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.

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

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

Gwar! wrote:

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

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

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

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

Che-Vito wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any examples which would invalidate this interpretation?

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

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

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

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

coredump wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

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

The rules say I can.

.

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

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

to wit

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any examples which would invalidate this interpretation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly what I'm thinking.

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

Remember when the dude said bikes can assault 12"?

G

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

This time, please, go read it before continuing.

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

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

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

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

That criteria being:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G

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

G

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

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

Danny Internets wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You missed the point entirely.

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

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

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

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

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

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






Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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