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.

There would be no nerd rage sorry.

Have fun with your flgs using that rule.

/thread

Does anyone else believe that this could be WAI? With the current BGB and this codex release being so closely released and the orders that work during opponents turn being fairly specific in nature (for the most part) and making a fair amount of sense fluffwise (for whatever THAT'S worth) it does not seem to be a streatch at all really.

Kungfuhustler wrote:Does anyone else believe that this could be WAI? With the current BGB and this codex release being so closely released and the orders that work during opponents turn being fairly specific in nature (for the most part) and making a fair amount of sense fluffwise (for whatever THAT'S worth) it does not seem to be a streatch at all really.

No, the BRB and the Chaos Daemons Codex were closely released, this doesn't qualify.

So, wait, you are cheating and still can not beat Tau?

Kungfuhustler wrote:Wow. OP here. I haven't looked at this thread for a minute but people opposed to the RAW got even uglier than I imagined, good thread! After talking about this rule at my flgs with several players and debating on how, truly, "broken" it is we came to the agreement that it's perfectly RAW with no legitimate argument holding up against it AND that it's only moderately broken.

I like the cut of your jib, Kungfuhustler. "Oh, hey guys, I'm back. I only spent a minute glancing over this thread, but boy did some people get angry at me! I didn't read what they posted, or anything, but I talked it over with my FLGS, and they agree with me. This must be working as intended!"

Go back and read the full thread: playing orders this way is not supported by the rules. I agree that the rules appear to create a RAW opening, but reading them that way also produces a paradox that brings the game to a screeching halt. I'll say it one more time: Issuing orders during your opponents turn breaks the game. The rules do not support it, and common sense does not support it. If you want to make fun house rules at your local store, go nuts, but please stop trying to pretend that this is anything but an incredible stretch of an interpretation.

Kungfuhustler wrote:Does anyone else believe that this could be WAI? With the current BGB and this codex release being so closely released and the orders that work during opponents turn being fairly specific in nature (for the most part) and making a fair amount of sense fluffwise (for whatever THAT'S worth) it does not seem to be a streatch at all really.

Yes, Kungfuhustler. GW intended you to be able to issue orders during your opponents turn, but instead of explicitly saying that, they used language implying that you couldn't, failed to make any reference to this incredibly powerful ability in the Codex or their other materials, and just for good measure threw in a rules paradox to ensure that only casual gamers who were pure of heart could ever actually complete a game of 40k.

They did this to test the faith of the true believers.

Look, I know sarcasm is the poor man's wit, but let's get real. The notion that this is WAI is just laughable. There's not a single other ability in 40k that allows players to violate the basic concept of the IGO / UGO turn system that does not explicitly allow for the exception. GW just doesn't write rules like this.

I can understand the genesis of the RAW argument, even if I disagree with it. But the WAI argument is just indefensible.

BoxANT wrote:So, wait, you are cheating and still can not beat Tau?

lol. I tied them the only time I played against them under 5th.

@Davee47.I read the thread... You are just wrong dave. At lease till we see a faq

Hmmm, can't get the multi-quote function to work.

Gwar, I certainly hope they FAQ this, and rule AGAINST issuing orders in your opponent's turn.

All, re using phase to justify every phase in both player's turn as a counter-argument. Doesn't work, Page 9, same page that gives us turn = player turn, gives us phase = your own turn.

Dave, it may indeed break the game. But that's not what is under discussion. The rule is under discussion, not how over-the-top it might be.

Kwi, turn = player turn, means each player turn, not that player's turn.

Hymirl, is it trolling to argue for RAW or trolling to call someone a troll? You (and the mods) can decide.

Razerous, where in the new IG codex does it specifically state "you use orders during your own turn". That's the problem that we've been discussing. It doesn't say that and in fact says the opposite with the "each turn" statement.

Modquisition on:

Gentlemen, the #1 Rule of Dakka is, be polite. There have been multiple posts flaming other posters. This will not be tolerated. Further flmaing posts after this public warnign will be dealt with harshly. I will contineu to monitor this thread.

don_mondo wrote:.

Razerous, where in the new IG codex does it specifically state "you use orders during your own turn". That's the problem that we've been discussing. It doesn't say that and in fact says the opposite with the "each turn" statement.

Imperial guard codex, p29, that whole box.

Imperial guard codex p30, the officer orders description - further reinfornces the points.

Imperial guard codex p36, the platoon command squad description - more of the same.

BGB p15 & 16 - Using identical terminology. Clear what is intended. Please pay close attention to the first paragraph.

BGB P51 - Monsterous creature, again using identical terminology - Does anyone else say monsterous creature can fire 2 weapons every single shooting phase.. No. Ofcourse not. Its obvious, like the guard codex.

I could give you countless more referances. Theres no need. Its clear, unless you are trying to find alterior 'interpritations'.

it is clear unless you are trying to find ulterior interpritations, you're right! Guard can use orders on any players turn, ws written. that's been proven. Now how do we determine intent?

Gee, no they can't. See what I did there?

Unless someone is actively looking for some hidden easter egg, or desperately looking for some way to creatively interpret the rules, it's very clear from the wording in the codex that you cannot use orders in the enemies turn. Yes, GW screwed up. But I think the screw up is in the "turn means either players turn", not in the IG codex. Everyone knows GW can fail to state the obvious, and isn't totally clear on rules. Doesn't suddenly mean the rules of the game have taken a left turn.

The problem might be that YMDC has changed from "how i'd play the game" to "how I'd argue on the internet that the rules might let you play the game". It makes for an interesting theoretical discussion. But also makes YMDC less and less useful.

"But they said on Dakka Dakka..." is taken about as seriously now as "But the redshirt at GW said....".

mikhaila wrote:"But they said on Dakka Dakka..." is taken about as seriously now as "But the redshirt at GW said....".

No Offence, but that has always been the case tbfh.

Probably the best single argument I've heard against this, is that it is such a change from the norm, GW would have mentioned it as a "feature" of the new Codex. They wouldn't have hidden it, so you had to search and search for it, then argue about intent to get people to let you use it.


Is that a rock solid argument? No. I know GW screws things up by the numbers most times, but this is a pretty big miss if indeed that's what it is.



Clay

Razerous wrote:

don_mondo wrote:.

Razerous, where in the new IG codex does it specifically state "you use orders during your own turn". That's the problem that we've been discussing. It doesn't say that and in fact says the opposite with the "each turn" statement.

Imperial guard codex, p29, that whole box.

Imperial guard codex p30, the officer orders description - further reinfornces the points.

Imperial guard codex p36, the platoon command squad description - more of the same.

BGB p15 & 16 - Using identical terminology. Clear what is intended. Please pay close attention to the first paragraph.

BGB P51 - Monsterous creature, again using identical terminology - Does anyone else say monsterous creature can fire 2 weapons every single shooting phase.. No. Ofcourse not. Its obvious, like the guard codex.

I could give you countless more referances. Theres no need. Its clear, unless you are trying to find alterior 'interpritations'.

IG Codex pages 29, 30, and 36, all use the phrasing each turn. Which as stated on page 9 of the BRB mean each player turn.

BGB pages 15 and 16, since the BRB say on Page 9 to treat "turn" as player turn then it still makes sense as it specifilty says the turn is yours, thus only in your shooting phase may you fire.

BGB Page 51, say they may do so once per shooting phase. If we go bak to page 15 it specificly refer to the shooting phase as yours, and that is the only one they can fire in.

As shown the RAW are quite clear on this point. I welcome anyone to point out the flaw in my logic. I don't even play Guard, but I feel that if this is what the rules say that is how we should play. No matter how much sense it does or doesn't make.

arinnoor wrote:I welcome anyone to point out the flaw in my logic. I don't even play Guard, but I feel that if this is what the rules say that is how we should play. No matter how much sense it does or doesn't make.

...Go back and read the thread. this has all been covered.

I have read the thread where were these points disproven?

Pretty much everywhere. If you cant see it, you have bigger problems.

What do you mean? I see nowhere any one disputing what is said on page 9 or Page 15 of the BRB.

Why are you reading the fantasy book?

What do you mean? BRB is Big Rule Book, but now that I check the glossary it calls it Big Red Book. Geuss I'll just call it the BGB from now on.

don_mondo wrote:Dave, it may indeed break the game. But that's not what is under discussion. The rule is under discussion, not how over-the-top it might be.

Often, when people say something "breaks the game," they are using hyperbole. IE, the statement "Valkyries are totally broken!" is used as a stand-in for the statement "Valkyries are overpowered for their points cost." I was not using the phrase in that context. My contention is not that "Using orders in your opponent's turn is over-the-top and unfair!" My contention is that it is impossible to use orders during your opponent's turn and still obey the RAW.

I do not deny that the main book's definition of "turn" supports your argument. However, attempting to play the rules that way contradicts other parts of the RAW. Specifically it violates the rule that orders must be issued at the "beginning" of a turn. If your opponent attempts to "block" your orders by doing something first in the shooting phase, the game "breaks" in the sense that you and your opponent are each attempting to do something, and there are no rules that dictate how your actions should be resolved. As I joked, you can go borrow some rules from Magic: The Gathering if you want, but the 40k rulebook will not help you.

And things get even crazier in IG vs. IG match-ups.

Instead of flatly stating that I am wrong, please explain to me how you would use orders during an opponent's turn. I am especially interested in seeing how this would work in an IG vs. IG match-up.

Gavinator wrote:Pg. 9 in the big rule book Headline "The Turn" second section "Game Turns and Player Turns."

"In a complete game turn, both players get a player turn, each one divided into Movement, Shooting and Assault phases (see Turn Sequence below). Exactly what is going to happen in each phase is described in the following sections of this book.

Hence one game turn will comprise two player turns. Whenever a rule uses the word 'turn', both in this rule book and in the Codexes, it means 'player turn', otherwise it will clearly state 'game turn'."

Now look at the Company command squad or any other officers special rules it states:

"The company commander may issue up to two orders per TURN." (Refer to BRB for what comprises a turn)

that work? It specifically says that the usage of turn in the IG dex means player turn! I.E. Orders in your shooting phase.

IG vs. IG w/ orders sounds like a lot of fun! I'd resolve it with an I go you go strategy, personally. Really though, IG vs. IG is always fun regardless as it's a hilarious bloodbath!

Kungfuhustler wrote:that work?

No, of course not. Read my post.

Dave47 wrote:
attempting to play the rules that way contradicts other parts of the RAW. Specifically it violates the rule that orders must be issued at the "beginning" of a turn.

um, this post? because orders are at the beginning of the shooting phase. Remember that 'Faith' is used in the same way as orders (at the beginning of the shooting phase) so the player merely states that he has faith/orders to issue at the beginning of his opponents shooting phase.

Well, look at the 5th edition cover (I assume you are playing 5th edition) and you will see it is mostly red.

I know my point have been brought up, however, I don't see how they are wrong.

@Dave47- Couldn't that be simply stopped by telling your opponent? Just say "Hey I have something to do at the start of your shooting phase." I mean it is like a Inquisitor with Mystics the ablity to shooting at your deep striking unit. If your opponent went ahead and moved his models, cause the Inquisitor player didn't say anything about his ability. Then shouldn't he not get his shots? How can they refuse when what your doing has to be done before their actions?

Don't try and use the Mystics as an argument. That has a specific rule that says you can do it in their turn, but orders do not. Since you must have specific permission to do things in your opponent turn, and orders do not, therefore you cannot.