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.

Here is a little something I noticed with the new IG Book, and yes, we can all agree it's as if they didn't read the thing before printing it by this stage.

Orders Received Sir! states that once a unit has been Issued and Order and done its thing, it "may not act further during the Shooting Phase".

Does that extend to issueing orders? So, for example, I have a Company Commander, who can Issue 2 Orders. If I use the first order on the Commanders own Squad, does this mean I cannot Issue my Second one?

Personally I don't think it should (not that it matters, Just issue any orders to your own squad last to get around it) but the wording seems to suggest it does.

easily remedied.... Issue the order to SCS last. Thats what we have been doing as RAW overrules RAI.

burb1996 wrote:easily remedied.... Issue the order to SCS last. That's what we have been doing as RAW overrules RAI.

No, I understand that. I even mentioned it myself, I am just asking if you did Happen to issue a order to the Officers Squad First, would that stop him issuing a second.

I dunno the criteria for not being able to issue an order don't mention anything about it.

It gives a specific restrictive list of things that prevent issuing orders, and ""may not act further during the Shooting Phase" is not on the list. Hell its not even clear that issuing an order is an 'action'.

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:I dunno the criteria for not being able to issue an order don't mention anything about it.

It gives a specific restrictive list of things that prevent issuing orders, and "do nothing else" is not on the list.

Jack

But that breaks the English language. The term "and do nothing else" kind of includes anything and everything they could do. Run, Shoot, Issue Orders, Make Pancakes, Surf the Web, Assault etc etc.

Gwar! wrote:But that breaks the English language. The term "and do nothing else" kind of includes anything and everything they could do. Run, Shoot, Issue Orders, Make Pancakes, Surf the Web, Assault etc etc.

True, I changed my language while you were replying. Part of the problem is there isn't any game definition of 'action' that I'm aware of.

Jack

In that case we'll use the English meaning, which is "anything that involves doing something" =)

But Gwar!, I could find ten different definitions of the word "action".

Joking aside, it looks like issuing an order to the Command Squad would stop any further orders from being issued.

Gwar! wrote:In that case we'll use the English meaning, which is "anything that involves doing something" =)

Indeed.

Of course there is a specific written rule saying they can always issue orders except in certain clearly defined situations.

I'd argue RAW says they can issue orders.

Quoted rule for the codex impaired:

IG codex pg 29, left column, second to last paragraph, first sentence wrote:
An officer may attempt to issue orders provided that he is not locked in an assault, embarked in a transport vehicle, falling back or gone to ground.

Jack

But thats taking a specific part of a Rule in a vacum, and not looking at all the applicable rules, which is what caused the whole "orders on your turn" debacale. You have two rules applying:

"An officer may attempt to issue orders provided that he is not locked in an assault, embarked in a transport vehicle, falling back or gone to ground."

AND

"May not act further during the Shooting Phase".

So he can issue orders, but cannot because of the second part, so he can issue one, but it doesn't work because he cannot issue it.

Now of course, if the Officer issued "Incoming" to himself, then its a little more simple

Of course it also says that once he's done issuing orders his squad can shoot or run normally...which I don't take to be permissive of having already gotten an order that turn either...

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:Of course it also says that once he's done issuing orders his squad can shoot or run normally...which I don't take to be permissive of having already gotten an order that turn either...

Jack

But that is only if he doesn't issue an order to himself. If he does, he cannot act any further, so while he can run and shoot as normal, he cannot actually shoot or run, otherwise you could issue FRFSRF to himself then shoot again.

Edit: I think I misread what you are saying, but it's late and I'm too tired to try and work it out

RAW if they received an order, they can not issue orders.

RAW also states a specific list of things stopping orders...which does not include your supposition.

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:RAW also states a specific list of things stopping orders...which does not include your supposition.

Jack

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. The rules state that once you have acted upon an order, you may not take ANY action for the remainder of the phase. This includes ANYTHING you want to do, including (but not limited to, by the definition of the word "Any"), Shooting, running, making a sandwich, and issuing more orders. Simple isn't it.

While we cannot know 100% for sure since the word "action" has many meanings the argument against allowing a CCS that has successfully issued an order on itself is a whole lot stronger than any argument for allowing them to do anything else that shooting phase.

They really, really, really should have used the term "voluntary actions" just to cover the strange situation that could occur should the unit be forced to take a morale check and/or fall back from friendly fire (for example). . .

Its pretty difficult to assume that issuing orders is somehow not an "action" that the unit is performing.

I'm not trying to argue that my interpretation is necessarily the only correct reading per se, but I think its entirely reasonable to look at the explicit list of things which prevent orders and if none apply, issueing orders.

Jack

We encountered this same problem with the "Emergency Disembarkation" rules when my opponent's squad had to jump out the front of a chimera because I had the back covered. These rules say the unit can do nothing in its next turn, but doesn't say specifically "pinned", etc.

Spellbound wrote:We encountered this same problem with the "Emergency Disembarkation" rules when my opponent's squad had to jump out the front of a chimera because I had the back covered. These rules say the unit can do nothing in its next turn, but doesn't say specifically "pinned", etc.

FYI, that rule only applies to the turn (which means player turn) the unit disembarks. . .but yes, the principle is the same. Another example is turbo-boosting bikers who are not allowed to take any further voluntary actions during that turn.

Jackmojo wrote:I'm not trying to argue that my interpretation is necessarily the only correct reading per se, but I think its entirely reasonable to look at the explicit list of things which prevent orders and if none apply, issueing orders.

Jack

That is actually a logical fallacy (to assume that a list of restrictions means that they are the only possible restrictions).


Obviously if a special character had a special rule that said: "If he uses his special rule then he is not allowed to issue any orders that turn", then (I hope) we would both agree that it is possible for their to be a circumstance where a unit is unable to issue an order that isn't covered by the list of restrictions you've been referring to.

Once you can agree that the list does not cover every possibility of situations that can prevent an officer from issuing orders then you need to focus on the rule we've been discussing and whether or not it actually restricts the officer from issuing orders or not.

Is issuing an order an "action"? If not, what constitutes an action and why would issuing an order be considered not an action when something else would be?

yakface wrote:
That is actually a logical fallacy (to assume that a list of restrictions means that they are the only possible restrictions).

The sentence in question is explicit though, a definitive if/then statement.

Jack

Jackmojo wrote:

yakface wrote:
That is actually a logical fallacy (to assume that a list of restrictions means that they are the only possible restrictions).

The sentence in question is explicit though, a definitive if/then statement.

Jack

Just for the record, the name of that fallacy would be "denying the antecedent."

If (restriction x) then officers can't issue orders.
Not (restriction x) therefore officers can issue orders.

Totally invalid conclusion.

Flavius Infernus wrote:
Just for the record, the name of that fallacy would be "denying the antecedent."

If (restriction x) then officers can't issue orders.
Not (restriction x) therefore officers can issue orders.

Totally invalid conclusion.

Sorry I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not

The sentence in the codex (which I'll quote again in full) is an example of the first, not the second.

IG codex pg 29, left column, second to last paragraph, first sentence wrote:
An officer may attempt to issue orders provided that he is not locked in an assault, embarked in a transport vehicle, falling back or gone to ground.

Jack

Jack, as we have said time and time again, that is NOT and exclusive list. if we go by your "if it is not there I can do it" why cant the Officer Issue orders while in reserve? Or when he is dead?

If a rule states "You cannot do anything" (Like when you have received an order), then you cannot do anything, regardless of other special rules unless the special rules explicitly state you ignore that effect.

Both of your examples are covered by the main rules though (as the model would be off the table or removed as a casualty and would not be in range to give orders).

In all fairness, I tend to agree with what you say in the OP, I'm playing devil's advocate in case something massively clarifying is revealed in the discussion.

I do think the problem comes back to what an 'action' is in 40k. I tend to think they mean the various actions possible in each phase listed in the BRB, but who knows for certain.

Jack