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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
"As if" is not the same as "is". It's really that simple. :(

"Slightly different from if it were" is not compliant with the requirement to do something "as if it were", it is really that simple. :(

Guys. If you're going to debate this with such intensity it really, really undermines your case if you're calling 'Fix Bayonets' a stratagem.

It's an order. Anyone who had read the Imperial Guard Codex even once would be aware of that, particularly anyone who read the actual rule in question. If you've not read it, you probably shouldn't be debating it.

w1zard wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
if there was an effect in 40K that would ask you, say, to resolve something "as if it were the end of the charge phase", you could obviously also heroically intervene.

Not according to the FAQ that was posted.

Q: If I use a Soulburst action to charge with a Ynnari unit
outside of the Charge phase, can my opponent’s Characters
perform a Heroic Intervention after I have made a charge move
with my unit?
A: No.

Not entirely 100% sure, but doesn't the soul charge ability state that the unit can make a charge "as if it were" the charge phase?.

nekooni wrote:
...and I'm comfortable saying that RAI is that the plates should work, therefore that's HIWPI.

I'm not. I agree with BCB on this subject, you start making assumption on how rules are "intended" to work and you start getting on really shaky ground. The only fair criteria is RAW, and a strict application to RAW. If you don't like how some rules work, contact GW and tell them to fix it, but "fudging" things because that "isn't how its intended to work" opens up a huge can of worms.

 doctortom wrote:
I'm not. I agree with BCB on this subject, you start making assumption on how rules are "intended" to work and you start getting on really shaky ground. The only fair criteria is RAW, and a strict application to RAW. If you don't like how some rules work, contact GW and tell them to fix it, but "fudging" things because that "isn't how its intended to work" opens up a huge can of worms.


Actually that's not the only fair criteria, but is an important criteria. Understanding RAW and coming to an agreement with opponents beforehand about any house rules (if any) is as fair as strictly adhering to RAW. In both cases it's important to know what the RAW is, however.

That's fine, but I would never play you if you insist on Assault weapons not working when advancing with a unit - which is not to say that the Plates issue and the Assault issue are on equal levels, but what "I only play RAW" means. The point is that everyone has to have a line where they say "OK, this is clearly not intended, I'll just play this differently." - and that line is different for everyone. BCB, for example, doesn't draw a line, which means he simply accepts anything he finds in the rules as given - I draw it somewhere else, and you draw it somewhere in between - probably. That's fine, but BCB claims that his line (or absence of a line) is the only correct way to do it, and that's something others find very irritating. Especially if he confuses people with his "akshually" type of caveats he so very much likes to add to any rules query he can squeeze them in.

Making Assault weapons actually work isn't "fudging", isn't "cheating" and it isn't "playing the game wrong". It's simply playing the game as it was meant to be played. We can't be 100% sure, but I'm honestly fine with being 90% sure, because that's going to translate to an almost 100% hit rate when it comes to it being actually errata'd/FAQd.

nekooni wrote:
That's fine, but I would never play you if you insist on Assault weapons not working when advancing with a unit - which is not to say that the Plates issue and the Assault issue are on equal levels, but what "I only play RAW" means. The point is that everyone has to have a line where they say "OK, this is clearly not intended, I'll just play this differently." - and that line is different for everyone. BCB, for example, doesn't draw a line, which means he simply accepts anything he finds in the rules as given - I draw it somewhere else, and you draw it somewhere in between - probably. That's fine, but BCB claims that his line (or absence of a line) is the only correct way to do it, and that's something others find very irritating. Especially if he confuses people with his "akshually" type of caveats he so very much likes to add to any rules query he can squeeze them in.

Making Assault weapons actually work isn't "fudging", isn't "cheating" and it isn't "playing the game wrong". It's simply playing the game as it was meant to be played. We can't be 100% sure, but I'm honestly fine with being 90% sure, because that's going to translate to an almost 100% hit rate when it comes to it being actually errata'd/FAQd.

Chill, dude. I've posted multiple times that the RAI is most likely that the plates would work and I would let an opponent use them. You can cut out the "if you insist on Assault weapons not working" crap. Sunny Side Up is arguing that it's RAW to be able to use the plate, or any stratagem, during an "as if" when by RAW we've had a FAQ answer indicating that "as if" does not always let you do anything you can do in the normal phase.

 doctortom wrote:

Chill, dude. I've posted multiple times that the RAI is most likely that the plates would work and I would let an opponent use them. You can cut out the "if you insist on Assault weapons not working" crap. Sunny Side Up is arguing that it's RAW to be able to use the plate, or any stratagem, during an "as if" when by RAW we've had a FAQ answer indicating that "as if" does not always let you do anything you can do in the normal phase.

I never argued "you'd be able to".


RAW, you must (not may) resolve the fight as if it were the fighting phase. Thus, you ask yourself: Would the plate trigger in the actual fighting phase? If yes, you must resolve this fight as if the plate had triggered, or you would not have resolved the fight as if it happened in the fighting phase. You'd have resolved it differently. Different is not as if. Simples.

The rule clearly doesn't states "fight, perhaps as if it was the fighting phase, perhaps a little differently, take your pick, whatever".

Aelyn wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
"As if" it were the fight phase does not guarantee that everything goes 100% like it would in the fight phase.

Sure it does. If it's not 100% faithful to the fighting phase, it's not "as if" but "different to" or maybe at best "almost as if" and thus a violation of RAW, which forces you to play it "as if", not "almost as if", or "mostly as if".

The stratagem only gives permission for the Guard to fight like it's the Fight phase. It does not give the DG player permission to apply wargear benefits (or Stratagems) as if it were the Fight phase.

As the Suppurating Plate only procs Mortal Wounds during the Fight phase, and there is nothing saying for the DG player to treat it as if it were the Fight phase, the MW ability shouldn't (RAW) trigger. That being said, I agree that the intent is for it to trigger.

This is me providing the evidence for my above point regarding people referring to it as 'The Stratagem.'

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
"As if" it were the fight phase does not guarantee that everything goes 100% like it would in the fight phase.

Sure it does. If it's not 100% faithful to the fighting phase, it's not "as if" but "different to" or maybe at best "almost as if" and thus a violation of RAW, which forces you to play it "as if", not "almost as if", or "mostly as if".

The stratagem only gives permission for the Guard to fight like it's the Fight phase. It does not give the DG player permission to apply wargear benefits (or Stratagems) as if it were the Fight phase.

As the Suppurating Plate only procs Mortal Wounds during the Fight phase, and there is nothing saying for the DG player to treat it as if it were the Fight phase, the MW ability shouldn't (RAW) trigger. That being said, I agree that the intent is for it to trigger.

This is me providing the evidence for my above point regarding people referring to it as 'The Stratagem.'

Yep, I mis-spoke by a word, when phoneposting, in a way which doesn't actually impact the discussion at hand. So what? That doesn't make any difference to the actual point being made.

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:
That's fine, but I would never play you if you insist on Assault weapons not working when advancing with a unit - which is not to say that the Plates issue and the Assault issue are on equal levels, but what "I only play RAW" means. The point is that everyone has to have a line where they say "OK, this is clearly not intended, I'll just play this differently." - and that line is different for everyone. BCB, for example, doesn't draw a line, which means he simply accepts anything he finds in the rules as given - I draw it somewhere else, and you draw it somewhere in between - probably. That's fine, but BCB claims that his line (or absence of a line) is the only correct way to do it, and that's something others find very irritating. Especially if he confuses people with his "akshually" type of caveats he so very much likes to add to any rules query he can squeeze them in.

Making Assault weapons actually work isn't "fudging", isn't "cheating" and it isn't "playing the game wrong". It's simply playing the game as it was meant to be played. We can't be 100% sure, but I'm honestly fine with being 90% sure, because that's going to translate to an almost 100% hit rate when it comes to it being actually errata'd/FAQd.

Chill, dude. I've posted multiple times that the RAI is most likely that the plates would work and I would let an opponent use them. You can cut out the "if you insist on Assault weapons not working" crap. Sunny Side Up is arguing that it's RAW to be able to use the plate, or any stratagem, during an "as if" when by RAW we've had a FAQ answer indicating that "as if" does not always let you do anything you can do in the normal phase.

Sorry, I didn't mean to use "you" as in you, personally, but generally speaking.The only part I meant to be directed at you personally was the thing about calling "playing it in a sensible way" "fudging".

Its not the fight phase, it does not work. Plenty of stratagems and abilities don't specify the phase in which the ability triggers. GW could have just as easily wrote "when a save is made in combat." Instead they specified in the fight phase. the ability works in the fight phase.

nekooni wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:
That's fine, but I would never play you if you insist on Assault weapons not working when advancing with a unit - which is not to say that the Plates issue and the Assault issue are on equal levels, but what "I only play RAW" means. The point is that everyone has to have a line where they say "OK, this is clearly not intended, I'll just play this differently." - and that line is different for everyone. BCB, for example, doesn't draw a line, which means he simply accepts anything he finds in the rules as given - I draw it somewhere else, and you draw it somewhere in between - probably. That's fine, but BCB claims that his line (or absence of a line) is the only correct way to do it, and that's something others find very irritating. Especially if he confuses people with his "akshually" type of caveats he so very much likes to add to any rules query he can squeeze them in.

Making Assault weapons actually work isn't "fudging", isn't "cheating" and it isn't "playing the game wrong". It's simply playing the game as it was meant to be played. We can't be 100% sure, but I'm honestly fine with being 90% sure, because that's going to translate to an almost 100% hit rate when it comes to it being actually errata'd/FAQd.

Chill, dude. I've posted multiple times that the RAI is most likely that the plates would work and I would let an opponent use them. You can cut out the "if you insist on Assault weapons not working" crap. Sunny Side Up is arguing that it's RAW to be able to use the plate, or any stratagem, during an "as if" when by RAW we've had a FAQ answer indicating that "as if" does not always let you do anything you can do in the normal phase.

Sorry, I didn't mean to use "you" as in you, personally, but generally speaking.The only part I meant to be directed at you personally was the thing about calling "playing it in a sensible way" "fudging".

I never said playing in a sensible way was "fudging", so why would you direct that at me personally?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Resipsa131 wrote:
Its not the fight phase, it does not work. Plenty of stratagems and abilities don't specify the phase in which the ability triggers. GW could have just as easily wrote "when a save is made in combat." Instead they specified in the fight phase. the ability works in the fight phase.

Well, writing that way would mean that the armor could cause a wound against something firing a weapon at him 48" away. But, it is a good point - they could have said "when a save is made against melee weapons" or something like that.

 doctortom wrote:
I never said playing in a sensible way was "fudging", so why would you direct that at me personally?

That's how I read that one though.

If you don't like how some rules work, contact GW and tell them to fix it, but "fudging" things because that "isn't how its intended to work" opens up a huge can of worms.

nekooni wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
I never said playing in a sensible way was "fudging", so why would you direct that at me personally?

That's how I read that one though.

If you don't like how some rules work, contact GW and tell them to fix it, but "fudging" things because that "isn't how its intended to work" opens up a huge can of worms.

That was actually wizard who said that. I got the end quote in the wrong place so it looked like I said that when it should have been part of quoting Wizard in that post. Sorry about that.

I'm impressed, three pages of rules lawyering for what seems like a fairly simple and obvious "yes, the suppurating plate would apply in this instance, this is pretty clearly how this is intended to work".

bouncingboredom wrote:
I'm impressed, three pages of rules lawyering for what seems like a fairly simple and obvious "yes, the suppurating plate would apply in this instance, this is pretty clearly how this is intended to work".

Except it's not intended to because the rules don't allow it to? Surely if it was intended GW would have intentionally written the rule to allow it to.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

bouncingboredom wrote:
I'm impressed, three pages of rules lawyering for what seems like a fairly simple and obvious "yes, the suppurating plate would apply in this instance, this is pretty clearly how this is intended to work".

Except it's not intended to because the rules don't allow it to? Surely if it was intended GW would have intentionally written the rule to allow it to.

Yes, that's exactly how the world, and especially 40k, works. Assault weapons are meant to do nothing. We're all just too stuck in our "but I want it to work MY WAY" ways to not understand that.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

bouncingboredom wrote:
I'm impressed, three pages of rules lawyering for what seems like a fairly simple and obvious "yes, the suppurating plate would apply in this instance, this is pretty clearly how this is intended to work".

Except it's not intended to because the rules don't allow it to? Surely if it was intended GW would have intentionally written the rule to allow it to.

It's pretty obvious what's intended. This is the worst kind of rules lawyering, the sort that drives people out of the hobby because they wonder "is everyone I play against going to be this pathetic?". As an adult you have to intuit things at times using the context available. I'm amazed that any adult could look at the scenario presented by the OP and not immediately reason that the effect of the plate does apply.

Aelyn wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
In this case, I would say the Mortal Wounds ability does not trigger. The Guardsmen may be attacking like it's the Fight phase, but that doesn't mean the Death Guard character is saving like it's the Fight phase.

If the Guardsmen had an ability along the lines of "Whenever a model with this rule rolls a 6 to hit in the Fight phase..." that would trigger.

<snip image>

The rules state otherwise. DG player has to make his saving throw as if its the fight phase, so the relic works.

The unit is attacking as though it's the Fight phase, but that doesn't mean the DG is saving as though it's the Fight phase. The point is that the "as though it's the Fight phase" clause only explicitly refers to the Guardsmen.

I agree that the Suppurating Plate is intended to trigger in cases like this, but I disagree that, RAW, it does trigger.

If DG is not saving due to the rules of the fight phase, then how are they saving? Do they not get to make saving throws because its not the fight phase? Where is the chart which tells us how to perform the steps for "as if it were the fight phase" posted in the rule book?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

bouncingboredom wrote:
I'm impressed, three pages of rules lawyering for what seems like a fairly simple and obvious "yes, the suppurating plate would apply in this instance, this is pretty clearly how this is intended to work".

Except it's not intended to because the rules don't allow it to? Surely if it was intended GW would have intentionally written the rule to allow it to.

Haven’t you been asked not to post this? Several times?

BCB, seems you're debating in bad faith here. If GW were to explicitly list out all rules interactions, we'd STILL be reading the rules. As in, we'd not be through them yet.

Since this thread seems to have run its course without a clear answer, I'm locking the thread.