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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You bring in two units at the end of the movement phase, once you've set one unit up it's no longer the end of the movement phase so you can't set up the 2nd unit.

You are wrong. There is precedent that something can happen after the end of phase X.

Q: When using an ability or Stratagem at the end of the Fight
phase to immediately fight again (e.g. Fury of Khorne) and the
selected unit moves within 1" of an enemy unit that has not yet
fought this phase, after fighting with the unit selected, can that
enemy unit now fight even though it’s the end of the Fight phase?
A: Yes.

Special Snowflake FAQs are just that, Special Snowflake. They do not create precedent, because as you well know GW has in the past and still to this day have outright contradictory FAQs, the best example being negative modifiers and Necron Quantum Shielding.

While I do agree with your point on this oversight/bad writing/maybe actually as intended etc, I have to disagree with your stance on SSF being example specific. One can set a reasonable precedent based on a logically sound inference of the SSF. Of course, by doing so we're stepping into territory of 'once-interpreted RAW', but claiming otherwise would be being disingenuous for the sake of 'well aktually', and for the sake of 'well aktually' only, rather than to try to arrive at how one would go about playing it 'right'.

 AndrewC wrote:
I thought, and quite happy to be shown wrong, that there was a restriction that units can only be affected by something once. This was a side effect of stacking modifiers on a unit. GW had ruled that effects counted once from identically named sources.

Cant find it though in any of the FaQs.

Andrew

You are thinking of the Aura stacking FAQ. The same AURA can't stack, not the same rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
While I do agree with your point on this oversight/bad writing/maybe actually as intended etc, I have to disagree with your stance on SSF being example specific. One can set a reasonable precedent based on a logically sound inference of the SSF. Of course, by doing so we're stepping into territory of 'once-interpreted RAW', but claiming otherwise would be being disingenuous for the sake of 'well aktually', and for the sake of 'well aktually' only, rather than to try to arrive at how one would go about playing it 'right'.

There is a very simple solution to not requiring SSFAQ for every edge case, you fix the edge.

I don’t see how the strategem can be applied to the same unit multiple times.

You play the strategem on a unit when you set it up. Once you’ve played the strategem you can’t play it on the same unit again because it is now not “when you set it up” it is now “ after you’ve played a strategem”. There’s no rule that allows you to play multiple strategems simultaneously, or multiples of the same strategem at once.

At this point you can set up another unit and then play the strategem on that unit.

Aash wrote:
I don’t see how the strategem can be applied to the same unit multiple times.

You play the strategem on a unit when you set it up. Once you’ve played the strategem you can’t play it on the same unit again because it is now not “when you set it up” it is now “ after you’ve played a strategem”. There’s no rule that allows you to play multiple strategems simultaneously, or multiples of the same strategem at once.

At this point you can set up another unit and then play the strategem on that unit.

Because of sequencing. The strat allows it to be used on a unit when you set it up. so that is what allows you to play multiple strategems simultaneously, or multiples of the same strategem at once.

You play the strat on a unit when you set it up, if you play that strat 3 times in that instance you use sequencing to figure out the order.

All 3 strats are used at the same time.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Aash wrote:
I don’t see how the strategem can be applied to the same unit multiple times.

You play the strategem on a unit when you set it up. Once you’ve played the strategem you can’t play it on the same unit again because it is now not “when you set it up” it is now “ after you’ve played a strategem”. There’s no rule that allows you to play multiple strategems simultaneously, or multiples of the same strategem at once.

At this point you can set up another unit and then play the strategem on that unit.

Because of sequencing. The strat allows it to be used on a unit when you set it up. so that is what allows you to play multiple strategems simultaneously, or multiples of the same strategem at once.

You play the strat on a unit when you set it up, if you play that strat 3 times in that instance you use sequencing to figure out the order.

All 3 strats are used at the same time.

I disagree. Sequencing is explicitly used when the rules tell us to resolve more than one thing at the same time. The rules don’t tell the player to play multiple strategems simultaneously, so sequencing isn’t applicable.

Aash wrote:
I don’t see how the strategem can be applied to the same unit multiple times.

You play the strategem on a unit when you set it up. Once you’ve played the strategem you can’t play it on the same unit again because it is now not “when you set it up” it is now “ after you’ve played a strategem”. There’s no rule that allows you to play multiple strategems simultaneously, or multiples of the same strategem at once.

At this point you can set up another unit and then play the strategem on that unit.

Agreed. This is what BCB is ignoring. Sequencing doesn’t apply here. Sequencing is a hot fix for simultaneous situations not something you invoke then work back from. That’s incorrect logic. You place the unit, play the strat, then eligibility expires. Simples. But he’s already started with his disingenuous “you just don’t like it” line of pre-rubbishing opposing positions so there won’t be any attention paid to actual logic.

So by that logic I can block my opponent from using a stratagem on their unit by using one of my own at the same time on theirs?

Aash wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Aash wrote:
I don’t see how the strategem can be applied to the same unit multiple times.

You play the strategem on a unit when you set it up. Once you’ve played the strategem you can’t play it on the same unit again because it is now not “when you set it up” it is now “ after you’ve played a strategem”. There’s no rule that allows you to play multiple strategems simultaneously, or multiples of the same strategem at once.

At this point you can set up another unit and then play the strategem on that unit.

Because of sequencing. The strat allows it to be used on a unit when you set it up. so that is what allows you to play multiple strategems simultaneously, or multiples of the same strategem at once.

You play the strat on a unit when you set it up, if you play that strat 3 times in that instance you use sequencing to figure out the order.

All 3 strats are used at the same time.

I disagree. Sequencing is explicitly used when the rules tell us to resolve more than one thing at the same time. The rules don’t tell the player to play multiple strategems simultaneously, so sequencing isn’t applicable.

Except the rules DO tell us that we can play multiple strategems simultaneously. This is in the wording of the strat because it tells us when it is used.

If we had 3 different strats that were used 'on a unit when you set it up' you can use all 3 right?

Therefore ALL instances of things that happen 'on a unit when you set it up' get resolved simultaneously and are covered by sequencing.

Disagree if you want, but you are not correct in doing so.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Aash wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Aash wrote:
I don’t see how the strategem can be applied to the same unit multiple times.

You play the strategem on a unit when you set it up. Once you’ve played the strategem you can’t play it on the same unit again because it is now not “when you set it up” it is now “ after you’ve played a strategem”. There’s no rule that allows you to play multiple strategems simultaneously, or multiples of the same strategem at once.

At this point you can set up another unit and then play the strategem on that unit.

Because of sequencing. The strat allows it to be used on a unit when you set it up. so that is what allows you to play multiple strategems simultaneously, or multiples of the same strategem at once.

You play the strat on a unit when you set it up, if you play that strat 3 times in that instance you use sequencing to figure out the order.

All 3 strats are used at the same time.

I disagree. Sequencing is explicitly used when the rules tell us to resolve more than one thing at the same time. The rules don’t tell the player to play multiple strategems simultaneously, so sequencing isn’t applicable.

Except the rules DO tell us that we can play multiple strategems simultaneously. This is in the wording of the strat because it tells us when it is used.

If we had 3 different strats that were used 'on a unit when you set it up' you can use all 3 right?

Therefore ALL instances of things that happen 'on a unit when you set it up' get resolved simultaneously and are covered by sequencing.

Disagree if you want, but you are not correct in doing so.

My mistake, you’re right, multiple strategems can be played at the same time as you suggest, when they are triggered by the same event such as when a unit is deployed. I don’t see how this allows the same strategem to be played more than once at the same time though.

Because there is no limit to the use of stratagems, with a matched play rule restricting them to once per phase and explicitly exempting stratagems not used in a phase.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because there is no limit to the use of stratagems, with a matched play rule restricting them to once per phase and explicitly exempting stratagems not used in a phase.

I fully agree that a strategem in the deployment phase isn’t subject to limits on how many times it can be used, but I still don’t see how it can be used multiple times simultaneously. I always understood that the rule set was permissive, and without express permission to use the same strategem more than once simultaneously I don’t see how you can justify this viewpoint.

There is permission to use the strat correct?

There is no limit to how many times you can use a single strat correct?

Do you now see the permission given in the rules?

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is permission to use the strat correct?

There is no limit to how many times you can use a single strat correct?

Do you now see the permission given in the rules?

Again, this allows the strategem to be used as many times as you like, not to use it many times simultaneously.

Further, the sequencing rules don’t apply in this situation:

Sequencing applies when “2 or more rules are to be resolved at the and time”. This doesn’t apply. There are not 2 or more rules in this situation.

Except there is permission to use the strat and no restrictions against it.

If we had 3 different strats that were used 'on a unit when you set it up' you can use all 3 right?

If so, then why is using the same strat restricted? where is the rule stating that because I have shown permission.



P.S. There are '2 or more rules' they are two strats being used. 2 instances of one rule is '2 or more rules'

While I can see BCB's interpretation here, as I read it if you apply the strat 6 times, you simply have six repetitions of a permission to do a specific thing at a certain time.

If I tell my daughter she can go play outside after lunch, and my wife tells my daughter she can go play outside after lunch, she doesn't walk out the door twice... she simply has permission to go outside from two separate sources.

Same thing here. You have 6 sources of permission to move up to 9" at a specific point in time. So at that specific point in time, you can move up to 9". There doesn't seem to be anything in the rule that would indicate that this 9" would be in addition to any other movement... you're just given permission to move up to 9".

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Your "argument" has already been refuted by me and everyone else posting, so try again. Your premise is based off an impossible condition - setting up a unit multiple times isn't normally possible (outside of redeploy Strats etc.). So, TL;DR, no. If you can't accept this error that's not on me, and you seem to be arguing to argue. Tried to help, but you do you.

Actually, he seems to be winning the argument...

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I am using Tabletop Simulator.

The "up to 9 inches" restriction is not a grand total restriction, it's a restriction on each instance of the stratagem. If the stratagem said "A maximum of 9" from it's starting position", I'd agree it can only happen once.

For example, you could use the Lightning Fast Reflexes stratagem and the Conceal psychic power to stack multiple -1 to hits on an Aeldari unit. Your logic would say that you can only get at most -1 to hit, which is untrue. Or in Narrative play you could use Lightning Fast Reflexes multiple times.

I disagree. The stratagems all resolve at the exact same time (there is nothing restricting this) therefore the maximum the model can move, regardless of how many times the stratagem is used, is 9”.

Bringing sequencing into the discussion has weakened your point because in all of your examples the sequencing rule concerns different stratagems/rules. LFR and Conceal are not equivalent to your suggestion here.

That's because while we may infer that GW doesn't intended to allow you to use a 'triggered' stratagem multiple times on the same trigger, GW failed to explicitly state that to be true. They even failed to imply it.

Slayer6 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Your "argument" has already been refuted by me and everyone else posting, so try again. Your premise is based off an impossible condition - setting up a unit multiple times isn't normally possible (outside of redeploy Strats etc.). So, TL;DR, no. If you can't accept this error that's not on me, and you seem to be arguing to argue. Tried to help, but you do you.

Actually, he seems to be winning the argument...

Only if you believe “I’m playing this Strat 8 times on this unit” would EVER fly in a real game. If you do, fine, but I have a bridge to sell you...

 alextroy wrote:
That's because while we may infer that GW doesn't intended to allow you to use a 'triggered' stratagem multiple times on the same trigger, GW failed to explicitly state that to be true. They even failed to imply it.

That’s irrelevant though? Sequencing comes into play when rules cannot be triggered at the same time. There not nothing stopping multiple instances of this stratagem getting triggered at the same time. So sequencing never comes into play and the termites move only 9”.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Slayer6 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Your "argument" has already been refuted by me and everyone else posting, so try again. Your premise is based off an impossible condition - setting up a unit multiple times isn't normally possible (outside of redeploy Strats etc.). So, TL;DR, no. If you can't accept this error that's not on me, and you seem to be arguing to argue. Tried to help, but you do you.

Actually, he seems to be winning the argument...

Only if you believe “I’m playing this Strat 8 times on this unit” would EVER fly in a real game. If you do, fine, but I have a bridge to sell you...

I take it you only ever play matched play? Or do you not consider narrative and open play "real games"?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic I can block my opponent from using a stratagem on their unit by using one of my own at the same time on theirs?

I'd say that from a RAI standpoint it's obvious they differentiate between playing multiple stratagems on a unit and playing the same stratagem multiple times on a unit, but from a RAW standpoint you are correct. This should have been fixed with wording that it can't stack or can be played only on one unit. I suspect that GW figured that saying "when a unit is deployed" would mean that you could only play the strat once, but really they should have spelled it out like they did with other strats if they don't want shenanigans happening. The idea of dropping a bunch of points to see the termies move across the board is amusing, though.

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic I can block my opponent from using a stratagem on their unit by using one of my own at the same time on theirs?

I'd say that from a RAI standpoint it's obvious they differentiate between playing multiple stratagems on a unit and playing the same stratagem multiple times on a unit, but from a RAW standpoint you are correct. This should have been fixed with wording that it can't stack or can be played only on one unit. I suspect that GW figured that saying "when a unit is deployed" would mean that you could only play the strat once, but really they should have spelled it out like they did with other strats if they don't want shenanigans happening. The idea of dropping a bunch of points to see the termies move across the board is amusing, though.

Then why didn't they "figure" the same for Forward Operatives?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic I can block my opponent from using a stratagem on their unit by using one of my own at the same time on theirs?

I'd say that from a RAI standpoint it's obvious they differentiate between playing multiple stratagems on a unit and playing the same stratagem multiple times on a unit, but from a RAW standpoint you are correct. This should have been fixed with wording that it can't stack or can be played only on one unit. I suspect that GW figured that saying "when a unit is deployed" would mean that you could only play the strat once, but really they should have spelled it out like they did with other strats if they don't want shenanigans happening. The idea of dropping a bunch of points to see the termies move across the board is amusing, though.

Then why didn't they "figure" the same for Forward Operatives?

Why ask why? We've seen GW in the past mess up such things. You yourself have talked about their inconsistencies.

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Slayer6 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Your "argument" has already been refuted by me and everyone else posting, so try again. Your premise is based off an impossible condition - setting up a unit multiple times isn't normally possible (outside of redeploy Strats etc.). So, TL;DR, no. If you can't accept this error that's not on me, and you seem to be arguing to argue. Tried to help, but you do you.

Actually, he seems to be winning the argument...

Only if you believe “I’m playing this Strat 8 times on this unit” would EVER fly in a real game. If you do, fine, but I have a bridge to sell you...

I take it you only ever play matched play? Or do you not consider narrative and open play "real games"?

What a strange bunch of words to try and put in my mouth. Weird discrediting attempt. About half of my games would land in the Narrative camp, though using points and mostly Matched Play rules. What’s laughable is that in such a game playing the same Strat eight times on a unit would be even more frowned upon, as cheesing is directly counter to the spirit of said format. What you think you tried to get me with did not do what you think, sorry.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Slayer6 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Your "argument" has already been refuted by me and everyone else posting, so try again. Your premise is based off an impossible condition - setting up a unit multiple times isn't normally possible (outside of redeploy Strats etc.). So, TL;DR, no. If you can't accept this error that's not on me, and you seem to be arguing to argue. Tried to help, but you do you.

Actually, he seems to be winning the argument...

Only if you believe “I’m playing this Strat 8 times on this unit” would EVER fly in a real game. If you do, fine, but I have a bridge to sell you...

I take it you only ever play matched play? Or do you not consider narrative and open play "real games"?

What a strange bunch of words to try and put in my mouth. Weird discrediting attempt. About half of my games would land in the Narrative camp, though using points and mostly Matched Play rules. What’s laughable is that in such a game playing the same Strat eight times on a unit would be even more frowned upon, as cheesing is directly counter to the spirit of said format. What you think you tried to get me with did not do what you think, sorry.

I think we are more into the scenario of finding out if we can do it if we want to, not if it’s something you would realistically do if you could.

Seems like the relevant arguments have been made by this point and the discussion is wandering, so time move on.