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.

A Character can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if they are the closest visible enemy unit to the model that is shooting

Okay so if as if is not same then why do "as if it was shooting phase" attacks trigger this protection?

tneva82 wrote:

A Character can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if they are the closest visible enemy unit to the model that is shooting

Okay so if as if is not same then why do "as if it was shooting phase" attacks trigger this protection?

because the unit going "As if" .. follow ALL the rules & restrictions for the shooting phase...

in the same way that Music of the apoc means that if a noise marine dies outside of the shooting phase they are NOT governed by it .. as it does not state "As if" ... thus it is whatever phase they are in and are governed by those rules accordingly

Well, it still comes down to us not having a proper definition for what "as if" means, exactly. Rather pointless to discuss the RaW due to that, and I'm comfortable saying that RAI is that the plates should work, therefore that's HIWPI.

nekooni wrote:
Well, it still comes down to us not having a proper definition for what "as if" means, exactly. Rather pointless to discuss the RaW due to that, and I'm comfortable saying that RAI is that the plates should work, therefore that's HIWPI.

Absolutely. We have this debate over and over. Some people are adamant one interpretation is correct, others another. There isn't clear enough RAW to definitively come down one way or the other though.

So until we get more info, this will continue to be a pointless debate.

Not sure what difference it would make either way.

Even if you‘d argue the relic doesn’t „actually“ activate, you‘d still need to roll for it and take mortal wounds „as if“ it had activated to faithfully resolve the fight „as if“ it had been resolved in the fighting phase.

Anything else you‘d end up with some form of discrepancy between the „as if“ fight and how this fight would have gone in the actual fighting phase.

"As if" it were the fight phase does not guarantee that everything goes 100% like it would in the fight phase. You wouldn't be able to play stratagems that specify they are used during the fight phase because it isn't the fight phase and you haven't been given permission to play stratagems as if it were the fight phase, only fight during the fight phase.

Given that, by RAW the Suppurating Plate wouldn't activate as the model with the plate hasn't been given permission to fight as if it were the fight phase, only the attacking unit The fight phase isn't the only phase that you can make armor saves against wounds, shooting phase and psychic phase being two other examples of times you could apply an armor save.

RAI, I agree that the Suppurating Plate should work and would let someone else play that way, but it's something to clear up with an opponent beforehand if it looks like you might be in a situation where that could happen during the game, so that it doesn't boil down to an argument mid game and the roll of a d6 to resolve if you two don't agree (which pretty much guarantees one of you won't be happy with the result).

I think this is pretty clear cut -

Tournament play - RAW - Sorry, no Suppurating Plate saves from cheaty Guardsmen.

Friendly/Narrivative/Common Sense play - RAI is pretty clear from a narrative perspective and seeing the odd unfortunate lasgunner get a face full of pus is fun. Take those saves!

I hate that it comes out like this but I'm on the side of the not procing. I really want to be team "as if" does equal "it is" but due to bad rules writing that just opens up too many issues. I really wish GW would address this but I think they understand that their rules kind of break regardless of what side of this they take without substantial rules tweaks.

The armor should read "..each time this model passes a saving throw against a melee weapon."
Instead "...each time this model passes a saving throw in the fight phase" seems to limit it to the fight phase.

 doctortom wrote:
"As if" it were the fight phase does not guarantee that everything goes 100% like it would in the fight phase. You wouldn't be able to play stratagems that specify they are used during the fight phase because it isn't the fight phase and you haven't been given permission to play stratagems as if it were the fight phase, only fight during the fight phase.

Given that, by RAW the Suppurating Plate wouldn't activate as the model with the plate hasn't been given permission to fight as if it were the fight phase, only the attacking unit The fight phase isn't the only phase that you can make armor saves against wounds, shooting phase and psychic phase being two other examples of times you could apply an armor save.

RAI, I agree that the Suppurating Plate should work and would let someone else play that way, but it's something to clear up with an opponent beforehand if it looks like you might be in a situation where that could happen during the game, so that it doesn't boil down to an argument mid game and the roll of a d6 to resolve if you two don't agree (which pretty much guarantees one of you won't be happy with the result).

100% agree with this.

But it would be better if there was a clear answer...

 doctortom wrote:
"As if" it were the fight phase does not guarantee that everything goes 100% like it would in the fight phase.

Sure it does. If it's not 100% faithful to the fighting phase, it's not "as if" but "different to" or maybe at best "almost as if" and thus a violation of RAW, which forces you to play it "as if", not "almost as if", or "mostly as if".

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
"As if" it were the fight phase does not guarantee that everything goes 100% like it would in the fight phase.

Sure it does. If it's not 100% faithful to the fighting phase, it's not "as if" but "different to" or maybe at best "almost as if" and thus a violation of RAW, which forces you to play it "as if", not "almost as if", or "mostly as if".

You don't get to play stratagems as if it was the fight phase because you don't have permission to do so, only to fight as if it was the fight phase.

 doctortom wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
"As if" it were the fight phase does not guarantee that everything goes 100% like it would in the fight phase.

Sure it does. If it's not 100% faithful to the fighting phase, it's not "as if" but "different to" or maybe at best "almost as if" and thus a violation of RAW, which forces you to play it "as if", not "almost as if", or "mostly as if".

You don't get to play stratagems as if it was the fight phase because you don't have permission to do so, only to fight as if it was the fight phase.

Sure you do. Or if you mind "actually" playing them, you resolve the game effects of the stratagem and remove the appropriate CPs "as if" you had played the Stratagem to ensure compliance with the "as if" rule.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
"As if" it were the fight phase does not guarantee that everything goes 100% like it would in the fight phase.

Sure it does. If it's not 100% faithful to the fighting phase, it's not "as if" but "different to" or maybe at best "almost as if" and thus a violation of RAW, which forces you to play it "as if", not "almost as if", or "mostly as if".

The stratagem only gives permission for the Guard to fight like it's the Fight phase. It does not give the DG player permission to apply wargear benefits (or Stratagems) as if it were the Fight phase.

As the Suppurating Plate only procs Mortal Wounds during the Fight phase, and there is nothing saying for the DG player to treat it as if it were the Fight phase, the MW ability shouldn't (RAW) trigger. That being said, I agree that the intent is for it to trigger.

Aelyn wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
"As if" it were the fight phase does not guarantee that everything goes 100% like it would in the fight phase.

Sure it does. If it's not 100% faithful to the fighting phase, it's not "as if" but "different to" or maybe at best "almost as if" and thus a violation of RAW, which forces you to play it "as if", not "almost as if", or "mostly as if".

The stratagem only gives permission for the Guard to fight like it's the Fight phase. It does not give the DG player permission to apply wargear benefits (or Stratagems) as if it were the Fight phase.

As the Suppurating Plate only procs Mortal Wounds during the Fight phase, and there is nothing saying for the DG player to treat it as if it were the Fight phase, the MW ability shouldn't (RAW) trigger. That being said, I agree that the intent is for it to trigger.

If the Suppurating Plate doesn't trigger in response to the Guardsmen's fighting, the fight is resolved differently to how it would've been resolved in the fight phase, not as if it was in the actual fight phase, thus making it illegal to not include the Mortal Wounds from the proc of the Suppurating Plate (or "as if" the Death Guard player had used the relic, had the fight occurred in the fight phase).

Irrespective of "who" get's permission, it does not allow for deviations from the results of the same fight in the actual fight phase. The rule isn't "98% as if it were the fight phase". It's "as if it were the fight phase".

Even if the Death Guard player gets no "permissions", you'd be obligated to ask the Death Guard players what he would have done if it were the fight phase (and the proc isn't optional) and reproduce the results of the fight as it would have unfolded, if it had been the fight phase. Anything else, you're in violation of RAW for resolving the fight "different to if it were fight phase".

Aelyn wrote:
The stratagem only gives permission for the Guard to fight like it's the Fight phase. It does not give the DG player permission to apply wargear benefits (or Stratagems) as if it were the Fight phase.

It doesn't give permission at all. It just tells us to fight with a unit as if it was the fight phase. You do that, and then the target unit and it's player reacts as if it was the fight phase. In the fight phase you get to roll saves, and in the fight phase you get to proc your fighty stuff. So you do - both of you.

That's my interpretation of "as if it is the fight phase". Yours is different, and neither one of us can prove the other is wrong, nor can we prove we're right. This is utterly pointless. Especially when it's glaringly obvious what the designers intended.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
"As if" it were the fight phase does not guarantee that everything goes 100% like it would in the fight phase.

Sure it does. If it's not 100% faithful to the fighting phase, it's not "as if" but "different to" or maybe at best "almost as if" and thus a violation of RAW, which forces you to play it "as if", not "almost as if", or "mostly as if".

You don't get to play stratagems as if it was the fight phase because you don't have permission to do so, only to fight as if it was the fight phase.

Sure you do. Or if you mind "actually" playing them, you resolve the game effects of the stratagem and remove the appropriate CPs "as if" you had played the Stratagem to ensure compliance with the "as if" rule.

Please provide documentation where playing stratagems counts as fighting, or indeed as anything other than playing stratagems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Irrespective of "who" get's permission, it does not allow for deviations from the results of the same fight in the actual fight phase. The rule isn't "98% as if it were the fight phase". It's "as if it were the fight phase".

So this means the opponent is caught up in this too and gets to play stratagems, otherwise it's not "as if it were the fight phase"? What if he plays a stratagem that allows his unit to fight next in the fight phase?

 doctortom wrote:


Please provide documentation where playing stratagems counts as fighting, or indeed as anything other than playing stratagems.


So this means the opponent is caught up in this too and gets to play stratagems, otherwise it's not "as if it were the fight phase"? What if he plays a stratagem that allows his unit to fight next in the fight phase?

Dunno. Is there even a stratagem like that? Counter-offensive isn't tied to a specific phase to start with. Kinda going off-topic with hypotheticals. Depending on the wording, if it were worded exactly like counter-offensive, save a "fight phase only restriction", and the pre-conditions for the strat are met in a "as if" situation, yes.

Please provide documentation that "as if" actually means "not really as if, but somewhat differently to as if".

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


Please provide documentation where playing stratagems counts as fighting, or indeed as anything other than playing stratagems.


So this means the opponent is caught up in this too and gets to play stratagems, otherwise it's not "as if it were the fight phase"? What if he plays a stratagem that allows his unit to fight next in the fight phase?

Dunno. Is there even a stratagem like that? Counter-offensive isn't tied to a specific phase to start with. Kinda going off-topic with hypotheticals. Depending on the wording, if it were worded exactly like counter-offensive, save a "fight phase only restriction", and the pre-conditions for the strat are met in a "as if" situation, yes.

Please provide documentation that "as if" actually means "not really as if, but somewhat differently to as if".

We have documentation - the basic fight phase rules, that do not list playing stratagems as an integral part of the fight phase. Therefore, permission to fight as if it were the fight phase does not also include permission to play stratagems as if it were the fight phase. You have yet to show any proof that permission is granted.

nekooni wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
The stratagem only gives permission for the Guard to fight like it's the Fight phase. It does not give the DG player permission to apply wargear benefits (or Stratagems) as if it were the Fight phase.

It doesn't give permission at all. It just tells us to fight with a unit as if it was the fight phase. You do that, and then the target unit and it's player reacts as if it was the fight phase. In the fight phase you get to roll saves, and in the fight phase you get to proc your fighty stuff. So you do - both of you.

That's my interpretation of "as if it is the fight phase". Yours is different, and neither one of us can prove the other is wrong, nor can we prove we're right. This is utterly pointless. Especially when it's glaringly obvious what the designers intended.

I've never disputed what the designers intended. I just personally feel that RAW and RAI don't match up in this case; I think that the rules are poorly written and don't behave the way the designers wanted them to.

 doctortom wrote:


We have documentation - the basic fight phase rules, that do not list playing stratagems as an integral part of the fight phase. Therefore, permission to fight as if it were the fight phase does not also include permission to play stratagems as if it were the fight phase. You have yet to show any proof that permission is granted.

The rule doesn't say "fight as if you're using just the basic fight phase rules". It says "fight as if it were the fight phase".

Not that difficult really.


If basic fight phase rules by themselves aren't sufficient to have a faithful and accurate representation of the very same fight in the actual fight phase, you must go beyond them to get a RAW-compliant resolution of the requirement to "fight as if it were the fight phase".


Omitting any ability, stratagem, roll of dice, (re-)moving of models, crashing of terrain, shaking of the table, spilling of beer, whatever, etc.. that would've occurred in that exact fight in the actual fight phase would be changing the fight vis-a-vis the fight phase, thus no longer complying with the Rule As Written that it must be resolved "as if it were the fight phase".

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


We have documentation - the basic fight phase rules, that do not list playing stratagems as an integral part of the fight phase. Therefore, permission to fight as if it were the fight phase does not also include permission to play stratagems as if it were the fight phase. You have yet to show any proof that permission is granted.

The rule doesn't say "fight as if you're using just the basic fight phase rules". It says "fight as if it were the fight phase".

Not that difficult really.


If basic fight phase rules by themselves aren't sufficient to have a faithful and accurate representation of the very same fight in the actual fight phase, you must go beyond them to get a RAW-compliant resolution of the requirement to "fight as if it were the fight phase".


Omitting any ability, stratagem, roll of dice, (re-)moving of models, crashing of terrain, shaking of the table, spilling of beer, whatever, etc.. that would've occurred in that exact fight in the actual fight phase would be changing the fight vis-a-vis the fight phase, thus no longer complying with the Rule As Written that it must be resolved "as if it were the fight phase".

Wrong. You have to have permission to play stratagems. Normally you do but it's a matter of timing. A stratagem might say play at the beginning of the fight phase. It has to be an actual fight phase for you to play it. If you are told you are fighting as though it's the fight phase is not enough; it is still not the fight phase. Using a stratagem is not listed as part of the fight phase, so the fight phase rules do not cover it. You are perfectly able to fight as if it were the fight phase without playing any stratagems. Your argument lacks merit because this is a permission-based ruleset and you don't have permission. It does not say everything works exactly like the fight phase, only fighting. You need to have separate permission to do this.

An example from the Index Xenos FAQ illustrates that just because you are told to treat something as if it were a phase doesn't automatically make it that phase is from Ynarri.

Q: If I use a Soulburst action to charge with a Ynnari unit
outside of the Charge phase, can my opponent’s Characters
perform a Heroic Intervention after I have made a charge move
with my unit?
A: No.

So, even though the player's treating it as the charge phase it doesn't work exactly like the charge phase. This would apply for other phases, as well. If you fight as if it were the fight phase doesn't mean you use stratagems as if it were the fight phase.

 doctortom wrote:


Wrong. You have to have permission to play stratagems. Normally you do but it's a matter of timing. A stratagem might say play at the beginning of the fight phase. It has to be an actual fight phase for you to play it.

Sure. There're questions of timing. Beginning and End of Fight Phase may not explicitly occur in a sequence of rolls resolved "as if in the fight phase". So they might not apply. But a stratagem you use, say, "when a unit is wounded in the fight phase" would be eligible if you're attacked by a unit "as if in the fight phase" as the specific trigger-condition would have happened in that specific fight in the actual fight phase, which you are forced to mimic by the "as if" rule.

Whether the stratagem can only "actually" be played in the actual fight phase is irrelevant. You'd still resolve and/or modify all dice rolls, move and/or remove models, remove CP from your pool, etc.. "as if" said fight-phase-only stratagem had been played to ensure you're RAW compliant in resolving this fight outside the fight phase fully, faithfully and accurately "as if it were the fight phase".

Failing to include said stratagems effects, if your opponent would have played it in this very same fight in the actual fight phase, is a RAW violation of resolving that fight "as if it were the fight phase". You'd have changed the fight you resolved outside the fighting phase to be different to how it would have resolved "if it were the fighting phase", thus evidently failing to resolve the fight "as if it were the fighting phase".

Yet you still have a glaring lack of proof for what you're saying, only a discredited theory.

 doctortom wrote:
Yet you still have a glaring lack of proof for what you're saying, only a discredited theory.

?

The proof is that X = X.

You're the one trying to argue that X is not X without any logical foundation or rules to back it up.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Yet you still have a glaring lack of proof for what you're saying, only a discredited theory.

?

The proof is that X = X.

You're the one trying to argue that X is not X without any logical foundation or rules to back it up.

But you're arguing Y = X, where Y = using stratagems and X=-fighting

I showed you a FAQ entry where something being treated as the charge phase doesn't necessarily mean everything in the charge phase happens. That means fighting as if it's the fight phase does not mean that you use stratagems that are usable only in the fight phase. It also means that by RAW the suppurating plate won't work as only the one side is treating it as the fight phase, not the model actually wearing the armor. Again, you can house rule that with your opponent is it's what they most likely intended, but it's not RAW.

 doctortom wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Yet you still have a glaring lack of proof for what you're saying, only a discredited theory.

?

The proof is that X = X.

You're the one trying to argue that X is not X without any logical foundation or rules to back it up.

But you're arguing Y = X, where Y = using stratagems and X=-fighting

I showed you a FAQ entry where something being treated as the charge phase doesn't necessarily mean everything in the charge phase happens. That means fighting as if it's the fight phase does not mean that you use stratagems that are usable only in the fight phase. It also means that by RAW the suppurating plate won't work as only the one side is treating it as the fight phase, not the model actually wearing the armor. Again, you can house rule that with your opponent is it's what they most likely intended, but it's not RAW.

You're building straw man. I never said EVERYTHING in the fight phase happens. Nobody ever argued that. The rule doesn't say "resolve a complete fight phase". It says "fight as if it were the fighting phase".

The test is simply: Did this fight happen as if it were the fighting phase?

- If yes, you are RAW-compliant. The fight was resolved as if it were the fighting phase.
- If no, e.g. some dice-roll, modifier, triggered effect, stratagem, etc.. was missed (or added) at some point, than no. You didn't resolve the fight as if it were the fighting phase. You introduced a change, which is a violation of RAW.

The fight outside of the fighting phase (X) must match the same fight had it occurred in the actual fighting phase (X). If they don't match, you made a mistake and didn't resolve it "as if it were the fighting phase".


if there was an effect in 40K that would ask you, say, to resolve something "as if it were the end of the charge phase", you could obviously also heroically intervene.

tneva82 wrote:

A Character can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if they are the closest visible enemy unit to the model that is shooting

Okay so if as if is not same then why do "as if it was shooting phase" attacks trigger this protection?

Yes, because the shooting phase has clearly defined rules for targeting characters. The fight phase has no clearly defined rules for activating abilities, abilities activate as a result of the rolls and actions being performed in the fight phase, not as a consequence of the fight phase itself.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
if there was an effect in 40K that would ask you, say, to resolve something "as if it were the end of the charge phase", you could obviously also heroically intervene.

Not according to the FAQ that was posted.

Q: If I use a Soulburst action to charge with a Ynnari unit
outside of the Charge phase, can my opponent’s Characters
perform a Heroic Intervention after I have made a charge move
with my unit?
A: No.

Not entirely 100% sure, but doesn't the soul charge ability state that the unit can make a charge "as if it were" the charge phase?

nekooni wrote:
...and I'm comfortable saying that RAI is that the plates should work, therefore that's HIWPI.

I'm not. I agree with BCB on this subject, you start making assumption on how rules are "intended" to work and you start getting on really shaky ground. The only fair criteria is RAW, and a strict application to RAW. If you don't like how some rules work, contact GW and tell them to fix it, but "fudging" things because that "isn't how its intended to work" opens up a huge can of worms.

w1zard wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

A Character can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if they are the closest visible enemy unit to the model that is shooting

Okay so if as if is not same then why do "as if it was shooting phase" attacks trigger this protection?

Because the shooting phase has clearly defined rules for targeting characters. The fight phase has no clearly defined rules for activating abilities, abilities activate as a result of the rolls and actions being performed in the fight phase, not as a consequence of the fight phase itself.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
if there was an effect in 40K that would ask you, say, to resolve something "as if it were the end of the charge phase", you could obviously also heroically intervene.

Not according to the FAQ that was posted.

Q: If I use a Soulburst action to charge with a Ynnari unit
outside of the Charge phase, can my opponent’s Characters
perform a Heroic Intervention after I have made a charge move
with my unit?
A: No.

Not entirely 100% sure, but doesn't the soul charge ability state that the unit can make a charge "as if it were" the charge phase?

Yes. But the beginning and end of phases as specifically defined points in time. There's a difference to doing something "as if it were the charging phase" or "as if it were the end of the charging phase", giving orders (at the beginning of the shooting phase) and actually shooting (in the shooting phase), etc..

The Death Watch Eldar-Intercept Strat works against Soul Bursting Ynnari, because the DW strat triggers "in the movement phase" and Ynnari move "as if it were the movement phase". A strat keyed to the end of the movement phase would not, because the end of the movement phase (e.g. when stuff Deepstrikes for example) is a different point in time/trigger condition.


Even without all the "as if" stuff, they are differentiated in the rules. A Leman Russ Tank Commander cannot shoot "at the beginning of the shooting phase", but it can give orders. Inversely, the same Tank Commander cannot give orders "in the shooting phase", but it can fire its weapons.

A Space Marine Captain can fire Overwatch (if charged) during the charge phase, but it cannot heroically intervene. It can heroically intervene (if within 3") at the end of the charge phase, but cannot fire overwatch.

Etc...

Sunny Side Up wrote:
The Death Watch Eldar-Intercept Strat works against Soul Bursting Ynnari, because the DW strat triggers "in the movement phase" and Ynnari move "as if it were the movement phase".

Are you just making that assumption or can you post a FAQ that supports your assertion?

"As if" is not the same as "is". It's really that simple. :(