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.

You don't think that caveat was added because of the requirement? You are usually pretty level headed so I am surprised at your intractability on this one. I think you are just too close to the IG codex ;-)

Somnicide wrote:You don't think that caveat was added because of the requirement? You are usually pretty level headed so I am surprised at your intractability on this one. I think you are just too close to the IG codex ;-)

What I think he's saying, and don correct me if I'm wrong, is that an officer (and his squad's) ability to shoot or run is not a necessary condition to issue orders, but a conditional one. Meaning whether or not the ability to shoot or run is there is irrelevant to being able to issue orders.

-Yad

Exactly, whether the officer can shoot or run has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the officer can issue an order. So that line means nothing in the debate on whether or not orders can be issued in the opponent's turn.

The reason that they said you can't run or shoot first is because they don't want you moving to isuue an order to far far off squad, it has nothing to do with who's turn it is.
For the record, and hopefully the last time, there are orders that allow you to run/shoot! so it's saying that you must issue orders before you run/shoot, big deal. It has no relevance to the rules lawyering but hey, whatever, cling to straws if you have to!
My final thoughts are: RAW is RAW is RAW. RAI is RAI. they don't always sink up and Firefoxes make me angry... Ignorant, stubborn firefoxes! Nasty creatures!

This is the kind of thing that makes people not want to play this game.

And honestly anyone who would try to pull this is not only someone I would never play against again, but back when I owned my store, would be banned for life.

That this is very clearly not the intent of the rule is beyond obvious. That you can make a convoluted argument by deliberately streatching the interpretation of the rules is fair.

As a theoretical argument about GW's habit of not writting solid rules, fine.

As to any discussion of actually doing this in a game, serioulsy guys thats just blatant cheating, no two ways about it.

Anyone who tried to pull this against me in a game (friendly or tournament) would get one firm warning, then a broken kneecap.

No I am not being figurative.

It is possible for a player to attempt to deny a Witch Hunter's player a chance to use "Spirit of the Martyr" by trying to do something else at the "beginning" of the shooting phase. Since the Warhammer 40,000 Rules do not include rules on resolving the timing of competing actions, you've encountered a paradox, and there is no clear way to proceed under the RAW. The reason this is not a big issue is because, while the RAW is unclear, the RAI is very clear: "Spirit of the Martyr" is explicitly allowed to be used during the opponent's turn. So "Spirit" should be usable under the RAI unless the rules clearly prevent it.

Now, let's look at what happens when you try to issue orders during your opponent's turn: Since orders must be issued at the beginning of the shooting phase, you attempt to issue your orders, and your opponent attempts to do something so as to prevent you from issuing any orders. (Or, if your opponent is also IG, he tries to issue orders of his own.) At this point, you've once again encountered a paradox, and there is no clear way to proceed under the RAW.

This is what I mean when I say that issuing orders during the opponent's turn is not supported by the RAW. In order to force a RAW rules interpretation on an unwilling opponent, you need more than some RAW support: You need a clear path to allow your interpretation. If the rules are contradictory and give no hint as to how to proceed, you can state that "The RAW supports my interpretation" but you cannot state that "the RAW forces you to accept my interpretation."

Dave47 wrote:It is possible for a player to attempt to deny a Witch Hunter's player a chance to use "Spirit of the Martyr" by trying to do something else at the "beginning" of the shooting phase. Since the Warhammer 40,000 Rules do not include rules on resolving the timing of competing actions, you've encountered a paradox, and there is no clear way to proceed under the RAW. The reason this is not a big issue is because, while the RAW is unclear, the RAI is very clear: "Spirit of the Martyr" is explicitly allowed to be used during the opponent's turn. So "Spirit" should be usable under the RAI unless the rules clearly prevent it.

Now, let's look at what happens when you try to issue orders during your opponent's turn: Since orders must be issued at the beginning of the shooting phase, you attempt to issue your orders, and your opponent attempts to do something so as to prevent you from issuing any orders. (Or, if your opponent is also IG, he tries to issue orders of his own.) At this point, you've once again encountered a paradox, and there is no clear way to proceed under the RAW.

This is what I mean when I say that issuing orders during the opponent's turn is not supported by the RAW. In order to force a RAW rules interpretation on an unwilling opponent, you need more than some RAW support: You need a clear path to allow your interpretation. If the rules are contradictory and give no hint as to how to proceed, you can state that "The RAW supports my interpretation" but you cannot state that "the RAW forces you to accept my interpretation."

Is it RAW if it's an interpretation? I think i get what you're saying though. It's not so much explaining my interpretation, it is explaing the RAW and the associated impact to the game.

By page xii, it's RAW that you don't shoot or move on your opponent's player turn. Orders don't specifically say this goes away.

While you can assume that it does go away, when you do the Order argument becomes sort of like circular reasoning. You can only use an Order before you can move or shoot. But after you issue the Order, the Order tells you to shoot or move immediately. But can you shoot or move on an opponent's turn? It says to shoot immediately after you issue an Order, so you can Order before you move or shoot. And we're back at the start of that cycle.

So if what allows shooting on an opposing player's turn is that it says Orders are used on a turn, and turns are considered player turns by pg 9, I'd argue player turns are considered your player turn unless otherwise specified by the system - which Orders do not do.

So , ant the bottom of page 30, under the "Get back in the fight" Order. it say, and I Qoute: As a result, the ordered squad may shoot and assault as normal this turn.

So all I have to do go to ground and get a free shooting and assault phase....

Kung-fu, Yad, you're okay with my Carnifex shooting in your turn? 'Cause I have an argument just as strong as yours (which, doesn't really make it that strong).

sexiest_hero wrote:So , ant the bottom of page 30, under the "Get back in the fight" Order. it say, and I Qoute: As a result, the ordered squad may shoot and assault as normal this turn.

So all I have to do go to ground and get a free shooting and assault phase....

Well, seeing as this turn really means this 'player' turn, what would then be 'as normal'. If I were use this on my opponents turn (i.e., his player turn), what would be normal for my squad is to not be able to shoot and assault. The order is issued and executed, then whatever is 'normal' for that 'player turn' is then done. So no, you don't get a free shooting and assault phase on your opponents turn.

RustyKnight wrote:Kung-fu, Yad, you're okay with my Carnifex shooting in your turn? 'Cause I have an argument just as strong as yours (which, doesn't really make it that strong).

Well seeing as how this thread is, or should be focused on the IG Codex and Core Rules, I haven't given any thought or attention to other Codecies. What's your argument?

Yad wrote:

RustyKnight wrote:Kung-fu, Yad, you're okay with my Carnifex shooting in your turn? 'Cause I have an argument just as strong as yours (which, doesn't really make it that strong).

Well seeing as how this thread is, or should be focused on the IG Codex and Core Rules, I haven't given any thought or attention to other Codecies. What's your argument?

Hey guys, this guy hasn't bothered to read the thread!

If you can claim you can issue orders in my turn, a Carnifex can shoot in yours, because Page 30 of the Nid Codex says a Monstrous Creature can fire 2 Bioweapons per Shooting Phase, not just my own shooting phase.

Yad wrote:
Well seeing as how this thread is, or should be focused on the IG Codex and Core Rules, I haven't given any thought or attention to other Codecies. What's your argument?

Did you entirely skip everything in between this page and your last post? We spent quite a bit of time examining it, as it is a very similar situation. Basically, the Tyranid Codex says that a TMC with two ranged weapons can fire both PER shooting phase. Thus, allowing a Dakkafex to fire in my shooting phase and yours. We already discussed the meaning of per, and found that there is nothing that would allow the IG orders and ban a Carnifex from shooting in your shooting phase. Of course, the very notion that a Carnifex can fire in my opponent's phase is stupid, and a nasty piece of rule abuse. It could get very fun in a three way battle though...

RustyKnight wrote:

Yad wrote:
Well seeing as how this thread is, or should be focused on the IG Codex and Core Rules, I haven't given any thought or attention to other Codecies. What's your argument?

Did you entirely skip everything in between this page and your last post? We spent quite a bit of time examining it, as it is a very similar situation. Basically, the Tyranid Codex says that a TMC with two ranged weapons can fire both PER shooting phase. Thus, allowing a Dakkafex to fire in my shooting phase and yours. We already discussed the meaning of per, and found that there is nothing that would allow the IG orders and ban a Carnifex from shooting in your shooting phase. Of course, the very notion that a Carnifex can fire in my opponent's phase is stupid, and a nasty piece of rule abuse. It could get very fun in a three way battle though...

I don't have a Tyranid codex, so would you mind quoting the exact rule?

It's already been posted in the thread...maybe you should've read the thread to see what you missed.

RustyKnight wrote:Quoting page 30 of the Tyranid Codex, "A creature with two or more ranged bio-weapons may only choose to fire one of them per shooting phase unless it is a Monstrous Creature, in which case two weapons may be fired." That says I'm allowed to fire a bio-weapon per shooting phase. It specifically states per shooting phase, thusly, I can fire them in your shooting phase.

Oh, that's too shaky as it never explicitly states that I can in the enemiees shooting phase? Neither do IG orders, they just say "every". The moral of the story is, GW does NOT hide things like this.

*Bolded for emphasis*

I know I've come in pretty late to this argument, but my opinion is that by RAW (that’s “Rules as Written, right? I’m kinda new to this terminology) the OP is right. His argument cannot be properly countered by the "Orders must be issued before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run..." clause because being able to shoot or run isn’t a requirement, only a condition for the order. In the opponent’s turn, I have neither shot nor ran, so I technically fulfill that condition and can pass orders.

I can’t really enter the discussions about lash and carnifex firing on the opponent’s turns. However, I personally think that the argument “if you can pass orders on my turn, I can shoot my MC in yours” is a weak argument as it doesn’t really undermine the whole orders thing.

However, I strongly believe that the ability to pass orders on your opponent’s turn was NOT intentional and I would never try it when playing with the new Imperial Guard. I don’t think Games Workshop meant to allow this at all and fully expect it to be errata’d in the next FAQ. As some earlier posters have pointed out, if intentional, this ability would have been likely highlighted somewhere instead of being discovered by loopholes in the rulebook.

I cannot see it breaking the game, and I would probably allow friendly Imperial Guard casual opponents to pull this trick in normal games. Tournaments? No way. =]

Thanks. This is my first post on DakkaDakka. I apologise for any arguments that I've missed out in my reply and I’m fully prepared for the ensuing flame which will be inevitably be directed at me =p

That is the problem, some orders allow your units to shoot. Suddenly Overwatch is back in the game.

The TMC's firing in the enemies phase is as strong as the Orders argument (course, it is weak...as weak as the Order argument).

I'd just like to say that I'm really disappointed in this thread. The discussion on WarSeer got to fifteen pages, and I can't tell whether Dakka Dakka has fallen behind or gotten ahead on the topic.

Does someone need to get out the argument "Power of the Machine Spirit allows Land Raiders to fire in the opposing player's shooting phase because it lets them fire one more weapon than normally allowed" before this discussion can be declared over?

solkan wrote:I'd just like to say that I'm really disappointed in this thread. The discussion on WarSeer got to fifteen pages, and I can't tell whether Dakka Dakka has fallen behind or gotten ahead on the topic.

Does someone need to get out the argument "Power of the Machine Spirit allows Land Raiders to fire in the opposing player's shooting phase because it lets them fire one more weapon than normally allowed" before this discussion can be declared over?

Ha, now that's a good one. I'll be sure to bring that up next time I play with 5 Land Raiders (^^,)

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:I'd just like to say that I'm really disappointed in this thread. The discussion on WarSeer got to fifteen pages, and I can't tell whether Dakka Dakka has fallen behind or gotten ahead on the topic.

Does someone need to get out the argument "Power of the Machine Spirit allows Land Raiders to fire in the opposing player's shooting phase because it lets them fire one more weapon than normally allowed" before this discussion can be declared over?

Ha, now that's a good one. I'll be sure to bring that up next time I play with 5 Land Raiders (^^,)

The other big one is "Obliterators may fire one weapon from those available in each shooting phase" on page 35 of the CSM codex. Can't let those pesky MC's have all the fun, obviously.

solkan wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

solkan wrote:I'd just like to say that I'm really disappointed in this thread. The discussion on WarSeer got to fifteen pages, and I can't tell whether Dakka Dakka has fallen behind or gotten ahead on the topic.

Does someone need to get out the argument "Power of the Machine Spirit allows Land Raiders to fire in the opposing player's shooting phase because it lets them fire one more weapon than normally allowed" before this discussion can be declared over?

Ha, now that's a good one. I'll be sure to bring that up next time I play with 5 Land Raiders (^^,)

The other big one is "Obliterators may fire one weapon from those available in each shooting phase" on page 35 of the CSM codex. Can't let those pesky MC's have all the fun, obviously.

Oh Snap! Well, in that case I don't mind Orders in both turns, so Long as I can Fzorgle / Obliterate in both too!

Wow, based on the strength of these arguments, I change my previous position because I would really like to shoot twice in my opponents phase with my Tzeentch sniper princes.

Somnicide wrote:Wow, based on the strength of these arguments, I change my previous position because I would really like to shoot twice in my opponents phase with my Tzeentch sniper princes.

Haha, you're not the only one.