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.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Also if you get upset at someone following the rules of the game, that says more about you than it does your opponent.

There is "following the rules" and then there is "following the rule strictly in order to take advantage of poor wording". Pretty clear difference to those of us who care about sportsmanship and being a player others want to play with. Not some purity-driven rules lawyer - that belong in the MtG circle, not in 40k, because GW can't write rules worth a crap.

And who gets to be the arbiter of what "poor" wording is?

I could claim it's "poor wording" that my conscripts don't have 30 wounds each. Who's to say that isn't also valid?

The only way to play the game that doesn't devolve into stupidity like that is to actually follow the rules that the game has, rather than making ones up as we go along.

lets take a look at what it says without the gobbledygook of all the rest of the stuff it does.

Use this strategem at any time to... shoot with an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS unit from your army without the penalties to your hit rolls from the Dawn Raid, Low Visibility or Cover of Darkness rules.

the intent is clearly there. the actual wording does seem to leave it very open to both sides.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Also if you get upset at someone following the rules of the game, that says more about you than it does your opponent.

There is "following the rules" and then there is "following the rule strictly in order to take advantage of poor wording". Pretty clear difference to those of us who care about sportsmanship and being a player others want to play with. Not some purity-driven rules lawyer - that belong in the MtG circle, not in 40k, because GW can't write rules worth a crap.

Mmm, no. To quote an insane person:

YMDC has always (at least as long as I've been on Dakka, which is since about '99/2000 or so) been primarily concerned with RAW, rather than with house rules. Simply because house rules are more appropriately discussed with the people you're actually playing with, since they're the ones who are ultimately going to have to agree to them in order for you to use them... and that agreement generally happens or not regardless of how many strangers have agreed with it on the internet.

The RAW is also the most consistent. You are less likely to go from tournament to tournament and encounter multiple variations on rules if you adhere to what the rules literally state. Yet if you play with the game of trying to puzzle out and interpret GW's intent, which the very existence of this forum proves is futile to come to complete consensus to, then you are going to encounter house rules everywhere you go and must learn how to play differently at each new location, including instructing new hobbyists according to your version of the rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Also if you get upset at someone following the rules of the game, that says more about you than it does your opponent.

There is "following the rules" and then there is "following the rule strictly in order to take advantage of poor wording". Pretty clear difference to those of us who care about sportsmanship and being a player others want to play with. Not some purity-driven rules lawyer - that belong in the MtG circle, not in 40k, because GW can't write rules worth a crap.

And who gets to be the arbiter of what "poor" wording is?

I could claim it's "poor wording" that my conscripts don't have 30 wounds each. Who's to say that isn't also valid?

The only way to play the game that doesn't devolve into stupidity like that is to actually follow the rules that the game has, rather than making ones up as we go along.

Oh not the 30 Wounds strawman again...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh not the 30 Wounds strawman again...

It's not a strawman, it's a logical extension of using "common sense" to change rules or to ignore rules. Once you agree one thing is "unclear" (for whatever value of unclear you pick), you can extend it to anything, including making Conscripts have 30 wounds.

except in the wounds characteristic on conscripts it says 1

gendoikari87 wrote:
except in the wounds characteristic on conscripts it says 1

And the Stratagem in question lets you use it any time, regardless of the "intent". If I claim the "intent" is for Conscripts to have 30 wounds, it's just as valid as any other "intent" argument.

People keep missing the forest for the trees here. My point isn't that it's legitimate to claim Conscripts have 30 wounds, my point is if you allow one "intent" argument, you allow them all. Thus, the only way for the game to function in any meaningful way is to follow the rules as they are written in the rulebook.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
except in the wounds characteristic on conscripts it says 1

And the Stratagem in question lets you use it any time, regardless of the "intent". If I claim the "intent" is for Conscripts to have 30 wounds, it's just as valid as any other "intent" argument.

People keep missing the forest for the trees here. My point isn't that it's legitimate to claim Conscripts have 30 wounds, my point is if you allow one "intent" argument, you allow them all. Thus, the only way for the game to function in any meaningful way is to follow the rules as they are written in the rulebook.

You are ignoring that the wording does not adhere to existing rule convention concerning out-of-sequence shooting. It is a poorly written rule because while it appears to enable shooting, if you put it into context it doesn't. It is a case of misleading and poorly chosen grammar, imo. But at no point did I read it and think it enabled an out of sequence shooting attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Oh not the 30 Wounds strawman again...

It's not a strawman, it's a logical extension of using "common sense" to change rules or to ignore rules. Once you agree one thing is "unclear" (for whatever value of unclear you pick), you can extend it to anything, including making Conscripts have 30 wounds.

That is by definition a strawman.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
That is by definition a strawman.

It's actually a non-fallacious slippery slope argument.

i mean if you're so sure it's RAW, go run it in a tournament somewhere where they have to go by RAW. you'll win every game.

I mean if you're so sure it's RAW it shouldn't be a problem should it? so why not go out there and prove us wrong?

I mean personally i'm pretty sure its both RAW and not RAW in sort of a rules quantum state. but tournament observation will put that to bed quick.

30 Wounds would be a House Rule, BCB. Don't expect anyone to play by your house rule, etc etc

You've argued often enough that rules are poorly worded. Don't jump down someone's threat for doing the same, please.

The rule in question and OT (not the 30W Conscript fallacy stuff) is clearly poorly-worded. The intent seems clear but the RAW reality is miles off. It's an oversight on the writers' part for sure and will no doubt be corrected via Errata.

You can argue RAW vs RAI here all you want, but the fact is it is a poorly written rule because it's actually 3 separate stratagems in one. It seems pretty clear the real purpose of the stratagem was to negate the negative effects of the 3 mission rules mentioned for a single unit for that units next shooting attack.

You can argue that's not raw, but don't expect friends by playing that way. If you read the fluff above the rule you know in your heart what the rule was ment to do.

It's a good catch. But its also obvious what it's ment to do.

And saying "well it's obvious conscripts are supposed to have 30 wounds go me" doesn't help your argument. No one believes that, and no where in any fluff or previous rules anywhere do they. That's the crux of the matter, if we can't agree based on what is said let's look at previous examples to try and figure it out. And in that instance it's petty clear how they would word it if they expected it to be used to shoot out of turn (auspex scanner).

It's also irrelevant whether it's raw or not because no one in their right mind will let you do it

gendoikari87 wrote:
It's also irrelevant whether it's raw or not because no one in their right mind will let you do it

Indeed. The only one that makes sense is the narrower reading, i.e. avoiding penalties on certain missions in your Shooting Phase, not the 'shoot with a unit at any time' reading. If someone insists their Knight can blat out its full arsenal every phase they'll be short of opponents verrrry quickly.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Swan-of-War wrote:
Rules as Written abuse - why limit yourself to one per phase? You can spend as many Command Points as you want during Deployment (pg 215, BRB). Burn through all your Command Points with volleys of heavy phosphor / neutron lasers before the first turn even begins.

Side effects include: instant TFG branding, no friends, flipped tables

Except you can't use this stratagem pre-game.

Also if you get upset at someone following the rules of the game, that says more about you than it does your opponent.

Kicking this dead horse, but where does it say it can't be used pre-game? Pg 215 says you can use as many strategems as you please in the Deployment phase and the strategem itself says "use at any time"

 Swan-of-War wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Swan-of-War wrote:
Rules as Written abuse - why limit yourself to one per phase? You can spend as many Command Points as you want during Deployment (pg 215, BRB). Burn through all your Command Points with volleys of heavy phosphor / neutron lasers before the first turn even begins.

Side effects include: instant TFG branding, no friends, flipped tables

Except you can't use this stratagem pre-game.

Also if you get upset at someone following the rules of the game, that says more about you than it does your opponent.

Kicking this dead horse, but where does it say it can't be used pre-game? Pg 215 says you can use as many strategems as you please in the Deployment phase and the strategem itself says "use at any time"

Ewww, good spot. There is no way in hell they intended you to be able to spend all your CP to shoot your opponent off the board before the first turn even begins. It's badly worded plain and simple. Unsure how anyone could possibly argue to the contrary. Luckily the meaning is easy enough to interpret, and anyone crying "RAW! RAW!" is easy enough to not play against.

Actually, if they added "once per turn" and "skitarii" to this stratagem it would make excellent and fairly balanced one as is.
Well, even if they will allow robots one extra round of shooting - it won't make AM ridiculously powerful.

I hope shooting is intentional, will be looking forward to see how GW rewrites it. I think they will return it to the dirt of niche stratagems it was initially.

Good thread, I would never looked at the scryerskull from this angle.