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.

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

Again, I disagree. Tyranid shooting, and Marine use of wargear have no bearing on the execution of the IG Order system, unless the debate is using rules common to all. What I see as being common, is the:

Definition of Turn
General Rule allowing a player to take actions in another player's Player Turn

Its the debate about the IG Order system that is causing Gwar and company to claim Tyranid bio-weapons can shoot in every Player Turn. I'm interested in resolving this first [IG Orders] before tackling other codecies.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

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.

If it was the exact same wording, then yes, I would agree with you. But based off of what Kirsanth posted, it's not. IG Orders references every [Player Turn]. Kirsanth quotes, per Shooting Phase. I'm being very particular here, pointing out that they are indeed not the, as you say, 'exact same words'.

Gwar! wrote:

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.

Is that not exactly what precedence is? Using past parallel judgments to validate present ones?

I would apreciate it if you'd adress the remainder of my arguments regarding literal vs. implicit interpretation of the rules.

(damn simaltanious posting)

The point behind the 'nid and marine issues is that all they state is that they occur during the shooting phase, and there is one shooting phase per player turn.

Dracos wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

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.

Is that not exactly what precedence is? Using past parallel judgments to validate present ones?

Yes it is.

Shush I'm Mildly Inebriated

Mars.Techpriest wrote:I would apreciate it if you'd adress the remainder of my arguments regarding literal vs. implicit interpretation of the rules.

(damn simaltanious posting)

The point behind the 'nid and marine issues is that all they state is that they occur during the shooting phase, and there is one shooting phase per player turn.

QFT. To Dracos, in particular, and others...take this into account. This is why the argument has started to involve Marines and Nids.

Yad wrote:Again, I disagree. Tyranid shooting, and Marine use of wargear have no bearing on the execution of the IG Order system, unless the debate is using rules common to all. What

I think the part we have not been able to communicate to you is that the precedence for general rules interpretations is that unless otherwise specified, you can never take a voluntary action during your opponent's turn. That is the general rule (as denoted by the reference to taking turns one at a time) that is preventing those from being used on another person's turn.

If we take your interpretation that you do not need an explicit statement to exempt you (something like "you may issue orders every turn, even your opponent's turn") then these other things which we know to be incorrect must actually be true.

This is a case of using precedence in the general rules interpretation which prevents you from taking this voluntary action during an opponents turn. If you think you can give orders during my turn, then you must think the MC shooting every player turn etc must also be valid.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Che-Vito wrote:QFT. To Dracos, in particular, and others...take this into account. This is why the argument has started to involve Marines and Nids.

I'm not sure why I got singled out there, but okay.

Dracos wrote:

Yad wrote:Again, I disagree. Tyranid shooting, and Marine use of wargear have no bearing on the execution of the IG Order system, unless the debate is using rules common to all. What

I think the part we have not been able to communicate to you is that the precedence for general rules interpretations is that unless otherwise specified, you can never take a voluntary action during your opponent's turn. That is the general rule (as denoted by the reference to taking turns one at a time) that is preventing those from being used on another person's turn.

Now that I find to be a curious thing to say. I don't have my book with me, so take this for what it's worth, but I don't believe that there is an explicit rule to that effect. I do think it is implied in how the rules define Player Turn, Game Turn, and the actions taken therein. But, there is an explicitly stated rule that allows players to 'occasionally' take actions on their oponents turns. Yes?

Dracos wrote:
If we take your interpretation that you do not need an explicit statement to exempt you (something like "you may issue orders every turn, even your opponent's turn") then these other things which we know to be incorrect must actually be true.

But there is an explicit statement allowing IG Orders to be issued, again resolution is another matter, on each Player Turn. I'd quote it for you if I had my codex

Dracos wrote:
This is a case of using precedence in the general rules interpretation which prevents you from taking this voluntary action during an opponents turn. If you think you can give orders during my turn, then you must think the MC shooting every player turn etc must also be valid.

I had thought, that those individuals pulling the Tyranid codex and Marine codex into this were doing so as a result of the IG Order discussion, not the other way around. Meaning, for me at last, that you resolve the IG Orders, then move on to other codecies. If we all feel it's appropriate to discuss fallout from the IG Order discussion and how it affects other codecies, that's fine by me.

-Yad

To me, its precisely how interpreting the rules that way affects the rest of the game that prevents me to agreeing with it.

I've seen people make statements similarily about "resolving" things in this thread. I have to say, I don't think anywhere in the book it gives an order of operations to use when taking voluntary actions except those described in the rules for the action itself. Saying something can be done but not resolved is not supported in the rules anywhere AFAIK.

If you are talking about trying to take an action and not being able to resolve it, you are outside of RAW already as the BGB makes no distinction. Taking an action IS resolving it, as there are no intermediate steps unless outlined in the rules for the action itself.

Is there a rule you are aware of that separates when you start taking an action and when it is resolved?

I think I may see an issue that's continuing this argument. You beleave that "Officers have a number of orders they may issue every turn." is explicit. I, for one, do not beleave it is.

Everything else in the orders section sugests that orders only occur in the players own shooting phase. Every other time a codex or rulebook refers to a unqualified shooting phase, it refers to the players own. Every other time you are allowed to take a volitanry action during the opponents turn, it has specifily stated 'Opponent's turn'. All the prohabitions are only logical if it takes place during the players own shooting phase.

In addition, you have yet to state why you think your able to add an implied "this player turn" to the must not have run or shot reqirement.

There is an explicit allowance for psychers to make psychic tests each turn, which means each player turn.

Several psychic powers are listed simply as 'used in the shooting phase'. These include Lash of Submission and Nurgle's Rot.

So, as the reasoning goes, if the IG can issue orders during their opponent's shooting phase, CSM players can use Lash of Submission and Nurgle's Rot during their opponent's shooting phase as well.

But, of course, this was already covered in the other threads which discussed this, and I'm sure that some distinction has been found since then.

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

The context of when the orders are given is clearly right here! It gives you the players turn right there that orders can be issued.

When can a IG player shoot or run?

Their turn!!

GW doesn't list the myriad of times that IG players cannot issue orders (opponents assault, opponents movement, opponents shooting, opponents deployment, opponents scout move, opponents drink break, opponents making saving throws, opponents pile in move, opponents consolidation) it only lists when they can issue orders, IE, prior to specific actions that can only happen during the IG players turn!!

Between Luna and Gwar's explanation, how did this thread go so long?

Brother Ramses wrote:Between Luna and Gwar's explanation, how did this thread go so long?

She is a Girl and I am too sexy. People are jealous of us I guess

Since there seems to be some question about the commonality of the Librarian psychic powers to IG Orders, here are the specific rules from the each codex (emphasis mine).

Librarian:

He can only use one power each player turn unless he has been upgraded to an Epistolary, in which case he can use up to two psychic powers each turn.

IG Orders:

...have the ability to issue one or more orders each turn...

If IG can issue orders in their opponents turn, Space Marine Librarians can absolutely use some of their powers in their opponents turn. Yes, this thread is about IG Orders, not Marine Librarians. The point is, Orders in your opponents turn aren't allowed because of the way the game itself functions. If you play the game in such a way that Orders work in the opponents turn, then Librarians powers work there as well. And Tyranid shooting, and many other examples. It just isn't how the game works.

Each player turn means "each of your turns" in function. Please feel free to invalidate this by citing examples of abilities accepted to work in your opponents turn that do not explicitly say so. "Each turn" doesn't cut it.

it was mentioned earlier that if an order was failed, that no more orders may be issued. this is only if you were to roll two 6's.

Anyway;
"Orders must be issued at the start of the shooting phase and in a strict order yadda yadda yadda, orders must be issued before the officer and his comm squad shoot or run, likewise for the receiving squad."

While the rules for ordering say "The command squad may issue X amount of orders each turn" it is assumed the reader/player is intelligible enough to understand that the said-turn is their own, and NOT their opponent's.

For someone reason, I thought there was a specific order where the guard could fire during the opponent's shooting phase, but would forfeit their next shooting phase. But after carefully reviewing my dex, I could find nothing of the sort.

So no, the IG can not shoot during their opponents turn, and if you meet another guard player who says they can, then they must truly fail.

Hhhm...as much as I believe that the IG cannot issue orders on other peopl's turns, Luna's and gwar's point doesnt quite stop them.

IG player: On your turn my command squad is giving the order Fire on my target.

Other player: But you cant do that, you can only give orders before your command squad runs or fires.

IG player: The command is being given to the command squad that the leader is a part of, so they will then be firing.

As long as the command squad is ordered to fire, it will meet this criteria for issueing the order before running or firing.



The whole point that one cannot do anything on the oppoenents turn without explicit permission would seem to be a better arguement.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:The whole point that one cannot do anything on the oppoenents turn without explicit permission would seem to be a better arguement.

Yep. No one yet has produced an example of an ability that works in the opponents turn with only the wording of "each turn" to justify the position that "each turn" is sufficient to allow it.

"Each turn" doesn't allow SM Librarian powers in the opponents turn, and neither does it allow IG Orders in the opponents turn.

Dracos wrote:
I'm not sure why I got singled out there, but okay.

You are one of only a couple of individuals who are continuing to ignore what others are posting. Therefore, I hoped that you would read and respond to what they had written. You have still failed to do this, and as Luna and Gwar have shown several times....this thread was settled quite some time ago.

Che-Vito wrote:

Dracos wrote:
I'm not sure why I got singled out there, but okay.

You are one of only a couple of individuals who are continuing to ignore what others are posting. Therefore, I hoped that you would read and respond to what they had written. You have still failed to do this, and as Luna and Gwar have shown several times....this thread was settled quite some time ago.

Also Pudding.

But seriously, Luna was the one who original settled it, I just used my Boyish Charm and Rugged Good Looks to remind people about it.

Che-Vito wrote:

Dracos wrote:
I'm not sure why I got singled out there, but okay.

You are one of only a couple of individuals who are continuing to ignore what others are posting. Therefore, I hoped that you would read and respond to what they had written. You have still failed to do this, and as Luna and Gwar have shown several times....this thread was settled quite some time ago.

I have offered a REFUTATION of what they have said, yet it is being completely ignored. I agree with their side of the argument, but the "proof" they are using is FALSE.

Not even responded to by one of them, simply ignored.

Then, I tried to ask why it was ignored and got the reply basically saying 'cause I'm right and you're wrong'.

And then you say that I'm ignoring other people's posts? You need to learn to read friend. That is not at all what has transpired over the last several pages.

One more thing... you don't have authority to decide when a thread is over.

*Giggle , i knew some how it would get to this point .

Thats like saying if someone shot and run in the earlier turns , it count as its been done.

Hence they are able to give order in opponent's turn.
I just didnt bother replying to that since now thats a new lvl of silliness .

Dracos wrote:One more thing... you don't have authority to decide when a thread is over.

Sure he does, he is the Queen of Gindadlandia!

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 explicit 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.

Saying that its explicitly not allowed is false. The language of the rules is loose enough to allow the interpretation that IG can use orders in their opponent's turn.

Applying that interpretation however reveals it is immediately false because of how it affects other well known similar wordings.

I'm not sure how replying directly to a point made by the poster can be called ignoring that poster.

Gwar! wrote:

Dracos wrote:One more thing... you don't have authority to decide when a thread is over.

Sure he does, he is the Queen of Gindadlandia!

Hey, I am a big believer that gender-persona is all by choice, so Queen it is...

Of course I don't have the authority to decide when a thread is over, but I am able to say that the point has clearly been spelled out.

If you cannot move and shoot in any turn, then you cannot give an order.
What needs to be proved? That you can't move and shoot in an opponents turn?

This thread has raised your post count by quite a bit though Draco.
http://www.yatahonga.com/data/media/27/2004110/cave_troll.jpg

Dracos wrote: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 explicit 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.

Saying that its explicitly not allowed is false. The language of the rules is loose enough to allow the interpretation that IG can use orders in their opponent's turn.

Applying that interpretation however reveals it is immediately false because of how it affects other well known similar wordings.

I'm not sure how replying directly to a point made by the poster can be called ignoring that poster.

In other words: " If it looks like a dog, barks like a dog , acts like a dog , its still not a dog. Because it could be an undiscovered alien specie "

well , if you want to be that radical about it , go for it no one is stopping you . But im sure GW didnt go that far to mess with the customers.

You fail at analogies and/or reading comprehension.

(edit: this is an analogy of the reasoning Luna and Gwar are applying to the rule)

Breakfast must come before Lunch.

If I am going to DIE before Lunch, Am I then unable to eat breakfast?

Obviously NOT.

That would be a much better analogy.

edit: The limitation of "must come before" only comes into effect of the event it must come before has already happened. That is why your argument holds no merit.

Your side of the argument is correct I feel, as I have elaborated on previously, but your reasoning for it is FALSE.

Dracos wrote:You fail at analogies and/or reading comprehension.

You shouldnt be so quick to tell me that. You seem to be the only one confused at the concept.

LunaHound wrote:

Dracos wrote:You fail at analogies and/or reading comprehension.

You shouldnt be so quick to tell me that. You seem to be the only one confused at the concept.

So basically, you are unable to present a reason why you reasoning is correct? No refutation of my refutation?

..............
..............

Who is the one doing the ignoring again?

Dracos wrote:Saying that its explicitly not allowed is false. The language of the rules is loose enough to allow the interpretation that IG can use orders in their opponent's turn.

No one said that issuing an Order in your opponents turn is explicitly not allowed. What was said is that any action in your opponents turn is generally not allowed, and the language of "each turn" contained in the instructions for issuing orders is not explicit to override the conflict with the general rule.

Just like it is not explicit enough to let SM Librarian psyckic powers be attempted in the opponents turn, or Tyranids to shoot in the opponents turn.

"Each turn" is not your opponents turn plus your turn, it is just your turn. For the third time asking, please show any examples of actions allowed in an opponents turn that are granted with no other language other than "each turn" to successfully refute that.

Dracos wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Dracos wrote:You fail at analogies and/or reading comprehension.

You shouldnt be so quick to tell me that. You seem to be the only one confused at the concept.

So basically, you are unable to present a reason why you reasoning is correct? No refutation of my refutation?

..............
..............

Who is the one doing the ignoring again?

Im not ignoring you , i just have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

If anyone understands what you are trying to say please explain . I sure dont.

@ KaahlinYour argument is sound and I agree with it.

I am disagreeing with Luna and Gwar who seem to be arguing that it is explict by the wording 'must come before run or shooting'.


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

This does not mean that they have to be able to shoot or run, explicitly.

It simply means that if they have shot or run already, they cannot issue orders.

That is the logical fallacy of your argument.

Kaaihn I believe has the correct reasoning. Although, saying 1 turn = 1 game turn is explicitly false. Don't do it, cause p.9 says otherwise.

Most correct would be to argue the precedence here, how other rules (like nids shooting and marines libbys) with similar wordings are played. That precedent is that in order to take a voluntary action during an opponents turn, you must have explicit permissive phrasing to allow it (such as Going to Ground).