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.

I guess that is the reason why there is disagreement on the interpretation. With vague rules come variance in interpretation, akin to great power and great responsibility.

I can see how both sides can be interpreted in the eyes of those who strongly believe in their viewpoints. There will likely be no conclusion to suit all. What this thread can hope to do is flesh out both sides of the argument and let readers decide HTWPI. By extending the thread and repeating the same points to those who will not change their minds only lead to TLDR complex for those others who are not so involved in the discussion.

So.....stop the feeding!

rigeld2 wrote:
I do see the word "When".

When X happens, you may do Y.
Does that mean you can do Y at some time after X happens?

Yes, that is exactly what it means!
That's because the word "When" is not only a time-indication, but can also talk about a condition being met.

According to the dictionary 'when' can have two substitutions:
a) "At the time that/As soon as" a unit with any models with the Jink special rule...
b) "If/while" a unit with any models with the Jink special rule...

If you go with the meaning of 'A)', you are right because it means you have to chose right away.
If you follow the meaning of 'B)', you are wrong because it means you can chose as long as it's the target of a shooting attack (but BEFORE to-hit rolls are made).

So the question would be: "Does 'when' indicate a condition being met or is it a timing?"
In this instance both are perfectly fine.
But I am leaning to option B) due to the "before to hit rolls are made"-ruling.

While a unit with the Jink special rule is selected as a target...

Doesn't work as being selected is a single instant and not a state of being.

 milkboy wrote:
I guess that is the reason why there is disagreement on the interpretation. With vague rules come variance in interpretation, akin to great power and great responsibility.

I can see how both sides can be interpreted in the eyes of those who strongly believe in their viewpoints. There will likely be no conclusion to suit all. What this thread can hope to do is flesh out both sides of the argument and let readers decide HTWPI. By extending the thread and repeating the same points to those who will not change their minds only lead to TLDR complex for those others who are not so involved in the discussion.

So.....stop the feeding!

Most of the time people dont come here for how they would actually play it, the point is to argue the actual RAW of the rules. Many times I post about a loophole not because I actually plan to use it, but rather defending it forces me to become more acquainted with the rules. Same when I see someone elses argument, I then have to go look up the wording of the rule and in the process learn something I had missed before.

I enjoy it because then I learn the rules better as a result of finding holes in the rules. Also since I plan to start traveling to game soon it is good to know all the different ways a rule might be interpreted so I am prepared.

'When' is a trigger.

"When I move you may try to hit me with a ball before I stop moving."

During that defined window of opportunity you may or you might not throw the ball.

Does it make sense in the game? I would allow it and try to kill my enemy anyway.

rigeld2 wrote:
While a unit with the Jink special rule is selected as a target...

Doesn't work as being selected is a single instant and not a state of being.

Sorry to quibble but...

Being selected is a state of being, as the word is past tense. Selecting a unit is a single moment in time as the tense is present.

Using your earlier example.

When I say Banana is present tense. This is a single instant

When I have said Banana is past tense. This is a state of being.

The Jink rule is written in past tense.

Cheers

Andrew

hmm... looks like the word of 'may' is what is really causing confusion...

I originally was on the side that you don't have to declare Jink at Step 2, but had to do it before Step 4. So in rigeld's analogy I would expect my $5.

But I can also see how failing to do it on Step 2 mean's you no longer have permission to perform the Jink.

Overall I would probably lean towards Rigeld's answer as it stops sillyness from occurring. When someone mentioned reaching for his large blast orbital bombard and then changing it to a Krak after they jinked, the process that rigeld uses would stop this from occurring as they have to declare Jink before the weapon is even mentioned.

It also stops the game just being stalled forever when one person says "I might Jink, what weapon will you use?"

"I don't know what weapon I will use, I will wait until you jink or not" etc etc

This is ofc a HIWPI post - but seeing how both sides can be argued for the idea of the least stupid result feels important.

Jacob29 wrote:
hmm... looks like the word of 'may' is what is really causing confusion... .

It shouldn't be. The 'may' in there just gives you the choice of whether or not to jink. It has nothing to do with when it happens.

You may choose to jink when you are selected as a target.

Nothing says you may not choose any other time [oh the irony..]

decisions must be made before to hit rolls.

So the first one tells you that you may do something, but doesn't say you may not do it any other time.

The second one tells you, that you have to have done it before to hit rolls.

therefore you may choose to jink after being selected as a target, after weapons are chosen, but before to hit rolls are made.

- Removed by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1 -

The may is part of the sentence that tells you what triggers a use of Jink, which is shooting attacks. Timing is explicit in the second sentence.

 dg3263827 wrote:
He MAY declare Jink WHEN targeted but he MUST declare Jink before To Hit rolls.

If you are so adamant that Jink can ONLY be declared WHEN targeted, how do you explain the second sentence?

My guess is that people seem to forget that we shoot all like weapons separately in batches. So if you shoot the first batch of weapons and the target does not Jink, he will not be able to jink for any later batches of weapons from that unit because "any To Hit rolls" have been made this resolution cycle. Much the same as overwatch...use it or lose it on the first charge.

Jink is now use it or lose it on first targeting.

Fragile wrote:
The may is part of the sentence that tells you what triggers a use of Jink, which is shooting attacks. Timing is explicit in the second sentence.

Another incorrect statement.
The trigger is not shooting attacks. It's being selected as a target.
The rule has been quoted often in this thread - do you need me to quote it again?

Jink wrote:When a unit with any models with the Jink special rule is selected as a target for a shooting attack, you may declare that it will Jink.

Can we agree that this is explicit timing- that the very instant an attacker declares an attack the defender may declare jink?

Even if we define it as a time period- when selected and before To Hit Rolls- which would be a period of Step 2 to Step 3- it's still explicitly defined.

Could we then say that, as per the Sequencing rules we now have two players waiting on each other to declare something? As Jacob29 said you can end up in a circle of 'What are you shooting/Are you jinking?'.

BRB wrote:While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order.

If that's the case, where then either at step 2 or 3- however you define the window- one player must declare something before the other player. It would seem in the case of the tie the attacker chooses the order and would naturally force Jink to be resolved first.

Does that seem to work?

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The may is part of the sentence that tells you what triggers a use of Jink, which is shooting attacks. Timing is explicit in the second sentence.

Another incorrect statement.
The trigger is not shooting attacks. It's being selected as a target.
The rule has been quoted often in this thread - do you need me to quote it again?

Quote it all you like. Until you accept the fact that the second sentence is the most specific rule as to when the ability is used its a moot point.

The issue is the first sentence says me way do something, it doesn't say we may not do it at other times.

The second sentence says it must be done by a certain point.

The second one is more specific, not only is it so but given that if we say the first one saying you may do something when x happens, and then -infer- what was not written to mean that we may only do it at that time, then the RAW that is the second sentence would be broken if we waited until before to hit rolls happen, since that is more than immediately after when a target is declared.

Of course as pointed out by another poster above, if a unit is firing a series of different weapon types if you do not jink when the first to hit rolls are made, since you must junk before to hit rolls are made, you may no longer jink versus the other weapons.

Much like overwatch fire I guess, if you opt to not shoot the first unit charging you, you are not overwatching the other units charging you.

blaktoof wrote:
The issue is the first sentence says me way do something, it doesn't say we may not do it at other times.

I may hit your models with a hammer. There isn't a rule saying I can't.

"It doesn't say I can't." isn't the right way to argue a point. You have permission at a specific point to declare Jink. Not a single person has proven that permission extends past being selected as a target - it's all just assumptions and "It doesn't say we can't."

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The issue is the first sentence says me way do something, it doesn't say we may not do it at other times.

I may hit your models with a hammer. There isn't a rule saying I can't.

"It doesn't say I can't." isn't the right way to argue a point. You have permission at a specific point to declare Jink. Not a single person has proven that permission extends past being selected as a target - it's all just assumptions and "It doesn't say we can't."

Except for, you know, the explicit timing mentioned in the second sentence. You can houserule it where you play, but looking at RAW, you have until to-hit rolls are made" As That Is What It Says."

 Lobomalo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The issue is the first sentence says me way do something, it doesn't say we may not do it at other times.

I may hit your models with a hammer. There isn't a rule saying I can't.

"It doesn't say I can't." isn't the right way to argue a point. You have permission at a specific point to declare Jink. Not a single person has proven that permission extends past being selected as a target - it's all just assumptions and "It doesn't say we can't."

Except for, you know, the explicit timing mentioned in the second sentence. You can houserule it where you play, but looking at RAW, you have until to-hit rolls are made" As That Is What It Says."

The explicit timing is in the first sentence as is the permission. You're assuming permission exists for the second sentence.
Prove it. For once.

Already have, as have others. It gives you a timing of when the Jink rolls need to be made by. Being targeted is simply the trigger that puts the timing into action. You simply want a declarative statement stating thus, but you won't find it. What you will find though, if you actually read and take the time to understand, which you never really seem to do, is that the rules lay out for you exactly how it should be done.

-Removed by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1. -

The answer is there, it is not on me to prove anything as I have the rules to support this, you, have nothing more than a sentence, not the entire rule as your support, which means you have nothing.

So, you forfeit the debate, your argument has been made invalid and I'm just about done with the topic as the answer has been given to the original poster and others.

Peace!

Yeah yeah mods, either you'll edit my post violating my free speech or send me a warning, either way, allowing this thread to continue is a dereliction of duty.

Lobo - so when given two conditions satisfying one is sufficient? Cool, you can assault from a landraider that turned up from reserves. After all, one of two conditions was met.

Nope, not the rules, at all

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Lobo - so when given two conditions satisfying one is sufficient? Cool, you can assault from a landraider that turned up from reserves. After all, one of two conditions was met.

Nope, not the rules, at all

You're as mistaken as he is.

The first condition is the Trigger. The second condition is the Expiration. If you cannot understand this, you should not be playing this game honestly.

 Lobomalo wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Lobo - so when given two conditions satisfying one is sufficient? Cool, you can assault from a landraider that turned up from reserves. After all, one of two conditions was met.

Nope, not the rules, at all

You're as mistaken as he is.

The first condition is the Trigger. The second condition is the Expiration. If you cannot understand this, you should not be playing this game honestly.

It's a trigger and a timing. You can refuse to recognize that all you want, but personal attacks are never warranted.

Lobo, first...learn what the 1st amendment protects and from whom it protects us from before to throw it out there.

On topic, I believe you are the one mistaken. There is nothing in the rule that supports (or even hints to) the idea that there is a range of steps that we can choose to jink. The sentence you keep throwing around is there to put a constraint on declaring jink. Just like being locked in combat puts a constraint on over watch.

The statement "declare X, may declare Y" is pretty simple concept. In this instance, "declared as target in the targeting step, targeted unit may declare jink...unless to Hit rolls have been made.". This in no way suggests you may hold off declaring over a range of steps.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Lobo - so when given two conditions satisfying one is sufficient? Cool, you can assault from a landraider that turned up from reserves. After all, one of two conditions was met.

Nope, not the rules, at all

You're as mistaken as he is.

The first condition is the Trigger. The second condition is the Expiration. If you cannot understand this, you should not be playing this game honestly.

It's a trigger and a timing. You can refuse to recognize that all you want, but personal attacks are never warranted.

That, was nowhere near a personal attack. That was an observation of your behavior across these forums for the last week. I took the time to look through some of your posts and you truly are incredibly argumentative, especially when something is blatantly obvious.

Back on point. Trigger/timing? Not really. A trigger denotes the beginning of an action, not the time it takes for an action to be done. You are clearly told when you can do something. You are then told when you must do something by. Following proper procedure for the step by step nature of what a player needs to do before he gets to the to-hit rolls, the answer, like in so many of the topics you comment on, becomes obvious.



See it or don't, I care not. I spend too much time talking on the forums as it is, I'm going to find a game I think.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Already have, as have others. It gives you a timing of when the Jink rolls need to be made by. Being targeted is simply the trigger that puts the timing into action. You simply want a declarative statement stating thus, but you won't find it. What you will find though, if you actually read and take the time to understand, which you never really seem to do, is that the rules lay out for you exactly how it should be done.

I underlined an assumption without merit. It's also only there to be derogatory.
I think it's interesting that you refuse to acknowledge the timing involved in the first sentence.

The answer is there, it is not on me to prove anything as I have the rules to support this, you, have nothing more than a sentence, not the entire rule as your support, which means you have nothing.

That's absolutely incorrect. The entire rule does support my argument, as I've said and shown. Your argument makes an assumption without rules support, as I've shown.

Yeah yeah mods, either you'll edit my post violating my free speech or send me a warning, either way, allowing this thread to continue is a dereliction of duty.

You do realize that a) insulting the mods isn't cool and b) there's no such thing as free speech on a private forum?

 hisdudeness wrote:
Lobo, first...learn what the 1st amendment protects and from whom it protects us from before to throw it out there.

On topic, I believe you are the one mistaken. There is nothing in the rule that supports (or even hints to) the idea that there is a range of steps that we can choose to jink. The sentence you keep throwing around is there to put a constraint on declaring jink. Just like being locked in combat puts a constraint on over watch.

The statement "declare X, may declare Y" is pretty simple concept. In this instance, "declared as target in the targeting step, targeted unit may declare jink...unless to Hit rolls have been made.". This in no way suggests you may hold off declaring over a range of steps.

First, who in the bloody, nvm are you?

Have you read the thread? Obviously not. Or you wouldn't spout off like you knew something, you don't.

Second. Read the rule, you'll notice when the action begins, you'll notice when it ends. Don't like it, play it however you want, just don't go around telling people they are wrong when the rules clearly state otherwise. Then again, it states clearly for those who are objective on the subject, or who can put 2 and 2 together.

Does it really matter who I am? I'm a dude on the interwebz having a discussion about a game we all play. That's all the qualification needed to be here. I'm not sure what your point is..

I have read the rule and the thread...which has the rule posted a good number of times. Your interpretation of the second sentence is incorrect and it has been shown as such, in different ways quite a few times.

When targetted you may declare jink.

You "may". The window of opportunity opens.

The decision must be made before to hit rolls are made.

"Must" the window is now closing.


Lobo - 17287 posts - argumentative is right.

jamesk1973 wrote:
When targetted you may declare jink.

You "may". The window of opportunity opens.

Your assumption that "When" is simply a trigger and not also timing is interesting. What do you have to support that assumption?

Lobo - 17287 posts - argumentative is right.

Again - why is post count relevant?