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.

Gwar! wrote:

arinnoor wrote:Actual orders say they may be used each turn, and the BRB defines turn as player turn.

But show me where it says you may fire on your opponents turn? It doesn't because you cannot. Just because you "immediately follow the order" does not mean you get to ignore every other rule there is.

Asked and answered (multiple times). Per RAW, and a poorly written one at that, Orders can be issued on both player turns. I would even go so far as to say that nobody has yet to provide a logical proof to invalidate that claim. Whether or not Orders can be effectively resolved on your Opponents turn is still something I'm grappling with.

What I find interesting Gwar, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong here, is in a previous thread when you asserted that Orders are not affected by Night Fighting primarily because Night Fighting is applied to Shooting (capital S), and Orders != Shooting. They occur in the same phase, but that's about it. I'm not trying to derail this thread, but I think it's important to note that many folks here have agreed that Orders, in and of themselves, are not part of the normal Shooting process. In other words, you cannot say that Orders do not let you shoot on your opponents turn because the normal rules for shooting disallow this. You need to state, within the confines of the Order rules themselves [Code > BRB], that this is not possible. I think that this becomes especially when you start acknowledging that other universal (or otherwise) rules do not apply to Orders.

I also found it rather laughable when you gave some grief about the whole Codex > BRG (unless I'm misunderstanding you intent behind that). This tenant has popped up multiple times throughout Dakka and is a very commonly held position. I don't think you were trying to invalidate that were you?

-Yad

I didn't understand what you were saying. You were saying they couldn't, but weren't telling me why.

Hostile? I hardly think I was that.

Yad wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

arinnoor wrote:Actual orders say they may be used each turn, and the BRB defines turn as player turn.

But show me where it says you may fire on your opponents turn? It doesn't because you cannot. Just because you "immediately follow the order" does not mean you get to ignore every other rule there is.

Asked and answered (multiple times). Per RAW, and a poorly written one at that, Orders can be issued on both player turns. I would even go so far as to say that nobody has yet to provide a logical proof to invalidate that claim. Whether or not Orders can be effectively resolved on your Opponents turn is still something I'm grappling with.

What I find interesting Gwar, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong here, is in a previous thread when you asserted that Orders are not affected by Night Fighting primarily because Night Fighting is applied to Shooting (capital S), and Orders != Shooting. They occur in the same phase, but that's about it. I'm not trying to derail this thread, but I think it's important to note that many folks here have agreed that Orders, in and of themselves, are not part of the normal Shooting process. In other words, you cannot say that Orders do not let you shoot on your opponents turn because the normal rules for shooting disallow this. You need to state, within the confines of the Order rules themselves [Code > BRB], that this is not possible. I think that this becomes especially when you start acknowledging that other universal (or otherwise) rules do not apply to Orders.

I also found it rather laughable when you gave some grief about the whole Codex > BRG (unless I'm misunderstanding you intent behind that). This tenant has popped up multiple times throughout Dakka and is a very commonly held position. I don't think you were trying to invalidate that were you?

-Yad

Yes, you are correct, but the results of those orders are still bound by the rules. The unit firing has to follow the normal shooting rules or it can't do anything as there are no rules for anything but normal shooting.

As Kaaihn expertly pointed out, Space Marine Librarians can use a Power "per turn". By the "Orders let me fire in your turn" logic, he can fire in your turn, and so can Dakkafexes. You must have ALL the restrictions met or removed before you can so something, not just one, as the "Assaulting out of a Vehicle with fleet" has shown us.

Furthermore, the common belief that this is a case of "Codex > Rulebook" is false. Codex does usually > Rulebook (SA Rules and Assauting through cover being two examples of Rulebook > Codex) but nothing in the orders is letting you trump the rulebook. Lack of something saying you can't does not mean that you can.

The way I see it is this: Since the rule says you need to issue an order before you declare shooting or running. If you have no option to declare either shooting or running, even if you had no intention of doing either, then an order cannot be issued. As you have no choice to declare running or shooting on an oponets turn you cannot issue an order on an opponets turn.

As I said earlier running isn't a requirment. Why do people think it is? You can't run in a Chimera, yet you can issue orders out of it.

You can shoot out of a chimera, though. So you can still order before running or shooting, correct?

arinnoor wrote:As I said earlier running isn't a requirment. Why do people think it is? You can't run in a Chimera, yet you can issue orders out of it.

Erm, read his post. You have to issue orders before shooting OR running. As you can neither fire nor shoot, you cannot issue orders.

coredump wrote:
Quote me this...oh wait...you can't.

It is kind of fun when people are snide and arrogant. But it is BIG FUN when thwy also don't know what they are talking about...

And I recognize that now Gwar, but running has nothing to do with it. So, there is no point in bringing it up.

arinnoor wrote:And I recognize that now Gwar, but running has nothing to do with it. So, there is no point in bringing it up.

It kind of does in a roundabout way, but anyway, glad to see you realise now why it can't be done

My real intent on argeing was to get a good argument for the big e. I know this guy and his store and wanted to give him a good and long list of reasons why it doesn't work and were to find that info.

A Swift Kick to the testicles is by far a more effective argument.

Yeah, but that can be so messy.

Again Arinnor , i point back to you something i already said on page 2 of this thread , and also page 2 of the other thread.
You either : chose to ignore what i said , or you didnt see what i was saying , or you put me on ignore and didnt see it , but i'll quote again:

LunaHound wrote:Quoting from 4-28

LunaHound wrote:I love how in every type of game genre there are people attempting to abuse a rule because they lack common sense . Maybe GW didnt feel like they need to word it any more clear .


"Orders must be issued before the officer and his Command Squad shoot or run (whether the order was successful or not)."

So quoting that , it would mean they are also able to run and shoot in their enemy's phase.

Right....

Somnicide wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Guys , i brought that up on page 2 first post xD

It's because you're a girrrrrrrrrl!!!!

arinnoor wrote:I cannont so I guess my reasoning is flawed I'll withdraw myself from this dicussion. I must be missing something in the rules that I just can't find right now.

Yes, your reasoning IS flawed. Leaving a debate because you can't defend your argument is childish and petty. At least admit you are wrong or you do come off as childish.

That was kind of unnecessary. That is what this forum is for, he debated it for a while and seems to have come around. Leaving a debate because you can see that perhaps your initial thoughts might have been flawed to do more research is not childish, it is actually pretty mature rather than just sticking with it no matter what.

edit: LunaHound, I missed your post on page 2, you just need to hammer it repeatedly :-p Here, I will say it. LunaHound was right and her argument was absolutely valid and supportable by the rules. I took her idea and ran with it.

Case closed.

Like I said luna:
It's because you're a girrrrrrrrrl!!!!
You're icky and have a vagoo!
And you're scary and 90% of the people on the forums have never spoken to a woman other than their own mums

I didn't ignore it. I argued that ability to shoot or run wasn't needed. The ability to run isn't, but the ability to shoot is.

arinnoor wrote:Good point. From what I get from what you said. Ican issue the order, but since nothing permits me to shoot I can't follow through.

Your close. What I said was, if we stipulate for the sake of argument that you can issue the order, we then have to look at the action you are trying to take from said order. In the case of shooting, the order itself is not giving an explicit exception to override the rule that says you can't shoot on your opponents turn. So even if the order was issued, it wouldn't do anything.

As to issuing the order itself though, it is not allowed in the first place. The conventions of the game are that the only actions you may take are ones you are given permission to attempt.

By default, you can do nothing in your opponents turn. To do something in your opponents turn would require you to have an ability that gives you permission to attempt it, with an explicit exception to the general rule for it to be able to complete. Where there is a rules conflict, general wins. Where there is an explicit override, that wins. These overrides are in the codex's as applicable.

So IG gives you permission to issue one or more Orders each turn. This conflicts with the rule of not being allowed to take any actions in your opponents turn though, so it does not work. It has no explicit exception to allow it to override the general rule it is in conflict with. For this same reason, Space Marine Librarians cannot use their powers in the opponents turn either.

An example of codex > rulebook is the psychic power Word of the Emporer from the Witchhunters codex. The power itself says "can be used at the beginning of the enemy assault phase". That is an explicit exception that overrides the rulebook rule of not being able to do anything in your opponents turn.

Gwar! wrote:

arinnoor wrote:As I said earlier running isn't a requirment. Why do people think it is? You can't run in a Chimera, yet you can issue orders out of it.

Erm, read his post. You have to issue orders before shooting OR running. As you can neither fire nor shoot, you cannot issue orders.

By this logic you must also conclude that officers must either shoot or run after issuing their orders, otherwise they did not satisfy the conditions for being able to issue those orders in the first place. This presents a problem for, say, an officer embarked on a Chimera in the backfield who has nothing to shoot at. This situation would prevent that officer from being able to issue any orders.

Anyways, if you really want to get strict with language you should note that it doesn't specify when they run or shoot as long as it is after they issue this order. They could issue the order on Turn 1 and run on Turn 5 and still satisfy the condition, as it is worded.

This conflicts with the rule of not being allowed to take any actions in your opponents turn though, so it does not work.

Please quote this rule as I cannot find it. I do, however, see a rule that explicitly says that "There are times when a player is allowed to perform actions during their opponent’s turn".

Incorrect. The rules for shooting say that you may elect to not fire your weapon if you want. Therefore, if you declare that unit A is shooting now, but elects to not fire any of its weapons, unit A will still count as shooting, it just has not shot any of its weapons. Being able to shoot and not shooting is VERY different to not being able to shoot.

Gwar! wrote:Incorrect. The rules for shooting say that you may elect to not fire your weapon if you want. Therefore, if you declare that unit A is shooting now, but elects to not fire any of its weapons, unit A will still count as shooting, it just has not shot any of its weapons. Being able to shoot and not shooting is VERY different to not being able to shoot.

Can't have your cake and eat it too, Gwar.

If you're going to argue that the unit cannot issue the order simply because they cannot satisfy the condition of it coming BEFORE running or shooting, then you must conclude that running or shooting must follow. If shooting or running does not follow then the order did not come before shooting or running and was therefore illegal.

This extends to normal turns as well. If you argue that the mere possibility of being able to shoot or run is enough to satisfy the condition then you are inventing your own rules.

Danny Internets wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Incorrect. The rules for shooting say that you may elect to not fire your weapon if you want. Therefore, if you declare that unit A is shooting now, but elects to not fire any of its weapons, unit A will still count as shooting, it just has not shot any of its weapons. Being able to shoot and not shooting is VERY different to not being able to shoot.

Can't have your cake and eat it too, Gwar.

If you're going to argue that the unit cannot issue the order simply because they cannot satisfy the condition of it coming BEFORE running or shooting, then you must conclude that running or shooting must follow. If shooting or running does not follow then the order did not come before shooting or running and was therefore illegal.

This extends to normal turns as well. If you argue that the mere possibility of being able to shoot or run is enough to satisfy the condition then you are inventing your own rules.

What part of "You can declare you are shooting but elect not to fire any weapons" did you not understand? That does count as shooting. It's even in the rulebook.

Page 16:
A player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers(as some models may have one-shot weapons, for example), This must be declared before checking range, as all of the models in the unit fire at the same time.

See, you can declare A is going to shoot at B, measure range, then decide to not shoot any weapons. You still count as shooting (as you cannot now go shoot at another Target) but did not fire anything. This is different than not being allowed to shoot.

My apologies, I misread what you had said and was too hasty to reply. I'll concede that point.

Gwar! wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Incorrect. The rules for shooting say that you may elect to not fire your weapon if you want. Therefore, if you declare that unit A is shooting now, but elects to not fire any of its weapons, unit A will still count as shooting, it just has not shot any of its weapons. Being able to shoot and not shooting is VERY different to not being able to shoot.

Can't have your cake and eat it too, Gwar.

If you're going to argue that the unit cannot issue the order simply because they cannot satisfy the condition of it coming BEFORE running or shooting, then you must conclude that running or shooting must follow. If shooting or running does not follow then the order did not come before shooting or running and was therefore illegal.

This extends to normal turns as well. If you argue that the mere possibility of being able to shoot or run is enough to satisfy the condition then you are inventing your own rules.

What part of "You can declare you are shooting but elect not to fire any weapons" did you not understand? That does count as shooting. It's even in the rulebook.

Page 16:
A player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers(as some models may have one-shot weapons, for example), This must be declared before checking range, as all of the models in the unit fire at the same time.

See, you can declare A is going to shoot at B, measure range, then decide to not shoot any weapons. You still count as shooting (as you cannot now go shoot at another Target) but did not fire anything. This is different than not being allowed to shoot.

I think what Danny Internets is arguing is that you are mistakenly conflating the ability to shoot or run with issuing Orders. There are X numbers of conditions that must be satisfied in order to issue an Order:

1. Must be the first thing done in the Shooting Phase
2. Issued by CCS(s) first, then PCS(s)
3. Unit issuing Order must not have ran or shot
4. [Insert validity checks for target unit receiving order]

Danny is suggesting that for #3, the condition can be met both on the IG plyer's turn and his opponents turn. On your turn, so long as you haven't yet violated any of the checks, you good to go. On you opponents turn, you automatically pass #3.

-Yad

No, you do not Automatically pass #3 because you can never Shoot or Run in the opponents turn. This is different to not choosing to do so, as I have shown.

You Auto FAIL #3 because you do not have the chance to Not Shoot Or Not Run.

Passing #3 on the opponent's turn assumes that your 'moveing/shooting' ability resets at the end of your turn. On the other hand, we have not reason to take that as being any more valid than any other time, such as the begining of your next shooting phase.

Indeed, if we want to be corpreate lawyer literal about the rules, the rules for orders don't specify 'this turn' when saying the Officer must not have run or shot. Which means once a command squad runs or shoots the first time, they may not give orders for the remainder of the game, no matter what or whos turn it is.

(the same logic could be used to allow Tau battlesuits or eldar jetbikes to move 6" in the opponents Assult phase.)

Remember when someone tried to argue that bikes can assault 12"?

G

Gwar! wrote:No, you do not Automatically pass #3 because you can never Shoot or Run in the opponents turn. This is different to not choosing to do so, as I have shown.

You Auto FAIL #3 because you do not have the chance to Not Shoot Or Not Run.

But it's not "so long as the unit hasn't choosen to shoot or run" is it? Orders doesn't inherently care whether or not you have the ability to shoot or run, it just cares if it was done.

The fact it cares IF it was done implies there must be a choice about it.

And as I already showed, the game does make a distinction between not being able to fire and choosing not to fire.

And yet Yad does not address my argument.

Mars.Techpriest wrote:And yet Yad does not address my argument.

Don't worry, I get it all the time. It usually happens when the other person knows they are wrong but refuse to admit it, so they just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALALALA OMG UR TRYING TO DERAIL T3H THREADZ!" instead of answering.