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.

"If prism cannons have a line of sight to other prism cannons they may forfeit their chance to fire in order to combine beams."

I bet some people would make the argument that if you are stunned,  then you have nothing to forfeit, hence you cannot combine.  I bet others will even make this same argument when the prism cannon gets a weapon destroyed result....

What are your thoughts?  I don't like the idea that people won't let me combine the fire.  Combining is different then firing the weapon.  In fact, you don't even need to be in the weapon's range (60" to combine, which is further proof that combining is TOTALLY different from firing.

Mez

No they can't. The rules are very clear, the Second Fire Prism must forgo its shooting phase, so in order to work it has to be able to fire in the first place. So weapons destroyed /crew stunned means that the second Fire Prism can not power up the first.

You can forgo that shooting phase if you have no gun. Just like Genestealers can forgo shooting to fleet of foot. By your logic Genestealers cannot fleet of foot.

Looks like you can power up so long as you don't shoot and are in line of sight. Being stunned, shaken, weapon destroyed etc has no impact. Prepare to annoy your opponents when you tell them that. Go Go GW!

Posted By Keldrin on 11/15/2006 10:29 PM
You can forgo that shooting phase if you have no gun. Just like Genestealers can forgo shooting to fleet of foot. By your logic Genestealers cannot fleet of foot.

The Fleet rules are worded differently. They simply state that a model may fleet on a turn in which it doesn't shoot (or use a psychic power that replaces shooting).

Besides, having the option to shoot but no weapon is not exactly the same as not being allowed to shoot.

But I digress, the answer to this is in the actual rule itself:

"If prism cannons have a line of sight to other prism cannons they may forfeit their chance to fire in order to combine beams."

This rule talks about "prism cannons" not "Fire Prisms".

That means you must give up (that's what "forfeit" means) shooting the "Fire Prism" in order to use this rule.

If you are unable to shoot the Fire Prism for whatever reason you would not be able to give up this shooting in order to combine fire.

 

So I'm sorry to say that this tactic doesn't work if the Prism Cannon is destroyed or the vehicle is stunned.

It does appear to still work if the Fire Prism is beyond 60" of the other Fire Prism, though.

 

 

I concur with Yakface.

One important thing to notice about the phrasing of this rule is exactly what you forfeit.

You don't forfeit a shot or a shooting phase or a die roll. From the way this sentence is structured the thing that you forfeit is a "chance." "To fire" is a phrase that modifies "chance," which receives the action of the verb "forfeit." So you forfeit your chance (to fire).

A stunned/shaken vehicle cannot fire, so in the course of that turn it will never have a chance to fire.

My dictionary doesn't have a definition of "forfeit" that allows you to forfeit something you didn't have in the first place. All the definitions require some kind of exchange of one thing for another or loss of something--which doesn't sound like it could happen with something that you already lost for another reason.

It's a question of what "forfeit" means. Supposedly there's even a difference of meaning between British and American English. In the British usage, it means "pay" or "exchange." In American, it means more like "lose."

So, whether or not the stunned Fire Prism can combine comes down to what your definition of "forfeit" is. In this case it's a verb, so here are the verb definitions I've got:

6. to subject to seizure as a forfeit.
7. to lose or become liable to lose, as in consequence of crime, fault, or breach of engagement.

Number 6 is how I view the word. In order to combine beams you must "subject your chance to shoot the prism cannon to seizure." That doesn't say you have to have a "chance to shoot" to trade in, it simply says you have to make it "subject to seizure." Thus, if you have it, it's taken away. If you don't, it's not.

To further examine this, note that definition 6 for the verb form makes reference to the noun form.  The noun forms:

1. a fine; penalty.
2. an act of forfeiting; forfeiture. 
3. something to which the right is lost, as for commission of a crime or misdeed, neglect of duty, or violation of a contract. 
4. an article deposited in a game because of a mistake and redeemable by a fine or penalty. 
5. forfeits, (used with a singular verb) a game in which such articles are taken from the players.

There's a lot of ambiguity here, when it comes to our needs.  However, 3 is the one that catches my eye, as it speaks of "losing the right" to something.  You don't lose the thing, you lose the right to it.  It's a careful choice of words.

I don't see this. The fact that it specifically says "prism cannon" doesn't mean that you have to give up shooting the Fire Prism. It specifically says "prism cannon" not "Fire Prism. It means you give up shooting the prism cannon. Thus the Fire Prism itself could still fire it's Shuriken Cats/Cannon.

Posted By Phryxis on 11/16/2006 12:46 PM

That means you must give up (that's what "forfeit" means) shooting the "Fire Prism" in order to use this rule.

I don't see this. The fact that it specifically says "prism cannon" doesn't mean that you have to give up shooting the Fire Prism. It specifically says "prism cannon" not "Fire Prism. It means you give up shooting the prism cannon. Thus the Fire Prism itself could still fire it's Shuriken Cats/Cannon.

Yeah, my bad. I meant to write "Prism Cannon" in those quotes instead of "Fire Prism".

Phryx, I'm not sure I see how your points alter the outcome.

The point is that being shaken/stunned results in the prism cannon losing its chance to fire (or right to fire) in the previous player turn. By the time the "chance to fire" would normally arise in the Eldar player's shooting phase, it is already lost.

I don't think the "something to which a right is lost" definition applies here. The cannon never loses its right to a chance to fire. It is still entitled to the chance to fire in other turns--it just already lost it for another reason.

There's nothing in the rules that says what "forfeit" means. We're left on our own to understand what it means.

The first place I went is to my own understanding of what the word means. I understand it to mean that you lose something, not that you give something in payment. There's a distinction there. It's a small one, but in this case, it's critical.

For example, if you get on a plane, you will "forfeit" any nail clippers you happen to have with you. That doesn't mean that you have to provide a set of nail clippers in order to gain admission to an aircraft. It means that if you have nail clippers, you will have to give them up if you want to get on the plane. If you don't, fine. The key here is that nobody gets on a plane with nail clippers.

So, with the prism cannon, the rules are saying that you don't get to shoot the cannon in the same turn that you combine beams with it. They don't say you have to be able to shoot... They say you don't get to shoot.

"If prism cannons have a line of sight to other prism cannons they may forfeit their chance to fire in order to combine beams."

That is:

"If [condition] then [result]."

The only condition to combining beams is line of sight. The result is that the beam combination effects occur, and the "assisting" cannon doesn't get to fire.

1. I may forfiet the chance to go to the moon in order to get a sandwich.
2. I never had the chance to go to the moon in the first place.
3. I may still get a sandwich.

See, that does not compute. No matter how you want to use the term forfiet. In order to get that sandwich I needed to have a chance to go to the moon in the first place. If you cannot shoot the prism cannon, you cannot combine beams.

Now don't get me wrong, I see the opposing sides argument. I know that if you think about it in the sense that you give up and chance you may or may not get to shoot, then you have still forfieted that chance, however I think that because the stunned/weapon destroyed stuff happens in the other guys turn, before you can choose to make a beam combination, that it takes precidence over that combined beams rule. If you get my meaning.

"in order to" is the key phrase that makes this rule different from your analogy, though.

You forfeit your chance to fire *in order to* combine beams. If you already forfeited your chance to fire in order to fulfill the condition of the stunned/shaken rule, then you have no chance to forfeit for another, incompatable reason, such as combining beams.

Let me just add that I think that the Eldar codex is the best-written codex that we've seen come out of GW to date. Someone carefully went over the phrasing in key parts of this codex and set things up so that there is little room for ambiguity compared with other codecies (and with the old codex in particular).

In order to get to the reading that allows a shaken prism cannon to support another fire prism's shot, you really need to assume a meaning for the phrase "forfeit...in order to" that encompasses the idea "already lost for an entirely different reason."

No.

I used the nail clipper example to show a situation where you don't have the item to be forfeited, but you still proceed as normal. That's why they have the word "forfeit." It means something different from "trade" or "buy."

Another example: If you commit a felony in the United States, you forfeit the right to vote and you go to jail. If you're not a citizen of the US, and thus don't have the right to vote, they don't let you out of jail.



This doesn't really enter into it. When you lost your "chance to shoot" isn't relevant. The question is if you need to have a "chance to shoot" in order to combine beams. I believe, based on the meaning of the word "forfeit," that you don't. That word doesn't mean "trade" it means "surrender if posessed." If you don't have it to surrender, you don't have to surrender it, but you still meet the terms of forfeiture.

Also, in case it's not clear, this is a RAW argument I'm making. Should I ever field two Fire Prisms, I'd not make this argument. I'd play it that a stunned Prism couldn't combine beams. But this is YMTC, and the RAW are the RAW.



Right, and you forfeit your nail clippers in order to get on the plane. Again, the point is that "forfeit" is not "trade." If you feel that forfeit does mean "trade," I've already cut and pasted the definitions for the noun and verb forms of it, and you can refer to those to point out why you feel my interpretation is wrong.

Fine.  Well, in any case, you can still fire the Shurikan Cannon on the turn you combine, since the rules state you only give up the chance to fire the "prism cannon"....  That is assuming you only move up to 12" of course....

"If prism cannons have a line of sight to other prism cannons they may forfeit their chance to fire in order to combine beams."

Mez

Phryxis: Your entire argument relies on the premise that you don't need to have anything to forfiet in order to forfiet, because of one way to understand the usage of the word forfiet. Just so long as you realize that you are arguing on semantics we're good. However you have to take the rest of 40k into context with the rule. Usually you never give up something you don't have in 40k. The situation is that in 40k, you never get anything for free. You are argueing that the intent of the rule is that you get something for free and I simply will not accept that that is the case.

Also, it's good to know that you wont be trying to pull that crap in a game, though how you can play devils advocate like that I'll never know.

Right, I understand that. YMTC is a place where people try to stress the RAW to the breaking point. I find value in it, since it lets you know the places you might have somebody trying to pull something come game time. Like I said, I don't intend to play it that a stunned Prism can combine shots (unless GW states that's their intention), I'm just stating what the rules say.



Oh no? Play Blood Angels and tell me that. Chaos has favored numbers... I could probably think of more.

Besides, nothing here is free. You paid for a prism cannon, and it's got rules. Do you have to pay a point every time a Bolter fires? Do you have to give up your assault move to fire an Assault weapon?

Also, I'm not arguing that the intent of the rule is that a stunned Prism can combine shots. I'm not arguing what the intent is at all. This is YMTC, it's strictly about RAW. If I was to argue what the intent is, I'd argue that the Prism has to be in range, it has to have LOS, and it has to be eligible to fire its prism cannon.

If only that's what the rules actually said.

I'm not really sure if the intent was that you can shoot your other weapons normally... The RAW says you can, I'm not sure what the intent is. I think I'd play that you can.

Posted By Phryxis on 11/16/2006 12:46 PM

It's a question of what "forfeit" means. Supposedly there's even a difference of meaning between British and American English. In the British usage, it means "pay" or "exchange." In American, it means more like "lose."

To further examine this, note that definition 6 for the verb form makes reference to the noun form.  The noun forms:

1. a fine; penalty.
2. an act of forfeiting; forfeiture. 
3. something to which the right is lost, as for commission of a crime or misdeed, neglect of duty, or violation of a contract. 
4. an article deposited in a game because of a mistake and redeemable by a fine or penalty. 
5. forfeits, (used with a singular verb) a game in which such articles are taken from the players.

There's a lot of ambiguity here, when it comes to our needs.  However, 3 is the one that catches my eye, as it speaks of "losing the right" to something.  You don't lose the thing, you lose the right to it.  It's a careful choice of words.

To which I say that number 1 is the definition that catches my eye (equating a forfeit to a penalty - thus a forfeiture would be analogous to being penalized for something). 

If you did not have the chance to shoot in the first place, then where is the penalty?

The airplane analogy is cute, but completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.  Please try to stay within the confines of the 40K ruleset for a RAW debate.

The penalty is the loss of the chance to shoot. If you combine your prism cannon with another, you don't get to shoot it that turn. That's the penalty.

Let's look up penalty now...

1. a punishment imposed or incurred for a violation of law or rule.
2. a loss, forfeiture, suffering, or the like, to which one subjects oneself by nonfulfillment of some obligation.
3. something that is forfeited, as a sum of money.
4. a disadvantage imposed upon one of the competitors or upon one side for infraction of the rules of a game, sport, etc.
5. consequence or disadvantage attached to any action, condition, etc.

The most applicable definition here is 5, as the others refer to violations of rules or are cyclical references back to forfeit. The consequence of using the prism cannon in a combined shot is that you lose your chance to shoot it.



I'm glad you enjoyed it. However it is relevant as it uses "forfeit" in context, and demonstrates a meaning that people seemed unable to grasp.

To add to your enjoyment I'll craft another example, but this one in the game: If you fire a Heavy weapon, you forfeit your chance to assault. What if you were not in assault range of an enemy unit in the first place? Can you not fire a Heavy weapon then, because you're not giving anything up?

No... You can still fire the Heavy weapon.

Phryx, the nail clipper example is a false analogy. It has a key difference with the prism cannon situation that conceals an unfounded assumption and causes the analogy logic not to transfer.

In the nail clipper scenario, we know for sure that people have the right to get on the plane. Whether they have nail clippers or not, we don't have to guess at whether or not they're getting on the plane because it's an assumed condition of the hypothetical situation.

nail clippers = chance to fire
getting on plane = combining beams

In the prism cannon situation, we don't know for sure that all prism cannons have the right to combine beams. Unlike getting on the plane, it's not an assumed condition of the scenario. People get on the plane whether they have nail clippers or not, but the rules don't tell us for sure that all prism cannons can always combine beams whether they have a chance to fire or not. You have to assume it, which is not consistent with the principles of RAW reading.

A RAW reading assumes that if the rules don't say you can do it, then you can't. The rules only give one condition under which a prism cannon can combine beams: when you have forfeited your chance to fire in order to do so. An argument that concludes that you can combine beams under any other set of circumstances has to assume an ability to combine beams under conditions that are not mentioned in the rules.

No.

They give one condition, and the condition is that the prism cannons have LOS to one another. Thus, you do know for sure if a prism cannon has a right to combine beams. It's based solely on LOS. If you're not capable of definitively determining LOS, then you can't play 40K.

Question: Does a Marine who Rapid-Fires his Bolter forfeit his chance to Assault?

Sorry, Phryx, I meant "condition" in the formal logical sense, not in the idiomatic sense. Instead of saying "condition" I'll describe the rule in terms of "circumstances" to avoid confusion.

"They may forfeit their chance to fire in order to combine beams" is the phrase that describes the circumstances under which prism cannons can combine beams.

The only thing we can know for sure from this statement is that (1) the prism cannons forfeit (or lose or exchange, they all mean the same thing here) the chance to fire and (2) they do this in order to combine beams.

We can't know from this phrase what happens when they forfeit their chance to fire for some other purpose--such as to fulfill a rule requirement for being stunned/shaken.

We also can't know from this statement if cannons have the ability to combine beams when they have not forfeited their chance to fire. The rules don't say that they can combine beams without forfeiting their chance to fire, so we assume that they can't.

Again, the marine example is the same kind of false analogy as the nail clipper analogy. A marine can usually assault--because the assault rules tell us so--but forfeits his chance to assault in order to rapid-fire. But there's no rule that says that prism cannons usually have the right to combine beams, so the analogy doesn't apply.

The only rule referring to combining beams names a specific set of circumstances under which the beams can be combined, so any set of circumstances that doesn't match doesn't allow beams to be combined.

Actually, they don't. Or, at least, might not. The definition of "forfeit" is critical to the meaning of the rule. While I agree that forfeit can mean "exchange," I don't think that's the only accepted meaning. This is really all that matters.



No... Most of the time models CAN'T assault, because they're not in assault range. If they don't have a chance to assault, how can they forfeit it?

But let's keep it in game, and work with the fact that you just said that models "forfeit their chance to assault in order to rapid-fire."

We know that models that disembark from a closed-top transport that has moved my not assault that turn. So, let's say a squad of Battle Sisters pile out of a Rhino that just moved, and want to Rapid-Fire their Bolters... They can, right? It happens all the time, right?

No, they can't. Everyone is cheating. They came out of a transport that moved, so they forfeit their chance to assault. And since they can't assault, they can't fire, because they already lost their chance to assault, and thus don't have it anymore to forfeit when they shoot.



Right, the specific set of circumstances is when one prism cannon has LOS to another. I am not suggesting that a prism cannon that has no LOS to another prism cannon can use this rule.

I'm translating the rule this way: If [have LOS] then [can't shoot pism cannon] and [combine beams].

You're translating it this way: If [have LOS] and [can shoot] then [combine beams].

It all comes down to the meaning of the word "forfeit." You've already established what you think it means, and where you think it applies. I've then demonstrated that your definition and application breaks the rules.

Nope, still don't agree, and I still don't think you've addressed my argument.

I believe the rule says that in order to combine beams you have to (1) have line of sight to another cannon and (2) forfeit your chance to fire in order to combine beams. If either circumstance is not completely fulfilled, then you can't combine beams.

I don't want to argue about marines forfeiting their chance to assault; I still think that's a faulty analogy. I'd prefer it if we could avoid trying to define "forfeit" in terms of analogies and just work with the prism cannon rules directly.

I don't think there's very much to address. From where I'm sitting, it looks like you're just saying that "forfeit means exchange" in increasingly complicated ways. I understand your point: If [have LOS] and [can shoot] then [combine beams]. Got it. Prove it.



There's two problems with this.

The first is that it's not an analogy, it's rules precedent. The nail clipper thing was an analogy. You didn't like, so now it's gone. Now we're talking actual 40K rules. Referring to precedent is a common practice in rules systems.

The second problem is that it's being judged faulty because it doesn't support your conclusion, not due to any actual faults.

The question is simple: Does forfeit mean "exchange" or does it mean "lose if applicable?" You suggest it's the former, I suggest it's the latter.

My solution to this impasse is also simple: I found a situation in which a unit forfeits an ability. I confirmed with you that you agree the unit is forfeiting that ability. Then I demonstrated that the unit could still meet the forfeiture requirement despite having already lost their chance to use that ability.

I realize this might not be the exact way that you want to engage the issue, but the fact that you can't refute it should be a sign. If you can give a concrete reason why it's not applicable, or a clear refutation of it, I will stand corrected. Let's not just blow off arguments you don't love.

Also, let's not forget the other parts of this discussion... Can the Fire Prism shoot its Shuriken Cat/Cannon in the same round in combiness shots?

Phryxis you convinced me with disembarking and rapid-firing. They give up the chance to do something that they had already given up the chance to do. RAW lets you combine those beams.

The problem is that combining beams implies firing that cool laser into another prism and redirecting it. This isn't mentioned in the rules, it is implied through our understanding of the weapon, and because of this we cannot comprehend that if it can't fire that it could combine a beam.

Thanks for the arguement, it was a blast. (ordnance large blast to be specific)

Edit: I'd think that you can shoot that shuricat/can if you combine beams. The reason is because you aren't 'shooting' when you combine and thus are free to choose a target and shoot the shuricat/can.

Okay, Phryx, we'll do it your way, by the numbers, from the top.

0. I agree that forfeit means "lose." I'm not arguing that it means "exchange" because it doesn't really matter to my argument--the outcome is the same regardless. So instead of "forfeit" for the rest of this argument I'm going to use the term "lose" instead.

1. A "false analogy" is a technical term for an analogy that doesn't fit the given case because it has key differences with the thing it is trying to illustrate. A precedent is a form of analogy, because it says "this situation is analagous to this other precedent."

2. The assaulting precedents that you cite are all examples of false analogies--um, I mean "inapplicable precedents." In each case, the units in question have an overarching rule that allows them to do something (assault, or not assault, or shoot, or whatever).

3. That's what makes the situation of prism cannons combining beams different from the precedents. There is no overarching rule that allows prism cannons to combine beams. The only rule that gives any information about combining beams is the one that says that they lose their ability to fire in order to combine beams.

Right, absolutely. And, as I said, I wouldn't play the RAW here (unless GW issues a FAQ confirming them).

Of course, there are always fluff/metagame excuses to be made if you wish. For example, "a stunned Fire Prism isn't able to participate in combat, because the requires the focus of the crew, but the fire combination system is automated and can function without significant input from the crew." Whatever. I'll worry about that when the FAQ comes out 18 months from now.



Irrelevant. It doesn't matter how large in scope a rule is. It either applies to the model in question, or it doesn't. You're confusing and distracting yourself with this whole line of discussion. You're confusing and distracting yourself with "technical" terms that aren't enhancing anyone's understanding.

Let's go over it one more time, by the YMTC book.

P1: You agreed that models "forfeit their chance to assault in order to rapid-fire."
P2: Models that disembark from a closed top transport after it has moved lose their chance to assault.
P3: Models may disembark from a closed top transport after it has moved and rapid-fire their weapon.
C: A model may be considered to have forfeited an ability whether it had the ability before the forfeiture or not.

P1: A model may be considered to have forfeited an ability whether it had the ability before the forfeiture or not.
P2: If prism cannons have a line of sight to other prism cannons they may forfeit their chance to fire in order to combine beams.
P3:  Stunned Fire Prisms lose their chance to fire.
C: A stunned Fire Prism may combine shots.

Ok, professor, refute.

What's your basis in the rules for "P1: A model may be considered to have forfeited an ability whether it had the ability before the forfeiture or not"?

There's two conclusions. That's the first one, used as a premise of the second.

You're creating a rule out of two separate instances. Furthermore, a conclusion that, in itself, isn't an established rule, isn't a valid premise to argue another point.