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.

Fragile,
The paragraph you tried to wave away contains a lot more then just 'when two players do something at the same time.' The very first words in that sentence are "at other times," showing it is not a stand alone sentence but an inclusion into a list of other scenarios which do not use the default sequence. The rest of the details you are conveniently overlooking inform us how to identify these 'exceptional Rules,' mostly by the fact they do not follow the sequence of events detailed in the Movement, Assault and Shooting sections, and how to resolve these situations when they occur. Interestingly enough, the instructions we are informed are simple: the exceptional rule will contain all the information you need to resolve it.

So I ask you:
As the Daemonic Instability tells us to generate wounds outside of the standard 'To Wound' sequence and how to allocate them, so why are you applying rules found outside of the 'new' sequence put forth by the Special Rule in question?

Fragile wrote:

We've cited permission to allocate wounds without referencing those rules

You havent. You just keep saying that over and over.

So the DI rule that has been cited over and over doesn't say for the controlling player to allocate the wounds?
Am I imagining that?

Cite actual relevant rules, not 15 and 25 as your challenge is to prove those rules are relevant.

The only rules for wound allocation and casualty removal in the game. Interesting you find them not relevant.

Incorrect. The rules on page 2 or 3 tell you to remove a model when it's wounds equal 0.
The DI rules tell you how to allocate.
So no, the rules on page 15 and 25 aren't relevant.

And you still haven't cited permission to reference them. Keep pretending though - it's cute.

JinxDragon wrote:
Fragile,
The paragraph you tried to wave away contains a lot more then just 'when two players do something at the same time.' The very first words in that sentence are "at other times," showing it is not a stand alone sentence but an inclusion into a list of other scenarios which do not use the default sequence. The rest of the details you are conveniently overlooking inform us how to identify these 'exceptional Rules,' mostly by the fact they do not follow the sequence of events detailed in the Movement, Assault and Shooting sections, and how to resolve these situations when they occur. Interestingly enough, the instructions we are informed are simple: the exceptional rule will contain all the information you need to resolve it.

Jinx, the reason that it was waved away, is because it doesnt apply to the question.

The very first words in that sentence are "at other times," showing it is not a stand alone sentence but an inclusion into a list of other scenarios which do not use the default sequence

Ok, you took a partial sentence to apply to your argument. [At other times, you'll find that both players will have to do something at the same time] is the whole sentence. During this wounding process, what specifically do you think is happening that both players have to determine the order, in order to wound? (Applying this to your wounding is sequential argument)

Fragile wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Fragile,
The paragraph you tried to wave away contains a lot more then just 'when two players do something at the same time.' The very first words in that sentence are "at other times," showing it is not a stand alone sentence but an inclusion into a list of other scenarios which do not use the default sequence. The rest of the details you are conveniently overlooking inform us how to identify these 'exceptional Rules,' mostly by the fact they do not follow the sequence of events detailed in the Movement, Assault and Shooting sections, and how to resolve these situations when they occur. Interestingly enough, the instructions we are informed are simple: the exceptional rule will contain all the information you need to resolve it.

Jinx, the reason that it was waved away, is because it doesnt apply to the question.

The very first words in that sentence are "at other times," showing it is not a stand alone sentence but an inclusion into a list of other scenarios which do not use the default sequence

Ok, you took a partial sentence to apply to your argument. [At other times, you'll find that both players will have to do something at the same time] is the whole sentence. During this wounding process, what specifically do you think is happening that both players have to determine the order, in order to wound? (Applying this to your wounding is sequential argument)

To remind you - the FAQ has changed that to essentially be any time there are any simultaneous actions - the reserves and psychic powers FAQ.

Fragile - please cite the rules stating to use cc or shooting. Still waiting.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Fragile,
The paragraph you tried to wave away contains a lot more then just 'when two players do something at the same time.' The very first words in that sentence are "at other times," showing it is not a stand alone sentence but an inclusion into a list of other scenarios which do not use the default sequence. The rest of the details you are conveniently overlooking inform us how to identify these 'exceptional Rules,' mostly by the fact they do not follow the sequence of events detailed in the Movement, Assault and Shooting sections, and how to resolve these situations when they occur. Interestingly enough, the instructions we are informed are simple: the exceptional rule will contain all the information you need to resolve it.

Jinx, the reason that it was waved away, is because it doesnt apply to the question.

The very first words in that sentence are "at other times," showing it is not a stand alone sentence but an inclusion into a list of other scenarios which do not use the default sequence

Ok, you took a partial sentence to apply to your argument. [At other times, you'll find that both players will have to do something at the same time] is the whole sentence. During this wounding process, what specifically do you think is happening that both players have to determine the order, in order to wound? (Applying this to your wounding is sequential argument)

To remind you - the FAQ has changed that to essentially be any time there are any simultaneous actions - the reserves and psychic powers FAQ.

Which applies how ? Your generalizing a statement.

You're attempting to say that because there's only one player doing anything, the rule does t apply. The FAQ changed the rule to apply when only one player has 2 things to do simultaneously.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fragile - please cite the rules stating to use cc or shooting. Still waiting.

Fragile - any chance you can provide some rules that either support your contention that you MUST use either CC or shooting - and then which one, as they differ slightly - OR some rules that refute Rigelds argument.

You have done neither, just made assertions.

Fragile,
Page 9 does apply as this section of the book informs us of two things:
1) 'Exceptional Rules' will require you to do things outside the normal sequence of events
2) When they occurs, the rule will contain all the instructions needed to resolve the new sequence
Does the Daemonic Instability Special Rule generate Wounds following the normal 'To Wound' sequence?
Does the Daemonic Instability Special Rule contain permission for these wounds to be allocated?
Why then are you applying restrictions not found within the Special Rule?

As for bringing the question back to the sequence of events, a fair request as I did drift a little, there was one other point I was trying to make by bringing up this page. 'Simultaneous' events contain very precise instructions on how to resolve these situations as the default is sequential. I was asked to provide some rules to back this statement up and Page 9 is one of several pages that does this. The fixation on one sentence aside, as this paragraph does incorporate more scenarios then just two players doing an action at the same time, Page 9 makes it a little impossible to simply state 'I do X simultaneously.' The existence of a page informing us how to resolve 'simultaneous' actions to the normal sequence of events would be automatically triggered in such arguments. The only way to prevent page 9 from triggering in such a claim is if the Special Rule in question out-right states that it has permission to resolve simultaneously, as that falls under a different set of exceptions that allow it to over-write page 9.

There are a few rules out there like that; Daemonic Instability is not one of them.

The rule that events are resolved sequentially would apply if "Suffers X wounds" (or allocating wounds) was defined as repeating "Suffers one wound" (or allocate one wound) repeated X times.

Can you demonstrate that wounds are allocated individually in general, in order to fall under the sequential event mechanic? As contrasted with the two specific situations where close combat and shooting wounds are allocated individually because of the defined wound pool mechanic for those two cases.

Solkan,
While a good question, I still think you are looking at it backwards as I ask:
Where lies the proof stating Wounds are allocated simultaneously?

After presenting one major page dedicated to how Rules resolve simultaneous events, and referencing the one or two others that also exist in the book, I do not know what additional proof I can provide. I would even think after allowing for and explaining how Rules which do allow for "Simultaneous Resolution" function that I would of been able to bring some sort of celerity to the matter. The fact that Daemonic Instability follows none of the traditional trade marks found in Rules granting "Simultaneous Resolutions," which is not surprising as it never stated it is resolved simultaneously, should have been enough. The more stuff I provide to strengthen the side of the debate I am on, the more stuff I seem to be asked to try and defend. Yet requests from our side to see some Rules as Written support, either page and paragraph quotes or arguments that have support by rule fundamentals, never seem to get any answers in reply.

So I will simply ask again:
Where can I find permission to resolve events Simultaneously?