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.

Can a player give Tau Broadsides advanced weapon system. Move 6 inches, declare "unversal-slow and purposeful" via AWS and fire?

Wording is tricky in codex. Friend is trying to gain some advantage if possible

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:Can a player give Tau Broadsides advanced weapon system. Move 6 inches, declare "unversal-slow and purposeful" via AWS and fire?

Wording is tricky in codex. Friend is trying to gain some advantage if possible

RaW, yes.

It's a dick move however.

Gwar! wrote:

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:Can a player give Tau Broadsides advanced weapon system. Move 6 inches, declare "unversal-slow and purposeful" via AWS and fire?

Wording is tricky in codex. Friend is trying to gain some advantage if possible

RaW, yes.

It's a dick move however.

Massive. Huge.

hmmmmmm

your friend probably saw the idea in a thread here a couple of weeks ago. it made the rounds...

Tell your friend "game over" next time. The game only becomes broken when you take a strict rules as written approach.

I wonder what would have happened if everyone played monolopy with this attitude. "Go to jail, go directly to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.00" No where does it say you can move backwards so the game must be over becuase you cannot move to jail as you cannot pass go.

Sometimes I wonder who first catered to this RAW environment that people think they can exploit poorly written rules as if it were "ok" Just becaues it was poorly written does not mean its ok to abuse it.

Surely fir this to work you woudl have to decalre S+P before the movement? Otherwise, when you moved you were normal and therefore not allowed to fire. Suddenly turning S+P doesn't negate the fact that when you first moved you committed to not being able to fire.

That's the arguement i would make anyway.

Praxiss wrote:Surely fir this to work you woudl have to decalre S+P before the movement? Otherwise, when you moved you were normal and therefore not allowed to fire. Suddenly turning S+P doesn't negate the fact that when you first moved you committed to not being able to fire.

That's the arguement i would make anyway.

SnP gives Relentless, regardless of when you got it.

Fair enough.