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.

The_scotsman,
I was referring to Counter Offensive, when I mentioned I would have liked it to say 'immediate' instead of 'fight with it next.'
Cause... let us face it, someone out there is going to argue that there is a serious enough difference for it to matter!

E.G.:
If a unit wouldn't otherwise be capable of 'fighting next' already, how can it be eligible for selection in the first place?

Or, in more abstract:
What if we have two Rules, one with 'next' and one with 'immediate?'
How can we obey both of these rules?
Doing the 'immediate' one first automatically violates the timing of next, while doing the 'next' one first violates the timing of immediate?
We can't use sequencing to fix this because immediate does fall before next, or else any rule that says 'next do X' could supersede any interrupt of immediate!

Remember Rule Writers:
Consistency within your sequence interrupts!

The rules don't say anything about immediately coming before next, that's an assumption. Could be meant that way, or not.

While I admit an assumption, it is based on Sequencing and a common understanding of timelines.

Or, would you really allow me to ignore your 'immediately' till after I do an action which lacks this terminology?
Simply because I am stating with unmoving devotion that the rules support my 'next action' coming before your 'immediately?'

Its hard to say how rules interact, especially if rules from 8th and 9th come together.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Point made. So we are in agreement then, there is zero precedent for any unit attacking after being destroyed?

If by "destroyed" you mean "removed from the board". There are plenty of units that can get a final attack in after they've died from special rules, but in all those cases it specifies leaving the model on the board while making the attack, then after that's done removing the model from play.

P5freak,
This isn't even a Rule Interaction situation anymore, it is how 'next' works in relation to a Sequence.
Unless you believe 'next' is justification to delay an 'immediately?'

For those curious why it actually matters to me:
Next is a very useful piece of terminology because it creates a Delayed Interrupt, allowing actions to be completed before the interrupt resolves
Immediately is very useful because it interrupts Immediately, allowing us to ignore whatever might be scheduled as 'next' in the sequence

What point is there to Counter-Offensive using a Delayed Interrupt as opposed to an Immediate one?
Just what land-mine have the Rule-Writers created for themselves... when they forget Counter-Offensives unique timing?

 JinxDragon wrote:
P5freak,
This isn't even a Rule Interaction situation anymore, it is how 'next' works in relation to a Sequence.
Unless you believe 'next' is justification to delay an 'immediately?'

For those curious why it actually matters to me:
Next is a very useful piece of terminology because it creates a Delayed Interrupt, allowing actions to be completed before the interrupt resolves
Immediately is very useful because it interrupts Immediately, allowing us to ignore whatever might be scheduled as 'next' in the sequence

What point is there to Counter-Offensive using a Delayed Interrupt as opposed to an Immediate one?
Just what land-mine have the Rule-Writers created for themselves... when they forget Counter-Offensives unique timing?

Are you saying "immediately" always comes before "next" ?

Correct,
If faced with two rules, one telling me Immediately and one telling me Next - the order isn't ambiguous to me.

Even if I was to accept that they both fill the same 'slot' on the sequence, all that does is allow one player to choose which resolves first. It isn't hard to foresee a situation where someone could choose to resolve a 'next command' before an 'immediate command' in a way that renders the following immediate command moot. It is bad enough when we encounter that situation with two Immediate Commands that conflict hard... we don't need to add 'Next' to that pile, do we?

Also of note:
The default rules are nothing more then a string of 'Next Commands,' it is a game after all.

The order isn't ambiguous in the rules. You just need to check the Rules Glossary.

Immediately: See "When".

When: If a rule state that it takes place when a certain trigger occurs, unless otherwise specified, that rule takes effect before any others.

Not sure if that assists me, but I really do like the possible breaks that it creates!
If only glossaries where not treated as 'short-cut' versions of the Rules by Game Workshop... I could use this to Lawyer hard!

The problem I have with When is an oldy that I have with Game Workshop - They don't do the whole 'otherwise specified' very well. For example, there are many Rules out there which place Modifiers onto Enemy Units that take effect during an entirely different Phase of the game. Often using words like 'next shooting attack,' even though the Rule was triggered during Movement or even the previous Turn entirely. Within all such Rules there is nothing saying 'Specifically excepted from the "that rule takes effect before any other" part of the "When" restriction found within the glossary.' We know such rules 'take effect after others' because they create a duration that requires us to play past the point they triggered before they can take effect.

So back to what I keep highlighting in Counter-Offensive:
It also creates a Duration, although one of nano-seconds, due to the use of a Delayed Interrupt created by that very poor choice of 'Next.'
This might be entirely meaningless out of hypothetical Rule Debates, but that duration allows for an 'Immediately' to slip in....
An action which resolved immediately on completing a Fight needs to be resolved before the next Fight begins, even if another Rule has change whom Fights next.

If a charged unit has the ability to fight again immediately, you wouldnt be able to interrupt it with counter offensive, because "immediately" takes precedence. Counter offensive says the unit fights next.

And if it doesn't Fight again Immediately, have you obeyed the Rule within to do so?
All we are doing here is 'blue screening' the game, which goes to show how poorly Counter-Offensive has been written... so thank you for all the laughs at it's expense.