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.

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I really don't know where you've got any of that from.

Sequencing is for anything simultaneous, it doesn't say anything about it only being for non optional stuff. It works just fine here.

Basic English Language. When you choose to use something at the end of something, something ends. We don't get to choose a lot of the things we sequence, so we need sequencing for automatic effects, and sequencing doesn't permit you to end something twice. Once you've chosen to do X at the end of something, something ended.

At the end of your day you may go to sleep. This doesn't mean at the end of your day you can sequence watching an hour of TV and then going to bed. If you watch the hour of TV it wasn't the end of your day it was an hour before the end of your day.

Except at the end of the phase you can declare you are using three strat's that happen at the end of the phase. Then you need to use sequencing to find out what order you need to resolve them in.

Breton wrote:

I've also said - when faced with this sort of situation - if you can only choose to use something at the end of X, then X ends when you choose to use it. If you try to do something else at the end of X, then X didn't end.

Good thing the sequencing rules come into play and you can use 2 or 3 or more things that happen at the end of X.

Again at the end of the day, you can choose to go to sleep. If you instead watch TV for an hour, then it wasn't the end of your day.

Real-world analogies are meaningless when discussing the 40K rules.

Breton wrote:
If you try and choose to run three end of your turn stratagems, then when you ran the first one and the second one... it wasn't really the end of your turn was it because you had more turn to play.

Good thing the sequencing rules come into play and you can use 2 or 3 or more things that happen at the end of X.

Breton wrote:

Right now this isn't a rules argument as much as an English language argument, so your attempt to call in the mods isn't really on point. My example is about how the English Language works not how the rule works. We can't really get into the rule until we're on the same page on how English works. There is no "after" the end. If you used it at the end of your turn, your turn has ended, and you can't use something else. If you use something else, it wasn't the end of your turn and you couldn't have used the first one. What part of this is tripping you up? The End Part, or the After The End Part?

Nothing is tripping me up. I have rules that back my position. I have seen no rules that back yours.

If you and your opponent want to use a strat that is used at the end of the turn, the rules have a way to handle this. it is called sequencing.

Being the end of the turn does not mean that only one end of turn strat can be used. If you disagree you will need a rules citation that backs up your statement.

The rules citation that allow multiple things to happen at the end of the turn are as such:

Battle Primer P.4 wrote:
Sequencing
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or ‘before the battle begins’. When this happens during the game, the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a battle round, the players roll off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Nothing is tripping me up. I have rules that back my position. I have seen no rules that back yours.

You have a rule explicitly stating that doing something that ends something X doesn't end something X? Why haven't you linked it? Oh, because you don't.

No one said that...

What we did say is that we have a rule that when X ends you can use a particular strat called Honour the Chapter, that says "Use this Stratagem at the end of any Fight phase. Select a DARK ANGELSINFANTRY or..." P. 137 Codex Dark Angels,
and your opponent can use a strat called Honour your Brothers that says "Use this Stratagem at the end of any Fight phase. Select a DEATHWATCH INFANTRY or..." P. 96 Codex Deathwatch

Those can both be used because of the sequencing rules and I have provided rules citations.

Where are your rules citations?

You have your interpretation of the idea that because multiple things can be forced into end of X, multiple things can be optioned into end of X. Without a rule actually saying so.

False. we have rules that say so. Reference the RAW citations for the strats above.

I have the wording of the very rule we're discussing backing my position.

No you do not. What over-rides the two strats above? Why does the Deathwatch player get to use his strat "at the end of any Fight phase" and the Dark Angel player does not. or vice versa. Citations needed on your end.

Do Y at the end of X. If you do something Z after Y it wasn't at the end of X now was it? No, because Z happened after.

No, they happen at the same time. see the sequencing rules posted.

In a friendly game with some honest give and take, I would absolutely - like almost everyone else - allow multiple end of X optional events. That is the "assumption" most communities have come to in this regard.

Fortunately that is the RAW as well.

Unfortunately this is argumentum ad populum.

It may be, but it is also RAW.

In a less-than-friendly-game with someone trying some shenanigans like originally described, one can absolutely rules lawyer them right back. The process of giving this the thought necessary to suggest and defend this push-back theory of only one optional event I realized I'm not even sure that's right/intended because there could/would be some tactical/strategic value-judgments/hard-choices if one really is limited to only one end of X choice. That idea isn't really here nor there, but an interesting food for thought. The point is - anyone trying to rules lawyer some shenanigans into the game can almost always be rules lawyered out of their shenanigans by reading a rule literally and/or from another point of view contrary to normal "assumptions".

There is no rule stating only one optional end of X event is allowed

Correct, There is no rule stating only one optional end of X event is allowed.

there is no rule stating multiple optional end of X events are allowed.

False. the strats literally say when to use them, and there are no restrictions on only being able to use one. Thus, logically, you can use both.

There is a rule acknowleding mutliple end of X events (forced and/or optional) can occur and how to resolve them. That's all it does. This is a pretty good example of how we, as players, read the rules the way we want to read them.

Yes, there is a rules about how to handle multiple rules that happen simultaneously and how to resolve them. That is all it needs to do as we are given permission to use two things that happen at the same time and there are literally no restrictions against it.

There are no citations to the contrary, so you can use two end of X things as per RAW.