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.

Here's a pretty interesting one.

You can see the previous topic for more information (linked here).

So:

Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rulebook, Page 124 wrote:
At the start of your Turn Two, you must roll for for each unit being held in reserve... ...If the roll is a 3 or more, that unit arrives this turn

Followed by similar wording for the following turn

Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Rulebook, Page 124 wrote:
At the start of your Turn Three, roll for any units remaining in reserve

Note that, throughout the entire section describing rolling for reserves, it never mentions any discrimination between friendly or enemy units. What's more, based on the definition of the word "any", the wording would in fact be inclusive of units including those belonging to your opponent(s).

So with that in mind, does that mean that it's meant for each player to roll to see if an enemy's reserves come in at the beginning of their own turn, in addition to their own?

On the subject of actually bringing an enemy's models from reserves in on your turn, that too would work entirely fine. The specific rules of reserve deployment would override the general rules of normal movement, and what's more the reserve deployment rules never specify a player being unable to actually deploy their models on an opponent's turn.

I'm aware that such a ruling would break many elements of the game (for example, forcing an enemy to deploy just in time for my gun battery to get busy), but as far as RAW is concerned, that seems to be how it is written.

This is one of the few situations where I honestly don't care about RAW.

I'm not playing it this way, and I'm not going to play against anyone who plays it this way. if I'm at a tournament, and someone wants to argue this rule, they can enjoy sitting there for the next 2 and a half hour of the round while I go get a drink and laugh at them.

Ah yes... another "let's break the game" thread. How often do you get to do anything on your opponent's turn?

Now I am waiting for the legion of "if GW had written a tighter ruleset, we wouldn't have as many loopholes to exploit" responses.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Ah yes... another "let's break the game" thread. How often do you get to do anything on your opponent's turn?

Necron sniper guys (forget their names), Coteaz, reactive psychic powers... Surprisingly common, actually. Especially with Ward codecies. Funny thing, he did a lot of work on 6th ed too.

Really though, it's not "let's break the game" if the game came already broken.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Ah yes... another "let's break the game" thread. How often do you get to do anything on your opponent's turn?

I know your on my side of the argument (that its stupid), but... you DO get to do some things during your opponents turn. Interceptor, for example, lets you shoot at air units that end their movement within sight and range of the gun. Coteaz from the GK codex has a similar ability. You can make some psychic powers go off in your opponents shooting phase. You can choose to evade with fliers during the enemy shooting phase.

Its just... you don't -ever- get to move your units during your opponents turn. Thats without precedent.

I think it's fairly clear that they're talking about the player rolling for their own reserves in their own turn.

insaniak wrote:I think it's fairly clear that they're talking about the player rolling for their own reserves in their own turn.

That is what the context says.

insaniak wrote:I think it's fairly clear that they're talking about the player rolling for their own reserves in their own turn.

Thats what makes sense.

I hope to god that people have enough sense to play it that way.

Horst wrote:
Its just... you don't -ever- get to move your units during your opponents turn. Thats without precedent.

Black Templars? Consolidation?

insaniak wrote:I think it's fairly clear that they're talking about the player rolling for their own reserves in their own turn.

Will, the player is obviously rolling in their own turn, but the rule says any unit in reserves.

DeathReaper wrote:

insaniak wrote:I think it's fairly clear that they're talking about the player rolling for their own reserves in their own turn.

That is what the context says.

And where is this context?

Fafnir, I need to know... are you seriously advocating that this is the way the rule should be played? Or are you just playing devils advocate now, to give us something to argue about?

I call shenanigans. See Tenet six of YMDC

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

Fafnir wrote:
Note that, throughout the entire section describing rolling for reserves, it never mentions any discrimination between friendly or enemy units. What's more, based on the definition of the word "any", the wording would in fact be inclusive of units including those belonging to your opponent(s).

Horst wrote:Fafnir, I need to know... are you seriously advocating that this is the way the rule should be played? Or are you just playing devils advocate now, to give us something to argue about?

A little bit of both, really. This specific case piques my interest, and really shows how poor 6th ed's writing and editing is (nothing new, I know, but I don't like it when people stand for this).

That said, if such a ruling were to be seen as agreeable (even if unpopular), I'd be forced to play it as such. I'm certainly no fan of it, but it is what it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I call shenanigans. See Tenet six of YMDC

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

Fafnir wrote:
Note that, throughout the entire section describing rolling for reserves, it never mentions any discrimination between friendly or enemy units. What's more, based on the definition of the word "any", the wording would in fact be inclusive of units including those belonging to your opponent(s).

Regardless, there is nothing to suggest that you're rolling for only your own models, especially since it stresses that you roll for each unit in reserve.

LOL, now this is way overthinking a simple sentence.

Fragile wrote:LOL, now this is way overthinking a simple sentence.

Welcome to YMDC. It's what happens when a ruleset leaves itself to ambiguity and convolution.

Well, this is going to be one of those things INAT gets to make a ruling on

Generally its the FAQ my local group uses for big tournaments, so hopefully they see reason with it when writing the 6th edition FAQ.

Why are we arguing this? We all know any TO will rule against your idea Fafnir, as will any friendly games. Contrary to popular belief us wargamers aren't idiots.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:Why are we arguing this? We all know any TO will rule against your idea Fafnir, as will any friendly games. Contrary to popular belief us wargamers aren't idiots.

And I'm not saying anyone is. Really, I'm looking at the rule, and I'm unable to find any way around it.

Fafnir wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:Why are we arguing this? We all know any TO will rule against your idea Fafnir, as will any friendly games. Contrary to popular belief us wargamers aren't idiots.

And I'm not saying anyone is. Really, I'm looking at the rule, and I'm unable to find any way around it.

I found another rule that will disallow Witchfire from working.

Pg 69 Witchfire powers aer manifested during the Psyker's Shooting phase instead of firing a weapon.

So by the same logic we've been using for reserves no one can use witchfire attacks, since it doesn't say when they are used.

Definition of AER-
1
: air : atmosphere <aerate> <aerobic>
2
: gas <aerosol>
3
: aviation <aeromedicine>

Its english and a definition. So there.

Because the ruling for this goes beyond just the use of the word "any." There are two instances where it talks about rolling reserves under the reserves heading, both of them use different wording, and both of them tell you to roll for all units in reserve, with nothing to discriminate between friend and foe.

No Fafnir it doesnt. When you start tearing apart sentences to look for single words, then 99% of the time, its wrong. Take the sentence as a whole and their isnt an issue with the wording.

The next time I play a game at my FLGS I am going to demand that I get to roll for their reserves. Im sure everyone will gladly let me....

You only have the ability to move/ or do anything with your models UNLESS a rule gives you specific permission to do otherwise. When every other context of the sentence and surrounding sentences refer to "you and your" why would you roll for the opponents reserves?

DeathReaper wrote:

insaniak wrote:I think it's fairly clear that they're talking about the player rolling for their own reserves in their own turn.

That is what the context says.

Context is everything in this game. And in this case the context is essential since the word "any" doesn't mean anything close to how the OP stated. The first sentence says that you roll for each unit in reserve and have them come in. Then, you roll on turn 3 for any unit that didn't already come on the table. Pretty clear from this perspective.

Fafnir wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

insaniak wrote:I think it's fairly clear that they're talking about the player rolling for their own reserves in their own turn.

That is what the context says.

And where is this context?

In the Reserves heading on P. 124

"players can choose not to deploy up to half of their units (rounding up) keeping them as Reserves to arrive later."

Their units only includes the player that actually put the unit into reserve.

Then it goes on to tell you how these units arrive from reserve.

There is your context.

Razgriz22 wrote:The next time I play a game at my FLGS I am going to demand that I get to roll for their reserves. Im sure everyone will gladly let me....

You only have the ability to move/ or do anything with your models UNLESS a rule gives you specific permission to do otherwise. When every other context of the sentence and surrounding sentences refer to "you and your" why would you roll for the opponents reserves?

Do note, that the controlling player would place their own model. It's only the rule for rolling for reserves that is ambiguous.

It's only ambiguous if you completely ignore the context. The entire section is written under the assumption that the player is having their own turn, not their opponent's.

You're digging for easter eggs. Time to realise that the Easter Bunny isn't real.

Moving on.