RaW for hot-blooded doesn't match the "intent", and we need an Errata or Special Snowflake FAQ to fix it.

No, we just need people like you to stop deliberately breaking very clear rules because GW didn't add, 'closest legal' rather than just 'closest' unit to shoot. Of course it's the closest legal unit. Anything else wouldn't make sense, and since GW aren't writing laws by which people are sentenced to serve time in prison, they're writing rules for a fun miniatures game played between hobbyists, I think they can be forgiven for giving a very clear rule that isn't watertight to the standard of a country's legal system, rather than having wilfully ignorant people trash it.

Ninja edit: yes I am salty about rules lawyers, I think they ruin an otherwise enjoyable game.

I think it's nitpicky to claim my Marines have to roll to hit and don't just automatically hit and wound. That's no less valid than what you're arguing here.

I enjoy playing board games by the rules. When I play Chess I know I can rely on the rules actually working. It's not unreasonable to ask a company who makes you pay for the rules to their game in addition to the horrendously overpriced models to put even the tiniest bit of effort into the rules.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Did someone say Assault Weapons don't work RaW?

I don't see why this discussion is continuing. The RaW for hot-blooded doesn't match the "intent", and we need an Errata or Special Snowflake FAQ to fix it.

No, we just need people like you to stop deliberately breaking very clear rules because GW didn't add, 'closest legal' rather than just 'closest' unit to shoot. Of course it's the closest legal unit. Anything else wouldn't make sense, and since GW aren't writing laws by which people are sentenced to serve time in prison, they're writing rules for a fun miniatures game played between hobbyists, I think they can be forgiven for giving a very clear rule that isn't watertight to the standard of a country's legal system, rather than having wilfully ignorant people trash it.

Ninja edit: yes I am salty about rules lawyers, I think they ruin an otherwise enjoyable game.

Actually it's not clear at all that they meant "closest legal" unit at all. Look at what they've done (or not done) for shooting characters. They haven't FAQ'd that to be closest legal unit to make them a legitimate target. It's more likely they actually meant what they said about it being the closest unit and are trusting the player to not be a complete dunderhead and waste character points to play a stratagem that they can not benefit from. If the closest unit is 2" away but is locked in combat, and you don't have pistols, would I expect you to be able to shoot at a different unit instead? No, there's no indication of that, so I wouldn't waste the character points on trying to let that unit not get to shoot twice.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I think it's nitpicky to claim my Marines have to roll to hit and don't just automatically hit and wound. That's no less valid than what you're arguing here.

Not at all, that's just following the two active player stages in trying to inflict wounds. That's the same as looking at the stratagem and saying 'ok, I can select a unit to shoot twice at the closest legal target, and if the first round wipes it out I shoot at the next closest', as one would look at the main 12 pages of rules, see you have to roll to hit according to BS, then wound S v T, then your opponent gets a save.
What you're doing is deliberately trying to break something very simple by not performing the obvious and clear instructions given, just because they haven't stated it in terms that leave zero wiggle room.
Actually, if we're going down the analogy route, I think I have one.
The needless nitpicking around the wriggle room in the rule is not at all like "it's nitpicky to claim my Marines have to roll to hit and don't just automatically hit and wound"
Instead, it's far more like the foreman on a construction site telling you to carry that plank of wood from one end of the site to the other, so instead of picking it up like any sane person and walking, you're sitting there going 'well, he didn't say I can't use a tank to drive the plank the 50 metres from A to B... so my foreman hasn't given me nearly clear enough instructions'

So is everyone just gonna bitch about this and descend into Rule 1 violations and logical fallacies for two weeks, or are peeps going to just shut up and email their intractable POVs to GW FAQ hotline? I mean, it'll be the former but the Mods would likely thank you if it were the latter...

 doctortom wrote:
Actually it's not clear at all that they meant "closest legal" unit at all. Look at what they've done (or not done) for shooting characters. They haven't FAQ'd that to be closest legal unit to make them a legitimate target. It's more likely they actually meant what they said about it being the closest unit and are trusting the player to not be a complete dunderhead and waste character points to play a stratagem that they can not benefit from. If the closest unit is 2" away but is locked in combat, and you don't have pistols, would I expect you to be able to shoot at a different unit instead? No, there's no indication of that, so I wouldn't waste the character points on trying to let that unit not get to shoot twice.

A) it's command points for future reference
B) It seems to me at least that you'd have to be a dunderhead to say the stratagem can't ever be used if there's a nearby melee engagement, which is often going to be the case in a tau gunline. And if you're at an impasse over that, act like adults and work out who you're going with, ask a third party to judge or just roll a dice 1-3 we do it how I say, 4-6 we do it how you say. In fact that advice can be used for basically all disputes in these games. Pretty easy, just don't be or behave like a dunderhead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
So is everyone just gonna bitch about this and descend into Rule 1 violations and logical fallacies for two weeks, or are peeps going to just shut up and email their intractable POVs to GW FAQ hotline? I mean, it'll be the former but the Mods would likely thank you if it were the latter...

Not sure there are any rule 1 violations, yet, and there don't have to be.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:


B) It seems to me at least that you'd have to be a dunderhead to say the stratagem can't ever be used if there's a nearby melee engagement, which is often going to be the case in a tau gunline

Ah, so somebody who wants to follow the rules is a dunderhead. Got it.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
. And if you're at an impasse over that, act like adults and work out who you're going with, ask a third party to judge or just roll a dice 1-3 we do it how I say, 4-6 we do it how you say. In fact that advice can be used for basically all disputes in these games. Pretty easy, just don't be or behave like a dunderhead.

Thi may be the say to handle it short tem, though I do have to say in this cas what you have claimed is obvious is not obvious at all, and you really haven't provided anything to indicate that GW's intention is what you claim. So, really, insisting on not following a rule like it's written needs to be discussed beforehand. You try to spring that in the middle of a game and it would be a TFG move trying to insist that you d6 it then. JohnnyHell has the solution for the long term, bug GW about it if you're not willing to accept it so that it can be FAQ'd. Until then, expect to play the rule the way its written unless you can get an opponent to agree otherwise.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I think it's nitpicky to claim my Marines have to roll to hit and don't just automatically hit and wound. That's no less valid than what you're arguing here.

hat you're doing is deliberately trying to break something very simple by not performing the obvious and clear instructions given, just because they haven't stated it in terms that leave zero wiggle room.

That's pretty rich given that you're the one insisting that they meant "closest legal" unit when they wrote only closest unit, and you're not "performing the obvious and clear instructions given". You're tarring yourself with your own brush.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Actually it's not clear at all that they meant "closest legal" unit at all. Look at what they've done (or not done) for shooting characters. They haven't FAQ'd that to be closest legal unit to make them a legitimate target. It's more likely they actually meant what they said about it being the closest unit and are trusting the player to not be a complete dunderhead and waste character points to play a stratagem that they can not benefit from. If the closest unit is 2" away but is locked in combat, and you don't have pistols, would I expect you to be able to shoot at a different unit instead? No, there's no indication of that, so I wouldn't waste the character points on trying to let that unit not get to shoot twice.

A) it's command points for future reference
B) It seems to me at least that you'd have to be a dunderhead to say the stratagem can't ever be used if there's a nearby melee engagement, which is often going to be the case in a tau gunline. And if you're at an impasse over that, act like adults and work out who you're going with, ask a third party to judge or just roll a dice 1-3 we do it how I say, 4-6 we do it how you say. In fact that advice can be used for basically all disputes in these games. Pretty easy, just don't be or behave like a dunderhead.

I mean, there's already precedent.

There is potentially a precedent already with the Flash Gitz 'Gun-Crazy Showoffs' rule. They have to target the closest unit, and this is from the Xenos 2 FAQ :

Q: What happens when a unit of Flash Gitz’ Gun-crazy
Showoffs ability triggers, but the nearest enemy unit is not
a viable target (e.g. it is not visible to the Flash Gitz, or it is
within 1" of a unit from your army)?
A: If the nearest enemy unit is not a viable target then
this ability has no effect this time.

[formatting ruined post]