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.

I can do it because the sequencing rule allows me to choose the order how to resolve them.

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Breton wrote:


Well one could argue if you used an end of X stratagem, then X just ended and you can't use another end of X stratagem - whether it's the same one or a different one. That would be how I'd deal with it if someone tried to push it on me.

I don't see why I can't use sequencing to do multiple end of X things. Just declare I'm doing end of X things, and then complete them one by one with sequencing rules.

I don't see why you can't add to the sequence as you execute it either.

I don't see how you can do something during the end of X after you did something at the end of X which already ended X. Sure if everyone's playing friendly go to town. If you're doing the super Strat over and over, I'm no longer friendly enough to let the end of X stretch out. You did something at the end of X that thusly ended X - if doing something at the end of X didn't end X, then you didn't do it at the end of X and thus weren't allowed to do it the first time. It's axiomatic.

Because the game has rules for handling simultaneous things - it's called sequencing. It really isn't an issue.

 Stux wrote:


Because the game has rules for handling simultaneous things - it's called sequencing. It really isn't an issue.

And works wonders for the things you have no control over. But you don't HAVE to use an End of X stratagem. An option to use an end of X ability doesn't confer the option to extend the end of X. We have to sequence a lot of things in the game we don't want to happen but are required by the rules to do, we don't get to have two fight phases in our turn for free because we want to. When the fight phase ends, the fight phase ends, we don't get to fight again. When the end of X ends - by doing an end of X event, then X ended.

There are two ways to play this game. Friendly, and Screw You. I love friendly games. But I try to be ready for a Screw You game too. You only stop a Screw You player by making it hurt them more than they advantaged. There's no shortage of poorly written rules to take advantage of. It probably won't cost too much time either, as they have a tendency to pick up and quit not too long after you start hitting them with bad rules, then see you have a friendly game with generous rules interpretations.

I really don't know where you've got any of that from.

Sequencing is for anything simultaneous, it doesn't say anything about it only being for non optional stuff. It works just fine here.

 Stux wrote:
I really don't know where you've got any of that from.

Sequencing is for anything simultaneous, it doesn't say anything about it only being for non optional stuff. It works just fine here.

Basic English Language. When you choose to use something at the end of something, something ends. We don't get to choose a lot of the things we sequence, so we need sequencing for automatic effects, and sequencing doesn't permit you to end something twice. Once you've chosen to do X at the end of something, something ended.

At the end of your day you may go to sleep. This doesn't mean at the end of your day you can sequence watching an hour of TV and then going to bed. If you watch the hour of TV it wasn't the end of your day it was an hour before the end of your day.

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I really don't know where you've got any of that from.

Sequencing is for anything simultaneous, it doesn't say anything about it only being for non optional stuff. It works just fine here.

Basic English Language. When you choose to use something at the end of something, something ends. We don't get to choose a lot of the things we sequence, so we need sequencing for automatic effects, and sequencing doesn't permit you to end something twice. Once you've chosen to do X at the end of something, something ended.

At the end of your day you may go to sleep. This doesn't mean at the end of your day you can sequence watching an hour of TV and then going to bed. If you watch the hour of TV it wasn't the end of your day it was an hour before the end of your day.

Except at the end of the phase you can declare you are using three strat's that happen at the end of the phase. Then you need to use sequencing to find out what order you need to resolve them in.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I really don't know where you've got any of that from.

Sequencing is for anything simultaneous, it doesn't say anything about it only being for non optional stuff. It works just fine here.

Basic English Language. When you choose to use something at the end of something, something ends. We don't get to choose a lot of the things we sequence, so we need sequencing for automatic effects, and sequencing doesn't permit you to end something twice. Once you've chosen to do X at the end of something, something ended.

At the end of your day you may go to sleep. This doesn't mean at the end of your day you can sequence watching an hour of TV and then going to bed. If you watch the hour of TV it wasn't the end of your day it was an hour before the end of your day.

Except at the end of the phase you can declare you are using three strat's that happen at the end of the phase. Then you need to use sequencing to find out what order you need to resolve them in.

Exactly this. And I would go further and say it is perfectly within the rules to add things to the sequence after you start executing it - it is still that 'moment' of the end of X as far as the game is concerned.

Your whole thing about only sequencing automatic effects is made up and not part of the rules.

 Stux wrote:


Your whole thing about only sequencing automatic effects is made up and not part of the rules.

I didn't say it only affected automatic effects. I said it was great FOR automatic effects. I said we don't get to choose automatic things.

I've also said - when faced with this sort of situation - if you can only choose to use something at the end of X, then X ends when you choose to use it. If you try to do something else at the end of X, then X didn't end.

Again at the end of the day, you can choose to go to sleep. If you instead watch TV for an hour, then it wasn't the end of your day.

If you try and choose to run three end of your turn stratagems, then when you ran the first one and the second one... it wasn't really the end of your turn was it because you had more turn to play.

The entire discussion is moot anyway isn't it because no matter how many times the stratagem is used it only adds +1 to the model's saves (doesn't stack) and +1 to the attacks characteristic of the unit (also doesn't stack)?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The entire discussion is moot anyway isn't it because no matter how many times the stratagem is used it only adds +1 to the model's saves (doesn't stack) and +1 to the attacks characteristic of the unit (also doesn't stack)?

Its moot anyway, because it was only the one time. I'm more about what to do next time someone wants to pull something fast and loose.

For me, the Battle Round description in BRB page 176 is the best argument that "end of turn" is out of phase. It states that the Battle Round consists of a turn for each player, and that the turn consists of phases which are resolved in the order we all know well. There is a sentence in that description:
Once a player’s turn has ended, their opponent then starts their turn.
That describes a specific check for "player's turn has ended", and the turn can only have ended when the Morale Phase has ended. That means the successful check happens after the Moral Phase, so it is out of phase. This means that the end of turn is not in a phase.

Breton wrote:

I've also said - when faced with this sort of situation - if you can only choose to use something at the end of X, then X ends when you choose to use it. If you try to do something else at the end of X, then X didn't end.

Good thing the sequencing rules come into play and you can use 2 or 3 or more things that happen at the end of X.

Again at the end of the day, you can choose to go to sleep. If you instead watch TV for an hour, then it wasn't the end of your day.

Real-world analogies are meaningless when discussing the 40K rules.

Breton wrote:
If you try and choose to run three end of your turn stratagems, then when you ran the first one and the second one... it wasn't really the end of your turn was it because you had more turn to play.

Good thing the sequencing rules come into play and you can use 2 or 3 or more things that happen at the end of X.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Breton wrote:

I've also said - when faced with this sort of situation - if you can only choose to use something at the end of X, then X ends when you choose to use it. If you try to do something else at the end of X, then X didn't end.

Good thing the sequencing rules come into play and you can use 2 or 3 or more things that happen at the end of X.

Again at the end of the day, you can choose to go to sleep. If you instead watch TV for an hour, then it wasn't the end of your day.

Real-world analogies are meaningless when discussing the 40K rules.

Spoiler:

Tenets of You Make Da Call wrote:
3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

Breton wrote:
If you try and choose to run three end of your turn stratagems, then when you ran the first one and the second one... it wasn't really the end of your turn was it because you had more turn to play.

Good thing the sequencing rules come into play and you can use 2 or 3 or more things that happen at the end of X.

Right now this isn't a rules argument as much as an English language argument, so your attempt to call in the mods isn't really on point. My example is about how the English Language works not how the rule works. We can't really get into the rule until we're on the same page on how English works. There is no "after" the end. If you used it at the end of your turn, your turn has ended, and you can't use something else. If you use something else, it wasn't the end of your turn and you couldn't have used the first one. What part of this is tripping you up? The End Part, or the After The End Part?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The entire discussion is moot anyway isn't it because no matter how many times the stratagem is used it only adds +1 to the model's saves (doesn't stack) and +1 to the attacks characteristic of the unit (also doesn't stack)?

I think the person used the strat 3 times on different units. So multiple units were getting +1 rather than one getting it 3 times.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Breton wrote:

I've also said - when faced with this sort of situation - if you can only choose to use something at the end of X, then X ends when you choose to use it. If you try to do something else at the end of X, then X didn't end.

Good thing the sequencing rules come into play and you can use 2 or 3 or more things that happen at the end of X.

Again at the end of the day, you can choose to go to sleep. If you instead watch TV for an hour, then it wasn't the end of your day.

Real-world analogies are meaningless when discussing the 40K rules.

Spoiler:

Tenets of You Make Da Call wrote:
3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

Breton wrote:
If you try and choose to run three end of your turn stratagems, then when you ran the first one and the second one... it wasn't really the end of your turn was it because you had more turn to play.

Good thing the sequencing rules come into play and you can use 2 or 3 or more things that happen at the end of X.

Right now this isn't a rules argument as much as an English language argument, so your attempt to call in the mods isn't really on point. My example is about how the English Language works not how the rule works. We can't really get into the rule until we're on the same page on how English works. There is no "after" the end. If you used it at the end of your turn, your turn has ended, and you can't use something else. If you use something else, it wasn't the end of your turn and you couldn't have used the first one. What part of this is tripping you up? The End Part, or the After The End Part?

I'm sorry, but there's no English language argument here. I think the inference you're trying to argue seems may be a colloquial inference peculiar to wherever you learned English.

Breton wrote:

Right now this isn't a rules argument as much as an English language argument, so your attempt to call in the mods isn't really on point. My example is about how the English Language works not how the rule works. We can't really get into the rule until we're on the same page on how English works. There is no "after" the end. If you used it at the end of your turn, your turn has ended, and you can't use something else. If you use something else, it wasn't the end of your turn and you couldn't have used the first one. What part of this is tripping you up? The End Part, or the After The End Part?

Nothing is tripping me up. I have rules that back my position. I have seen no rules that back yours.

If you and your opponent want to use a strat that is used at the end of the turn, the rules have a way to handle this. it is called sequencing.

Being the end of the turn does not mean that only one end of turn strat can be used. If you disagree you will need a rules citation that backs up your statement.

The rules citation that allow multiple things to happen at the end of the turn are as such:

Battle Primer P.4 wrote:
Sequencing
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or ‘before the battle begins’. When this happens during the game, the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a battle round, the players roll off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved.

Audustum wrote:


I'm sorry, but there's no English language argument here. I think the inference you're trying to argue seems may be a colloquial inference peculiar to wherever you learned English.

So where you learned English, the thing(s) you do to end something don't actually end something?

Breton wrote:

Audustum wrote:


I'm sorry, but there's no English language argument here. I think the inference you're trying to argue seems may be a colloquial inference peculiar to wherever you learned English.

So where you learned English, the thing(s) you do to end something don't actually end something?

English does not prohibit multiple things from being done at the end something, as you seem to acknowledge by writing "thing(s)" just now The stratagems occur simultaneously.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Nothing is tripping me up. I have rules that back my position. I have seen no rules that back yours.

You have a rule explicitly stating that doing something that ends something X doesn't end something X? Why haven't you linked it? Oh, because you don't. You have your interpretation of the idea that because multiple things can be forced into end of X, multiple things can be optioned into end of X. Without a rule actually saying so. I have the wording of the very rule we're discussing backing my position. Do Y at the end of X. If you do something Z after Y it wasn't at the end of X now was it? No, because Z happened after.

In a friendly game with some honest give and take, I would absolutely - like almost everyone else - allow multiple end of X optional events. That is the "assumption" most communities have come to in this regard. Unfortunately this is argumentum ad populum. In a less-than-friendly-game with someone trying some shenanigans like originally described, one can absolutely rules lawyer them right back. The process of giving this the thought necessary to suggest and defend this push-back theory of only one optional event I realized I'm not even sure that's right/intended because there could/would be some tactical/strategic value-judgments/hard-choices if one really is limited to only one end of X choice. That idea isn't really here nor there, but an interesting food for thought. The point is - anyone trying to rules lawyer some shenanigans into the game can almost always be rules lawyered out of their shenanigans by reading a rule literally and/or from another point of view contrary to normal "assumptions".

There is no rule stating only one optional end of X event is allowed, there is no rule stating multiple optional end of X events are allowed. There is a rule acknowleding mutliple end of X events (forced and/or optional) can occur and how to resolve them. That's all it does. This is a pretty good example of how we, as players, read the rules the way we want to read them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

Breton wrote:

Audustum wrote:


I'm sorry, but there's no English language argument here. I think the inference you're trying to argue seems may be a colloquial inference peculiar to wherever you learned English.

So where you learned English, the thing(s) you do to end something don't actually end something?

English does not prohibit multiple things from being done at the end something, as you seem to acknowledge by writing "thing(s)" just now The stratagems occur simultaneously.

I have already acknowledged multiple forced end of X events can exist, requiring the sequencing rule. This does not mean one can optionally extend the End of X with multiple end of X. You have no choice on the forced events, like you do the optional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

balmong7 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The entire discussion is moot anyway isn't it because no matter how many times the stratagem is used it only adds +1 to the model's saves (doesn't stack) and +1 to the attacks characteristic of the unit (also doesn't stack)?

I think the person used the strat 3 times on different units. So multiple units were getting +1 rather than one getting it 3 times.

Which may be less/not egregious/shenanigans - but has more food for thought. Assume - for the sake of argument - you are only allowed one optional end of X event per X , like an end of turn stratagem per turn. Will you have to be more careful and considerate of which one you use and on whom? Will other Stratagems increase in value if you have fewer CP earmarked for the end of X event you want to use three times per critical turn?

balmong7 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The entire discussion is moot anyway isn't it because no matter how many times the stratagem is used it only adds +1 to the model's saves (doesn't stack) and +1 to the attacks characteristic of the unit (also doesn't stack)?

I think the person used the strat 3 times on different units. So multiple units were getting +1 rather than one getting it 3 times.

Ah that makes sense and thanks for the clarification.

In that case I would argue that the proceeding two times the stratagem was used it was used illegally as it could not have been used at the end of the turn/round. If the stratagem has to be used at the end of the turn it must be the last thing done in that turn. Using the same stratagem multiple times breaks this.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

balmong7 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The entire discussion is moot anyway isn't it because no matter how many times the stratagem is used it only adds +1 to the model's saves (doesn't stack) and +1 to the attacks characteristic of the unit (also doesn't stack)?

I think the person used the strat 3 times on different units. So multiple units were getting +1 rather than one getting it 3 times.

Ah that makes sense and thanks for the clarification.

In that case I would argue that the proceeding two times the stratagem was used it was used illegally as it could not have been used at the end of the turn/round. If the stratagem has to be used at the end of the turn it must be the last thing done in that turn. Using the same stratagem multiple times breaks this.

Unless they use sequencing. Then it's fine.

 Stux wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

balmong7 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The entire discussion is moot anyway isn't it because no matter how many times the stratagem is used it only adds +1 to the model's saves (doesn't stack) and +1 to the attacks characteristic of the unit (also doesn't stack)?

I think the person used the strat 3 times on different units. So multiple units were getting +1 rather than one getting it 3 times.

Ah that makes sense and thanks for the clarification.

In that case I would argue that the proceeding two times the stratagem was used it was used illegally as it could not have been used at the end of the turn/round. If the stratagem has to be used at the end of the turn it must be the last thing done in that turn. Using the same stratagem multiple times breaks this.

Unless they use sequencing. Then it's fine.

I disagree. Sequencing is for multiple varied things that can happen at the same time. '....Two or more rules' not 'one rule or more'. Even by sequencing this doesn't work because the sequencing rule specifically states it's to be used for different effects, not repeats of the same one.

E - grammar

As the very first post said, this topic always ends in disagreement. I see little point in rehashing it.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

balmong7 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The entire discussion is moot anyway isn't it because no matter how many times the stratagem is used it only adds +1 to the model's saves (doesn't stack) and +1 to the attacks characteristic of the unit (also doesn't stack)?

I think the person used the strat 3 times on different units. So multiple units were getting +1 rather than one getting it 3 times.

Ah that makes sense and thanks for the clarification.

In that case I would argue that the proceeding two times the stratagem was used it was used illegally as it could not have been used at the end of the turn/round. If the stratagem has to be used at the end of the turn it must be the last thing done in that turn. Using the same stratagem multiple times breaks this.

Unless they use sequencing. Then it's fine.

I disagree. Sequencing is for multiple varied things that can happen at the same time. '....Two or more rules' not 'one rule or more'. Even by sequencing this doesn't work because the sequencing rule specifically states it's to be used for different effects, not repeats of the same one.

E - grammar

Two instances of the same rule is clearly two rules for sequencing.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

I disagree. Sequencing is for multiple varied things that can happen at the same time. '....Two or more rules' not 'one rule or more'. Even by sequencing this doesn't work because the sequencing rule specifically states it's to be used for different effects, not repeats of the same one.

E - grammar

I see nothing that says those two or more rules can't be the same.

Sequencing
While playing Warhammer
40,000, you’ll occasionally
find that two or more rules
are to be resolved at the
same time – normally ‘at
the start of the Movement
phase’ or ‘before the battle
begins’. When this happens
during the game, the player
whose turn it is chooses the
order. If these things occur
before or after the game,
or at the start or end of a
battle round, the players
roll off and the winner
decides in what order the
rules are resolved.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Nothing is tripping me up. I have rules that back my position. I have seen no rules that back yours.

You have a rule explicitly stating that doing something that ends something X doesn't end something X? Why haven't you linked it? Oh, because you don't.

No one said that...

What we did say is that we have a rule that when X ends you can use a particular strat called Honour the Chapter, that says "Use this Stratagem at the end of any Fight phase. Select a DARK ANGELSINFANTRY or..." P. 137 Codex Dark Angels,
and your opponent can use a strat called Honour your Brothers that says "Use this Stratagem at the end of any Fight phase. Select a DEATHWATCH INFANTRY or..." P. 96 Codex Deathwatch

Those can both be used because of the sequencing rules and I have provided rules citations.

Where are your rules citations?

You have your interpretation of the idea that because multiple things can be forced into end of X, multiple things can be optioned into end of X. Without a rule actually saying so.

False. we have rules that say so. Reference the RAW citations for the strats above.

I have the wording of the very rule we're discussing backing my position.

No you do not. What over-rides the two strats above? Why does the Deathwatch player get to use his strat "at the end of any Fight phase" and the Dark Angel player does not. or vice versa. Citations needed on your end.

Do Y at the end of X. If you do something Z after Y it wasn't at the end of X now was it? No, because Z happened after.

No, they happen at the same time. see the sequencing rules posted.

In a friendly game with some honest give and take, I would absolutely - like almost everyone else - allow multiple end of X optional events. That is the "assumption" most communities have come to in this regard.

Fortunately that is the RAW as well.

Unfortunately this is argumentum ad populum.

It may be, but it is also RAW.

In a less-than-friendly-game with someone trying some shenanigans like originally described, one can absolutely rules lawyer them right back. The process of giving this the thought necessary to suggest and defend this push-back theory of only one optional event I realized I'm not even sure that's right/intended because there could/would be some tactical/strategic value-judgments/hard-choices if one really is limited to only one end of X choice. That idea isn't really here nor there, but an interesting food for thought. The point is - anyone trying to rules lawyer some shenanigans into the game can almost always be rules lawyered out of their shenanigans by reading a rule literally and/or from another point of view contrary to normal "assumptions".

There is no rule stating only one optional end of X event is allowed

Correct, There is no rule stating only one optional end of X event is allowed.

there is no rule stating multiple optional end of X events are allowed.

False. the strats literally say when to use them, and there are no restrictions on only being able to use one. Thus, logically, you can use both.

There is a rule acknowleding mutliple end of X events (forced and/or optional) can occur and how to resolve them. That's all it does. This is a pretty good example of how we, as players, read the rules the way we want to read them.

Yes, there is a rules about how to handle multiple rules that happen simultaneously and how to resolve them. That is all it needs to do as we are given permission to use two things that happen at the same time and there are literally no restrictions against it.

There are no citations to the contrary, so you can use two end of X things as per RAW.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Nothing is tripping me up. I have rules that back my position. I have seen no rules that back yours.

You have a rule explicitly stating that doing something that ends something X doesn't end something X? Why haven't you linked it? Oh, because you don't. You have your interpretation of the idea that because multiple things can be forced into end of X, multiple things can be optioned into end of X. Without a rule actually saying so. I have the wording of the very rule we're discussing backing my position. Do Y at the end of X. If you do something Z after Y it wasn't at the end of X now was it? No, because Z happened after.

In a friendly game with some honest give and take, I would absolutely - like almost everyone else - allow multiple end of X optional events. That is the "assumption" most communities have come to in this regard. Unfortunately this is argumentum ad populum. In a less-than-friendly-game with someone trying some shenanigans like originally described, one can absolutely rules lawyer them right back. The process of giving this the thought necessary to suggest and defend this push-back theory of only one optional event I realized I'm not even sure that's right/intended because there could/would be some tactical/strategic value-judgments/hard-choices if one really is limited to only one end of X choice. That idea isn't really here nor there, but an interesting food for thought. The point is - anyone trying to rules lawyer some shenanigans into the game can almost always be rules lawyered out of their shenanigans by reading a rule literally and/or from another point of view contrary to normal "assumptions".

There is no rule stating only one optional end of X event is allowed, there is no rule stating multiple optional end of X events are allowed. There is a rule acknowleding mutliple end of X events (forced and/or optional) can occur and how to resolve them. That's all it does. This is a pretty good example of how we, as players, read the rules the way we want to read them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

Breton wrote:

Audustum wrote:


I'm sorry, but there's no English language argument here. I think the inference you're trying to argue seems may be a colloquial inference peculiar to wherever you learned English.

So where you learned English, the thing(s) you do to end something don't actually end something?

English does not prohibit multiple things from being done at the end something, as you seem to acknowledge by writing "thing(s)" just now The stratagems occur simultaneously.

I have already acknowledged multiple forced end of X events can exist, requiring the sequencing rule. This does not mean one can optionally extend the End of X with multiple end of X. You have no choice on the forced events, like you do the optional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

balmong7 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The entire discussion is moot anyway isn't it because no matter how many times the stratagem is used it only adds +1 to the model's saves (doesn't stack) and +1 to the attacks characteristic of the unit (also doesn't stack)?

I think the person used the strat 3 times on different units. So multiple units were getting +1 rather than one getting it 3 times.

Which may be less/not egregious/shenanigans - but has more food for thought. Assume - for the sake of argument - you are only allowed one optional end of X event per X , like an end of turn stratagem per turn. Will you have to be more careful and considerate of which one you use and on whom? Will other Stratagems increase in value if you have fewer CP earmarked for the end of X event you want to use three times per critical turn?

This is a slippery rules slope.

Applying that logic to start and end results in limiting one thing happening at starts and one thing happening at end, because a second thing is past start or end.

Another way to read it is start and end are points in time in relation to events(phases) as opposed to discreet actions. And prevents things such as only one unit can arrive from reserves per turn, which your reading of the rules would cause. Your reading of the rules would also result in a rules cunundrum if multiple units were effected by something that made them fight at the end of the assault phase, your reading means only one can fight but the rules tell us all units within. 1" must fight, they can't option to not attack.

Breton wrote:


I don't see how you can do something during the end of X after you did something at the end of X which already ended X. Sure if everyone's playing friendly go to town. If you're doing the super Strat over and over, I'm no longer friendly enough to let the end of X stretch out. You did something at the end of X that thusly ended X - if doing something at the end of X didn't end X, then you didn't do it at the end of X and thus weren't allowed to do it the first time. It's axiomatic.

Many other games let you do as many things as you want during the "end of the turn" because its considered its own phase, hence where this notion of spamming the stratagem comes.
As a MTG player, doing multiple things at the end of turn is super intuitive but sadly warhamemr doesnt have as clear rules, hence my original question.

Warhammer really needs a similar system of priority to MTG's where the turn progressions are clear.

I still think that RAW, using it multiple times is allowed for the reasons that were laid out in this thread. Lets not forget that the stratagem costs 2CP / use and spamming it will quickly drain them.