A cloud of smoke that shoots?

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.

**FlingitNow**

Back when I was young, before the internets and when dinosaurs roamed the earth, we played 40k. It was 2nd ed and we used sticks and rocks for our miniatures.

When we found something ambiguous in the rules, we used a variety of skills to work out solutions. These skills included common sense, context, and interpreting the spirit of the rule. Most importantly, we tried to figure out what was most realistic, what would happen on the battlefield.Then we made it a houserule. Some of you guys may have heard of them; they save your games from devolving into jackassery when strict RaW creates slowed situations.

We didn't whinge about GW staff being crap at writing rules, we simply accepted that 40k is a complex ruleset with new stuff being added all the time. We didn't expect them to figure out every possible extrapolation of every concievable rule conflict or ambiguity, as we preferred them bringing out new codexes and miniatures over spending all their time octo-checking every sentence they wrote.

Maybe the quality of rules written has deteriorated in recent years. I suspect it has, although perhaps it was always like this and we only now realise it because we have internet forums where we can pool our collective experience. Back in the old days, we were only aware of situations which had arisen during games we had played with our troglodyte buddies, by firelight, in our cave, with the sabertooth tigers lurking in the darkness beyond.

Which brings me to my point.

The 'once per game' clause isn't necessarily (or imo even likely) intended to limit when you can do a thing. Yes, that reading is certainly there, but I suspect the intent of the sentence is to limit how many times you can do a thing and nothing else. How else are you going to word a rule that stiplutes you can only do something once over the course of a battle? 'Once per game' is the most obvious phrase that fits the bill.

In the absence of a FAQ ruling from GW, whether or not you want to allow smoke (and similarly flat-out saves) in Scout moves is a matter for you and your gaming group to decide. Make a houserule that says you can or you can't. My group plays that you can benefit from these things. Why the hell not? What's stopping the crewman popping smoke? Dudes is moving, sounds the battle has started to me!

"Hold on Octavius, we can't smoke yet because the game hasn't begun, even though we are tear-assing towards the Eldar position!"

Why wouldn't a Vendetta get a flat-out save if it moved 18" in its Scout move? Just because strict RaW doesn't say it can? The damn thing is barelling along at top speed, RaW can go hang as far as I'm concerned. Fast vehicles gain a cover save from moving fast. Pretty straightforward stuff really, and a clear case where common sense and applying the realism principle will grant you a satifactory ruling without the need for a 2-page forum thread.

My little mangs are not aware that they are but pawns in a game, they are soldiers fighting for their lives and they will be popping smoke and jinking and weaving and all that jazz, whether or not the game has technically begun. They don't give a rat's ass about strict RaW.

As for scout-smoking/scout-flatouting, then moving 6" and firing all guns, and then trying to claim the save in the enemy turn, anyone trying to pull that must be smoking crack and is getting kicked out of my gargage with their miniatures case suplexed. The spirit of the rule is clearly intended to mean that if the vehicle has smoked/moved fast in it's last move before they enemy started pointing guns and pulling the trigger at it, it gets a save. Anything else is some real cheesy-ass rules lawyering.

I saw a thread where people were trying to claim that certain named characters wearing certain specialised terminator suits can ride in rhinos. Or that a Meltabomb isn't a melta weapon. GTFO. It's Terminator armour. The description says it's terminator armour. Just because it has a different name doesn't change a damn thing. A rose by any other and whatnot. Its a melta weapon. It's str8 with 2D6 penetration. You know it is. At least, you know it's meant to be, and that's what's important.

I swear some people pore over the rulebooks looking for inconsistencies just so that they can make a thread about it.

Strict adherence to rules in situations where they are clearly not functining in a good way is not a good thing. That's how you get Nazi Germany and Holocausts and stuff. If the rules are bad, throw them out the window!

TLDR: use your brain, figure out the intent of the rule and what is most realistic on the battlefield, and make a housrule. And don't ever try to scout/smoke/fire/save or jam termy-calgar into a rhino unless you are totally fine with the idea of being a supreme jackass.

This post is made of win. How I'd play this:

The per game restriction to during game is stretching at best. Yes the Pred can use its smoke launchers during the scout move, but no that doesn't grant them a cover save in player turn 2 only player turn 1 (which of course could well be the controlling players turn so it ouwld be pointless).

This is how I play the cover save for Scout bikers and flatout vehciles and hence is a consistent reading of the rules (also flatout moving scouting skimmers that get immobilised are wrecked). It makes the most sense to me and seems to be closest to the intentions of the rules.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's not, really. I was just bringing it up as an example of why houseruling according to 'common sense' doesn't always work.

That depends on your gaming group and if you had people like your example I'd suggest playing else where. At the end of the day with no ruling body to enforce rules you have to agree the rules with your opponent be that a Houserule, RaW or RaI. Nobody can play the game pure RaW it simply doesn't work just look at the fun list of RaW thread for what would happen if you actually tried to do that. You will have to at times make a houserule or follow The Rules rather than following RaW.

Here is a situation of someone trying to break the mechanics to gain an unfair advantage (firing his Baal and still retaining the cover save, like me assaulting with my scout bikers and consolidating in front of your big guns knowing I'll still get a 3+ cover save). Hence a houserule should be called for in the interests of consistency.

**TheBlackVanguard**

I think houserules are very thin ice and it does not take long for it to just get ridiculous.

I think the best way to handle it would be to tell your opponent that you think that's an unfair advantage and if he refuses to see reason then refuse to play him and let him take his dickery elsewhere.

When you start voting and creating houserules you bring politics into somewhere where it is unwelcome which is a game made for fun and no other real purpose.

**Alerian**

Jimole wrote:Back when I was young, before the internets and when dinosaurs roamed the earth, we played 40k. It was 2nd ed and we used sticks and rocks for our miniatures.

When we found something ambiguous in the rules, we used a variety of skills to work out solutions. These skills included common sense, context, and interpreting the spirit of the rule. Most importantly, we tried to figure out what was most realistic, what would happen on the battlefield.Then we made it a houserule. Some of you guys may have heard of them; they save your games from devolving into jackassery when strict RaW creates slowed situations.

We didn't whinge about GW staff being crap at writing rules, we simply accepted that 40k is a complex ruleset with new stuff being added all the time. We didn't expect them to figure out every possible extrapolation of every concievable rule conflict or ambiguity, as we preferred them bringing out new codexes and miniatures over spending all their time octo-checking every sentence they wrote.

Maybe the quality of rules written has deteriorated in recent years. I suspect it has, although perhaps it was always like this and we only now realise it because we have internet forums where we can pool our collective experience. Back in the old days, we were only aware of situations which had arisen during games we had played with our troglodyte buddies, by firelight, in our cave, with the sabertooth tigers lurking in the darkness beyond.

Which brings me to my point.

The 'once per game' clause isn't necessarily (or imo even likely) intended to limit when you can do a thing. Yes, that reading is certainly there, but I suspect the intent of the sentence is to limit how many times you can do a thing and nothing else. How else are you going to word a rule that stiplutes you can only do something once over the course of a battle? 'Once per game' is the most obvious phrase that fits the bill.

In the absence of a FAQ ruling from GW, whether or not you want to allow smoke (and similarly flat-out saves) in Scout moves is a matter for you and your gaming group to decide. Make a houserule that says you can or you can't. My group plays that you can benefit from these things. Why the hell not? What's stopping the crewman popping smoke? Dudes is moving, sounds the battle has started to me!

"Hold on Octavius, we can't smoke yet because the game hasn't begun, even though we are tear-assing towards the Eldar position!"

Why wouldn't a Vendetta get a flat-out save if it moved 18" in its Scout move? Just because strict RaW doesn't say it can? The damn thing is barelling along at top speed, RaW can go hang as far as I'm concerned. Fast vehicles gain a cover save from moving fast. Pretty straightforward stuff really, and a clear case where common sense and applying the realism principle will grant you a satifactory ruling without the need for a 2-page forum thread.My little mangs are not aware that they are but pawns in a game, they are soldiers fighting for their lives and they will be popping smoke and jinking and weaving and all that jazz, whether or not the game has technically begun. They don't give a rat's ass about strict RaW.

As for scout-smoking/scout-flatouting, then moving 6" and firing all guns, and then trying to claim the save in the enemy turn, anyone trying to pull that must be smoking crack and is getting kicked out of my gargage with their miniatures case suplexed. The spirit of the rule is clearly intended to mean that if the vehicle has smoked/moved fast in it's last move before they enemy started pointing guns and pulling the trigger at it, it gets a save. Anything else is some real cheesy-ass rules lawyering.

I saw a thread where people were trying to claim that certain named characters wearing certain specialised terminator suits can ride in rhinos. Or that a Meltabomb isn't a melta weapon. GTFO. It's Terminator armour. The description says it's terminator armour. Just because it has a different name doesn't change a damn thing. A rose by any other and whatnot. Its a melta weapon. It's str8 with 2D6 penetration. You know it is. At least, you know it's meant to be, and that's what's important.

I swear some people pore over the rulebooks looking for inconsistencies just so that they can make a thread about it.

Strict adherence to rules in situations where they are clearly not functining in a good way is not a good thing. That's how you get Nazi Germany and Holocausts and stuff. If the rules are bad, throw them out the window!

TLDR: use your brain, figure out the intent of the rule and what is most realistic on the battlefield, and make a housrule. And don't ever try to scout/smoke/fire/save or jam termy-calgar into a rhino unless you are totally fine with the idea of being a supreme jackass.

^^Just so we are clear, is this what you are saying?: "I don't like to play by GWs rules. I would rather make up my own houserules and criticize people who actually play by the rules."

I'm sorry, but I could not disagree with the quoted post more, let alone the insults and inuendos.

I too have been around since 2nd ed, and while the rules have never been perfect (or sometimes even not even remotely clear), I have always done my best to play by them.
Making houserules, just to try to make the game more realistic, completely breaks game balance in most cases. This is why people should attempt to play "Rules as Written", to the best of their ability (RaI is sometimes necessary due to unclear wording, but it too can lead to problems). Playing "Rules as How I Want Them to Be" only leads to massive game imbalance, and typically, to arguements. This is because the break in game balance leads to unfair advantages to certain armies.

Sure, GW does create some broken rules that give some unfair advantages. However, to add your own rules to them only usually creates a larger problem, rather than fixing the current one. Allowing fast Preds, etc. to pop smoke before the game begins, even though the rules in no way you to pop smoke before the game begins, is one such example of giving an unfair and illegal advantage for one army.

Game balance > realism....this is a game system, not real war. If we were to simply go for realism, then whichever player has the biggest budget would win, as we would be able to bring as many units as we own to the table, since that is what real generals/countries do....there is no holding back in war. Of course we don't do that in regular games, because we care about game balance and having a good time. This means we sacrifice "realism" for game balance, which GW has tried to write into the ruleset, albeit not always perfectly.

In addition, not only do houserules usually cause many, many gamebreaking issues, they also tend to ruin 40k players. New players learn these "houserules" and then think they are the actual rules of the game. When they move/go to another FLGS, they suddenly become either the "noob" or "TFG" because they do not/will not play by the written rules. Such houserules also make it hard on players moving into/visiting a "houserule FLGS", because they now have to learn a completely new and unwritten ruleset. Then these poor players are forced to flood forums like Dakka/Warseer/40k Online and ask about rules that someone "told" them about, because they are now completely confused between "what the rules say" and "how it is played". Finally, houserules ruin anyone who intends to play in tourneys, as the rules they will be forced to play by in the tourney will not remotely match up to how they are used to playing, and their entire game will be off.

As to the matter at hand, you cannot pop smoke after a Scout move for the same reason that a Vendetta cannot claim a 4+ cover save for going flat out during a Scout move...the Rules do not allow you to do so. Breaking these types of rules for the sake of "realism" will only lead to major advantages for one player/army and make the game less enjoyable for the opposing player, which is never a good thing.

**Kilkrazy**

Pika_power wrote:The problem is when people have different opinions, house rules break. So it's all fine if there's a democracy, so John and Simon rule that Jack can't pull this with his smoke. However what happens when Simon picks up Necrons, John dislikes WBB, so he petitions Jack to ban Necron WBB, because the game designers obviously didn't intend for something so broken to be there, and it's ruining John's fun, as per TMIR. Now we've got a comp onion situation.

It's in this case that John gets out his Sword of RAWtious Fury and says that the rules allow him to use WBB. John then starts going on about his smoke, and we've come a full loop.

Both systems are imperfect.

Only if people are arseholes.

**Monster Rain**

Y'ever notice in the WD batreps, if there's a rules discrepancy the two players just sort of talk it over and run it by an impartial 3rd party and then just play the game?

That's pretty nice.

**Pika_power**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Pika_power wrote:The problem is when people have different opinions, house rules break. So it's all fine if there's a democracy, so John and Simon rule that Jack can't pull this with his smoke. However what happens when Simon picks up Necrons, John dislikes WBB, so he petitions Jack to ban Necron WBB, because the game designers obviously didn't intend for something so broken to be there, and it's ruining John's fun, as per TMIR. Now we've got a comp onion situation.

It's in this case that John gets out his Sword of RAWtious Fury and says that the rules allow him to use WBB. John then starts going on about his smoke, and we've come a full loop.

Both systems are imperfect.

Only if people are arseholes.

Perhaps mine was an extreme example. But take another one. We had a thread a while ago about not telling what's in what transport. The guy honestly thought it was better not knowing, and that was how the game 'should' be played. No donkey-cave, just a different belief. Bring it up in-game, and the two sides will start throwing the WAAC accusations faster than GW releases overpowered marine codices.

**Kilkrazy**

I can see both sides of that argument.

How would the enemy know what is in your transports? OTOH it's a game, not a simulation, and perhaps balance makes it necessary to know.

The best thing to do is bring up these kind of points before the game starts. No-one likes it when rules they didn't know about or understood differently are brought up at a crucial point of a game.

It can happen innocently. I'm guilty of not knowing all the rules for my army, and referring to them during them game and finding out stuff I was not aware of.

The throwing accusations bit is to do with being an arsehole though. These disputes do not have to be resolved by counter-accusations and recriminations -- in fact that sort of behaviour tends to entrench people in their position.

**Sliggoth**

The battle reps in WD dont cover all the discussion that goes on at the games, altho there was one report on a fantasy battle where they did mention a breakdown by one player. It was orcs vs bretonians, the orc player had a massively kitted out boss on a monster. The boss smashed through the unit he was fighting and then had to continue his charge forward...which brought him into contact with one of his own mine-type units (think it might have been one of those berserk goblins they use, Im not too familiar with fantasy tho so cant remember exactly). Which then killed the boss.

It was then mentioned in the WD that the orc player had a bit of a fit and stormed off for a few minutes. Later in the recap part of the article the orc player mentioned the incident as well, and his apology. This was a clear basic rule of his army, yet he went into a rant about how his boss wouldnt be stupid enough to do what the rules had him do, and had to stop playing for a short break.

So even experienced players can have arguements about realism when it doesnt go their way.

Sliggoth

**Darkzephyr**

Okay, I hope I'm not hi-jacking this thread, but I want to clarify something about Turbo-Boosting.

If you Turbo-Boost during the scout movement (which I'm assuming you can), do you still get the 3+ Cover save during your opponents first round of shooting? If you did that, and even if you're technically able to, I'm getting the impression that most people would consider it an "under-handed/Douche-bag/Cheese-dick" tactic that's exploiting the rules, or taking advantage of something that wasn't intended.

1. Is it legal?
2. Is it a bad idea to do during the 'Ard Boyz tournament? I certainly don't want to piss people off and gain a bad, cheese-dick reputation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, I hope I'm not hi-jacking this thread, but I want to clarify something about Turbo-Boosting.

If you Turbo-Boost during the scout movement (which I've been told you can, but after reading some threads in this post, I'm not sure)do you still get the 3+ Cover save during your opponents first round of shooting?
If you did that, assuming you're technically able to, I'm getting the impression that most people would consider it an "under-handed/Douche-bag/Cheese-dick" tactic that's exploiting the rules, or taking advantage of something that wasn't intended.

1. Is it legal to Turbo-Boost
2. Is it a bad idea to do during the 'Ard Boyz tournament? I certainly don't want to piss people off and gain a bad reputation at the only place the hosts regular Tournaments in my area. (especially since I'm an "outsider" and don't usually game there. You know what they say about first impressions)

**Gwar!**

Darkzephyr wrote:Okay, I hope I'm not hi-jacking this thread, but I want to clarify something about Turbo-Boosting.

If you Turbo-Boost during the scout movement (which I'm assuming you can), do you still get the 3+ Cover save during your opponents first round of shooting? If you did that, and even if you're technically able to, I'm getting the impression that most people would consider it an "under-handed/Douche-bag/Cheese-dick" tactic that's exploiting the rules, or taking advantage of something that wasn't intended.

1. Is it legal?
2. Is it a bad idea to do during the 'Ard Boyz tournament? I certainly don't want to piss people off and gain a bad, cheese-dick reputation.

1) Yes.
2) No.
3) You can actually Turbo in the Scout move, then if you go first, Move, Shoot, Assault, Sweep a unit and STILL have the 3+ cover save!

**Monster Rain**

Gwar! wrote:
Darkzephyr wrote:Okay, I hope I'm not hi-jacking this thread, but I want to clarify something about Turbo-Boosting.

If you Turbo-Boost during the scout movement (which I'm assuming you can), do you still get the 3+ Cover save during your opponents first round of shooting? If you did that, and even if you're technically able to, I'm getting the impression that most people would consider it an "under-handed/Douche-bag/Cheese-dick" tactic that's exploiting the rules, or taking advantage of something that wasn't intended.

1. Is it legal?
2. Is it a bad idea to do during the 'Ard Boyz tournament? I certainly don't want to piss people off and gain a bad, cheese-dick reputation.
1) Yes.
2) No.
3) You can actually Turbo in the Scout move, then if you go first, Move, Shoot, Assault, Sweep a unit and STILL have the 3+ cover save!

Prepare to be called, to your face, unspeakable things if you do this. It's on rather shaky ground, and a full-blown dick move of the highest order.

**FlingitNow**

Alerian

Do you genuinely play RaW all the time? Because I'm pretty certain you don't the rules simply don't work and game balance goes completely out the window if you attempt to do so.

Using a "house rule" to cover situation not covered by RaW or in which RaW doesn't make sense doesn't ruin the game for anyone. Likewise using a commonsense interpretation of a rule isn't always making a "house rule", for instance ruling that the Doom of Malan'tai has a 3++ save isn't following RaW yet it is certainly not a houserule nor is it a rule that you'd be ruled against in many Tournaments.

Tournaments don't always follow RaW in fact on most of the areas when normal people would choose to divert from RaW Tournament Organisers will also do so, so playing the rules that way will actually in many cases be closer to what they would face in a Tournament rather than playing pure RaW.

So all your arguments for RaW don't actually match up to the reality of how poeple play in ANY FLGS or in any Tournament (as neither will follow pure RaW all the time).

Our aim should be to play by the rules as much as possible and that means playing as close to RaI as possible. RaW is a good way to handle disputes or interpret an unclear rule, but it is not and will never be more than that.

**Alerian**

FlingitNow wrote:Alerian

Do you genuinely play RaW all the time? Because I'm pretty certain you don't the rules simply don't work and game balance goes completely out the window if you attempt to do so.

Using a "house rule" to cover situation not covered by RaW or in which RaW doesn't make sense doesn't ruin the game for anyone. Likewise using a commonsense interpretation of a rule isn't always making a "house rule", for instance ruling that the Doom of Malan'tai has a 3++ save isn't following RaW yet it is certainly not a houserule nor is it a rule that you'd be ruled against in many Tournaments.

Tournaments don't always follow RaW in fact on most of the areas when normal people would choose to divert from RaW Tournament Organisers will also do so, so playing the rules that way will actually in many cases be closer to what they would face in a Tournament rather than playing pure RaW.

So all your arguments for RaW don't actually match up to the reality of how poeple play in ANY FLGS or in any Tournament (as neither will follow pure RaW all the time).

Our aim should be to play by the rules as much as possible and that means playing as close to RaI as possible. RaW is a good way to handle disputes or interpret an unclear rule, but it is not and will never be more than that.

Fling...
I do attempt to play RaW, and every tourney in which I have played have attempted to opperate on RaW, as well...it is why we have a Rulebook and Codices.

True, sometimes RaW doesn't mecahnically work, but those are actually quite rare situations when RaI or TO rulings must come into play. More often, the problem with RaW is a lack of clarity on the part of the writer, rather than a mechanical breakdown, and it is here is where most RaI and TO rulings take place. In the matter at hand (not allowing the popping smoke after a scout move), RaW is both clear and mechanically sound....the game has not started, so you cannot pop smoke.

My point is that throwing out the rules when they aren't "real enough" or "don't make enough sense" is a very bad practice...such as changing the rules to allow smoke to pop before the game even begins or allow a Valk to gain an obscured saving throw from a scout move. RaW is VERY clear in both situations, and in both cases the rules as written work well in both mechanic and game balance. The only thing broken by playing RaW in these situations are some people's "sense of realism", which, IMHO, is not a good enough reason to break RaW.

If RaW is clear, and works mechanically, then it should be followed, even if it seems odd or offends someone's sensibilities. Why? Because this is a game, and as such, it has rules. Changing the rules fundamentally transforms the game from Warhammer 40k, into Houserule-hammer 40k. Warhammer 40k has the same rules no matter where you play it, whereas Houserule-hammer 40k changes from location to location. It is this willy-nilly rules changing where players and the gaming experience tend to become ruined.

**FlingitNow**

I do attempt to play RaW, and every tourney in which I have played have attempted to opperate on RaW, as well...it is why we have a Rulebook and Codices.

I disagree with this. See the fun list of RaW thread and tell me you play by all those rules? We have codexes and the rulebook to communicate to us what the rules that the GW design team designed. That is the purpose of the books as the purpose of language is simply to communicate ideas.

True, sometimes RaW doesn't mecahnically work, but those are actually quite rare situations when RaI or TO rulings must come into play. More often, the problem with RaW is a lack of clarity on the part of the writer, rather than a mechanical breakdown, and it is here is where most RaI and TO rulings take place. In the matter at hand (not allowing the popping smoke after a scout move), RaW is both clear and mechanically sound....the game has not started, so you cannot pop smoke.

How is it clear? It says once per game not once during the game. You are infering that from a particular use of the word per, however the more common meaning of per as in a one to one relationship and is therefore not restricted to use after the game has started phase (for want of a better word). Either reading is entirely correct by RaW.

My point is that throwing out the rules when they aren't "real enough" or "don't make enough sense" is a very bad practice...such as changing the rules to allow smoke to pop before the game even begins or allow a Valk to gain an obscured saving throw from a scout move. RaW is VERY clear in both situations, and in both cases the rules as written work well in both mechanic and game balance. The only thing broken by playing RaW in these situations are some people's "sense of realism", which, IMHO, is not a good enough reason to break RaW.

It is not changing the rules though at all. You could argue that it is not even changing the RaW as a RaW reading is that per relates to a one to one relationship as detailed previously in this very thread. The rules are and always will be what ever GW designed them to be, slavish devotion to the literalist translation of the rulebook is no more playing by the rules than ruling on commonsense and no more consistent with how others play.

If RaW is clear, and works mechanically, then it should be followed, even if it seems odd or offends someone's sensibilities. Why? Because this is a game, and as such, it has rules. Changing the rules fundamentally transforms the game from Warhammer 40k, into Houserule-hammer 40k. Warhammer 40k has the same rules no matter where you play it, whereas Houserule-hammer 40k changes from location to location. It is this willy-nilly rules changing where players and the gaming experience tend to become ruined.

Raw does not and will never equal the rules. Do you genuinely play that the Doom of Malan'tai doesn't have an invulnerable save? Or that Bjorn's invulnerable save is useless? Or that spore mines aren't removed when they explode or that the Swarmlord's paroxysm lasts forever. If you do try to play by these rules I doubt you'll find many opponents and in each case you are playing by a House rule (although also playing by RaW).

Our aim should be to play by the rules of the game, as in the game that GW designed. RaWhammer also can change from location to location and is a game that is both ludicrous and fundamentally unplayable (oh look I can roll a dice to get a 6 every time woo hoo that was fun). I don't play Rawhammer and generally don't play Houserule-hammer either I play Warhammer.

**Honersstodnt**

Its quite obvious when they wrote the 5th edition rulebooks they meant for smoke grenades and turbo boosting to give you a cover save, at the cost of being able to fire.

trying to find loopholes to allow you do circumvent this rule is not in the spirit of the game, and thus, makes you a cock-mangler.

**Ian Sturrock**

I think Honersstodnt has very succinctly explained the situation. Really, anyone trying to exploit this loophole deserves the derision of every other player. If you try this with me, then no, I am not doing anything silly like punching you, or smashing your minis up, but I am pointing and laughing at you, and finding someone else to play toy soldiers with.

**Alerian**

Fling...
I refuse to let you bait me, even though you apparently REALLY want an arguement, as seen by your line-by-line quotes, and far reaching rules comparisons. However, I will address this specific rule, and nothing else, with you...

You are wrong on this matter (popping smoke after a Scout move) simply for one reason...
There is no game happening, during Scout moves, and there MUST be a game in progress for something to happen "once per game".

For Example, you and I could choose to met at a FLGS to play a game of 40k. We could get all the way to Step 4, then one of us might have to leave for some reason. If so, we never got to Step 5, so there was no game...no win, no loss, no forfeit, no draw...nothing. You must get to Step 5, and actually begin the game for anything to happen "once per game"

All Steps before 5 = No game, yet...
No game = No "once per game".
By any definition or usage of the word "per", you must have a game in progress for the relationship "once per game" to function, even in it's "one for one" usage.

**FlingitNow**

Alerian

I can see your stance much better now and it makes more sense to me. I think you might be correct on the RaW, but I'm still not 100% conviced in the example you gave we had part of a game just as if we had packed up after turn 1 there would be no winner/loser and no full game just such an insignificant part of a game that it is meaningless.

**honorguard**

correction: not turn 1, after set-up.

besides: if 'per' doesn't mean within, can I use those smoe launchers after the game? say, a week after the game, when we're playing again? So long as I've used them twice in two games, that's 'once per game', right?

**Jimole**

Haha, that's a good point, although pretty clearly pushing it in anyone's book!

As a technical interpretation of the rules I can't fault the logic that you cannot use them until step 5, as the game hasn't technically started until that point. If I was playing in a tournament, or with a new opponent, that plays it that way I would happily accept that I can't smoke after a scout move.

Having said that, there is for me still potential conflict in that the rules say I can use smoke after completing a move, and the scout move rule says that scout moves are made just like a normal move (except that you can't move within 12" of an enemy unit).

I guess it all depends on how we interpret the phrase 'begin the game'. if we interpret it to say, 'begin player turn one', then there is really no problem with using smoke before this point. They might have just as easily worded the phrase as 'begin the battle'.

If, on the other hand, we take it to mean that 'the game has not started until this point and thus no in-game effects can be used before this point' then clearly we cannot smoke. AFAIK there is nothing in the rulebook that explicitly states this to be the case, so for me the whole thing is open to interpretation as to what the intent of the phrase is.

Perhaps the authors didn't even think about movement effects such as smoke and flat out during smoke moves. I suspect they didn't, because they haven't included any rules to cover these situations! Even with the smoke thing wrapped up, we are still left with a Pandora's box regarding flat-out saves where pretty much the best anyone can say is 'technically you can do it but you are cheesy if you do'.

I'm not saying that Alerian or any of the guys that want to play it that way are wrong. In fact, I'm probably wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if most competitive environments rule against scout smoking.

Happily, I play with good mates and we are all old and ugly enough to remember the most important rule: it's our game and we can do what we want with it. If we think something doesn't really make sense, isn't covered by the rules, or there is an unintended consequence of a poorly-worded rule at play, we can use a houserule resolve the situation in a way that everyone can agree on. I don't see how anyone could keep a game of 40k moving without doing this at least once in a while.

**Jihallah**

Jimole wrote:Happily, I play with good mates and we are all old and ugly enough to remember the most important rule...

Piss off you prick, i still have my youthfull good looks

**Ian Sturrock**

It could be argued that while the scout move is made like a normal move, it doesn't allow you to do stuff that you can do *after* a normal move -- like pop smoke. (It doesn't allow you to shoot or assault either...).

**Jimole**

You certainly could! Except that you couldn't shoot anyway, because all the pyrotechnics go down in the shooting phase, and there is no scout shooting :p