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.

Actually, the movement section starts with "In your turn".

That is a misquote. A minor one, but it starts "In his turn". I guess that means only guys can move their models around? (rhetorical)

The language in the order may be somewhat loose, but clearly you are not supposed to shoot in your opponents turn, just like chicks can move their models.

Danny Internets wrote:

Codex rules trump rulebook rules. You know this.

quote]

Yes, but only if the codex SPECIFICALLY overrules the rulebook. It would have to say that the order (First rank fire, etc) CAN be used in the OPPONENTS turn. Not just ANY turn. Like SOB. For them it specifically states when you can use it in thier phase.

It is a mere oversight at the most. The codex in this case is not SPECIFIC enought to trump the rulebook. Anyway I know of no shooting that can occur in anothers shooting phase. It is THIER shooting phase, not yours.

Rulebook rules are PERMISSIVE. Just becuase it doesn't say you CAN'T deepstrike straight into close combat doesn't mean you can.

P.S. Wouldn't that rule work both ways then?

Dracos wrote:That is a misquote. A minor one, but it starts "In his turn". I guess that means only guys can move their models around? (rhetorical)

The language in the order may be somewhat loose, but clearly you are not supposed to shoot in your opponents turn, just like chicks can move their models.

I totally agree, but I've yet to see a strong argument against opponent's turn orders (the kind of argument strong enough to stop the kind of person that would claim that they could do that).

Hmmm, but could you really reason with a person like that? No matter how you set out you're argument?

I think the fact that it says you must do it before running is pretty indicative of the intent of the phrasing. If you can't allow that to contextualize the rest of the rule then you are looking for a loop hole.

Another precedent would be the wording for MC shooting, as pointed out earlier.

Can MCs fire in both shooting phases too?

Even if you can't convince someone that what they are doing is wrong, then simply do not let them state that they are using it. In a single sentence, initiate your shooting phase and declare your first action "I'll start my shooting phase with this unit shooting at that one". If they try and queue up an action "at the start of your shooting phase I'm initiating order xyz" then simply ask them to show in the rule book where one can queue up actions.

In order to fight TFG, sometimes you have to also be TFG. Then again, I'd sooner leave and let the dude know how much of a cheat he is being.

Yeah, if you have to resort to being THAT picky about the rules, the game no longer becomes enjoyable.

(Although I hate to walk away from a game, as that would make me a hypocrite for critisicing those who do.)

Hmmm, and that 'straight into the shooting phase' thing would only work for a little while before TFG cuaght on.

Yeah, its probably best to walk away from a sour match like that.

Having been flicking through my marine codex just now, it's very clear about which player's phase things happen in.

e.g. "in the librarian's assault phase", etc.

Is the lack of similar wording significant? or just more poor writing?

eta: it seems clear to me what the intent was but it pays to be cautious with subjective judgments like that.

I just think the guy was a dirty cheat for even TRYING to pass that off as a fair dinkum' rule.

It's okay to hypothesise, but to actually try it without anyone elses foreknowledge? That's just low...

Both the movement phase and the assualt phase are explicitly stated to be yours (ie the players). On page 11 of the BRB, left hand coloum, second paragraph (right below the bolded one), first sentence begins with "In his turn...." Even useing the definition of turn=player turn it doesn't change. The assualt phase isn't as clear. However, the wording indicats, IMHO, that it is only during your turn. Niether of these allow enemy actions, and even shooting doesn't.

How am I TFG by following RAW? I understand that there are grey areas (ie like this), that convulute RAW, but this is what RAW says and like Scott-S6 said.....

I totally agree, but I've yet to see a strong argument against opponent's turn orders (the kind of argument strong enough to stop the kind of person that would claim that they could do that).

Let me get back to my main points.

1)-The IG codex says you can issue an order each turn. Turn=player turn.

2)-You measure and take the LD test.

3)-You immediatly follow the order.

To those of you who say that running is a requirment, it isn't. You cannon run inside a Chimera, but you can issue orders out of it. It is on page 39 of the Guard Codex, the Mobile Command Vehicle special rule. The only difference between it and issuung orders normal is that you meassure from the Chimera's hull. Now, if we assume that you have to have the ability to run to issue and order, then you can't issue it out of a Chimra, since you cannot run and the Chimera's special rule dosen't say anything about running.

The rules for orders do not explicitly state "your turn only".

Likewise, they do not explicitly state "your turn or your opponents turn".

Since you can only take actions in your opponent's turn in exceptional circumstances this would make a strong argument to me that orders are your turn only.

If such a fundamental mechanism as doing stuff in your own turn is to be broken it would be very clearly spelled out.

I would like a specific sentence or paragraph somewhere that I can point to and say "see - that's how it works" but it appears that, in this case, there is not one.

Actual orders say they may be used each turn, and the BRB defines turn as player turn.

arinnoor wrote:Actual orders say they may be used each turn, and the BRB defines turn as player turn.

But show me where it says you may fire on your opponents turn? It doesn't because you cannot. Just because you "immediately follow the order" does not mean you get to ignore every other rule there is.

The function of the rules are that it's specific over general in the case of wargear and special rules, with an explicit exception needed to override a conflict. Just because your codex gives you permission to use a power or gear does not mean that the action is possible. It must fit within the existing rules without conflict for the given situation, or the action will fail. The exception is if you have an explicit override to the rule in conflict.

IG issuing orders in the opponents turn fails that criteria. You are given permission to use the order in the shooting phase of each turn, but you have a conflict with the rules in that you are not allowed to take actions in your opponents shooting phase in general. The action fails since it does not have an explicit override of the general rule it is in conflict with.

Just to take this a step further, for the sake of argument, say you can issue the order in your opponents turn. So you issue an order that tells you to shoot.

If you cannot shoot at whim without an order on your opponents turn, then to do so with an order would require an explicit exception. So you must be claiming that the wording of the order gives this exception to allow shooting in the opponents turn.

The order telling you to shoot immediately is not an explicit exception in any way. It would need to say something like "shoot immediately, even in the opponents turn", or something similarly worded. Immediately is not an explicit override of the core rules, it is a timing instruction of when to conduct the action in relation to the actions of the rest of your army during that phase.

Not only do orders not work in the opponents turn, the actions an order leads you to are not allowed in the opponents turn.

Gwar! as you know Codex supercedes rulebook, so if you can do the first two parts of the order and you must do the last then you must do it.

arinnoor wrote:Gwar! as you know Codex supercedes rulebook, so if you can do the first two parts of the order and you must do the last then you must do it.

This is not true at all. When you try to complete an action, it fails if at any point it comes in conflict with the rules, unless you have a specific exception granting it to work over the rule in conflict. See my post above.

arinnoor wrote:Gwar! as you know Codex supercedes rulebook, so if you can do the first two parts of the order and you must do the last then you must do it.

-Sigh- Not this crap again.

Codex > Rulebook when it says it does. Nowhere does the IG Codex say "you may ignore the restrictions of firing in your opponents turn" so you cannot. you Cannot argue "It doesn't say I can't fire in the Opponents Turn"

Furthermore, Codex does NOT always supersede rulebook, as the rules for Sweeping Advance and Assaulting through cover show.

@Kaaihn- Sorry made the post as you were posting yours it seams. I actually follow your argument and it makes sense to me. Thanks, I still don't think it is clear either way, but I feel now that anyone who read this would have a leg to stand on as to why it doesn't work.

@Gwar!-Codex does supercede rulebook, but it doesn't have to be explicitly stated. It does have to be explicitly stated that the opisite is true. For example, Space Wolves were FAQe to follow the Counter Attack in the BRB rather then the one listed in their codex.

EDIT: Has anyone asked GW using the email thing? I would be interested in the answer, (yes even though it would be unofficial).

EDIT2: By the way Gwar! that is a double negative, so you are saying "It does say I can fire in the Opponents Turn." Sorry just wanted to say it. No offense meant.

arinnoor wrote:As I said in the last thread, all the IG player has to say is that he is going to use the ability at the begining of your shooting phase. If you deny him this it is you (I don't mean you personaly) that is being a jerk.

lol no

arinnoor wrote:EDIT2: By the way Gwar! that is a double negative, so you are saying "It does say I can fire in the Opponents Turn." Sorry just wanted to say it. No offense meant.

yes, that was the whole point. You saying you can fire in my shooting phase is you saying "it doesn't say I can't", which is not how 40k works.

That is not my argument at all. If that is what you feel I have said then I must not have been clear enough.

arinnoor wrote:That is not my argument at ll. If that is what you feel I have said then I must not have been clear enough.

Clearly. Please go ahead and explain why you think Guard Armies can break the very fundamental rule of a I-Go-You-Go system in such an utterly convoluted way.

And should be able to?

Orkeosaurus wrote:And should be able to?

Also this.

arinnoor wrote:Both the movement phase and the assualt phase are explicitly stated to be yours (ie the players). On page 11 of the BRB, left hand coloum, second paragraph (right below the bolded one), first sentence begins with "In his turn...." Even useing the definition of turn=player turn it doesn't change. The assualt phase isn't as clear. However, the wording indicats, IMHO, that it is only during your turn. Niether of these allow enemy actions, and even shooting doesn't.

No folks, it does not.

In the beginning of the Movement section it says "In his turn, a player may move any of his units..."
This is a general rule that will allow you to move any units you want, during your turn.


Later under the Movement Distance section, is a more specific rule that overrides the general rule; it says that units locked in CC cannot move in the movement phase.
Also in the Movement Distance section (at the very beginning), is another specific rule. It very clearly states that "Infantry move up to 6" in the Movement phase" At no point is that limited to only your movement phase.
Since we all know that specific over rides general, both of these specific rules should be in effect. So yes, my infantry can move during both movement phases.....(but can't move if locked in CC)


Again, this falls down (as does the IG foolishness) when one realizes that the very basis of the game is going in turns....





edit: Oh, and it is a convenient short-cut to claim that codex>rulebook; though it is not strictly true.

Specific rules>general rules. Typically, the rules in the codex are more specific than the rules in the BRB, but that is not always the case.

I view it as the specific IG rule overriding the general BRB. However, I admit this is a grey area and I am no more right then you are to incinuate this is how it is to be palyed.

arinnoor wrote:@Kaaihn- Sorry made the post as you were posting yours it seams. I actually follow your argument and it makes sense to me. Thanks, I still don't think it is clear either way, but I feel now that anyone who read this would have a leg to stand on as to why it doesn't work.

No problem, that happens all the time. Just to make sure you are aware of it, if you go by the logic that codex trumps rulebook in the case of a conflict rather than the specific over general and explicit exception mechanic, Space Marine Librarians can then use some of their psychic powers in the opponents turn, as they have the same language as IG orders for the generic description.

"He can only use one power each player turn unless he has been upgraded to an Epistolary, in which case he can use up to two psychic powers each turn."

Some powers give a specific time when it can be used, such as start of the Librarian's assault phase, or start of the Librarian's movement phase, but others just say "This power is a psychic shooting attack".

By the logic you are using for your orders to work in my turn, my Librarian can use his psychic shooting attacks in your turn. The logic being it says can be used each turn for both, and your logic grants that this is all that is needed for the entire ability to work.

See where this breaks the game? Sure, I could argue that my wording allows me to cast the power in your turn exactly as you argue you can issue orders in mine. We would both be wrong, but stipulate for a moment we are right. Having permission to use the ability does not grant immunity to the actions you try to take from conflicts with rules. You have to check for conflicts step by step in performing any action. If you come in to conflict, the action fails without an explicit override to the conflict.

In the Librarians case, even if we agree that he can cast the power in your turn, I come in to conflict with the standard shooting rules (can't shoot in the opponents turn), so the action then fails because the power doesn't say something like "this works in the opponents shooting phase". Same thing applies to orders. That's just the mechanics of the game.

Codex over rulebook is a simplification for "explicit exception from a codex overrides the general rule of the action in question that would be in conflict with in the rulebook". You will notice that no place in the rulebook or any Errata or FAQ is there actually a rule of "Codex over Rulebook" as an overarching rule. The only references are to use specific wargear from the codex over generic wargear from the rulebook (smoke launchers being the example), and to use specific special rules in the codex over the Universal Special Rules in the rulebook where the codex has different rules for a USR of the same name in the rulebook.

Good point. From what I get from what you said. Ican issue the order, but since nothing permits me to shoot I can't follow through.

This reminds me of the "can units with Fleet assault after running, if they also disembarked from a closed-topped vehicle" fight. (I think the general consensus there was no, you need each limit on your action to be removed before you can proceed, not just one.)

arinnoor wrote:Good point. From what I get from what you said. Ican issue the order, but since nothing permits me to shoot I can't follow through.

Which is what I was saying, yet all I received were hostile comments.

Go Figure.