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.

Many armies have stratagems that say at the end of the fight phase you may fight again i.e. Honor the Chapter for 3CP.

If both people use the stratagem at the same time then sequencing rules state that the person who turn it is dictates the order of the fight. That is all clear enough. However there are scenarios where the player who is now forced to go second may not want to use the stratagem or cannot use the stratagem if the unit is destroyed. Does the CP still get used?

Player A goes first
Player B goes second

In Player A's turn, at the end of the fight phase, Player B plays the stratagem to attack again. Player A counters by also playing a similar stratagem. Given that its Player A's turn then can choose to go first.

Question
1) After Player A completes the stratagem, does Player B have to use the stratagem that they declared earlier? If not they can effectively bait player A to use up their CP.
2) If Player A's unit happens to destroy the unit that Player B was going to use with the Stratagem (i.e. B would have declared the unit when they played the stratagem), are they forced to "use" the stratagem and lose the CP cost?

In your scenario, there might be something about the Target of the strat being eliminated may negate the points spent on the strat? Or perhaps, if they are acted according to the order GW has stated, then the "I use this strat" Must also be put into that order of operations say? However, the basic rules are very vague on who must choose first, etc.
So...
I do not have a direct answer. Instead I have this argument and this is based on the exact type of strat you mean because those two strats do not interract or modify each other in any way, but act separately.
(some clearly do and interrupt etc. Examples: I play shoot again and choose that target" Opponent plays "Increase armor/save/cover etc etc" the two are clearly interacting.
Meaning, when I say I play this strat, do you get to counter and in a sense say "No, I get to play it first"? I know the rules are vague on this. It should be: its the end of the fight phase, any strats to play? and the player whose turn it is chooses first, runs their entire strat, then the other player makes their choice. If Player A (turn player) says, "No strat" and player B says I play... Player A shouldn't be allowed to interrupt, UNLESS the strat is designed as an Interrupt (Say a deep strike and a shoot at deep strike).

Purely my opinion here:
I would hate to play an opponent who argued otherwise, and tried to use his strat to "cost" me CP this way. I do see it being part of strategy, but there needs to be a point where the player whose turn it is, has basically passed on playing the strat, and can't use that advantage to then say "Oh, well if you're going to, I'm going to..."
I played Magic. If that type of work becomes a part of the Strat system here, I would be disappointed.

Smirrors wrote:
In Player A's turn, at the end of the fight phase, Player B plays the stratagem to attack again. Player A counters by also playing a similar stratagem. Given that its Player A's turn then can choose to go first.

Question
1) After Player A completes the stratagem, does Player B have to use the stratagem that they declared earlier? If not they can effectively bait player A to use up their CP.
2) If Player A's unit happens to destroy the unit that Player B was going to use with the Stratagem (i.e. B would have declared the unit when they played the stratagem), are they forced to "use" the stratagem and lose the CP cost?

Once CP are spend, they are gone. If player A manages to kill player B unit, his unit isnt on the table anymore, and cant fight. The CPs are lost. Nothing in 40k happens at the same time, because of the sequencing rule. Which means something happens first, and something else after that.

edwardmyst wrote: In your scenario, there might be something about the Target of the strat being eliminated may negate the points spent on the strat? Or perhaps, if they are acted according to the order GW has stated, then the "I use this strat" Must also be put into that order of operations say? However, the basic rules are very vague on who must choose first, etc.

No, the basic rules are very clear on this. If two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time, sequencing comes into play, and the player whose turn it is decides the order of operations.

Not arguing, I just want the explanation for this:
Are we sure the two strats are resolved at the same time and therefore fall under the sequencing? Where in the rules does it say "Playing strats counts as two or more rules sequencing at the same time? Why isn't it, I declared mine first, Mine goes first? (With the exception of strats that directly say "When an opponent does this, you may do this") Why is this? Because they both take place "at the end of the fight phase" that makes them same time? So, when you're highly competitive, do you stare at the other guy and play poker bluff before ending the fight phase?
In the shooting phase for example, I can play three strats (or more). they do not use the sequencing rules because for example, each is used after I "Choose a unit to shoot".

By your sequencing, if it is not my turn, and some one uses a shoot a unit now type strat, and I respond with "take cover" say, my opponent, whose turn it is then says "Ok, my strat goes off first, (Roll, roll , roll) lose 5 guys. Ok i'm done with my strat, now yours goes off". I don't think the sequencing rule and strats is a clear as you think, because CLEARLY strats can break the sequencing rule, because some interrupt it.

So maybe the real solution, "Don't declare a fight again strat on your opponent's turn" To avoid this?

Another example;
If I as an eldar, play the Avatar Resurgent strat, and then my opponent declares a Fight again strat to try and kill the Avatar again. I don't think they resolve according to the players order (I can't say, Ok, yours goes first and he loses it because the Avatar hasn't arisen yet). No, I resolve my strat (the avatar arises) then my opponent does his strat and fights again.
I guess you could argue because both strats were declared before either was resolved. that the guy was an idiot for declaring the fight again before I placed the Avatar back on the field (I can certainly see this argument being made, although it would deserve a punch in the nose for a player to need to win this bad, but YMMV).
(Please ignore any other reason like more than 1" etc, just giving an example for why i feel strats that do not directly work with each other do not interrupt)

edwardmyst wrote:
Not arguing, I just want the explanation for this:
Are we sure the two strats are resolved at the same time and therefore fall under the sequencing? Where in the rules does it say "Playing strats counts as two or more rules sequencing at the same time? Why isn't it, I declared mine first, Mine goes first? (With the exception of strats that directly say "When an opponent does this, you may do this") Why is this? Because they both take place "at the end of the fight phase" that makes them same time? So, when you're highly competitive, do you stare at the other guy and play poker bluff before ending the fight phase?

It depends on the wording of the stratagems, if both say fight again at the end of the fight phase, then both would be resolved at the same time, and sequencing kicks in. There are no rules for declare first, go first.

edwardmyst wrote:

By your sequencing, if it is not my turn, and some one uses a shoot a unit now type strat, and I respond with "take cover" say, my opponent, whose turn it is then says "Ok, my strat goes off first, (Roll, roll , roll) lose 5 guys. Ok i'm done with my strat, now yours goes off". I don't think the sequencing rule and strats is a clear as you think, because CLEARLY strats can break the sequencing rule, because some interrupt it.

So maybe the real solution, "Don't declare a fight again strat on your opponent's turn" To avoid this?

Don't declare a fight again strat on your opponent's turn, if your opponent has a stratagem that is resolved at the same time.

edwardmyst wrote:

Another example;
If I as an eldar, play the Avatar Resurgent strat, and then my opponent declares a Fight again strat to try and kill the Avatar again. I don't think they resolve according to the players order (I can't say, Ok, yours goes first and he loses it because the Avatar hasn't arisen yet). No, I resolve my strat (the avatar arises) then my opponent does his strat and fights again.
I guess you could argue because both strats were declared before either was resolved. that the guy was an idiot for declaring the fight again before I placed the Avatar back on the field (I can certainly see this argument being made, although it would deserve a punch in the nose for a player to need to win this bad, but YMMV).
(Please ignore any other reason like more than 1" etc, just giving an example for why i feel strats that do not directly work with each other do not interrupt)

Avatar resurgent is resolved after the avatar has been slain, and the attacking unit has done all of its attacks. Fight again, at the end of the fight phase, would come after that. If the unit that kills the avatar is the last unit to fight, and the last attack would kill the avatar, then avatar resurgent and the fight again stratagem would be resolved at the same time.

Thanks for the answers P5...good clarifications.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure "Take Cover" is already worded to sequence it before an attack. Which would mean "player sequencing" wouldn't apply in that case.

Take Cover was used off the top of my head. It states "Use when a unit is chosen as the target..." for clarification. If that wording eliminates the normal "sequencing by player turn/choice" then it is clear that it interrupts a stratagem. In the case of the fight again strats, they do not directly say any such thing so the interpretation of resolve the entire strat is appropriate according to these clarifications.

I think it means it doesn't, technically, happen at the same time as a "shoot now" Stratagem. Player sequencing only applies if two Stratagems would "go off" at the exact same time. Such as two players both using "Counter Offensive". In the case of "Take Cover", the "shoot now" Stratagem has already resolved (If the Stratagem reads "pick a unit and it may fire its weapons"), as "Take Cover" procs at step 3 of the attack sequence "Choose Targets".

But I'm not really a rule expert and I'm applying a bit of common sense here. My personal ruling on the OP situation is that the controlling player would choose which Stratagem "goes off" first, and if the other player's target unit was destroyed before they could "use" their Stratagem on it, then the CP wouldn't be lost.

Edit: I know there are certain Stratagems (such as Agents of Vect) which cancel a Stratagem without a refund, so I'm not 100% on my "personal opinion" ruling, but I'd say losing the target of your Stratagem would be grounds for a refund.

 flandarz wrote:
I think it means it doesn't, technically, happen at the same time as a "shoot now" Stratagem. Player sequencing only applies if two Stratagems would "go off" at the exact same time. Such as two players both using "Counter Offensive". In the case of "Take Cover", the "shoot now" Stratagem has already resolved (If the Stratagem reads "pick a unit and it may fire its weapons"), as "Take Cover" procs at step 3 of the attack sequence "Choose Targets".

But I'm not really a rule expert and I'm applying a bit of common sense here. My personal ruling on the OP situation is that the controlling player would choose which Stratagem "goes off" first, and if the other player's target unit was destroyed before they could "use" their Stratagem on it, then the CP wouldn't be lost.

Edit: I know there are certain Stratagems (such as Agents of Vect) which cancel a Stratagem without a refund, so I'm not 100% on my "personal opinion" ruling, but I'd say losing the target of your Stratagem would be grounds for a refund.

You are absolutely correct that a stratagem that allows you to shoot again does not have any sequencing conflict with Take Cover, for the reason you stated.

Sequencing is used when the game tells you to to resolve 2 things at the EXACT same time - that is those things are triggered by the same event (eg at the end of the phase, or when a model is destroyed etc).

If you are resolving the effect of a Stratagem and as part of that resolution an event occurs which you can respond to with another Stratagem, that is NOT a sequencing issue, because they are not triggered by the same event. You would interrupt the current stratagem, resolve the new one, and then go back to finishing resolving the first one.

 Smirrors wrote:
Many armies have stratagems that say at the end of the fight phase you may fight again i.e. Honor the Chapter for 3CP.

If both people use the stratagem at the same time then sequencing rules state that the person who turn it is dictates the order of the fight. That is all clear enough. However there are scenarios where the player who is now forced to go second may not want to use the stratagem or cannot use the stratagem if the unit is destroyed. Does the CP still get used?

Player A goes first
Player B goes second

In Player A's turn, at the end of the fight phase, Player B plays the stratagem to attack again. Player A counters by also playing a similar stratagem. Given that its Player A's turn then can choose to go first.

Question
1) After Player A completes the stratagem, does Player B have to use the stratagem that they declared earlier? If not they can effectively bait player A to use up their CP.
2) If Player A's unit happens to destroy the unit that Player B was going to use with the Stratagem (i.e. B would have declared the unit when they played the stratagem), are they forced to "use" the stratagem and lose the CP cost?

In this case its not hard for player B to say, "well since you activated Fight again, and your gonna get to swing first, I will no longer activate my fight again stratagem." The CP isn't actually spent until you do what it says.

 Eihnlazer wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
Many armies have stratagems that say at the end of the fight phase you may fight again i.e. Honor the Chapter for 3CP.

If both people use the stratagem at the same time then sequencing rules state that the person who turn it is dictates the order of the fight. That is all clear enough. However there are scenarios where the player who is now forced to go second may not want to use the stratagem or cannot use the stratagem if the unit is destroyed. Does the CP still get used?

Player A goes first
Player B goes second

In Player A's turn, at the end of the fight phase, Player B plays the stratagem to attack again. Player A counters by also playing a similar stratagem. Given that its Player A's turn then can choose to go first.

Question
1) After Player A completes the stratagem, does Player B have to use the stratagem that they declared earlier? If not they can effectively bait player A to use up their CP.
2) If Player A's unit happens to destroy the unit that Player B was going to use with the Stratagem (i.e. B would have declared the unit when they played the stratagem), are they forced to "use" the stratagem and lose the CP cost?

In this case its not hard for player B to say, "well since you activated Fight again, and your gonna get to swing first, I will no longer activate my fight again stratagem." The CP isn't actually spent until you do what it says.

The CPs are spend, and gone, when you play the stratagem, there is no take backs. Other rules, like agents of vect, can refund spend CPs.

The thing is, you don't actually spend the CP until the unit is selected to actually fight again.

This isn't MTG and there aren't stacks of actions. If the unit gets wiped out, there is no longer a target for the strat and it does not activate.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The thing is, you don't actually spend the CP until the unit is selected to actually fight again.

This isn't MTG and there aren't stacks of actions. If the unit gets wiped out, there is no longer a target for the strat and it does not activate.

To be honest these are all reasonable interpretations, but none are borne out by actual explicit rules.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The thing is, you don't actually spend the CP until the unit is selected to actually fight again.

This isn't MTG and there aren't stacks of actions. If the unit gets wiped out, there is no longer a target for the strat and it does not activate.

Citation please.

How about we not play the old citation game for rules that neither side has a citation for? The rules don't tell you if both player have to spend the CP at the same time on stratagems that require sequencing when they use them, therefore we don't know if they do or don't.

 alextroy wrote:
How about we not play the old citation game for rules that neither side has a citation for? The rules don't tell you if both player have to spend the CP at the same time on stratagems that require sequencing when they use them, therefore we don't know if they do or don't.

Agent of vect says :

Use this stratagem just after your opponent has spend CPs to use a stratagem, but before the effects of that stratagem are resolved. Roll a D6; on a 1 your opponents stratagem is resolved as normal. On a 2-5 your opponents CPs are refunded, but the stratagem they were using is not resolved and cannot be attempted again this phase.....

CPs are spend when you use a stratagem, and the effects of the stratagem maybe resolved later. According to Eihnlazer they are spend at the time when they are resolved. But AOV says on a 2-5 the stratagem isnt resolved, and the CPs are refunded. How can CPs be refunded, when the CPs arent spend ??

Another example :

COGITATED MARTYRDOM
Use this Stratagem at the start of the Shooting phase. Select one IRON HANDS INFANTRY unit from your army. Until the end of the phase, when a friendly IRON HANDS CHARACTER model within 3" of that unit would lose any wounds as a result of an attack made against that model, that unit can attempt to intercept that attack. Roll one D6; on a 2+ that model does not lose those wounds and that unit suffers 1 mortal wound for each of those wounds. Only one attempt can be made to intercept each attack.

This stratagem is played at the start of the shooting phase, at that point i dont know if i get to use it. According to Eihnlazer i wouldnt have to pay 1CP, when there is no wound to intercept. That is not how its played.

Those are faulty arguments in both cases.

For Agents of Vect, it specifically states use after your opponent pays CP for the Stratagem but before it is resolved. There has been CP spent to refund. This means AoV is irrelevant for determining if you have to spend CP on a stratagem you are not yet allowed to resolve due to Sequencing.

For COGITATED MARTYRDOM, it adds and ability to a unit until the end of a Phase. Whether or not that added ability get used is irrelevant. You spend the CP and it is active. Again, no bearing on the question of Sequencing and CP use.

It shows when CPs are spend on stratagems. When they get used, not when they are resolved.

HIWPI: if you get to a point in the phase where both players have stratagems they can use, the player whose turn it is declares and resolves theirs first, and then the other player declares and resolves theirs second.

If it's the end of the Fight phase on your turn and you want to use a "fight again" strat, go ahead and use it. Your opponent can do the same after you're done.

If it's the end of the Fight phase on your opponent's turn and you want to use a "fight again" strat, ask your opponent if they have any strats they can use at that point. If they do, they resolve theirs first; if not, you resolve yours now.

It may or may not be RAW, but as long as both players are on the same page then it works for me.

Makes sense to me and avoids sour grapes over declaring something that then becomes impossible to resolve.

 p5freak wrote:
It shows when CPs are spend on stratagems. When they get used, not when they are resolved.

I hate to say it, but no it does not. In no way do either of those stratagems say anything about when you pay the CP for a stratagem you want to use when Sequencing come into effect. We all know you spend CP when you use a stratagem, but there is no guidance on what happens when two people want to use a stratagem at the same time.

 alextroy wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
It shows when CPs are spend on stratagems. When they get used, not when they are resolved.

I hate to say it, but no it does not. In no way do either of those stratagems say anything about when you pay the CP for a stratagem you want to use when Sequencing come into effect. We all know you spend CP when you use a stratagem, but there is no guidance on what happens when two people want to use a stratagem at the same time.

Wrong. The guidance is called sequencing. What you say is speculation, unless you provide some citations to back up your arguments.

The sequence seems pretty clear to me.

Both players want to use a strategems and say so.
They check the strategems and see when they activate and realise that they are triggered at the same time and that sequencing will be used to determine the order that they are played.
The player whose turn it is (player A) chooses to resolve their own strategem first: Declares the strategems is being used, pays the CP and carries out the actions required.
The other player now declares they’re strategems (or not) and pays the appropriate CPs and takes the appropriate actions.

Im pretty sure he isn't actually confused about when they are triggered or used and actually just wants to yell out "HAHA, Gotcha!" to his opponent.

 p5freak wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
It shows when CPs are spend on stratagems. When they get used, not when they are resolved.

I hate to say it, but no it does not. In no way do either of those stratagems say anything about when you pay the CP for a stratagem you want to use when Sequencing come into effect. We all know you spend CP when you use a stratagem, but there is no guidance on what happens when two people want to use a stratagem at the same time.

Wrong. The guidance is called sequencing. What you say is speculation, unless you provide some citations to back up your arguments.

Which says nothing about spending CP. I call your "citations" my own provide some citations to back up your arguments. Please use new ones because the two you cited before totally fail to support your argument.

Note: I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying you haven't proven you are correct.