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.

PsychicSpaceElf wrote:

shakul wrote:
Doesn't the Drukhari player have to play AoV before you select the target though?

If they hold off until you've selected your target I'd imagine they've missed their opportunity to prevent it happening, as you've moved on a step from using the stratagem?

- Not saying you jump in and don't give them a chance to use it but if you've used Oathbreaker Stratagem, and they're intentionally holding off to see who the target is, they lose their opportunity to interrupt it as soon as you declare, right?

The AoV strat says you use it after an opponent uses a stratagem. The way I see it the knights player declares that they are using OGS and the Drukhari player has to declare immediately that they are using AoV, before the knights player would get a chance to pick a target for the missile.

My question was whether or not the knights player was still obligated to fire the missile. That was before someone on here reminded me that all weapons must be fired as per pg 179 of main rule book,

I agree with this sequence.

1. Knight is selected to fire, and is equipped with a Shieldbreaker Missile.
2. IK player declares stratagem.
3. DE player declares counter-stratagem.
4. Knight player selects targets for all of his weapons, as eligible.
4.1 If the IK player successfully used his stratagem, he can target characters with his missile.
4.2 If the DE player successfully used his stratagem, the IK player must target the missile as per standard shooting rules - which is to say no characters (unless they're the closest enemy unit).

@slipspace and others; I don't understand the BCB hate - you're coming to the YMDC forum for other players understandings/interpretations of the RULES. Refusing to obey the direct text of the rules is tantamount to cheating, and playing incorrectly. I don't see how you can willfully ignore certain parts of the text, just because you don't like the way the rules are - if you want to house rule things, that's fine; that's between you and the players you play with.

Maybe you think weapons shouldn't overheat easier because of -1 to hit modifiers; maybe you think weapons should be able to choose between being fired and not (eg: not firing all your one-shot missiles in one volley); maybe you think modifiers should apply before re-rolls instead of after - IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Absolutely your opinions on interpretations, and feelings of how rules SHOULD be are welcomed, and valid - but it's important to not muddy the waters between RAW, RAI, and HIWPI.

fe40k wrote:
I agree with this sequence.

1. Knight is selected to fire, and is equipped with a Shieldbreaker Missile.
2. IK player declares stratagem.
3. DE player declares counter-stratagem.
4. Knight player selects targets for all of his weapons, as eligible.
4.1 If the IK player successfully used his stratagem, he can target characters with his missile.
4.2 If the DE player successfully used his stratagem, the IK player must target the missile as per standard shooting rules - which is to say no characters (unless they're the closest enemy unit).

@slipspace and others; I don't understand the BCB hate - you're coming to the YMDC forum for other players understandings/interpretations of the RULES. Refusing to obey the direct text of the rules is tantamount to cheating, and playing incorrectly. I don't see how you can willfully ignore certain parts of the text, just because you don't like the way the rules are - if you want to house rule things, that's fine; that's between you and the players you play with.

Maybe you think weapons shouldn't overheat easier because of -1 to hit modifiers; maybe you think weapons should be able to choose between being fired and not (eg: not firing all your one-shot missiles in one volley); maybe you think modifiers should apply before re-rolls instead of after - IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Absolutely your opinions on interpretations, and feelings of how rules SHOULD be are welcomed, and valid - but it's important to not muddy the waters between RAW, RAI, and HIWPI.

Thank you for understanding what many others do not.

And yes, that is indeed the correct sequence of how all this rigmarole interacts.

fe40k wrote:
@slipspace and others; I don't understand the BCB hate - you're coming to the YMDC forum for other players understandings/interpretations of the RULES. Refusing to obey the direct text of the rules is tantamount to cheating, and playing incorrectly. I don't see how you can willfully ignore certain parts of the text, just because you don't like the way the rules are - if you want to house rule things, that's fine; that's between you and the players you play with.

The issue is that BCB argues really poorly, frequently misrepresents others positions and quite frankly has made a few really ridiculous claims.
And since you're also calling it cheating - so you actually play that e.g. Assault weapons cannot fire after advancing? Because that's the level BCB goes to, and claims to actually play like that.

Absolutely your opinions on interpretations, and feelings of how rules SHOULD be are welcomed, and valid - but it's important to not muddy the waters between RAW, RAI, and HIWPI.

I'm pretty sure I usually make it clear which part I'm arguing is RAW and which part is HIWPI/I think is RAI. For me it doesn't automatically align, because I'd rather play the game how it was meant to be played instead of using a broken piece of gak as a rule system just to adhere to the literal word in every instance - especially where the authors already explained how it's supposed to work (contrary to RAW).

Just a quick reminder folks: please avoid personal attacks and stick to criticizing each others' points rather than character. Thanks!

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding BCB. He's pointing out badly written rules, NOT saying he plays that way, or that anyone actually should.

It's actually kind of important that at least SOMEONE do that so that the rules errors can be brought to light and eventually corrected. We don't want a game where a new player first reads the rulebook, and then has to go attend an hour lecture on what rules the playerbase has chosen to ignore or modify. It would be much better if he were able to simply read the rules and then be on the same page with everyone else.

Here in YMDC, you need to be able to separate how you think the game should play, and how the words on the page are actually written. He can do that. It seems a lot of other people here can't.

On the topic of that rule, yes, from pure RAW words-on-the-page, if the model elected to fire and a gun is in range and does not have a clause allowing it to choose not to fire, such as combi-weapons, then it must fire. Single-use be damned.

Doesn't feel like something the writers actually intended, so I'm sure if enough people shined a flashlight on it, GW would probably errata it to say the guns *may* fire.

He literally states he plays that way and that others who don’t are cheating. Often. Let him speak for himself.

Mod note: this is explanatory, not derogatory. I attach no value judgements.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding BCB. He's pointing out badly written rules, NOT saying he plays that way, or that anyone actually should.

If he stuck to the former and left out the later two, most people wouldn't have any issues with him.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yeah that's not how that parses, at all.

I was going to bring that up, but I figured I would wait until all his edits are done.

Same question to you then.

Please answer Yes or No, one word answer, no "Yes, but..." nonsense. I will also accept "the first" or "the second" as a response.

If I have 3 guns ("several weapons"), and I fire 2 of them at a unit of Jeanstealers, have I "[shot] all of them at the same target" or have I "[shot] each at a different enemy unit."?

My edits are mainly correcting typos or grammar issues. This thread I did make an error regarding not being able to target something without LOS with the Shieldbreaker, but a quick re-read of the rulebook showed that the timing of the stratagem works just fine, so I removed that line.

The intent is clear, and RAI interpretations are canon now that they have appeared in the most recent FAQ, the ALL clearly refers to all shots that model fires before moving in to the next one, not all shots that it can possible fire. Your interpretation of it is simply wrong. Please accept it.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding BCB. He's pointing out badly written rules, NOT saying he plays that way, or that anyone actually should.

It's actually kind of important that at least SOMEONE do that so that the rules errors can be brought to light and eventually corrected. We don't want a game where a new player first reads the rulebook, and then has to go attend an hour lecture on what rules the playerbase has chosen to ignore or modify. It would be much better if he were able to simply read the rules and then be on the same page with everyone else.

Here in YMDC, you need to be able to separate how you think the game should play, and how the words on the page are actually written. He can do that. It seems a lot of other people here can't.

I think most people on here can understand RAW and also evaluate the validity of the RAW approach versus the RAI/HIWPI approach in order to reach a decision that might be helpful to the people asking questions about the rules. Assault weapons not being able to be fired after advancing is a good example of a rule that says one thing according to RAW but is played that way by literally nobody (with one possible exception). So, having acknowledged the strict RAW interpretation, there's nothing wrong with going on to discuss the rules as they are played by literally 99%+ of players.

That was my main problem here. Somebody asked a legitimate question about a stratagem that has some interesting rules interactions applied to it and instead of discussing that we get a thread derailed because, RAW, an argument can be made that you have to fire all your one-shot weapons the first time they're eligible to fire. I don't view that as particularly helpful to the original poster's question, nor to useful debate in general, and worry it creates an environment that could be actively hostile or unwelcoming to people looking for genuine rules clarifications.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

On the topic of that rule, yes, from pure RAW words-on-the-page, if the model elected to fire and a gun is in range and does not have a clause allowing it to choose not to fire, such as combi-weapons, then it must fire. Single-use be damned.

Doesn't feel like something the writers actually intended, so I'm sure if enough people shined a flashlight on it, GW would probably errata it to say the guns *may* fire.

We had two FAQ rounds and chapter approved, the rule didnt change, so its most likely intended.

 p5freak wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:

On the topic of that rule, yes, from pure RAW words-on-the-page, if the model elected to fire and a gun is in range and does not have a clause allowing it to choose not to fire, such as combi-weapons, then it must fire. Single-use be damned.

Doesn't feel like something the writers actually intended, so I'm sure if enough people shined a flashlight on it, GW would probably errata it to say the guns *may* fire.

We had two FAQ rounds and chapter approved, the rule didnt change, so its most likely intended.

Probably more likely that not how the designer play the rule so don't feel it needs FAQ'd.
I get the impression that they explain the rules verbally instead of writing it out then seeing how the play testers interpret the pure RAW.

Slipspace wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding BCB. He's pointing out badly written rules, NOT saying he plays that way, or that anyone actually should.

It's actually kind of important that at least SOMEONE do that so that the rules errors can be brought to light and eventually corrected. We don't want a game where a new player first reads the rulebook, and then has to go attend an hour lecture on what rules the playerbase has chosen to ignore or modify. It would be much better if he were able to simply read the rules and then be on the same page with everyone else.

Here in YMDC, you need to be able to separate how you think the game should play, and how the words on the page are actually written. He can do that. It seems a lot of other people here can't.

I think most people on here can understand RAW and also evaluate the validity of the RAW approach versus the RAI/HIWPI approach in order to reach a decision that might be helpful to the people asking questions about the rules. Assault weapons not being able to be fired after advancing is a good example of a rule that says one thing according to RAW but is played that way by literally nobody (with one possible exception). So, having acknowledged the strict RAW interpretation, there's nothing wrong with going on to discuss the rules as they are played by literally 99%+ of players.

That was my main problem here. Somebody asked a legitimate question about a stratagem that has some interesting rules interactions applied to it and instead of discussing that we get a thread derailed because, RAW, an argument can be made that you have to fire all your one-shot weapons the first time they're eligible to fire. I don't view that as particularly helpful to the original poster's question, nor to useful debate in general, and worry it creates an environment that could be actively hostile or unwelcoming to people looking for genuine rules clarifications.

Amen.

Ignore - somehow posted in wrong thread.