Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Something that came up the last game I played against a drop podding Space Wolf list that also had 3 long fang packs.

I went first and due to the 20+ missile launchers that were aimed at my Chimera with Coteaz decided to pop my smoke launchers. But seeing as on his turn 1, there would be 2 drop pods coming in we were wondering whether or not Coteaz can still shoot in the enemy turn, we assumed he couldn't as he was covered in smoke, but reading the smoke launcher entry we found that it says (source FAQ):

- Q: Can any embarked troops shoot out of a vehicle on the turn it has used its smoke launchers (p.66)?
- A: No

However, as turn refers to player turn, this would mean that RAW you can make use of Coteaz his special rule in your opponents turn after you have used Smoke Launchers. Still this somehow feels wrong ...


... so my questions are:

1. Am I correct in assuming that RAW you can use I've Been Expecting You in your enemies turn after having used Smoke Launchers?
2. Is it also Game as Played like this?
3. Do you feel this is a loophole/backhanded tactic/clever use of game mechanics/etc?

Thanks all

1. Yes. You cannot fire in the same (player) turn as using Smoke Launchers.
2. I would and would allow it, yes.
3. Um, no.

Someone might jump your throat and accuse you of being a WAAC player, but it's legal by RAW.

Jidmah wrote:Someone might jump your throat and accuse you of being a WAAC player, but it's legal by RAW.

Anyone accusing of WAAC behavior in this situation has not a clue what WAAC really means. a WAAC player is going to stretch and bend and break rules to win. This isn't breaking or bending anything. I really feel as if this is more just clarification that the terms mean what we think they mean. If it's Legal by RAW then there isn't anything to be concerned about.

And in answer to the OP's questions -

1) Yes
2) It's legal, go for it
3) see above short paragraph for the information you seek.

You must be new to the game then. You will get jumped for exactly this kind of thing, even if there is a FAQ to support you.

lol not new, I just play with a relatively logical crowd who follows the FAQ.

I repeat if someone is calling you for WAAC on this, then they haven't seen the lengths some people will go to to win in a tournament setting. Or they are trying to be WAAC themselves by denying a rule when they know it shouldn't be denied

No, Warhammer40k has the great phenomenon that some people playing for ages seem to be under the impression that doing everything legally possible to win a game is a sin. This includes wound allocation on diversified multi-wound units, "spamming" of certain exceptional effective units, playing an character in an army that doesn't fit its fluff, and especially using unintuitive rules loopholes like this.

Coteaz was most likely not supposed to be able to shoot before the smoke cleared, which would be after the opponent's shooting phase.

Jidmah wrote:No, Warhammer40k has the great phenomenon that some people playing for ages seem to be under the impression that doing everything legally possible to win a game is a sin. This includes wound allocation on diversified multi-wound units, "spamming" of certain exceptional effective units, playing an character in an army that doesn't fit its fluff, and especially using unintuitive rules loopholes like this.

Coteaz was most likely not supposed to be able to shoot before the smoke cleared, which would be after the opponent's shooting phase.

I've seen the things you listed called "cheesy" "unfluffy" "Spammy"...and no, some people really don't like that. But I repeat there is a distinct difference between someone being cheezy/spamming/optimizing (with no regard for fluff) and WAAC...

Coteaz probably shouldn't be able to do that, but by RAW he can...technically coteaz's ability is the loophole that allows him to fire out of sequence. The rules for smoke have only ever pertained to the player turn they were used (barring cover save) so you can't blame that. i think it should be FAQ'd so that you can't do that, but as it stands Coteaz legally and without having to warp any rules interpretations (WAAC style interpretations) is able to fire using his special rule even in the opponent's turn after popping smoke on his transport.

That's all I got

That's what I said in the first place

Jidmah wrote:That's what I said in the first place

I love how people (we) can agree with each other the whole time and still have an arguement about how they agree

ToI wrote:
I love how people (we) can agree with each other the whole time and still have an arguement about how they agree

Welcome to 40k.

The group I play with has an agreement that is not only accepted, but imperative, for someone to shout "Everyone agrees!" whenever someone recognizes this is happening so that we can just move on.

If you were true nerds you would shout "So say we ALL!"

Spamming, Wound Allocation, "unfluffy" lists are definitely not WAAC playing habits. They are playing within the rules given.

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

ToI wrote:

Jidmah wrote:No, Warhammer40k has the great phenomenon that some people playing for ages seem to be under the impression that doing everything legally possible to win a game is a sin. This includes wound allocation on diversified multi-wound units, "spamming" of certain exceptional effective units, playing an character in an army that doesn't fit its fluff, and especially using unintuitive rules loopholes like this.

Coteaz was most likely not supposed to be able to shoot before the smoke cleared, which would be after the opponent's shooting phase.

I've seen the things you listed called "cheesy" "unfluffy" "Spammy"...and no, some people really don't like that. But I repeat there is a distinct difference between someone being cheezy/spamming/optimizing (with no regard for fluff) and WAAC...

Coteaz probably shouldn't be able to do that, but by RAW he can...technically coteaz's ability is the loophole that allows him to fire out of sequence. The rules for smoke have only ever pertained to the player turn they were used (barring cover save) so you can't blame that. i think it should be FAQ'd so that you can't do that, but as it stands Coteaz legally and without having to warp any rules interpretations (WAAC style interpretations) is able to fire using his special rule even in the opponent's turn after popping smoke on his transport.

That's all I got

How is that not WAAC? When trying to win by finding all these little rule exploits comes before having fun? Unless you're the kind of person who can't have fun unless you win.
And I call it an exploit because this is clearly a hole left by the increasingly incompetent game devs. The smoke launcher lasts until your next player turn and restricting you from shooting on your turn. Why would there suddenly be a break in the middle where you get to shoot? The answer is because this specific codex "writer" didn't think about this situation when he wrote the rules and he's notorious for writing poorly thought out rules riddled with holes like swiss cheese.

terranarc wrote:

ToI wrote:

Jidmah wrote:No, Warhammer40k has the great phenomenon that some people playing for ages seem to be under the impression that doing everything legally possible to win a game is a sin. This includes wound allocation on diversified multi-wound units, "spamming" of certain exceptional effective units, playing an character in an army that doesn't fit its fluff, and especially using unintuitive rules loopholes like this.

Coteaz was most likely not supposed to be able to shoot before the smoke cleared, which would be after the opponent's shooting phase.

I've seen the things you listed called "cheesy" "unfluffy" "Spammy"...and no, some people really don't like that. But I repeat there is a distinct difference between someone being cheezy/spamming/optimizing (with no regard for fluff) and WAAC...

Coteaz probably shouldn't be able to do that, but by RAW he can...technically coteaz's ability is the loophole that allows him to fire out of sequence. The rules for smoke have only ever pertained to the player turn they were used (barring cover save) so you can't blame that. i think it should be FAQ'd so that you can't do that, but as it stands Coteaz legally and without having to warp any rules interpretations (WAAC style interpretations) is able to fire using his special rule even in the opponent's turn after popping smoke on his transport.

That's all I got

How is that not WAAC? When trying to win by finding all these little rule exploits comes before having fun? Unless you're the kind of person who can't have fun unless you win.
And I call it an exploit because this is clearly a hole left by the increasingly incompetent game devs. The smoke launcher lasts until your next player turn and restricting you from shooting on your turn. Why would there suddenly be a break in the middle where you get to shoot? The answer is because this specific codex "writer" didn't think about this situation when he wrote the rules and he's notorious for writing poorly thought out rules riddled with holes like swiss cheese.

There you go again with that E word.

It isn't an exploit if it is specifically described in the rules. Everything mentioned so far is specifically described in the BRB. An exploit happens when something is NOT explained in the BRB, and a player then does said action.


Just because a large number of people want to have "fun" cheatfests where people groan and sigh when you call a rule, doesn't mean the rest of us decently competitive people who actually care about playing fair games have to play that game.

If it isn't explained in the rules, and doesn't violate some other rule(s), then fair game. People like ^ above get mad because they don't have the thinking outside the box imagination to think of certain plays, and get mad because of it. "Someone is playing in a way that doesn't restrict imagination? BLASPHEMY! That's unfair! They should be bound to the same as us!"

Turn means player turn unless otherwise specified. It's not cheating or WAAC. It's a clearly labelled rule with a specific outcome that violates no other rules.

BronzeJon wrote:

terranarc wrote:

ToI wrote:

Jidmah wrote:No, Warhammer40k has the great phenomenon that some people playing for ages seem to be under the impression that doing everything legally possible to win a game is a sin. This includes wound allocation on diversified multi-wound units, "spamming" of certain exceptional effective units, playing an character in an army that doesn't fit its fluff, and especially using unintuitive rules loopholes like this.
Coteaz was most likely not supposed to be able to shoot before the smoke cleared, which would be after the opponent's shooting phase.

I've seen the things you listed called "cheesy" "unfluffy" "Spammy"...and no, some people really don't like that. But I repeat there is a distinct difference between someone being cheezy/spamming/optimizing (with no regard for fluff) and WAAC...
Coteaz probably shouldn't be able to do that, but by RAW he can...technically coteaz's ability is the loophole that allows him to fire out of sequence. The rules for smoke have only ever pertained to the player turn they were used (barring cover save) so you can't blame that. i think it should be FAQ'd so that you can't do that, but as it stands Coteaz legally and without having to warp any rules interpretations (WAAC style interpretations) is able to fire using his special rule even in the opponent's turn after popping smoke on his transport.
That's all I got

How is that not WAAC? When trying to win by finding all these little rule exploits comes before having fun? Unless you're the kind of person who can't have fun unless you win.
And I call it an exploit because this is clearly a hole left by the increasingly incompetent game devs. The smoke launcher lasts until your next player turn and restricting you from shooting on your turn. Why would there suddenly be a break in the middle where you get to shoot? The answer is because this specific codex "writer" didn't think about this situation when he wrote the rules and he's notorious for writing poorly thought out rules riddled with holes like swiss cheese.

There you go again with that E word.
It isn't an exploit if it is specifically described in the rules. Everything mentioned so far is specifically described in the BRB. An exploit happens when something is NOT explained in the BRB, and a player then does said action.
Just because a large number of people want to have "fun" cheatfests where people groan and sigh when you call a rule, doesn't mean the rest of us decently competitive people who actually care about playing fair games have to play that game.
If it isn't explained in the rules, and doesn't violate some other rule(s), then fair game. People like ^ above get mad because they don't have the thinking outside the box imagination to think of certain plays, and get mad because of it. "Someone is playing in a way that doesn't restrict imagination? BLASPHEMY! That's unfair! They should be bound to the same as us!"

I'm not sure you know what exploit means.

terranarc wrote:

BronzeJon wrote:

terranarc wrote:

ToI wrote:

Jidmah wrote:No, Warhammer40k has the great phenomenon that some people playing for ages seem to be under the impression that doing everything legally possible to win a game is a sin. This includes wound allocation on diversified multi-wound units, "spamming" of certain exceptional effective units, playing an character in an army that doesn't fit its fluff, and especially using unintuitive rules loopholes like this.
Coteaz was most likely not supposed to be able to shoot before the smoke cleared, which would be after the opponent's shooting phase.

I've seen the things you listed called "cheesy" "unfluffy" "Spammy"...and no, some people really don't like that. But I repeat there is a distinct difference between someone being cheezy/spamming/optimizing (with no regard for fluff) and WAAC...
Coteaz probably shouldn't be able to do that, but by RAW he can...technically coteaz's ability is the loophole that allows him to fire out of sequence. The rules for smoke have only ever pertained to the player turn they were used (barring cover save) so you can't blame that. i think it should be FAQ'd so that you can't do that, but as it stands Coteaz legally and without having to warp any rules interpretations (WAAC style interpretations) is able to fire using his special rule even in the opponent's turn after popping smoke on his transport.
That's all I got

How is that not WAAC? When trying to win by finding all these little rule exploits comes before having fun? Unless you're the kind of person who can't have fun unless you win.
And I call it an exploit because this is clearly a hole left by the increasingly incompetent game devs. The smoke launcher lasts until your next player turn and restricting you from shooting on your turn. Why would there suddenly be a break in the middle where you get to shoot? The answer is because this specific codex "writer" didn't think about this situation when he wrote the rules and he's notorious for writing poorly thought out rules riddled with holes like swiss cheese.

There you go again with that E word.
It isn't an exploit if it is specifically described in the rules. Everything mentioned so far is specifically described in the BRB. An exploit happens when something is NOT explained in the BRB, and a player then does said action.
Just because a large number of people want to have "fun" cheatfests where people groan and sigh when you call a rule, doesn't mean the rest of us decently competitive people who actually care about playing fair games have to play that game.
If it isn't explained in the rules, and doesn't violate some other rule(s), then fair game. People like ^ above get mad because they don't have the thinking outside the box imagination to think of certain plays, and get mad because of it. "Someone is playing in a way that doesn't restrict imagination? BLASPHEMY! That's unfair! They should be bound to the same as us!"

I'm not sure you know what exploit means.

Right, my exploit rant needs editing and trimming.

But,
You make it seem as if anyone looking to win does so by being sneaky and immoral. Your statements also make it seem that people choose their armies for their loopholes and exploit factor, and brands them as douchebag players. I not only find this offensive but also disrespectful. If something is legally fair but you don't like it, fine, but that doesn't mean other people can't.

Who is to say what his new rule is or isn't supposed to do. Maybe it does allow you to shoot in your enemy's turn after popping smokes on yours. Do you know the writer(s) of the codex/BRB? It's not clear, and that's the point. But it is legal by BRB/Codex ruling.

Also, arguing about people's definitions of fun turns into schoolyard debates. If people have fun winning, why wouldn't they do everything legally in their power to do so?

"I've been expecting you" is perfectly clear. To break down the argument:

Smoke launchers may be used after a vehicle completes its move. The next stipulation is that the vehicle is unable to fire in the same turn in that it fired it's smoke launchers, but will be granted a 4+ cover save in the next players shooting phase.

Now moving back to page 9 we can see that "Whenever a rule uses the word "turn", both in this rulebook and in the codexes, it means 'player turn', otherwise it will clearly state game turn."

It's quite simple really. There is no question, no sneakiness, no exploitation and certainly no WAAC mentality. The rules allow Coteaz to fire during the opponents turn regardless of whether or not smoke launchers were used. Disallowing Coteaz to fire is actually when rules start being broken.

I just happened to read a great article I'd like to share, concerning the "WAAC or not WAAC" thing discussed here, pretty much perfectly stating my oppinion.

If you've got time to kill, give it a read.

Jidmah wrote:I just happened to read a great article I'd like to share, concerning the "WAAC or not WAAC" thing discussed here, pretty much perfectly stating my oppinion.

If you've got time to kill, give it a read.

I was overjoyed when I saw it was the Abusepuppy article. I love that thing to death and it perfectly describes what's going on so often in situations where people get frustrated or pissed off at each other.

Basically for those who have not read the article, it sums up the arguement in this thread into a very key point.

...if I'm playing so that I'm having fun and I'm within the rules, then it's not ME ruining your game, it's YOU ruining your game. The rules are there to tell us what we can and cannot do. Just because you don't like what a rule allows your opponent to do does not make it an "exploit" or "WAAC" behavior.

I think there is a misunderstanding in the way people are reading the FAQ. Here it is

- Q: Can any embarked troops shoot out of a vehicle on the turn it has used its smoke launchers (p.66)?
- A: No

It never states that you can fire in your opponents turn, it only deals with the players turn. So we have to know the reason why embarked troops can't shoot in the turn the transport has used its smoke launchers. It seems that the smoke does not allow them to see out. Then we have to determine how long this effect last. The rules say till the end of your opponent's turn. This means embarked troops will be unable to see anything till the end of the opponent's turn and not be able to shoot. The question in the FAQ only covered what happens in the transport players turn. Since the effect in question lasts till the end of the opponents turn, it be safe to say that byproducts of this would also last until that time.

@Garrik:

The Turn
Q: What is meant when the term ‘turn’ is used? (p9)
A: Whenever the word turn is used it means player
turn. Otherwise it will clearly state game turn. In a
complete game turn both players get a player turn.
Hence one game turn will comprise two player turns.

Try reading the first page before you quote from a later one. That said, you are right on the count that you were mistaken when reading the FAQ.

Yeah sorry Garrick. Popping smoke has 2 effects, 1 is being unable to shoot in your turn (note that turn is player turn). The 2nd is that the vehicle in question will be granted a 4+ cover in the opponents next shooting phase. The first effect takes place during your player turn, while the 2nd starts at the beginning of the opponents shooting phase.

Garrick wrote:I think there is a misunderstanding in the way people are reading the FAQ. Here it is

- Q: Can any embarked troops shoot out of a vehicle on the turn it has used its smoke launchers (p.66)?
- A: No

It never states that you can fire in your opponents turn, it only deals with the players turn. So we have to know the reason why embarked troops can't shoot in the turn the transport has used its smoke launchers. It seems that the smoke does not allow them to see out. Then we have to determine how long this effect last. The rules say till the end of your opponent's turn. This means embarked troops will be unable to see anything till the end of the opponent's turn and not be able to shoot. The question in the FAQ only covered what happens in the transport players turn. Since the effect in question lasts till the end of the opponents turn, it be safe to say that byproducts of this would also last until that time.

as previously stated...you need to read the previous pages of the rulebook and how to interpret certain terms before trying to make rulings on these situations. The terms are clearly defined and your paragraph is adding rules and interpretations that don't exist in the rules.

I am full aware of what the rules mean by turn. My question to you is where in the FAQ does it say the effect does not last until the smoke clears at the end of the opponents turn.

- Q: Can any embarked troops shoot out of a vehicle on the turn it has used its smoke launchers (p.66)?
- A: No

The question was only framed in the players turn.- Q: Can any embarked troops shoot out of a vehicle on the turn it has used its smoke launchers (p.66)?

According to the rules a turn is a players turn. The FAQ did not state that the player can shoot in the opposing players turn nor did it say how long the unit will be unable to shoot. For these answers you have to go to the BBR for the rules on smoke launchers. Which states that the effects last until the end of the opponents turn. You have been making the assumption that the FAQ says the effect only last the players turn. which it did not. The question was only for the player's turn as you keep pointing out by using the FAQ on turn. To try to make it show that you can shoot in the opponents turn is something it does not cover. So you must ask some question.
Why was I unable to shoot in shooting phase? You where in a transport that used smoke launcher.
Is that situation still going on? The effects last until the end of the opponents phase
Should I be able to shoot? No, because of the same reason you were unable to shoot in your turn

There is nothing in the FAQ that states that you will be able to shoot out of a transport that used smoke launchers in your opponents turn

Garrick you are mistaken. The rules say

"After the enemy's shooting phase, the smoke disperses with no further effect."

The 2 effects are clear. 1 is that you may not shoot in your turn. 2 is that you receive a 4+ cover save in your opponents turn. So we know when each effect occurs and when they end. 1 is for the duration of your turn. 2 is during your opponents shooting phase.

You keep missing the point. There are no rules covering this action since there are very few units capable of shooting in the opponents phase. Which lead us to figure out how to do it with the rules that are given.

1. Embarked troops can not shoot from a transport that has used smoke launchers that turn.

This is where we ask ourselves why.
is it because

a. They are too busy looking at the pretty clouds
b. They are too busy coughing from smoking the 100 cigars each it took to generate enough smoke to cover the transport
c. They can not see anything because of the smoke

I tend to think it is c. If that is the case, we need to ask when does the smoke dissappear?

The rulebook say at the end of the opponents shooting phase.

Put the two together and you get : embarked troops on a transport that used smoke launchers in their turn will not be able to see until the end of the opponents shooting phase.

Now I wondering what are you basing your argument on. Mine is based on the smoke preventing the embarked troops from see out of the transport. As far as I can tell your arguement is along the lines well the rulebook did not say you can't. Which arguement make more sense

The rules say that the content of a smoked vehicle may shoot after your turn ended. This might be illogical, stupid and probably a loophole, but it's the rules.

"sense" cannot be found amongst Space Fungus and Portable Wormhole Guns.

This is a game, not reality, the game has rules. We follow those.

Maybe I am missing something

The rules say that the content of a smoked vehicle may shoot after your turn ended.

I never read this in any rule book. Can you tell me where to find it. Or is this just an assumption you have made without any rules to back it up.

As far as sense goes, why are emberked troops forbidden to shoot the turn their transport uses smoke launchers. Answer that and you get the basis for my arguement.