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.

MachinaMandala wrote:
Is it a rule? Is it not a rule? You need to decide on an argument before saying that I'm wrong.

I said it is not a rule written down in the rule book, so technically it doesn't exist. It's not a rule as written. Why are we even arguing about that? I never made ANY kind of argument based on that. Nor did I say you're "wrong!", I consistently kept assuming that it is kind of a universal house rule that everyone uses.

MachinaMandala wrote:

nekooni wrote:
No, it isn't. The rule "the unit may be chosen to shoot twice" is the written rule. C and D are created by you by interpreting that rule, and while doing that you are changing the meaning. That is why I said earlier that even a translation from text to pseudocode is an interpretation that is prone to "translation errors".

C and D are atomic rules created from the decomposition of the rule E. This is how boolean logic works. It was to illustrate a point, which is that the atomic rules of E are contradictory to the atomic rules of the core rulebook... Which they are.

It's a sentence and not a boolean expression. Boolean logic doesn't apply, grammar does. What you're doing is still an interpretation of the rule as written.
And yes, I agree, special rules like stratagems do contradict the core rules. But they don't override every single restriction, e.g. being unable to fire Rapid Fire weapons after advancing. That restriction still applies on a model-per-model basis.

MachinaMandala wrote:

nekooni wrote:
I fail to see how you got there from what I've written, could you please explain the steps? I literally wrote what's pretty much the opposite of that:
"It (the unit affected by the stratagem) has to target the closest enemy unit for both 'activations', that's a restriction that doesn't remove the other restrictions. "

You didn't write the opposite of that. You pointed out that the unit the stratagem is used on may be used to shoot twice at the closest enemy unit. In the case of units that have advanced or fallen back, that is the only choice they have.

The crux of the matter (let's forget all the atomic decomposition stuff and the Boolean logic tangent as that has no actual rules basis) is that MachinaMandala believes the Stratagem overrides all restrictions on which units can be selected to shoot, and what it can shoot at. Nekooni and I believe it only overrides those it specifically mentions - such as "shoot twice", an explicit override of the Core Rules. If I've got that wrong just shout... I hate summing up others' position incorrectly as it's poor arguing, and if I've done so it's unintentional.

For MachinaMandala's take to convince me as correct they need to provide Rules backup for why they think the Stratagem overrides rules it doesn't mention anything about overriding. Omission is not permission, so I don't believe saying a unit can shoot twice overrides all the other shooting restrictions (targetting Characters, different weapon types, within 1", etc). If MachinaMandala could stick to discussing this stuff and not Rule A/B/Z, atomic decomposition etc. it would be super useful, as these things have no rules basis and are just muddying their argument. All we have to go on is the wording and the English syntax/grammar. And discussing it politely would be a win-win, as I can't understand the continued hostile tone after so many mod warnings.

I would suggest the intended interpretation is that the unit subject to this Stratagem gets two complete "shooting sequences". Each of these are independent of each other, so target selection, etc, is done afresh for the second shooting sequence. The line about targeting the nearest unit almost certainly means the closest target chosen from amongst all those targets the unit could otherwise legally shoot at. I.e you could ignore a unit out of LOS 10" away in favour of a unit in the open or in cover 14" away.

That means that if you target a squad and wipe it out in the first shooting sequence, you don't waste the second because the "closest unit" is no longer there - you choose a new "closest unit". It also means, to my eye, that the unit doesn't have to be chosen to shot twice immediately; I could nominate a unit with this Stratagem, take their first round of shooting, nominate a second (and third, fourth ...) unit to shoot then come back to this one.

I agree, the rules text as presented can be interpreted differently, but I'd be surprised if any future FAQ supports anything different.

I'd also suggest that if you haven't contacted GW about this that you do so - just in case you're the only person playing it differently and it never gets addressed.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The crux of the matter (let's forget all the atomic decomposition stuff and the Boolean logic tangent as that has no actual rules basis) is that MachinaMandala believes the Stratagem overrides all restrictions on which units can be selected to shoot, and what it can shoot at. Nekooni and I believe it only overrides those it specifically mentions - such as "shoot twice", an explicit override of the Core Rules. If I've got that wrong just shout... I hate summing up others' position incorrectly as it's poor arguing, and if I've done so it's unintentional.

For MachinaMandala's take to convince me as correct they need to provide Rules backup for why they think the Stratagem overrides rules it doesn't mention anything about overriding. Omission is not permission, so I don't believe saying a unit can shoot twice overrides all the other shooting restrictions (targetting Characters, different weapon types, within 1", etc). If MachinaMandala could stick to discussing this stuff and not Rule A/B/Z, atomic decomposition etc. it would be super useful, as these things have no rules basis and are just muddying their argument. All we have to go on is the wording and the English syntax/grammar. And discussing it politely would be a win-win, as I can't understand the continued hostile tone after so many mod warnings.

Well, if it did override all restrictions, that would mean that it would override range restrictions too as well as things mentioned before like advancing and shooting, so by that logic if the closest unit is 48 inches away you could fire at that unit (twice if it's not wiped out the first time), even if all the unit had to shoot with was pistols. Would it mean that it also override the restrictions on getting to shoot all pistols or all other weapons or grenades, so that if you had a grenade, a bolt pistol and a bolter you could fire all three twice? It should be obvious that only rules that are overridden are rules that get mentioned in the stratagem (or psychic power or whatever), saying you can shoot twice is a specific mention that would override the mention of shooting only once, but doesn't affect advancing and shooting with heavy weapons, or affecting the modifiers for advancing and shooting with assault weapons, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I would suggest the intended interpretation is that the unit subject to this Stratagem gets two complete "shooting sequences". Each of these are independent of each other, so target selection, etc, is done afresh for the second shooting sequence. The line about targeting the nearest unit almost certainly means the closest target chosen from amongst all those targets the unit could otherwise legally shoot at. I.e you could ignore a unit out of LOS 10" away in favour of a unit in the open or in cover 14" away.

That means that if you target a squad and wipe it out in the first shooting sequence, you don't waste the second because the "closest unit" is no longer there - you choose a new "closest unit". It also means, to my eye, that the unit doesn't have to be chosen to shot twice immediately; I could nominate a unit with this Stratagem, take their first round of shooting, nominate a second (and third, fourth ...) unit to shoot then come back to this one.

I agree, the rules text as presented can be interpreted differently, but I'd be surprised if any future FAQ supports anything different.

I'd also suggest that if you haven't contacted GW about this that you do so - just in case you're the only person playing it differently and it never gets addressed.

I agree with this. Good point on getting to shoot a different unit the second time if it's a different unit that's closest when you start the second series of shots.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
(let's forget all the atomic decomposition stuff and the Boolean logic tangent as that has no actual rules basis)

<snip>

If MachinaMandala could stick to discussing this stuff and not Rule A/B/Z, atomic decomposition etc. it would be super useful, as these things have no rules basis and are just muddying their argument. All we have to go on is the wording and the English syntax/grammar. And discussing it politely would be a win-win, as I can't understand the continued hostile tone after so many mod warnings.

Can you really not? Right here you're being dismissive of concepts simply because you don't understand them and don't understand how they relate to the concept of rules and to the English language. The "hostile tone" is because, throughout this thread, you've dismissed anything you don't understand as irrelevant instead of trying to understand it or to educate yourself on it.

Like if someone told me, "Hey, everything you know about a topic you're obviously interested in is wrong, go and read these things to learn more about it and then maybe we can discuss it on a more equal level" then I would go and read those things in order to improve myself and gain a better understand of my field of interest.

But, hey, different strokes for different folks.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The crux of the matter is that MachinaMandala believes the Stratagem overrides all restrictions on which units can be selected to shoot, and what it can shoot at. Nekooni and I believe it only overrides those it specifically mentions - such as "shoot twice", an explicit override of the Core Rules. If I've got that wrong just shout... I hate summing up others' position incorrectly as it's poor arguing, and if I've done so it's unintentional.

For MachinaMandala's take to convince me as correct they need to provide Rules backup for why they think the Stratagem overrides rules it doesn't mention anything about overriding. Omission is not permission, so I don't believe saying a unit can shoot twice overrides all the other shooting restrictions (targetting Characters, different weapon types, within 1", etc).

Once again, I'll quote the same thing from earlier in the thread (and, once again, you'll undoubtedly avoid answering it):

MachinaMandala wrote:
EDIT: To put it in plain English. There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take apples." What is your interpretation of this?

If you like, let's fit this a bit more to the situation: There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take two apples as long as you are standing on one leg." What is your interpretation of this?

MachinaMandala wrote:
If you like, let's fit this a bit more to the situation: There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take two apples as long as you are standing on one leg." What is your interpretation of this?

Instead of using an analogy, why not discuss the actual thing?

nekooni wrote:A unit with Assault weapons that advanced can be selected to shoot*. Models with an Assault weapon can then shoot those at -1 tohit. The stratagem allows the unit to do it twice, but it's still at -1 tohit each time.
A unit with Rapid Fire weapons that advanced cannot be selected to shoot. Even if you introduce the Stratagem and then interpret it so that the unit can be selected to shoot, no model in that unit has an Assault Weapon, and therefore no model will be able to fire a weapon, unless there's a different rule (e.g. Tallarn regimental doctrine) that lifts that restriction.

* = this is technically not RAW, but required to make Assault Weapons work while advancing. It doesn't change the outcome here however, so just roll with it.

Do you disagree with this, and if yes, where and why?

nekooni wrote:
Instead of using an analogy, why not discuss the actual thing?

Because the analogy is perfectly suited to the point.

Try answering it instead of asking me to answer one of your's.

MachinaMandala wrote:

MachinaMandala wrote:
EDIT: To put it in plain English. There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take apples." What is your interpretation of this?

If you like, let's fit this a bit more to the situation: There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take two apples as long as you are standing on one leg." What is your interpretation of this?

You're skewing the question towards your desired answer instead of providing a like scenario. You're saying that the rule should override ALL restrictions, but your analogy here provides only a single restriction to override. Let's give it a few more restrictions, and then create a permission that overrides one of those restrictions exactly how the rule in question does.

"Once per day, as long as you are in the kitchen, you may take one apple. You may not take any green apples, and you may not take any bruised apples." Then later: "You may take two apples this time". Can you take any green or bruised apples?

My interpretation is that you would be allowed to take two non-green, non-bruised apples on that day's trip to the kitchen. Now it's entirely possible I've inadvertently skewed this towards my interpretation so please forgive me if i have, or provide your own version of the question that provides several restrictions, and then a permission that specifically mentions one of those restrictions but not the others.


As a side note to this discussion, can you imagine how crazy the rules would be if all rules had to restate every restriction for clarity every time they overruled one of them?

"You can shoot twice this turn but not if you advanced and are firing a rapid fire or heavy weapon and not with pistols or grenades if you fired another weapon and not if youre in combat and not if you fell back this turn and not if you are not on the table and you can't target friendly units or units that are in close combat or units out of range etc etc etc etc etc..."

Bojazz wrote:
You're skewing the question towards your desired answer instead of providing a like scenario. You're saying that the rule should override ALL restrictions, but your analogy here provides only a single restriction to override. Let's give it a few more restrictions, and then create a permission that overrides one of those restrictions exactly how the rule in question does.

"Once per day, as long as you are in the kitchen, you may take one apple. You may not take any green apples, and you may not take any bruised apples." Then later: "You may take two apples this time". Can you take any green or bruised apples?

My interpretation is that you would be allowed to take two non-green, non-bruised apples on that day's trip to the kitchen. Now it's entirely possible I've inadvertently skewed this towards my interpretation so please forgive me if i have, or provide your own version of the question that provides several restrictions, and then a permission that specifically mentions one of those restrictions but not the others.

Your example isn't quite the same because it's sub-classing the apples (and we can assume there are non-green and non-bruised apples), and that changes the problem boundaries a bit. The non-green and non-bruised concept is closer to the "shoot the closest target" thing. I understand your point though.

If you like, I say to you "You may take one apple from the bowl, unless you have ran up to it in which case you may not take any apples from the bowl". Then, one day you run up to the bowl and when you get there I say to you, "This time, you may take two apples from the bowl."

Note that I have not stated that we are ignoring earlier rules, but you can assume that the contradiction is abrogated by the new rule.

I hope I've made it a bit more clear.

Bojazz wrote:
As a side note to this discussion, can you imagine how crazy the rules would be if all rules had to restate every restriction for clarity every time they overruled one of them?

"You can shoot twice this turn but not if you advanced and are firing a rapid fire or heavy weapon and not with pistols or grenades if you fired another weapon and not if youre in combat and not if you fell back this turn and not if you are not on the table and you can't target friendly units or units that are in close combat or units out of range etc etc etc etc etc..."

Most rulesets allow a level of permissiveness that it's not a big deal to override several restrictions.

And, again, there are no statements of any core rulebook rules being specifically overridden. People are just reading "may shoot twice" as "may shoot twice, ignoring usual single shot restrictions". Which is the argument me and MagicJuggler are making for the concept of "may be able to shoot".

MachinaMandala wrote:

nekooni wrote:
Instead of using an analogy, why not discuss the actual thing?

Because the analogy is perfectly suited to the point.

Try answering it instead of asking me to answer one of your's.

MachinaMandela wrote:There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take two apples as long as you are standing on one leg." What is your interpretation of this?

If I'm outside of the kitchen I may take two apples as long as I'm standing on one leg. If there are apples outside of the kitchen, that's great for me - I now have two apples. If there are no apples outside of the kitchen standing on one leg is pointless, because I won't be able to get any apples.

Now that I've commented on your analogy, are you going to comment on my example of an actual situation with the actual rules which is the primary thing that should be discussed in YMDC? I'd really appreciate it if you did, especially since your analogy fails to include the difference between individual models, their equipment and the unit they form.

MachinaMandala wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
(let's forget all the atomic decomposition stuff and the Boolean logic tangent as that has no actual rules basis)

<snip>

If MachinaMandala could stick to discussing this stuff and not Rule A/B/Z, atomic decomposition etc. it would be super useful, as these things have no rules basis and are just muddying their argument. All we have to go on is the wording and the English syntax/grammar. And discussing it politely would be a win-win, as I can't understand the continued hostile tone after so many mod warnings.

Can you really not? Right here you're being dismissive of concepts simply because you don't understand them and don't understand how they relate to the concept of rules and to the English language. The "hostile tone" is because, throughout this thread, you've dismissed anything you don't understand as irrelevant instead of trying to understand it or to educate yourself on it.

Like if someone told me, "Hey, everything you know about a topic you're obviously interested in is wrong, go and read these things to learn more about it and then maybe we can discuss it on a more equal level" then I would go and read those things in order to improve myself and gain a better understand of my field of interest.

But, hey, different strokes for different folks.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The crux of the matter is that MachinaMandala believes the Stratagem overrides all restrictions on which units can be selected to shoot, and what it can shoot at. Nekooni and I believe it only overrides those it specifically mentions - such as "shoot twice", an explicit override of the Core Rules. If I've got that wrong just shout... I hate summing up others' position incorrectly as it's poor arguing, and if I've done so it's unintentional.

For MachinaMandala's take to convince me as correct they need to provide Rules backup for why they think the Stratagem overrides rules it doesn't mention anything about overriding. Omission is not permission, so I don't believe saying a unit can shoot twice overrides all the other shooting restrictions (targetting Characters, different weapon types, within 1", etc).

Once again, I'll quote the same thing from earlier in the thread (and, once again, you'll undoubtedly avoid answering it):

MachinaMandala wrote:
EDIT: To put it in plain English. There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take apples." What is your interpretation of this?

If you like, let's fit this a bit more to the situation: There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take two apples as long as you are standing on one leg." What is your interpretation of this?

If you can't stop taking my disagreement as me being dismissive this might not be the forum for you. I've been discussing politely throughout and continue to do so.

And the apples thing is a tangent - the crux of my advice to you has been "discuss the rule itself" yet you're presenting another analogous take but refusing to provide any Rules backup. That's why I won't discuss the apples thing. It isn't the rule, and isn't necessary for understanding of the rule in question.You are ridiculing my position without any backup for your own. If you could cite some backup we'll discuss it. If not I don't need to discuss hypothetical apples. Keep it calm and on topic and we're golden. Can you cite any rules backup for why you think one permission also grants other unstated permissions that break the core rules? That's the crux of why I believe your take is wrong. No apples please, hit me with rules and let's discuss if you're here to discuss... very up for that.

nekooni wrote:If I'm outside of the kitchen I may take two apples as long as I'm standing on one leg. If there are apples outside of the kitchen, that's great for me - I now have two apples. If there are no apples outside of the kitchen standing on one leg is pointless, because I won't be able to get any apples.

Okay, so you are of the opinion that two contradicting rules favours the earlier rule. In which case, 90% of stratagems (and a lot of special rules) don't function at all (unless they specifically mention overriding rules... which this one doesn't).

Congratulations, you've broken 8th edition.

JohnnyHell wrote:If you can't stop taking my disagreement as me being dismissive this might not be the forum for you. I've been discussing politely throughout and continue to do so.

And the apples thing is a tangent - the crux of my advice to you has been "discuss the rule itself" yet you're presenting another analogous take but refusing to provide any Rules backup. That's why I won't discuss the apples thing. It isn't the rule, and isn't necessary for understanding of the rule in question.You are ridiculing my position without any backup for your own. If you could cite some backup we'll discuss it. If not I don't need to discuss hypothetical apples. Keep it calm and on topic and we're golden. Can you cite any rules backup for why you think one permission also grants other unstated permissions that break the core rules? That's the crux of why I believe your take is wrong. No apples please, hit me with rules and let's discuss if you're here to discuss... very up for that.

It's not disagreement I take as being dismissive, it's your refusal to accept that there are concepts outside of your knowledge that apply to the situation that's blatantly dismissive.

It's not a tangent, it's called a Socratic question. The idea is to demonstrate to you why your concept is unsound through getting your thoughts to examine the concept from another angle, or at least explain your reasoning better for both of us.

You've also missed my point completely. The stratagem gives a very specifically stated permission "You may be chosen to shoot twice", which (in certain situations) contradicts the stated rulebook restrictions of "You may not be chosen to shoot if you have advanced or fallen back".

MachinaMandala wrote:

nekooni wrote:If I'm outside of the kitchen I may take two apples as long as I'm standing on one leg. If there are apples outside of the kitchen, that's great for me - I now have two apples. If there are no apples outside of the kitchen standing on one leg is pointless, because I won't be able to get any apples.

Okay, so you are of the opinion that two contradicting rules favours the earlier rule. In which case, 90% of stratagems (and a lot of special rules) don't function at all (unless they specifically mention overriding rules... which this one doesn't).

Congratulations, you've broken 8th edition.

No, I don't see them as conflicting, and as I've laid out in my examples (which you keep ignoring) they actually work without breaking 8th edition at all.

You however claim that since a unit is allowed to shoot twice, it can ignore any core rule that might conflict with that, even if that rule is not even related to units but to individual weapons and models. If it includes Advancing with non-Assault weapons and Falling Back without the Fly keyword, does that also mean I get to ignore range limitations - as long as the target is still the closest enemy unit?

At least that's what I'm getting from your argument, apologies if I'm mistaken on that.

The issue is that being able to "shoot twice" is ambiguously defined. Does it mean getting to fire your weapons twice after being chosen to shoot, like Fire Frenzy or Lumbering Behemoth, or does it mean you are allowed to be chosen to shoot a second time, like Ecstatic Sensations? It depends on context.

However, RAW Hot-Blooded doesn't mean you shoot twice, but you may be chosen to shoot twice, while the Stratagem can be activated on a Vior'la Infantry unit, without any of the normal qualifiers for it being allowed to be chosen to shoot.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
The issue is that being able to "shoot twice" is ambiguously defined. Does it mean getting to fire your weapons twice after being chosen to shoot, like Fire Frenzy or Lumbering Behemoth, or does it mean you are allowed to be chosen to shoot a second time, like Ecstatic Sensations? It depends on context.

However, RAW Hot-Blooded doesn't mean you shoot twice, but you may be chosen to shoot twice, while the Stratagem can be activated on a Vior'la Infantry unit, without any of the normal qualifiers for it being allowed to be chosen to shoot.

But isn't the stratagem literally "the unit can be chosen to shoot twice" as opposed to eg. the Aggressor Squad Fire Storm rule "Models in this unit can fire twice if they remained stationary". I think it's pretty clear that the stratagem gives a second round of shooting basically, instead of working like Firestorm where you basically roll 4D6 instead of 2D6 per model.

MachinaMandala wrote:

nekooni wrote:If I'm outside of the kitchen I may take two apples as long as I'm standing on one leg. If there are apples outside of the kitchen, that's great for me - I now have two apples. If there are no apples outside of the kitchen standing on one leg is pointless, because I won't be able to get any apples.

Okay, so you are of the opinion that two contradicting rules favours the earlier rule. In which case, 90% of stratagems (and a lot of special rules) don't function at all (unless they specifically mention overriding rules... which this one doesn't).

Congratulations, you've broken 8th edition.

JohnnyHell wrote:If you can't stop taking my disagreement as me being dismissive this might not be the forum for you. I've been discussing politely throughout and continue to do so.

And the apples thing is a tangent - the crux of my advice to you has been "discuss the rule itself" yet you're presenting another analogous take but refusing to provide any Rules backup. That's why I won't discuss the apples thing. It isn't the rule, and isn't necessary for understanding of the rule in question.You are ridiculing my position without any backup for your own. If you could cite some backup we'll discuss it. If not I don't need to discuss hypothetical apples. Keep it calm and on topic and we're golden. Can you cite any rules backup for why you think one permission also grants other unstated permissions that break the core rules? That's the crux of why I believe your take is wrong. No apples please, hit me with rules and let's discuss if you're here to discuss... very up for that.

It's not disagreement I take as being dismissive, it's your refusal to accept that there are concepts outside of your knowledge that apply to the situation that's blatantly dismissive.

It's not a tangent, it's called a Socratic question. The idea is to demonstrate to you why your concept is unsound through getting your thoughts to examine the concept from another angle, or at least explain your reasoning better for both of us.

You've also missed my point completely. The stratagem gives a very specifically stated permission "You may be chosen to shoot twice", which (in certain situations) contradicts the stated rulebook restrictions of "You may not be chosen to shoot if you have advanced or fallen back".

I haven't missed your point - back it up with rules is all, convince me instead of talking about me. I understand your position. As ever, I'm very open to being wrong, always am, I just haven't found anything persuasive or backed up by rules in your arguments. That's not dismissive, it's you failing to convince me. My mind is always open to being changed!

I don't believe the wording means (RAW or RAI) it's a carte blanche permission to shoot, whatever the unit's status. As I see it, a unit with non-Assault weapons that Advanced whose nearest enemy was within 1" of a friendly unit would get no use out of this Stratagem. The Core Rules disqualify both selecting them to fire and selecting the nearest unit as a target. By your take they'd get to ignore both disqualifying conditions and shoot twice. You seem to be interpreting the permission to shoot twice as permission to ignore all the usual selection and targetting limitations. That seems to be the crux of it - again, correct me if I've summed up incorrectly. I think you've read too much into a simple phrase that was never intended to have the meaning you've inferred, and I think it doesn't even hold water using a RAW At All Costs approach.

That's where I'm at with it: specifically overriding the usual shoot once limitation, not overriding all the other Shooting Phase rules. No lack of comprehension, just a fundamental disagreement.

People complain about how GW write rules but I see the biggest problem is how people try to pick any tiny advantage out of any ambiguity there might be. The rule says in the shooting phase so there is no reason to ignore shooting phase requirements, it shouldn't need to state which other rules apply from the core book, every stratagem or special ability would be a books length if they did that.it would say if you had to do anything different, like it does. If every rule had to be checked over by the likes of the people on this board they would be unreadable messes similar to legal documents.

AND translating it into code is not helpful to most people and isn't how rules "should be interpreted". Rules in them selves existed long before code. It might be easier to try to think like a human. .

JohnnyHell wrote:
I haven't missed your point - back it up with rules is all, convince me instead of talking about me. I understand your position. As ever, I'm very open to being wrong, always am, I just haven't found anything persuasive or backed up by rules in your arguments. That's not dismissive, it's you failing to convince me. My mind is always open to being changed!

I don't believe the wording means (RAW or RAI) it's a carte blanche permission to shoot, whatever the unit's status. As I see it, a unit with non-Assault weapons that Advanced whose nearest enemy was within 1" of a friendly unit would get no use out of this Stratagem. The Core Rules disqualify both selecting them to fire and selecting the nearest unit as a target. By your take they'd get to ignore both disqualifying conditions and shoot twice. You seem to be interpreting the permission to shoot twice as permission to ignore all the usual selection and targetting limitations. That seems to be the crux of it - again, correct me if I've summed up incorrectly. I think you've read too much into a simple phrase that was never intended to have the meaning you've inferred, and I think it doesn't even hold water using a RAW At All Costs approach.

That's where I'm at with it: specifically overriding the usual shoot once limitation, not overriding all the other Shooting Phase rules. No lack of comprehension, just a fundamental disagreement.

Which brings us back to the apples question. At least nekooni answered it:

MachinaMandala wrote:
If you like, I say to you "You may take one apple from the bowl, unless you have ran up to it in which case you may not take any apples from the bowl". Then, one day you run up to the bowl and when you get there I say to you, "This time, you may take two apples from the bowl."

I know you're gonna say "IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RULES" but of course it does. This example is probably the best as it requires you to answer based off three things:
1. The meaning of "may be able to do something".
2. The order of activation.
3. The concept of rules abrogation.

Andykp wrote:People complain about how GW write rules but I see the biggest problem is how people try to pick any tiny advantage out of any ambiguity there might be. The rule says in the shooting phase so there is no reason to ignore shooting phase requirements, it shouldn't need to state which other rules apply from the core book, every stratagem or special ability would be a books length if they did that.it would say if you had to do anything different, like it does. If every rule had to be checked over by the likes of the people on this board they would be unreadable messes similar to legal documents.

Not really. The point is that people are arguing in such a way that it would be required. Me and MagicJuggler are actually arguing the opposite.

Andykp wrote:AND translating it into code is not helpful to most people and isn't how rules "should be interpreted". Rules in them selves existed long before code. It might be easier to try to think like a human. .

You're wrong there, kiddo!

Wikipedia wrote:Ancient Near East
Algorithms were used in ancient Greece. Two examples are the Sieve of Eratosthenes, which was described in Introduction to Arithmetic by Nicomachus,[71][8]:Ch 9.2 and the Euclidean algorithm, which was first described in Euclid's Elements (c. 300 BC).[8]:Ch 9.1 Babylonian clay tablets describe and employ algorithmic procedures to compute the time and place of significant astronomical events.

4th time: instead of discussing apples, please discuss the actual rules and rule examples. Or at least respond when someone actually comments on your analogy.

nekooni wrote:
4th time: instead of discussing apples, please discuss the actual rules and rule examples. Or at least respond when someone actually comments on your analogy.

I thought Magic addressed your questions.

But, sure, let's give it a go:

nekooni wrote:
No, I don't see them as conflicting, and as I've laid out in my examples (which you keep ignoring) they actually work without breaking 8th edition at all.

You however claim that since a unit is allowed to shoot twice, it can ignore any core rule that might conflict with that, even if that rule is not even related to units but to individual weapons and models. If it includes Advancing with non-Assault weapons and Falling Back without the Fly keyword, does that also mean I get to ignore range limitations - as long as the target is still the closest enemy unit?

At least that's what I'm getting from your argument, apologies if I'm mistaken on that.

You're conflating several different steps.

You're confusing "being able to be chosen to shoot" (which can be blocked by the status of "Advanced" or "Fallen Back") with the "shooting with this unit" phase.

MachinaMandala wrote:
Shooting phase rules:

Spoiler:

There are several different steps here. The "may be chosen to shoot twice" is in the first step. The "must choose closest target" is in the second step.

You're putting all those steps into one single big phase and assuming they all occur at the same time.

Could you just finally comment on the examples I've provided? It's really hard to argue based on your incomplete analogy if you keep moving the goal posts around. I don't think that it's one big shooting thingy, but your analogy does so i had to go along with it.

Stating I'm wrong isn't the same as me being wrong. Ancient Greeks writing algorithms doesn't mean that they predate rules. 'Rule' is a very loose term to describe many things and a lot of them predate Ancient Greece. All civilisations have rules. All social interactions have rules. Nature and wild animals have rules. The point I'm trying to make is that you should possibly accept that the game is written for two or more humans to play. Humans do not behave like code, it's a good thing about them. They have even written in the first rule to encourage civilised behaviour. This is why I think the rules as written now are fine but they should release a tournament edition of the rule book where every little details is spelled out and clarified. It could even be a living rule book and community lead. I read most FAQs or rule queries and just think the answers are obvious if you're just being civilised and chilled about the 'game'. And I also didn't name names I was commenting on these constant arguments and criticisms of GW in general. Me and my mate play and we don't ever have to discuss RAW vs RAI. ever.

nekooni wrote:
Could you just finally comment on the examples I've provided? It's really hard to argue based on your incomplete analogy if you keep moving the goal posts around. I don't think that it's one big shooting thingy, but your analogy does so i had to go along with it.

It's why I keep avoiding the analogy. It has errors baked in and (strangely) changing the thing being discussed changes the responses.

MachinaMandala, I also asked a simple, rules-based question upthread. If you could answer it we might be able to discuss. If you won't and prefer to post analogies that, frankly, aren't comparing apples with apples... ...I'm not sure how to proceed.

I think you guys need to start arguing from a RAW perspective instead of inventing rules restrictions.

nekooni wrote:Could you just finally comment on the examples I've provided? It's really hard to argue based on your incomplete analogy if you keep moving the goal posts around. I don't think that it's one big shooting thingy, but your analogy does so i had to go along with it.

No, it doesn't and you are conflating things.

You're conflating being chosen to shoot with shooting. If I'm denied the right to shoot by advancing or falling back then I'd agree with everything you've said in this thread so far. However, that's not the case. I'm denied the right to be chosen to shoot, which this stratagem then gives express permission to do.

If you can't accept that this stratagem gives express permission to be chosen to shoot, then we can't continue the discussion. You're obviously arguing from a HYWPI perspective (which is expressly not allowed here), instead of from a RAW perspective.

Andykp wrote:Stating I'm wrong isn't the same as me being wrong. Ancient Greeks writing algorithms doesn't mean that they predate rules. 'Rule' is a very loose term to describe many things and a lot of them predate Ancient Greece. All civilisations have rules. All social interactions have rules. Nature and wild animals have rules. The point I'm trying to make is that you should possibly accept that the game is written for two or more humans to play. Humans do not behave like code, it's a good thing about them. They have even written in the first rule to encourage civilised behaviour. This is why I think the rules as written now are fine but they should release a tournament edition of the rule book where every little details is spelled out and clarified. It could even be a living rule book and community lead. I read most FAQs or rule queries and just think the answers are obvious if you're just being civilised and chilled about the 'game'. And I also didn't name names I was commenting on these constant arguments and criticisms of GW in general. Me and my mate play and we don't ever have to discuss RAW vs RAI. ever.

Hey, great for you and your friend!

However, I don't think YMDC is the place to talk about how 40k would be better if it was played as a co-operative narrative roleplaying adventure.

Also, when we agree on a set of roles, they function algorithmically. That's how they work! You're right that nature has rules! Science has rules! And you know how these rules can be represented? Algorithmically! Shocking!

JohnnyHell wrote:It's why I keep avoiding the analogy. It has errors baked in and (strangely) changing the thing being discussed changes the responses.

MachinaMandala, I also asked a simple, rules-based question upthread. If you could answer it we might be able to discuss. If you won't and prefer to post analogies that, frankly, aren't comparing apples with apples... ...I'm not sure how to proceed.

You're avoiding the question because you know answering it will hurt your argument.

But hey, let's look at your honest question!

 JohnnyHell wrote:
And the apples thing is a tangent - the crux of my advice to you has been "discuss the rule itself" yet you're presenting another analogous take but refusing to provide any Rules backup. That's why I won't discuss the apples thing. It isn't the rule, and isn't necessary for understanding of the rule in question.You are ridiculing my position without any backup for your own. If you could cite some backup we'll discuss it. If not I don't need to discuss hypothetical apples. Keep it calm and on topic and we're golden. Can you cite any rules backup for why you think one permission also grants other unstated permissions that break the core rules? That's the crux of why I believe your take is wrong. No apples please, hit me with rules and let's discuss if you're here to discuss... very up for that.

Can you cite some rules backup for your viewpoint? No? Then you're wrong.

P.S. The only rules backup I need is: The core rules and the stratagem rules. Unless you have something that contradicts those?

MachinaMandala wrote:
I think you guys need to start arguing from a RAW perspective instead of inventing rules restrictions.

nekooni wrote:Could you just finally comment on the examples I've provided? It's really hard to argue based on your incomplete analogy if you keep moving the goal posts around. I don't think that it's one big shooting thingy, but your analogy does so i had to go along with it.

No, it doesn't and you are conflating things.

You're conflating being chosen to shoot with shooting. If I'm denied the right to shoot by advancing or falling back then I'd agree with everything you've said in this thread so far. However, that's not the case. I'm denied the right to be chosen to shoot, which this stratagem then gives express permission to do.

If you can't accept that this stratagem gives express permission to be chosen to shoot, then we can't continue the discussion. You're obviously arguing from a HYWPI perspective (which is expressly not allowed here), instead of from a RAW perspective.

Falling Back wrote:Units starting the Movement phase within 1" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or Fall Back. If you choose to Fall Back, the unit must end its move more than 1" away from all enemy units. If a unit Falls Back, it cannot Advance (see below), or charge later that turn. A unit that Falls Back also cannot shoot later that turn unless it can Fly.

Advancing wrote:When you pick a unit to move in the Movement phase, you can declare that it will Advance. Roll a dice and add the result to the Move characteristics of all models in the unit for that Movement phase. A unit that Advances can’t shoot or charge later that turn.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/40k/warhammer_40000_en.pdf Page three

Thank you and have a great day.

nekooni wrote:

Falling Back wrote:Units starting the Movement phase within 1" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or Fall Back. If you choose to Fall Back, the unit must end its move more than 1" away from all enemy units. If a unit Falls Back, it cannot Advance (see below), or charge later that turn. A unit that Falls Back also cannot shoot later that turn unless it can Fly.

Advancing wrote:When you pick a unit to move in the Movement phase, you can declare that it will Advance. Roll a dice and add the result to the Move characteristics of all models in the unit for that Movement phase. A unit that Advances can’t shoot or charge later that turn.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/40k/warhammer_40000_en.pdf Page three

Thank you and have a great day.

Assault weapons no longer work.

Thank you and have a great day.

MachinaMandala wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Falling Back wrote:Units starting the Movement phase within 1" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or Fall Back. If you choose to Fall Back, the unit must end its move more than 1" away from all enemy units. If a unit Falls Back, it cannot Advance (see below), or charge later that turn. A unit that Falls Back also cannot shoot later that turn unless it can Fly.

Advancing wrote:When you pick a unit to move in the Movement phase, you can declare that it will Advance. Roll a dice and add the result to the Move characteristics of all models in the unit for that Movement phase. A unit that Advances can’t shoot or charge later that turn.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/40k/warhammer_40000_en.pdf Page three

Thank you and have a great day.

Assault weapons no longer work.

Thank you and have a great day.

And that's a counter how? Everyone acknowledges that was bad RAW. It is, however, RAW. Your bringing it up makes it look like you're the one arguing from a HIWPI stance instead of a RAW stance.

EDIT:

MachinaMandal wrote:
P.S. The only rules backup I need is: The core rules and the stratagem rules. Unless you have something that contradicts those?

Could you be a wee more specific? People arguing the other side can just say "well, the core rules and the stratagem rules are all [i]I need to prove you wrong, and the arguement gets nowhere with that attitude.

MachinaMandala wrote:

Assault weapons no longer work.

I know. I've said so in this thread multiple times:

nekooni, like 4 fething times wrote:A unit with Assault weapons that advanced can be selected to shoot*. Models with an Assault weapon can then shoot those at -1 tohit. The stratagem allows the unit to do it twice, but it's still at -1 tohit each time.
(...)
* = this is technically not RAW, but required to make Assault Weapons work while advancing. It doesn't change the outcome here however, so just roll with it.

If you'd had the decency to properly read it you'd have noticed it. But hey, let's keep using apples.

I'm done here.

MachinaMandala wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Falling Back wrote:Units starting the Movement phase within 1" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or Fall Back. If you choose to Fall Back, the unit must end its move more than 1" away from all enemy units. If a unit Falls Back, it cannot Advance (see below), or charge later that turn. A unit that Falls Back also cannot shoot later that turn unless it can Fly.

Advancing wrote:When you pick a unit to move in the Movement phase, you can declare that it will Advance. Roll a dice and add the result to the Move characteristics of all models in the unit for that Movement phase. A unit that Advances can’t shoot or charge later that turn.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/40k/warhammer_40000_en.pdf Page three

Thank you and have a great day.

Assault weapons no longer work.

Thank you and have a great day.

Mostly just been following along - but if you're going to hang out in YMDC I'd assume you'd know this by now. Assault Weapons don't work by virtue of RAW.

Did someone say Assault Weapons don't work RaW?

I don't see why this discussion is continuing. The RaW for hot-blooded doesn't match the "intent", and we need an Errata or Special Snowflake FAQ to fix it.