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.

Hello

Playing a friends guard army with nids, and we are having a interesting discussion.

When a rule that says "as if" such as fix bayonets says that you make make a fight as if it were the fight phase, would I get to use something like kraken's warlord trait that allows me to pick who gets to fight now because it says "as if" and the warlord trait allows me to use it in the fight phase?
Does this also work with something with the overrun strategem which allows me to make another movement and advance "as if" it were my movement phase, so would I be able to use my kraken ability to double my advance?

No the Kraken ability allows you to do something in the actual fight phase of the turn. Fix bayonets allows him to attack "as if" it were the fight phase.

"as if" doesn't make it the fight phase. It simply means it follows all the normal rules, and restrictions for that phase.

Wagguy80 wrote:
No the Kraken ability allows you to do something in the actual fight phase of the turn. Fix bayonets allows him to attack "as if" it were the fight phase.

"as if" doesn't make it the fight phase. It simply means it follows all the normal rules, and restrictions for that phase.

This is the correct answer. "As if" is subtly different from "is".

Where's the source/rule for this? I think one is needed here because I understand it to be the opposite.

I would say that the specific reason for including the wording "as if it were the fight phase" is to show that all fight phase rules apply during this sub-process.

See also Cawl providing rerolls to AdMech who can shoot "as if it were the shooting phase" because his power says "in the shooting phase"

nothing in the core rules that says anything about this. So you'll have no luck over there.

I would guess that this rule is exclusive to the Astra Militarum's orders and so you will have to go with the literal definition that is printed on that book

Also. I think the reason they have "As if it were the fight phase" is because this is done during the shooting phase, which would be totally illegal from a rules perspective if there wasn't an exception

So it's saying, treat this shooting phase for the unit as a fight phase. Because else this would not work

 Silentz wrote:
Where's the source/rule for this? I think one is needed here because I understand it to be the opposite.

I would say that the specific reason for including the wording "as if it were the fight phase" is to show that all fight phase rules apply during this sub-process.

See also Cawl providing rerolls to AdMech who can shoot "as if it were the shooting phase" because his power says "in the shooting phase"

It's called "English Grammar".

Rules that only work "In the Shooting Phase" only work IN THAT PHASE. If you somehow manage to shoot outside of the Shooting phase, that rule doesn't work.

Cawls rule doesn't work outside the shooting phase because the rule says it only works in it. Cawl can't be used to affect overwatch shooting for example, while Calgars can.


Lord of Mars: You can re-roll any hit rolls in the Shooting phase for friendly MARS units within 6"
Chapter Master: You can re-roll failed hit rolls for friendly ULTRAMARINES units within 6" of Marneus Calgar.

The top rule only works in the shooting phase, the bottom works everywhere.

Your example of Cawl only further reinforces that "As if" and "is" are not the same.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's called "English Grammar".

Which grammatical rule are you referring to here? I don't see a grammar argument that supports what you are asserting and your below argument is a definitional, not a grammatical one. I'd be happy to learn some rule of grammar that I don't know, though. I love language.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Rules that only work "In the Shooting Phase" only work IN THAT PHASE. If you somehow manage to shoot outside of the Shooting phase, that rule doesn't work.

If you somehow manage to shoot outside of the phase, but count it as shooting 'As if' it were the shooting phase, why would a shooting phase rule not apply?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Cawls rule doesn't work outside the shooting phase because the rule says it only works in it. Cawl can't be used to affect overwatch shooting for example, while Calgars can.

I agree with this, but overwatch is not resolved 'As if it were the shooting phase', therefore this argument does not apply to rules that do fire 'As if'.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Lord of Mars: You can re-roll any hit rolls in the Shooting phase for friendly MARS units within 6"
Chapter Master: You can re-roll failed hit rolls for friendly ULTRAMARINES units within 6" of Marneus Calgar.

The top rule only works in the shooting phase, the bottom works everywhere.

I understand this is your assertion, but I don't really see any evidence to support it.

Drager wrote:
I understand this is your assertion, but I don't really see any evidence to support it.

The evidence is called the English Language. The game works with the assumption that you know and understand English in order to parse certain words and phrases. Like, "Roll a dice" isn't defined in the rulebook, because the English Language covers it.

The rule says it only works in the shooting phase, thus it only works in the shooting phase. It doesn't matter if a unit is doing something "as if" it were the shooting phase, because it's not the shooting phase.

This is one of those situations where one of us is going to be horribly wrong.

It might be me, but your "use the grammarz" argument is pretty horrendous. You might as well have written "because I interpret it like that"

Why would they specify that you do something as if it were the fight phase, if not to ensure you knew that the full process and rules of the fight phase apply here?

I feel like the point of this "as if it were the X phase" is specifically to switch you into a kind of virtual machine Fight Phase which lasts until the end of that unit activation, and obeys all rules of being in the fight phase.

In fact... haha... you're going to love this... Interestingly (and a touch embarrasingly for you) my google of "as if it were the shooting phase" has revealed a recent thread where you explicitly take the opposite position on this: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/741721.page

In fact you specifically discuss my previous analogy to Belisarius Cawl.

So you're cyber stalking me? Good to know.

I will admit I seem to have gotten that question wrong, I'll change it now.

No, I googled the question to find other discussions and opinions rather than just picking an interpretation at random and dogmatically sticking to it... and immediately found that link. It's literally the top result. Try it for yourself: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=as+if+it+were+the+shooting+phase&rlz=1C1GGRV_enGB750GB750&oq=as+if+it&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0j69i59j69i57j69i61l2.1045j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Drager wrote:
I understand this is your assertion, but I don't really see any evidence to support it.

The evidence is called the English Language. The game works with the assumption that you know and understand English in order to parse certain words and phrases. Like, "Roll a dice" isn't defined in the rulebook, because the English Language covers it.

I understand this and I also understand, by your reply, that you are implying that I do not understand how English sentences are constructed. I would suggest that before simply asserting that you are correct you might want to explain what rules of English lead inevitably to your conclusion. I also have a good grasp of English grammar and definitions, as, I suspect, do many others here. If there is a disagreement in interpretation you should be able to explain what it is that leads to your conclusion, simply asserting it whilst attempting to cast doubt on another person's literacy does nothing to convince others. You may, of course, continue to play the rule how you wish, but I do not think this is RAW.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The rule says it only works in the shooting phase, thus it only works in the shooting phase. It doesn't matter if a unit is doing something "as if" it were the shooting phase, because it's not the shooting phase.

You seem to be adding words to the rules here, additionally, you don't seem to understand that there are meanings for 'As if' whereby one would treat the subject that is 'As if' identically to the object. For example:

Statement 1: Lords in the Grand Palace are always given wine.
Statement 2: Whilst I was in the Grand Palace they treated me as if I were a Lord.
Inference: I was given wine in the Grand Palace.

As a secondary question for you; Without altering the RAW on Cawl, is there a wording they could use that would indicate, to you, that Cawl's rule should be used outside of the shooting phase for a particular special rule? Is there a wording that, to you, would indicate all such special rules that apply 'In the shooting phase' should apply?

Drager wrote:
As a secondary question for you; Without altering the RAW on Cawl, is there a wording they could use that would indicate, to you, that Cawl's rule should be used outside of the shooting phase for a particular special rule? Is there a wording that, to you, would indicate all such special rules that apply 'In the shooting phase' should apply?

There is no instance where Cawls rule can be used outside the shooting phase, other than a rule that literally says "The 'Lord of Mars' special rule now affects units at all times."

As I pointed out, Calgar's rule works in all phases. If they wanted Cawl to work in all phases, they would have made Cawls rule the same as Calgars. They didn't, thus the difference matters.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Drager wrote:
As a secondary question for you; Without altering the RAW on Cawl, is there a wording they could use that would indicate, to you, that Cawl's rule should be used outside of the shooting phase for a particular special rule? Is there a wording that, to you, would indicate all such special rules that apply 'In the shooting phase' should apply?

There is no instance where Cawls rule can be used outside the shooting phase, other than a rule that literally says "The 'Lord of Mars' special rule now affects units at all times."

As I pointed out, Calgar's rule works in all phases. If they wanted Cawl to work in all phases, they would have made Cawls rule the same as Calgars. They didn't, thus the difference matters.

No Calgar's is phrased that way to affect Shooting Phase and the Fight Phase, that's something very different. It's a multipurpose benefit for H2H and guns alike. If we're operating "as if it's the Shooting Phase", then we use all applicable rules. Re-rolls for the Shooting Phase included.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Drager wrote:
As a secondary question for you; Without altering the RAW on Cawl, is there a wording they could use that would indicate, to you, that Cawl's rule should be used outside of the shooting phase for a particular special rule? Is there a wording that, to you, would indicate all such special rules that apply 'In the shooting phase' should apply?

There is no instance where Cawls rule can be used outside the shooting phase, other than a rule that literally says "The 'Lord of Mars' special rule now affects units at all times."

As I pointed out, Calgar's rule works in all phases. If they wanted Cawl to work in all phases, they would have made Cawls rule the same as Calgars. They didn't, thus the difference matters.

The main difference I see with Calgar is that it works on attacks other than shooting.

Would you be able to explain why there is no such instance? Is this a RAI argument based on comparison to Calgar or is there some other argument I am missing?

Drager wrote:
The main difference I see with Calgar is that it works on attacks other than shooting.

Would you be able to explain why there is no such instance? Is this a RAI argument based on comparison to Calgar or is there some other argument I am missing?

I like your subtle attempt at an ad hominem attack by insisting my argument is RaI when it isn't.

There is no such instance because the rule explicitly says it only works in the shooting phase. Unless a rule explicitly overrides this, there is nothing that can cause that rule to work outside of it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:


There is no such instance because the rule explicitly says it only works in the shooting phase. Unless a rule explicitly overrides this, there is nothing that can cause that rule to work outside of it.

I AGREE!

And when GW write a rule which explicitly overrides this, they use the wording "as if it was the shooting phase".

 Silentz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:


There is no such instance because the rule explicitly says it only works in the shooting phase. Unless a rule explicitly overrides this, there is nothing that can cause that rule to work outside of it.

I AGREE!

And when GW write a rule which explicitly overrides this, they use the wording "as if it was the shooting phase".

That's not an explicit override.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Silentz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:


There is no such instance because the rule explicitly says it only works in the shooting phase. Unless a rule explicitly overrides this, there is nothing that can cause that rule to work outside of it.

I AGREE!

And when GW write a rule which explicitly overrides this, they use the wording "as if it was the shooting phase".

That's not an explicit override.

It is, else how do you conduct a Shooting attack outside of the Shooting Phase? There are no rules for it otherwise, so this is an override to the norm as Silentz says.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Drager wrote:
The main difference I see with Calgar is that it works on attacks other than shooting.

Would you be able to explain why there is no such instance? Is this a RAI argument based on comparison to Calgar or is there some other argument I am missing?

I like your subtle attempt at an ad hominem attack by insisting my argument is RaI when it isn't.

There is no such instance because the rule explicitly says it only works in the shooting phase. Unless a rule explicitly overrides this, there is nothing that can cause that rule to work outside of it.

Apologies if you took that as an ad hominem. I was simply asking if it was a RAI argument. I assume from your answer that it is not. As such I will simply say I find your argument unconvincing as I see no RAW basis for your assertion. As I said, I would be grateful if you could point out what I am missing. I can't find an explicit restriction to being only in the shooting phase in Cawl's rule, nor can I see why, even if that did exist, it would ameliorate the ambiguity inherent in the 'As if' terminology.

Drager wrote:
I can't find an explicit restriction to being only in the shooting phase in Cawl's rule

"You can re-roll any hit rolls in the Shooting phase "

Not "Whenever you want", not "Whenever something is acting "as if" it were the shooting phase", it's a blanket and explicit "in the Shooting phase".

You basically ask "Is what I am doing in the shooting phase, yes or no". Something outside of the shooting phase acting "as if" it was the shooting phase answers no to that question, thus the rule does not work.

 BaconCatBug wrote:


You basically ask "Is what I am doing in the shooting phase, yes or no". Something outside of the shooting phase acting "as if" it was the shooting phase answers no to that question, thus the rule does not work.

Whereas I hear that question and answer "yes" to it, because I put the quotes in a different place. A common YMDC thing, it seeems.

What's the right question?
Something outside of the shooting phase acting "as if" it was the shooting phase
Something outside of the shooting phase acting "as if it was the shooting phase"

I am not sure I am right, but I am also not sure you are.

If I act "as if I were a doctor", am I a doctor? Yes or No? (As a heads up I am not a Doctor)

I don't see much of a debate here - 'as if' it were the shooting phase is not the shooting phase, 'as if' it were the fight phase isn't the fight phase.

The shooting phase is the shooting phase, the fight phase is the fight phase, simply because you are acting as if it were that phase (for the purpose of out of sequence behavior) doesn't mean it is that phase.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Drager wrote:
I can't find an explicit restriction to being only in the shooting phase in Cawl's rule

"You can re-roll any hit rolls in the Shooting phase "

Yes I have read the rule, it doesn't say only in the shooting phase.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not "Whenever you want", not "Whenever something is acting "as if" it were the shooting phase", it's a blanket and explicit "in the Shooting phase".

You basically ask "Is what I am doing in the shooting phase, yes or no". Something outside of the shooting phase acting "as if" it was the shooting phase answers no to that question, thus the rule does not work.

This appears somewhat a strawman, but as it highlights the point at which you seem to disconnect from the other sides argument I will address it anyway. The answer to "Is what I am doing in the shooting phase" is yes in the shooting phase, so if we answer that question as if it were the shooting phase, the answer is yes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If I act "as if I were a doctor", am I a doctor? Yes or No? (As a heads up I am not a Doctor)

This is an interesting conflation of things and I think highlights the disconnect further. If you act as if you were a doctor and, say, diagnose someone's illness correctly then, whilst you have not become a doctor, you have performed the function as one. This is not the normal way one would read your sentence, however. The disconnect here is this; The meaning of "As if" in your sentence and the meaning of "As if" in the example I gave above of being treated "As if I were a Lord" is subtly different. This difference in meaning leads to the ambiguity that I am pointing out. I am not claiming that the other interpretation is correct. I am simply claiming that there is ambiguity here and, as such, I find no way to make a RAW argument, either way, only RAI and HIWPI. I don't find your argument convincing as RAW, although I do, I think, understand what you are saying.

Maybe. I feel "as if it were the x phase" is telling us to behave and play the game as if we are currently in that phase of the game.

Not that it's some kind of semi-phase with some but not all of the rules.

So are we saying here that none of the out of sequence parts of 40k - Acts of Faith, Soulburst, Deep Strike Intercept and so on - can be affected by buffs that specifically reference a phase?

So if a Wraithknight gets a strength from death ynnari thing which says "move as if it was the movement phase" then it's TITANIC keyword that allows it to fall back and still shoot doesn't apply, because that only works in the movement phase?

If I make an attack 'as if it was shooting phase' I must, for the duration of that attack, pretend it is the shooting phase, and apply all the rules that would apply in the shooting phase.

Drager wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Drager wrote:
I can't find an explicit restriction to being only in the shooting phase in Cawl's rule

"You can re-roll any hit rolls in the Shooting phase "

Yes I have read the rule, it doesn't say only in the shooting phase.

What the... are you serious? "Oh man it says I can reroll in the shooting phase, but it doesn't specify I only need to rerroll them in the shooting phase". Are you saying Cawl hability applys in the overwatch sub-phase of the Charge phase and the Combat Phase? Are you serious?

 Galas wrote:

Drager wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Drager wrote:
I can't find an explicit restriction to being only in the shooting phase in Cawl's rule

"You can re-roll any hit rolls in the Shooting phase "

Yes I have read the rule, it doesn't say only in the shooting phase.

What the... are you serious? "Oh man it says I can reroll in the shooting phase, but it doesn't specify I only need to rerroll them in the shooting phase". Are you saying Cawl hability applys in the overwatch sub-phase of the Charge phase and the Combat Phase? Are you serious?

No I'm not saying that. I'd suggest rereading, I'm happy to clarify if a specific part is unclear.

So if a AM player is allowed is allowed to pretend it's the fight phase, why can I not also act as if it's the fight phase and use kraken warlord trait. That trait even says I get to chose even if he has some ability that makes him go first?

Also if I use overrun can I not also use the ability to double my advance roll since overrun allows me to move and advance as if it where my movement?