Switch Theme:

Deathmark vs aspect scan  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in bg
Regular Dakkanaut




So SM unit come from reserve, deathark activate their ability and come to shoot and SM player want to activate aspect scan.

Who should should first ?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/15 11:39:26


 
   
Made in gb
Brutal Butcher





Marin wrote:
So SM unit come from reserve, deathark activate their ability and come to shoot and SM player want to activate aspect scan.

Who should should first ?


Sequencing, so it's up to the player whose turn it is (SM in this instance most likely) to decide the order. That means they can shoot your Deathmarks before they get a chance to shoot.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Stux wrote:
Marin wrote:
So SM unit come from reserve, deathark activate their ability and come to shoot and SM player want to activate aspect scan.

Who should should first ?


Sequencing, so it's up to the player whose turn it is (SM in this instance most likely) to decide the order. That means they can shoot your Deathmarks before they get a chance to shoot.
It's not that simple.It's unclear whether there is a "gap" between deploying the Deathmarks and the Deathmarks shooting for a player to use Auspex Scan. In traditional GW fashion there has been no FAQ on it.

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in gb
Brutal Butcher





That's fair.

In the absence of such an FAQ to clarify, it's probably a situation where you have to roll off.
   
Made in de
Chalice-Wielding Sanguinary High Priest






Germany

Sequencing rule. The player whose turn it is decides who shoots first.
   
Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




Sequencing rule doesn’t apply here. You resolve the whole ability. Intercept and shoot.
After that you can auspex scan.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Skankmarron wrote:
Sequencing rule doesn’t apply here. You resolve the whole ability. Intercept and shoot.
After that you can auspex scan.


That seems most reasonable. The Deathmarks' deploy and shoot rule is a single ability. There's no window to resolve anything halfway through the sequence AFAICT. It's not 100% clear because Auspex Scan works when a unit is set up but I don't think you can interrupt an ability that's in the middle of resolving to resolve your own.
   
Made in de
Chalice-Wielding Sanguinary High Priest






Germany

Skankmarron wrote:
Sequencing rule doesn’t apply here. You resolve the whole ability. Intercept and shoot.
After that you can auspex scan.


No, auspex scan says you shoot immediately after an enemy unit is set up. Ethereal interception doesn't. Do you have a citation that says abilities can't be interrupted ?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/15 14:43:26


 
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

I don't think sequencing comes into play at all.

1. Space Marine player deploys a unit.
2. Necron player interrupts to say that he will be using the Deathmark's Ethereal Interception ability.
3. Necron player deploys a Deathmark unit.
4. Space Marine player interrupts to say that he will be using the Auspex Scan strategem.
5. Space Marine player takes his Auspex Scan shots.
6. Necron player takes his Ethereal Interception shots.
7 Game continues.

At no point are two abilities happening at the same time. The two abilities in question are triggering off different things that aren't happening at the same time, so they couldn't possibly be resolving at the same time.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




 p5freak wrote:
Skankmarron wrote:
Sequencing rule doesn’t apply here. You resolve the whole ability. Intercept and shoot.
After that you can auspex scan.


No, auspex scan says you shoot immediately after an enemy unit is set up. Ethereal interception doesn't. Do you have a citation that says abilities can't be interrupted ?


Do you have a citation that you can interrupt an ability?

Also Auspex Scan does not say Immediately.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 p5freak wrote:
Skankmarron wrote:
Sequencing rule doesn’t apply here. You resolve the whole ability. Intercept and shoot.
After that you can auspex scan.


No, auspex scan says you shoot immediately after an enemy unit is set up. Ethereal interception doesn't. Do you have a citation that says abilities can't be interrupted ?
Do you have one that says it can? The game also doesn't say I can't open a can of tuna to pass a morale test either. And no, Auspex Scan does not say "immediately".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/15 15:08:50


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
Skankmarron wrote:
Sequencing rule doesn’t apply here. You resolve the whole ability. Intercept and shoot.
After that you can auspex scan.


No, auspex scan says you shoot immediately after an enemy unit is set up. Ethereal interception doesn't. Do you have a citation that says abilities can't be interrupted ?
Do you have one that says it can? The game also doesn't say I can't open a can of tuna to pass a morale test either. And no, Auspex Scan does not say "immediately".


ummm... yes it does say immediately...


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 DeathReaper wrote:
ummm... yes it does say immediately...

Latest Codex Space Marines does not...

Use this Stratagem after your opponent sets up a unit on the battlefield within 12" of any ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY units from your army. Select one of those units from your army to shoot at that enemy unit as if it were your Shooting phase; when resolving these attacks, subtract 1 from hit rolls.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 DeathReaper wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
Skankmarron wrote:
Sequencing rule doesn’t apply here. You resolve the whole ability. Intercept and shoot.
After that you can auspex scan.


No, auspex scan says you shoot immediately after an enemy unit is set up. Ethereal interception doesn't. Do you have a citation that says abilities can't be interrupted ?
Do you have one that says it can? The game also doesn't say I can't open a can of tuna to pass a morale test either. And no, Auspex Scan does not say "immediately".


ummm... yes it does say immediately...

That isn't the current SM codex. That is the old one. And as per the Codex: Space Marines FAQ
Q. Can I use a Stratagems from the 2017 edition of Codex:
Space Marines if there is not an updated version of that
Stratagem in the 2019 edition of Codex: Space Marines?
A: No, none of the rules found in the 2017 edition of
Codex: Space Marines can be used.
The Auspex Scan stratagem is found on page 181 of the 2019 version of Codex: Space Marines (ISBN 978-1788266307), and does not include the word "immediately" in any way, shape, or form.

Actually, it's funny that they didn't include "immediately" in the updated stratagem because now it is hilariously broken. I can now use the stratagem any time "after" the unit was set up, even if it's now three turns later as that still satisfies the "after" restriction. In fact, you can use it literally every single phase after a unit is set up as reinforcements within 12" of a unit as there is no restriction on what phase you can use it, and it all meets the "after" restriction.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/01/15 16:01:16


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

No. No, you really can’t. Don’t be a thread derailer.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 JohnnyHell wrote:
No. No, you really can’t. Don’t be a thread derailer.
You're the one derailing the thread. I am simply pointing out the RaW as a tangent to the incorrect assertion that the stratagem states "immediately".

Edit: Never mind I won't fall for the flamebait.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/15 16:05:36


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
No. No, you really can’t. Don’t be a thread derailer.
You're the one derailing the thread. I am simply pointing out the RaW as a tangent to the incorrect assertion that the stratagem states "immediately".

Edit: Never mind I won't fall for the flamebait.


As is often the case, you are technically correct. HOWEVER, even a tiny bit of common sense interpretation and context lets you know that tabletop gaming rules that say you can trigger an ability after something happens generally require you to trigger said rule IMMEDIATELY after the trigger. I don't think I've EVER seen a game in decades of gaming that let you activate a triggered ability at some point well after the trigger happened.

In other words, while technically correct, you're really adding nothing other than antagonism and pedantry.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps




It doesn't need to say immediately. The ONLY thing it does is let a unit shoot at an enemy unit that just set up.

If you're using the stratagem at all, its because you're going to shoot when you use it.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Voss wrote:
It doesn't need to say immediately. The ONLY thing it does is let a unit shoot at an enemy unit that just set up.

If you're using the stratagem at all, its because you're going to shoot when you use it.
Where does Auspex Scan say "just" set up?

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Voss wrote:
It doesn't need to say immediately. The ONLY thing it does is let a unit shoot at an enemy unit that just set up.

If you're using the stratagem at all, its because you're going to shoot when you use it.
Where does Auspex Scan say "just" set up?


Seriously, dude. Ask 1000 random tabletop gamers whether after means "immediately after" or "at any point in the future so long as the game is still going on" in this context and see how many agree with your "technically correct" interpretation. I don't think you'll get many hits. This just isn't something that's widely misunderstood. You really need to learn to use context clues. Your habit of ignoring context and looking for semantic edge cases is exhausting and is one of the main reasons that I rarely post anymore.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Kriswall wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Voss wrote:
It doesn't need to say immediately. The ONLY thing it does is let a unit shoot at an enemy unit that just set up.

If you're using the stratagem at all, its because you're going to shoot when you use it.
Where does Auspex Scan say "just" set up?


Seriously, dude. Ask 1000 random tabletop gamers whether after means "immediately after" or "at any point in the future so long as the game is still going on" in this context and see how many agree with your "technically correct" interpretation. I don't think you'll get many hits. This just isn't something that's widely misunderstood. You really need to learn to use context clues. Your habit of ignoring context and looking for semantic edge cases is exhausting and is one of the main reasons that I rarely post anymore.
Death is nothing compared to vindication. What "most people" do or think is of no concern to me. I strive for objective truth and nothing less. I am sorry if you feel that my efforts to determine the correct answer Rules as Written is "exhausting" for you. I wish nothing but good things for you and everyone else on the forum. I disagree about "context clues", because that is entirely subjective and can be stretched to justify anything with "my opinion says the context is so and so". The argument of "GW doesn't bother errataing it because it's obvious" is not a valid argument due to the Single Use Weapon errata and Black Templar Superdoctrine FAQ, both of which were already done by people with "common sense" but GW still felt the need to officially enshrine them.

I fully understand that most people will play as though "immediately" is in the rule, and there is nothing wrong with that (and I've never had problems with people making their own house rules, I just don't personally ever want to use them). What I find objectionable is when people claim that their incorrect parsing is correct due to "common sense" or other such subjective arguments.

Anyway, to reiterate the answer to the OP's question: We don't know because GW can't write rules properly, but most signs point to the Deathmarks always shooting first.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2020/01/15 20:57:31


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294 +++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Voss wrote:
It doesn't need to say immediately. The ONLY thing it does is let a unit shoot at an enemy unit that just set up.

If you're using the stratagem at all, its because you're going to shoot when you use it.
Where does Auspex Scan say "just" set up?


Seriously, dude. Ask 1000 random tabletop gamers whether after means "immediately after" or "at any point in the future so long as the game is still going on" in this context and see how many agree with your "technically correct" interpretation. I don't think you'll get many hits. This just isn't something that's widely misunderstood. You really need to learn to use context clues. Your habit of ignoring context and looking for semantic edge cases is exhausting and is one of the main reasons that I rarely post anymore.
Death is nothing compared to vindication. What "most people" do or think is of no concern to me. I strive for objective truth and nothing less. I am sorry if you feel that my efforts to determine the correct answer Rules as Written is "exhausting" for you. I wish nothing but good things for you and everyone else on the forum. I disagree about "context clues", because that is entirely subjective and can be stretched to justify anything with "my opinion says the context is so and so". The argument of "GW doesn't bother errataing it because it's obvious" is not a valid argument due to the Single Use Weapon errata and Black Templar Superdoctrine FAQ, both of which were already done by people with "common sense" but GW still felt the need to officially enshrine them.

I fully understand that most people will play as though "immediately" is in the rule, and there is nothing wrong with that (and I've never had problems with people making their own house rules, I just don't personally ever want to use them). What I find objectionable is when people claim that their incorrect parsing is correct due to "common sense" or other such subjective arguments.


Jesus. "Death is nothing compared to vindication." That's classic. Thanks for reminding me that there's no point talking to you. You're going back on auto-ignore.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/15 20:36:46


Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in bg
Regular Dakkanaut




 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Voss wrote:
It doesn't need to say immediately. The ONLY thing it does is let a unit shoot at an enemy unit that just set up.

If you're using the stratagem at all, its because you're going to shoot when you use it.
Where does Auspex Scan say "just" set up?


Seriously, dude. Ask 1000 random tabletop gamers whether after means "immediately after" or "at any point in the future so long as the game is still going on" in this context and see how many agree with your "technically correct" interpretation. I don't think you'll get many hits. This just isn't something that's widely misunderstood. You really need to learn to use context clues. Your habit of ignoring context and looking for semantic edge cases is exhausting and is one of the main reasons that I rarely post anymore.
Death is nothing compared to vindication. What "most people" do or think is of no concern to me. I strive for objective truth and nothing less. I am sorry if you feel that my efforts to determine the correct answer Rules as Written is "exhausting" for you. I wish nothing but good things for you and everyone else on the forum. I disagree about "context clues", because that is entirely subjective and can be stretched to justify anything with "my opinion says the context is so and so". The argument of "GW doesn't bother errataing it because it's obvious" is not a valid argument due to the Single Use Weapon errata and Black Templar Superdoctrine FAQ, both of which were already done by people with "common sense" but GW still felt the need to officially enshrine them.

I fully understand that most people will play as though "immediately" is in the rule, and there is nothing wrong with that (and I've never had problems with people making their own house rules, I just don't personally ever want to use them). What I find objectionable is when people claim that their incorrect parsing is correct due to "common sense" or other such subjective arguments.

Anyway, to reiterate the answer to the OP's question: We don't know because GW can't write rules properly, but most signs point to the Deathmarks always shooting first.


You are out of topic and some players were using this rules. For instance Skari also played with the Templars with IF stuff.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

There we go, sorry for the old edition strat post.

Here is the corrected one as per Ghaz:

Use this Stratagem after your opponent sets up a unit on the battlefield within 12" of any ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY units from your army. Select one of those units from your army to shoot at that enemy unit as if it were your Shooting phase; when resolving these attacks, subtract 1 from hit rolls.
Even this is used to shoot immediately even though it does not use the word "immediately"

We know this because you perform the action when you use the strat.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in de
Chalice-Wielding Sanguinary High Priest






Germany

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
Skankmarron wrote:
Sequencing rule doesn’t apply here. You resolve the whole ability. Intercept and shoot.
After that you can auspex scan.


No, auspex scan says you shoot immediately after an enemy unit is set up. Ethereal interception doesn't. Do you have a citation that says abilities can't be interrupted ?
Do you have one that says it can? The game also doesn't say I can't open a can of tuna to pass a morale test either. And no, Auspex Scan does not say "immediately".


Ok, so its not immediately. But it doesnt matter. The deathmarks would shoot after they are set up. Auspex scan lets a unit shoot after an enemy unit has been set up. Both rules are to be resolved at the same time.

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.
   
Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




 p5freak wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
Skankmarron wrote:
Sequencing rule doesn’t apply here. You resolve the whole ability. Intercept and shoot.
After that you can auspex scan.


No, auspex scan says you shoot immediately after an enemy unit is set up. Ethereal interception doesn't. Do you have a citation that says abilities can't be interrupted ?
Do you have one that says it can? The game also doesn't say I can't open a can of tuna to pass a morale test either. And no, Auspex Scan does not say "immediately".


Ok, so its not immediately. But it doesnt matter. The deathmarks would shoot after they are set up. Auspex scan lets a unit shoot after an enemy unit has been set up. Both rules are to be resolved at the same time.

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.


You are thinking about this in the wrong way.
Ethereal interception is the Rule used by the Deathmarks. This triggers when an enemy unit is set up
Auspex scan is a rule used when a unit is set up, in this case Deathmarks.

For the sequencing rule to come into effect auspex scan would have to be triggered by you own unit being set up not the Deathmarks.
Logically the Deathmarks entire ability would resolve then auspex scan would be used.
   
Made in gb
Brutal Butcher





That's the debate though. Theres no rule saying the whole ability resolves, it's an interpretation and therefore potentially flawed.
   
Made in de
Chalice-Wielding Sanguinary High Priest






Germany

Skankmarron wrote:

You are thinking about this in the wrong way.
Ethereal interception is the Rule used by the Deathmarks. This triggers when an enemy unit is set up
Auspex scan is a rule used when a unit is set up, in this case Deathmarks.

For the sequencing rule to come into effect auspex scan would have to be triggered by you own unit being set up not the Deathmarks.
Logically the Deathmarks entire ability would resolve then auspex scan would be used.


Sequencing doesnt say anything about my own unit being set up. It says when two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time. Auspex scan is a rule, and ethereal interception is a rule.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/16 08:13:11


 
   
Made in gb
Brutal Butcher





An ability may be made up of multiple rules. Depends on the game definition of rule, which GW have never given us.
   
Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




 p5freak wrote:
Skankmarron wrote:

You are thinking about this in the wrong way.
Ethereal interception is the Rule used by the Deathmarks. This triggers when an enemy unit is set up
Auspex scan is a rule used when a unit is set up, in this case Deathmarks.

For the sequencing rule to come into effect auspex scan would have to be triggered by you own unit being set up not the Deathmarks.
Logically the Deathmarks entire ability would resolve then auspex scan would be used.


Sequencing doesnt say anything about my own unit being set up. It says when two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time. Auspex scan is a rule, and ethereal interception is a rule.


This is my point. They are NOT being resolved at the same time. The examples given are end of phase start of turn etc. all things where the rules “trigger” at the same time.
Ethereal interception triggers first therefore it is not “at the same time”

It’s really not that hard.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: