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.

LunaHound wrote:
Again Arinnor , i point back to you something i already said on page 2 of this thread , and also page 2 of the other thread.
You either : chose to ignore what i said , or you didnt see what i was saying , or you put me on ignore and didnt see it , but i'll quote again:

LunaHound wrote:Quoting from 4-28

LunaHound wrote:I love how in every type of game genre there are people attempting to abuse a rule because they lack common sense . Maybe GW didnt feel like they need to word it any more clear .


"Orders must be issued before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run (whether the order was successful or not)."

So quoting that , it would mean they are also able to run and shoot in their enemy's phase.

Right....

Somnicide wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Guys , i brought that up on page 2 first post xD

It's because you're a girrrrrrrrrl!!!!

arinnoor wrote:I cannont so I guess my reasoning is flawed I'll withdraw myself from this dicussion. I must be missing something in the rules that I just can't find right now.

Yes, your reasoning IS flawed. Leaving a debate because you can't defend your argument is childish and petty. At least admit you are wrong or you do come off as childish.

That was kind of unnecessary. That is what this forum is for, he debated it for a while and seems to have come around. Leaving a debate because you can see that perhaps your initial thoughts might have been flawed to do more research is not childish, it is actually pretty mature rather than just sticking with it no matter what.

edit: LunaHound, I missed your post on page 2, you just need to hammer it repeatedly :-p Here, I will say it. LunaHound was right and her argument was absolutely valid and supportable by the rules. I took her idea and ran with it.

Case closed.

Ketara wrote:

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

Apparently we all agreed this to be hammered over and over again

As I JUST stated, trying to argue that is a logical fallacy. Just because an action A must come before action B, does not limit the action A save in the event action B has already occurred. The possibility of Action B occurring is irrelevant.

Although, I definitely agree that the before run or shoot part does tell us how to interpret when orders can be done, it is not implicit in the text that it is not allowed. Raw is loose on this one guys, IMHO.

That being said, I wouldn't allow it either.

On the other hand, Dracos, the letter of the Orders rule would indicated that if you've ever shot or moved, you cannot issue orders. I'd argue it is implicit, just not explicit.

There doesn't actualy seem to be a single person who would allow it, were just arguing for arguing's own sake now.

Mars.Techpriest wrote:On the other hand, Dracos, the letter of the Orders rule would indicated that if you've ever shot or moved, you cannot issue orders. I'd argue it is implicit, just not explicit.

There doesn't actualy seem to be a single person who would allow it, were just arguing for arguing's own sake now.

I completely agree with you

I just wanted to make sure people realize that its not "air tight" like they seem to be arguing. Too much of "my opinion is law" around here when RAW just isn't that tight IMO

Dracos wrote:

Mars.Techpriest wrote:On the other hand, Dracos, the letter of the Orders rule would indicated that if you've ever shot or moved, you cannot issue orders. I'd argue it is implicit, just not explicit.

There doesn't actualy seem to be a single person who would allow it, were just arguing for arguing's own sake now.

I completely agree with you

I just wanted to make sure people realize that its not "air tight" like they seem to be arguing. Too much of "my opinion is law" around here when RAW just isn't that tight IMO

My Opinion is Law because I don't have an opinion, I just reiterate what the rules tell us.

Gwar! wrote:My Opinion is Law because I don't have an opinion, I just reiterate what the rules tell us.

So you keep saying, most often without the rules you are reiterating cited.

Which is what makes it your opinion rather than "reiterating rules". At best you paraphrase rules, at worst you just assume what ever you think is raw.

Dracos wrote:

Gwar! wrote:My Opinion is Law because I don't have an opinion, I just reiterate what the rules tell us.

So you keep saying, most often without the rules you are reiterating cited.

Which is what makes it your opinion rather than "reiterating rules". At best you paraphrase rules, at worst you just assume what ever you think is raw.

Someone is bitter.

I see. So your only response to my criticism of your debating tactics is to attack me personally. Well, at least you went a distance to prove me right.

GJ

Dracos wrote:I see. So your only response to my criticism of your debating tactics is to attack me personally. Well, at least you went a distance to prove me right.

GJ

I did no such thing. I was just making an observation. It was in no way intended to be an attack. Of course, your immediate reaction to class it as an attack speaks droves in my humble opinion.

Although, if you worry about me not citing my sources, I shall do that now for you.

Codex: Imperial Guard (ISBN: 978-1841549231), Page 29, The Box Labelled "Imperial Guard Orders", Paragraph 4, Sentence 2:
"Orders must be issued before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run (whether the order was successful or not)."

Now, If you would be so kind as to show me where it says they can Run or Shoot on the opponents turn. I'll keep it quick, you cannot. Therefore, there is never a point in the opponents shooting phase where the Officer is before shooting or running, because he cannot shoot nor run.

That good enough for you?

Dracos wrote: trying to argue that is a logical fallacy. Just because an action A must come before action B, does not limit the action A save in the event action B has already occurred. The possibility of Action B occurring is irrelevant.

You are operating on a logical fallacy by claiming that in to issue orders you must also be able to run or shoot. Instead, the limitation (by wording of the text) only states as above, that action A is only limited if action B has already happened.

That argument is not logical.

edit: And yes, it was a personal attack. If you were attacking one of my posts, you would have had to say "That sounds rather bitter" or "your post is bitter"

You made a remark regarding my person that was unfavorable, and as such it was a personal attack. Not that your attacks matter to me, but it just goes to show how you debate.

Che-Vito wrote: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...

I have conceded to my local friends/gamer group perspective that, according to my Daemonhunters codex, the Chaos Deamons deamons do not actually fall into any of the categories that Codex Daemonhunters' description of Deamons specifies. Since doing so they have now gotten to the point where they are disputing that "Chaos models" which can be affected by Sacred Incense have not been clearly defined enough to merit that their Chaos Space Marines or Chaos Daemons will be subject to the -1 initiative under its effects.

Sorry if this is veering off topic. I just felt it was worth chiming in that this is getting dangerously similar to the scenario mentioned by Che-Vito, imo. Flame on.

Back on topic

Dracos wrote:

Dracos wrote: trying to argue that is a logical fallacy. Just because an action A must come before action B, does not limit the action A save in the event action B has already occurred. The possibility of Action B occurring is irrelevant.

You are operating on a logical fallacy by claiming that in to issue orders you must also be able to run or shoot. Instead, the limitation (by wording of the text) only states as above, that action A is only limited if action B has already happened.

That argument is not logical.

edit: And yes, it was a personal attack. If you were attacking one of my posts, you would have had to say "That sounds rather bitter" or "your post is bitter"

You made a remark regarding my person that was unfavorable, and as such it was a personal attack. Not that your attacks matter to me, but it just goes to show how you debate.

Your Post is Bitter

And once again, you ignore an argument you cannot provide evidence against. I am annoyed with your debating tactics, not bitter.

Dracos wrote:And once again, you ignore an argument you cannot provide evidence against. I am annoyed with your debating tactics, not bitter.

Your post displays annoyance at my debating tactics.

I am ignoring it because my argument is not a logical fallacy.

Okay I explained why it is a logical fallacy. Please elaborate on how my explanation of the logical fallacy exhibited in you post is incorrect. If you are able to, I will concede the point or offer a refutation of my own.

When debating, normally one side will postulate something and it is either excepted or refuted. Generally if it is refuted, in order to attempt to still validate it you need to refute the refutation. This is the part that you normally skip in your debating and just repeat that you are correct.

Let's start with what I think we can agree on:

Page 9 clearly defines what a turn is with respect to Game Turn and Player Turn. From this we can easily conclude that IG Orders may be issued at the start of each player's Shooting Phase. (Hold on to your head Gwar, I'm not done yet) It remains to be seen if said Order(s) can be resolved in your opponents Shooting Phase.

Kaaihn presents 3 points which I think are worth discussing:

1. 40k has a permissive rule set, you cannot do anything unless you are specifically instructed to do so (though I would argue that in certain actions, there are implied steps that must be taken to complete that action)

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 with overide the conflict with the general rule.

In regards to IG Orders, I take issue with Kaaihn's point 2 and how he applies it to Orders.

"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)."

Here we have a general rule that allows a player to perform actions during their oponent's turn.

So we've got IG Orders that can be issued during each player's Shooting Phase per the definition of a turn (Player Turn being the case here), and we have a general rule that allows players to take actions on their opponents turn.

I accept point 3 from Kaaihn.

Finally, we've got Gwar and company arguing that having the ability to Run or Shoot is a necessary requirement to issuing Orders. As Dracos has pointed out, this is not a logical assertion based upon the actual wording of the rule. The rule does not assert or imply that you must have the ability to Run and/or Shoot in order to issue an Order. It is a conditional statement only.

I think we can all agree on the statement to the effect of "Orders must be issued before the unit Runs or Shoots". I don't have the rulebook with me right now, so I can't provide an exact quote. Like I just stated though, this does not imply or assert a necessary requirement. You check to see if this particular condition, among the others, is satisfied, prior to issuing on Order (not resolving the order).

Here's an example of what I mean:

CCS is hemmed in on all sides, they cannot move or run. LoS is blocked to all enemy units, they cannot shoot. In this scenario they do not have the ability to shoot or run. From a metagame perspective they do have it though. It is after all, the IG player's turn where moving and shooting occur. CCS can issue one or more Orders. What is key here though is that the Order system doesn't care whether or not the unit has the ability to issue an order, it just cares whether the condition has been met to issue one. No Run, no Shoot == Issue Order. This is irrespective of whether you may actually run or shoot.

I've got an IG army and I have not yet tried to play issuing orders on both player turns. To be honest though, I've only played one game with the new codex. My group is open to trying this, and I'm curious to see what effect it has on the overall game play.

-Yad

So we have two options according to RAW, and some narrow interpretations of what the RAW have implied:

Either
A) the IG player can only do an order each of their own shooting phases before shooting or running as implied by the "before [..] shoots or runs", or
B) in every player turn the player can do an order up to the point that they take their first shooting or run action at which point they can make no more orders for the remainder of the game as implied by the "before [..] shoots or runs".

Am I following this right?

Mars.Techpriest wrote: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.

Yeah Goat, you basicly have it.

Gentlemen this post has been reported. This is a reminder to everyone to post in accordance with Rule #1: and not attack other posters. Argue the issues not the personalities gentlemen and boors.

Majesticgoat wrote:So we have two options according to RAW, and some narrow interpretations of what the RAW have implied:

Either
A) the IG player can only do an order each of their own shooting phases before shooting or running as implied by the "before [..] shoots or runs", or
B) in every player turn the player can do an order up to the point that they take their first shooting or run action at which point they can make no more orders for the remainder of the game as implied by the "before [..] shoots or runs".

Am I following this right?

I would disagree with this. While the results of some of your actions on YOUR player turn do indeed carry over (e.g., moving a vehicle Flat Out), in no way do the rules imply that all of your actions (i.e., Move, Run, Shoot, etc) themselves remain 'on' for lack of a better word.

Yad wrote:

Majesticgoat wrote:So we have two options according to RAW, and some narrow interpretations of what the RAW have implied:

Either
A) the IG player can only do an order each of their own shooting phases before shooting or running as implied by the "before [..] shoots or runs", or
B) in every player turn the player can do an order up to the point that they take their first shooting or run action at which point they can make no more orders for the remainder of the game as implied by the "before [..] shoots or runs".

Am I following this right?

I would disagree with this. While the results of some of your actions on YOUR player turn do indeed carry over (e.g., moving a vehicle Flat Out), in no way do the rules imply that all of your actions (i.e., Move, Run, Shoot, etc) themselves remain 'on' for lack of a better word.

I would normally agree. I think that it is absurd to think that they can shoot every turn, but that is just me and my first gut instinct when faced with the prospect of it happening to me.

My concern is that if we do not allow for some basic assumptions such as implied turn order and turn restrictions, then how is it fair to take advantage of it each player turn, RAW, while not also adhering to only being able to do it before the command squad shoots or runs, RAW? It feels like people are picking and choosing what they like about the lack of clarity while not following their own strict/loose rules of interpretation all the way throughout.

Now you are using selective interpreatation, taking literal in one section of the rule, and implicit in the other. Where does it say that your history of actions does not carry over between player turns, or even between game turns?

Mars.Techpriest wrote:Now you are using selective interpreatation, taking literal in one section of the rule, and implicit in the other. Where does it say that your history of actions does not carry over between player turns, or even between game turns?

First off, I can't refute your statement that I'm using selective interpretations of the rules. You haven't providing any justification for that (unless that's what you mean your following question to be?). In which case, I would agree that it doesn't say so one way or the other. However, I believe that I have a better position in regards to your question. Taking my example of vehicle movement for instance. On my move I go flat out. My Player Turn ends and you decide to assault my vehicle on your Player Turn/Assault Phase. The effects of my previous action (i.e., vehicle movement) 'spill over' into your turn, making it more difficult to assault my vehicle. What I'm trying to say is, that the actions I take in my turn don't remain 'on', but their effects may have to be taken into account on your turn.

-Yad

Tyranid Codex:

"A creature with two or more ranged bioweapons 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."

You get your orders on my shooting phase, my whole army fires on yours.

Sounds fair to me!

kirsanth wrote:Tyranid Codex:

"A creature with two or more ranged bioweapons 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."

You get your orders on my shooting phase, my whole army fires on yours.

Sounds fair to me!

And my Librarians get to Vortex of Doom you as well

Sorry it wasn't clearer,

Literal Interpretation: Turn refers to player turn and shooting phase refers to all shooting phases, it is not possable it was intended to be own shooting phase

Implicit Interpretation: Orders must be given before moving or shooting refers only to that particular turn, even though the rules do not specify the condition is contained within the turn the order is given.

As for your vehicle example, that's exactly my point. Something you do in one turn can continue to effect things in later turns. Given no other bounds, if we take a litteral intepretaion of the rules, once the unit has shot or run, it will no longer be able to issue orders for the remainder of the game.

Gwar! wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Tyranid Codex:

"A creature with two or more ranged bioweapons 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."

You get your orders on my shooting phase, my whole army fires on yours.

Sounds fair to me!

And my Librarians get to Vortex of Doom you as well

Sorry, thought this thread was about the IG Orders, not Tyranids or Marines. What I mean is those codex specific rules have no bearing on the IG Order system. But if you want to debate those, feel free to fire up another thread, I'll be happy to join in.

-Yad

He is citing precedence on rules interpretations, which IS relevant. This rule is not in a vacuum.

Dracos wrote:He is citing precedence on rules interpretations, which IS relevant. This rule is not in a vacuum.

It's not even a matter of precedence, its just proof of how the exact same wording actually works. If Orders DO allow you to fire in the enemies turn, then so can Tyranids.

And I do not recall seeing hundreds of threads about tyranids.

Oh snap!