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.

Then I present this questin to Gwar and Luna. If I move my Chimera 12 inches can I issue orders out of it?

This... is incredible. Absolutely stunning.

I got through four pages of this cluster and just couldn't, for the sake of my faith in the race of man, continue. So, in advance, my apologies if this repeats a previous comment.

Both sides seem to want to find a rule, one singular rule, that is, arguably, the underpinning of an entire system of rules. Let's say that in this turn based game system they never actually explicitly say you cannot fire on you opponents turn. Did they do this out of forgetfulness? Twisted sense of pleasure? A wish to leave wriggle room for future codices?

No.

They did this because it's something that everyone currently in possession of a brain should inherently understand and acknowledge.

We don't count out four pennies every time we want to prove that 2+2=4, we simply understand this incredibly basic and crucial facet of our advanced mathematical knowledge base and move the feth on.

arinnoor wrote:Then I present this questin to Gwar and Luna. If I move my Chimera 12 inches can I issue orders out of it?

Ah, now you are falling into the logical fallacy trap. Being Prevented by an effect from shooting is NOT the same as being unable to shoot at all.

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

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

No, your analogy is just terrible. Brining RL situations only muddles things, and your analogy was not correct anyways...

In game terms, it is simple. Gwar and Luna have explained it numerous times...the thread has turned into a beautiful flame war, filled with trolling and pissing contests...

Sorry Che-Vito , im not trying to flame ><

Its just i have explained this since back in april , and that thread ended.

And now its reborn -_-

maybe they should re-read the previous thread.

Im now trying to figure out AT-43 rules while scratching my sun burns :'D

LunaHound wrote:Sorry Che-Vito , im not trying to flame ><

Its just i have explained this since back in april , and that thread ended.

And now its reborn -_-

maybe they should re-read the previous thread.

Im now trying to figure out AT-43 rules while scratching my sun burns :'D

Canada has Sun?

At where i live , Vancouver BC .

The sun is very deadly. Even though we live by the coast, the winds are blocked off by something ( forgot what )

So yes, it reaches 36 c just by sun .

Kaaihn wrote:
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.

Exactly what I said.

I've been through the BRB and the handful of codexes I own and have not found any examples of "turn" or "the shooting phase" being used to mean in your or your opponent's player turns.

Unless anyone can find one then I think that's a nice clear-cut solution to this issue (and monsterous creatures and certain psyker's powers)

Rules for 40k are permissive.
They ALLOW you to do things. They can't possibly name everything that you can't do.
Just becuase it doesn't mention the rule doesn't mean that you can do it. If it says you can, then you can. If it says you can't then you can't. If It doesn't even approach the fething subject then NO, you can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It would have to actually say that you can shoot in both shooting phases.

P.S. I've often referred to different shooting phases as 'mine' and 'his/hers' (big clue)

Dracos wrote: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.

Did I say 1 turn = 1 game turn somewhere? If so, it's definitely a typo, let me know which post and I will edit it.

So are we done with the thread now?

Anyone who still thinks they can issue Orders in their opponents turn, please show examples to refute the statement that "each turn" is not sufficient permission to perform an action in your opponents turn, and explain why you think that identical wording would allow Orders in your opponents turn, but not SM Librarians to attempt to use some of their psychic powers.

Kaaihn wrote:

Dracos wrote: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.

Did I say 1 turn = 1 game turn somewhere? If so, it's definitely a typo, let me know which post and I will edit it.

So are we done with the thread now?

Anyone who still thinks they can issue Orders in their opponents turn, please show examples to refute the statement that "each turn" is not sufficient permission to perform an action in your opponents turn, and explain why you think that identical wording would allow Orders in your opponents turn, but not SM Librarians to attempt to use some of their psychic powers.

Page 9 specifically states that when the use of the word turn is used in a rule and it is not explicitly called out as either 'game' turn or 'player' turn, it is to be taken as 'player' turn. Simple proof:

P1. General rule --> Occasionally players may take actions in their opponents Player Turn (don't have my rulebook with me so I can't give a page reference)
P2. Rules that reference 'turn' without specifying either 'Game' or 'Player' are always taken as being 'Player'. (Page 9 BRB)
P3. One or more Orders can be issued each turn (not an exact quote from the IG Orders system, but the reference to the use of 'turn' is accurate)
P4. The use of 'turn' with regards to when Orders can be issued is not specified to be either 'Game' turn or 'Player' turn.
C. Orders can be issued each 'Player' turn.


I don't play marines and don't have access to their Codex, so I'd need to rely on you to provide the relavent rules quote.

Orders ask that you issue them before the Unit has Shot or Run. Show me a point in my turn where it is before you shoot or run.

Gwar! wrote:Orders ask that you issue them before the Unit has Shot or Run. Show me a point in my turn where it is before you shoot or run.

As has been explained time and time again, most effectively by Dracos. You are incorrectly conflating the ability to Run or Shoot with the ability to issue Orders. You logic is flawed and unsupportable. What your referencing is a conditional. Issuing Orders only cares if the condition is met. On the IG player's turn the condition is met by not Running or Shooting prior to issuing Orders. On the opponent's turn, the condition is automatically met.

Yad wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Orders ask that you issue them before the Unit has Shot or Run. Show me a point in my turn where it is before you shoot or run.

As has been explained time and time again, most effectively by Dracos. You are incorrectly conflating the ability to Run or Shoot with the ability to issue Orders. You logic is flawed and unsupportable. What your referencing is a conditional. Issuing Orders only cares if the condition is met. On the IG player's turn the condition is met by not Running or Shooting prior to issuing Orders. On the opponent's turn, the condition is automatically met.

No, it is not met at all, because it MUST come before shooting or Running. As you cannot shoot or run in the opponents turn, there is never a chance for it to satisfy the condition.

its obvious that this is not allowed, otherwise a multitude of units would be allowed to use abilities in opponents turns.

For instance:

Farseers could cast in Opponents turns, Page 26 under the psychic power entry on the eldar codex states
"A farseer may use a single psychic power per turn"

Warp Spiders would be able to make a jump during the opponents shooting phase, as it only states on page 36:
"if unengaged the unit may make a second jump during the assault phase instead of assaulting"

combo wrote:its obvious that this is not allowed, otherwise a multitude of units would be allowed to use abilities in opponents turns.

For instance:

Farseers could cast in Opponents turns, Page 26 under the psychic power entry on the eldar codex states
"A farseer may use a single psychic power per turn"

Warp Spiders would be able to make a jump during the opponents shooting phase, as it only states on page 36:
"if unengaged the unit may make a second jump during the assault phase instead of assaulting"

Not to mention Librarians using Vortex of Doom in the opponents turn, The whole Tyranid Army shooing in the opponents turn, Eldar jetbikes flying about 6" in your assault phase yadda yadda

combo wrote:its obvious that this is not allowed, otherwise a multitude of units would be allowed to use abilities in opponents turns.

For instance:

Farseers could cast in Opponents turns, Page 26 under the psychic power entry on the eldar codex states
"A farseer may use a single psychic power per turn"

Warp Spiders would be able to make a jump during the opponents shooting phase, as it only states on page 36:
"if unengaged the unit may make a second jump during the assault phase instead of assaulting"

First, I'd dispute your second point about Warp Spiders, and likewise any other rule that references phase instead of turn. The cores rules are very specifc about how to treat the term turn. The crux of allowing IG Orders to be issued on each player turn is based off of the generic use of turn.

What I find most interesting is that none of you have tried to square how GW defines turns on Page 9 with the various codex entries that reference turns. Basically it's extremely poor wording on GW's part that creates holes you can drive a battleforce through. The consequences of following RAW in this instance are hideous and none of us want to accept it (including me).

We all have an intuitive understanding of how the game turn and player turns work, and for the vast majority of the time they coincide perfectly well with how they are defined on Page 9. But when you get down to it, there are some serious problems with reconciling the generic use of term turn with various abilities and rules that use it.

Yad wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Orders ask that you issue them before the Unit has Shot or Run. Show me a point in my turn where it is before you shoot or run.

As has been explained time and time again, most effectively by Dracos. You are incorrectly conflating the ability to Run or Shoot with the ability to issue Orders. You logic is flawed and unsupportable. What your referencing is a conditional. Issuing Orders only cares if the condition is met. On the IG player's turn the condition is met by not Running or Shooting prior to issuing Orders. On the opponent's turn, the condition is automatically met.

Ease up on the debate classes you took for a second and look not at the logical process but at the context of the rule:

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

In the rule itself it gives you the moment in the game time line when orders must be issued. Here, how about this:

Before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run, orders must be issued (whether the order was successful or not).

Now explain to me how that is not clearly pointing to when you can issue orders?

Gwar! wrote:

Yad wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Orders ask that you issue them before the Unit has Shot or Run. Show me a point in my turn where it is before you shoot or run.

As has been explained time and time again, most effectively by Dracos. You are incorrectly conflating the ability to Run or Shoot with the ability to issue Orders. You logic is flawed and unsupportable. What your referencing is a conditional. Issuing Orders only cares if the condition is met. On the IG player's turn the condition is met by not Running or Shooting prior to issuing Orders. On the opponent's turn, the condition is automatically met.

No, it is not met at all, because it MUST come before shooting or Running. As you cannot shoot or run in the opponents turn, there is never a chance for it to satisfy the condition.

This is the problem Gwar, you are asserting something that is not explicit. The text does not require the ability to shoot or run, just that shooting or running does not precede the order. That is what is explicit in the text. Arguing that it never has a chance to satisfy the condition is false, because simply by not running or shooting in that opponents turn the explicit condition is met (whether you have the option to run or shoot is irrelevent to the explicit meaning of the text).

However, that part of the text does give some CONTEXT that implicit in the order is that it can only be done on your turn, citing uncountable other rules that use similar wording yet can only be done on the active players turn.

Making false arguments does not help the debate. Again strict RAW is loose, but how that RAW is applied to other similiar rules is NOT.

You cannot issue orders on someone else's turn because that's not how the game works - one person moves and fights with his guys at once. The second reason you can't issue orders on another person's turn is because of how the same wording (perhaps even erroneous wording) is applied in other situations - the precedent set is that if you want to take a voluntary action during your opponent's turn, your special rule must have explicit permissive phrasing ('even during your opponent's turn').

If you would stop focusing on the arguments that are false and go with the ones that make sense, this thread would be better for it.

How is this still going on?

I don't care what avowed reasons the people who are arguing are giving for arguing, but you've gone past any reasonable 'devil's advocate', and are simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

This is nine pages of the same 5 posts over and over again. I mean really. Especially since, according to what people are saying, EVERYONE AGREES.

In trying to get others to provide an argument against TFG, you are being That Fething Guy yourself. End this madness, apply your brains, and stop being ridiculous. I can practically feel the blood pressure in everyone's heads rising from way up here in Canada.

Yad wrote:
Page 9 specifically states that when the use of the word turn is used in a rule and it is not explicitly called out as either 'game' turn or 'player' turn, it is to be taken as 'player' turn. Simple proof:

P1. General rule --> Occasionally players may take actions in their opponents Player Turn (don't have my rulebook with me so I can't give a page reference)
P2. Rules that reference 'turn' without specifying either 'Game' or 'Player' are always taken as being 'Player'. (Page 9 BRB)
P3. One or more Orders can be issued each turn (not an exact quote from the IG Orders system, but the reference to the use of 'turn' is accurate)
P4. The use of 'turn' with regards to when Orders can be issued is not specified to be either 'Game' turn or 'Player' turn.
C. Orders can be issued each 'Player' turn.

P1 and P2 as above.
P3. Psykers can make one or more psychic tests per turn.
P4. Some psychic powers are shooting attacks.
C. Psykers can use psychic shooting attacks during their opponent's shooting phase.

or

P1 and P2 as above.
P3. Obliterators are able to fire one weapon 'each shooting phase.'
C. Obliterators can shoot during their opponent's turn.

Orkestra wrote:How is this still going on?

I don't care what avowed reasons the people who are arguing are giving for arguing, but you've gone past any reasonable 'devil's advocate', and are simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

This is nine pages of the same 5 posts over and over again. I mean really. Especially since, according to what people are saying, EVERYONE AGREES.

In trying to get others to provide an argument against TFG, you are being That Fething Guy yourself. End this madness, apply your brains, and stop being ridiculous. I can practically feel the blood pressure in everyone's heads rising from way up here in Canada.

QFT.

Yad wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:

Dracos wrote: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.

Did I say 1 turn = 1 game turn somewhere? If so, it's definitely a typo, let me know which post and I will edit it.

So are we done with the thread now?

Anyone who still thinks they can issue Orders in their opponents turn, please show examples to refute the statement that "each turn" is not sufficient permission to perform an action in your opponents turn, and explain why you think that identical wording would allow Orders in your opponents turn, but not SM Librarians to attempt to use some of their psychic powers.

Page 9 specifically states that when the use of the word turn is used in a rule and it is not explicitly called out as either 'game' turn or 'player' turn, it is to be taken as 'player' turn. Simple proof:

P1. General rule --> Occasionally players may take actions in their opponents Player Turn (don't have my rulebook with me so I can't give a page reference)
P2. Rules that reference 'turn' without specifying either 'Game' or 'Player' are always taken as being 'Player'. (Page 9 BRB)
P3. One or more Orders can be issued each turn (not an exact quote from the IG Orders system, but the reference to the use of 'turn' is accurate)
P4. The use of 'turn' with regards to when Orders can be issued is not specified to be either 'Game' turn or 'Player' turn.
C. Orders can be issued each 'Player' turn.


I don't play marines and don't have access to their Codex, so I'd need to rely on you to provide the relavent rules quote.

But, "turn", meaning "player turn" is consistently used to mean the controlling player's player turn.

There are many examples of this usuage. So far, no one has offered an example of your usuage (either players' player turn)

Just let it die, it was on it's last breath already.

They aren't going to answer the relevant questions, it would mean admitting they are wrong, that Orders don't work in the opponents turn. I've lost track now of the number of times I have cited examples of abilities that have identical language to Orders, but don't work in the opponents turn. No one has an explanation on why the difference, and no one has brought forth any examples of abilities that do work in the opponents turn (as has been asked for repeatedly) with nothing more than "each turn", or "each player turn" to allow it.

I thought you could only nominate a target during your turn? the rule says you get to shoot... but you can't nominate a target unless it is your shooting phase

Kaaihn wrote:Just let it die, it was on it's last breath already.

They aren't going to answer the relevant questions, it would mean admitting they are wrong, that Orders don't work in the opponents turn. I've lost track now of the number of times I have cited examples of abilities that have identical language to Orders, but don't work in the opponents turn. No one has an explanation on why the difference, and no one has brought forth any examples of abilities that do work in the opponents turn (as has been asked for repeatedly) with nothing more than "each turn", or "each player turn" to allow it.

I was willing to let this die, but what you just said is complete nonsense. I've been debating, in good faith, the various points of contention within the IG Order system. I could easily take the same position that I've quoted from you.

In that case, can you give an example where "turn" or "the [whatever] phase" is used to mean in either player's player turn?

Yad wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Just let it die, it was on it's last breath already.

They aren't going to answer the relevant questions, it would mean admitting they are wrong, that Orders don't work in the opponents turn. I've lost track now of the number of times I have cited examples of abilities that have identical language to Orders, but don't work in the opponents turn. No one has an explanation on why the difference, and no one has brought forth any examples of abilities that do work in the opponents turn (as has been asked for repeatedly) with nothing more than "each turn", or "each player turn" to allow it.

I was willing to let this die, but what you just said is complete nonsense. I've been debating, in good faith, the various points of contention within the IG Order system. I could easily take the same position that I've quoted from you.

Yad, I have put forth two questions, repeatedly. Those two questions being:

1. Please provide examples of abilities that work in your opponents turn with nothing more specific than the language of "each turn".

2. I have provided multiple examples of abilities that do NOT work in your opponents turn, with the exact language of "each turn", identical to Orders. Please explain why Orders would work, while the examples provided do not. Examples are in multiple previous posts.

Neither of those two questions have been answered, not once.