How Hot is Hot-Blooded?

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.

**MagicJuggler**

Explanation: Normally, the shooting sequence is: Select a unit to shoot, Declare targets, allocate weapons, then resolve attacks. Unlike many other Stratagems, this one does not let you Shoot as if though it were the Shooting Phase, but has ambiguously-worded RAW.

* Normally, you can only select a unit to shoot with if it did not Advance, Fall Back, and is not engaged in close combat. However, this stratagem simply says you may select a Vior'la Infantry unit to shoot twice, without a qualifier that the unit could be selected in that phase to begin with.

* Likewise, the rules for selecting targets state that in order for an enemy unit to be selected as a target, the enemy unit must be unengaged and at least one model in your unit must be in range and line of sight with a weapon that will be used to attack the enemy unit. However, Hot-Blooded simply states that you MUST target the closest enemy unit, without qualifying "that could normally be targeted as per Selecting Targets in the Shooting Sequence."

Unlike the Focused Fire stratagem where the RAI is easier to reach a consensus on (The stratagem is for focusing on one unit, instead of the entire enemy army), here you can argue that firing Breachers from melee is in fact fluffy while fitting many hot-blooded anime clichés.

**Farseer_V2**

I don't see how the unit being chosen to shoot wouldn't still fall under the normal rules of 'choose a unit to shoot (check parameters).

As to the 2nd portion, I grant you there's more an argument there because it literally says the closet enemy unit (not closest legal, or anything else).

**doctortom**

Vior'la Sept detachements get Strike Back, which in part says that if they advance they treat rapid fire weapons as assault weapons until the end of the turn, so the Advancing issue probably won't be a big deal most of the time (unless you're playing it on models firing heavy weaponry).

It doesn't say you get to ignore shooting rules. If a unit is engaged in close combat, it could fire pistols twice with this, but wouldn't be firing other weapons due to the restrictions on what can and can't be fired when in close combat. Pistols override the normal prohibition on firing at enemy engaged in close combat. You'd still only be able to fire at the closest unit if there were 2 enemy units in close combat. If the unit you play this on isn't in close combat but the closest enemy unit is, you wouldn't be able to fire non-pistols at them due to the normal restrictions against firing into close combat, which would still apply. You wouldn't waste the command points to play it on a unit that can't legally shoot at the target.

**Kriswall**

MagicJuggler wrote:

Explanation: Normally, the shooting sequence is: Select a unit to shoot, Declare targets, allocate weapons, then resolve attacks. Unlike many other Stratagems, this one does not let you Shoot as if though it were the Shooting Phase, but has ambiguously-worded RAW.

* Normally, you can only select a unit to shoot with if it did not Advance, Fall Back, and is not engaged in close combat. However, this stratagem simply says you may select a Vior'la Infantry unit to shoot twice, without a qualifier that the unit could be selected in that phase to begin with.

* Likewise, the rules for selecting targets state that in order for an enemy unit to be selected as a target, the enemy unit must be unengaged and at least one model in your unit must be in range and line of sight with a weapon that will be used to attack the enemy unit. However, Hot-Blooded simply states that you MUST target the closest enemy unit, without qualifying "that could normally be targeted as per Selecting Targets in the Shooting Sequence."

Unlike the Focused Fire stratagem where the RAI is easier to reach a consensus on (The stratagem is for focusing on one unit, instead of the entire enemy army), here you can argue that firing Breachers from melee is in fact fluffy while fitting many hot-blooded anime clichés.

If you have one effect that says "can be selected twice" and another that says "cannot be selected"... the only way to satisfy both rules is to not select the unit. The "can" doesn't override the "cannot". I don't think there's a rules conflict here. There's a huge difference between can and must.

**BaconCatBug**

All rules have to say "yes" in order to work. If a rule says "Shoot the closest enemy", unless it lets you ignore the rule that says "You can only shoot visible enemies", the closest non-visible unit can't be shot.

However, much like the Character rule, if the closest unit is not visible, it can't select another unit. It has to try and shoot the closest, then fail because it's not visible.

**MagicJuggler**

Is there a precedent?

I imagine the pseudocode looks like:

Unit has methods:

And HotBlooded would override these with:

**wraith[cs]**

There is potentially a precedent already with the Flash Gitz 'Gun-Crazy Showoffs' rule. They have to target the closest unit, and this is from the Xenos 2 FAQ :

Q: What happens when a unit of Flash Gitz’ Gun-crazy
Showoffs ability triggers, but the nearest enemy unit is not
a viable target (e.g. it is not visible to the Flash Gitz, or it is
within 1" of a unit from your army)?
A: If the nearest enemy unit is not a viable target then
this ability has no effect this time.

**MagicJuggler**

Indeed.

However this could mean that you could run two squads checkerboarded A and B. If the Tau player targets A with the first round of shots, the opponent can remove casualties from A so B is now the closest. Depending on the interpretation of "closest target" (at the start of the stratagem, or each time after the unit has been chosen to shoot), this could mean that the Tau player doesn't get to shoot again and just wasted 2 CP.

**MightyWeasel**

Check it and seeee. They got a fever of one hundred and threeee....

Had to.

**MachinaMandala**

Farseer_V2 wrote:
I don't see how the unit being chosen to shoot wouldn't still fall under the normal rules of 'choose a unit to shoot (check parameters).

In terms of fluff / RAI, the interpretation that it allows you to shoot regardless of advancement / fallling back / melee is a fair one anyway.

Shooting phase rules:

Spoiler:

Core rulebook: "You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit."
Strategem: "That unit may be chosen to shoot twice this phase"

Choose and pick are completely synonymous words. If the core rulebook said, "An unit that advanced, fell back or is within 1" of an enemy unit cannot shoot" this would be a clear delineation and I would agree. But it does not state that.

This is a P¬P paradox in Bayesian logic. However, in terms of game rules the newest rules (or temporary rules) take precedent.

No one argues that someone with the Sniper USR can't shoot a character in a crowd of units because "the rules don't allow you to shoot anything but the closest in a specific direction". They are not fundamentally different examples.

**Techpriestsupport**

To me the fact this is called hotblooded and uses the term daredevil seems to imply they can ignore normal shooting restrictions about moving, falling back, but I could be wrong.

**MachinaMandala**

Techpriestsupport wrote:
To me the fact this is called hotblooded and uses the term daredevil seems to imply they can ignore normal shooting restrictions about moving, falling back, but I could be wrong.

Exactly. I think, RAI, it even suits that interpretation.

Also, is it even worth paying 2CP for an extra shot on a single unit?

**Techpriestsupport**

MightyWeasel wrote:
Check it and seeee. They got a fever of one hundred and threeee....

Had to.

Damn your rotten soul to the warp!

I wanted to do that joke!

**Ice_can**

It places no restrictions on which infantry unit you may pick in the first sentence.
This unit may be choosen to shoot twice this phase, but all models in the unit must target the closest enemy unit each time they do so.

So yes it would RAW allow an otherwise ineligible unit to shoot.
E.G bezerkers charge kill screen level 1 and do the consolidate into a new unit. That unit can fall back in the movement phase and I can play the stratageum.
I must target the closest enemy unit, I do not choose my target so to me the must overrides the choose target and subsequent restrictions of the brb, so even into close combat etc.
(This only hesitation I have is that this technically removes the line of sight restrictions as they are part of choose a target.

I think it is ment to be closest visable enemy unit.)

I then resolve the shooting attack as per brb. I then choose a unit to shoot with this could be another unit who can split fire to clear the last couple of models from the closest unit. Then choose the strategumed unit for the second time so they target the closest enemy unit. So casualty shenanigans won't help you.

**BaconCatBug**

Techpriestsupport wrote:
To me the fact this is called hotblooded and uses the term daredevil seems to imply they can ignore normal shooting restrictions about moving, falling back, but I could be wrong.

I think the fact my models have the ULTRAMARINES keywords means they can never lose or die. RAI!

**Captyn_Bob**

Restrictions still apply unless we are told they don't. This stratagem allows a unit eligible to shoot once, to shoot twice, with an added restriction. Seems straightforward.

**MachinaMandala**

Captyn_Bob wrote:

Restrictions still apply unless we are told they don't. This stratagem allows a unit eligible to shoot once, to shoot twice, with an added restriction. Seems straightforward.

At no point does it state any restriction that the unit must be eligible to shoot once.

An interpretation in terms of pseudocode is:

The "may be able to shoot" boolean value is not strictly necessary (as we can base it off the number of shots remaining) but it's useful to illustrate the point.

**Captyn_Bob**

... you're not joking are you? Playing a game isn't writing a program. Wow.

**BaconCatBug**

Captyn_Bob wrote:
... you're not joking are you? Playing a game isn't writing a program. Wow.

It is, in that a game follows (or is at least supposed to follow) a logical set of steps and applying conditional rules at each step.

That's the definition of a ruleset.

**JohnnyHell**

Still, code interpretation of a rule isn't very helpful to anyone, to be honest.

**Bojazz**

JohnnyHell wrote:
Still, code interpretation of a rule isn't very helpful to anyone, to be honest.

It helped me. As a logical thinker and someone with basic programming knowledge, his code example helped me organize the flow of which rules apply and when they apply, as well as how they would logically conclude. Code interpretations have been around for quite some time, not because they're an end-all solution to rules interactions, but because Code allows you to put written rules down as a set of functions so there is less room for misunderstanding from language. I agree that it's not useful for everyone, but to say it's not useful to anyone is unnecessarily dismissive of someone just trying to help.

**edwardmyst**

I am not the rules lawyer some of you are, but here is where I don't get this, so please explain where I am wrong here.
Does a rule have to say "the unit picked must be allowed to shoot" for the rules governing which units may shoot to apply during the shooting phase? So if anything doesn't say "The unit must be allowed to shoot" those rules are thrown out? I disagree with this theory completely. (outside the shooting phase, yes the shooting phase rules do not apply)

Why are we claiming the Stratagem's "pick a unit to shoot with it may shoot twice{sic}" completely replaces the entire paragraph on choose a unit to shoot with? (BRB page 129) Same applies to pick a target. Why does the phrase you must pick the closest..." replace the entire paragraph instead of just add a caveat?

The stratagem takes place in the shooting phase doesn't it? So why wouldn't the rules of the shooting phase apply? So, in the shooting phase it allows you to choose a unit twice, with the addendum they must shoot the closest enemy unit. It doesn't even say consecutively. So you could choose a unit, shoot them, leave two models in closest unit, pick a different unit, finish off closest unit, then pick the first unit to shoot again and maybe shoot the character who has now become closest unit (just for example).

It is a permissive rule set, no? So unless a rule says you can ignore (or the rule replaces contradicts) rule X, Rule X still applies? (like the sniper rule that specifically says you may target a character even if...etc.)

So, I do not see why the normal rules for shooting do not come into play, modified as follows: You pick the unit to fire, then the stratagem tells you you must pick the closest target, so adds to the step of choose target rather than eliminate it, resolve shooting, then pick another unit (and you may pick this unit again in the shooting phase).

Again, my basis is it IS the shooting phase, and so unless the stratagem specifically changes or contradicts or modifies each of the rules in the shooting phase, they remain the same. the only parts the stratagem modifies are: you may pick a unit to shoot twice, and you must target the closest unit. It does not modify the "legal as a target" rules.

**MagicJuggler**

The stratagem simply states you select a unit twice. Other stratagems (example, Breach and Clear) state that you use it before actually shooting with the unit.

However, shooting could either mean the shooting sequence as a whole (choose unit, select targets, allocate weapons, resolve attacks), or it could coloquially mean the actual shooting itself (the resolution of attacks). Which could also be interpreted as allowing a stratagem like Breach And Clear to let a unit normally not allowed to shoot actually shoot.

The issue is that the Stratagem itself is stating that you are allowed to select the unit twice, overriding selecting the unit zero times. If GW wanted to write Hot-Blooded to ensure that there was no actual ambiguity, they should have written it as:

Use this Stratagem after Choosing (Step 1) a VIOR'LA INFANTRY unit, but before selecting targets (Step 2). This VIOR'LA INFANTRY unit can be Chosen (Step 1) an additional time during this Shooting Phase; for both shooting sequences the designated VIOR'LA INFANTRY must target the closest enemy unit to it, that can be legally selected as a target (Step 2).

In other words, the fact that the shooting sequence itself is an actual sequence with steps, there is no actual rulebook raw or FAQ ruling that states that stratagems "otherwise follow normal sequence rules," and the RAI even supports it, all leads to the rule itself being terribly-written to the point that until GW rewrites the whole stratagem, technically it allows for melee shooting with the most hot-blooded of shonen Tau.

**Captyn_Bob**

edwardmyst 752472 9871868 wrote: It does not modify the "legal as a target" rules.

Absolutely.

**MachinaMandala**

Captyn_Bob wrote:... you're not joking are you? Playing a game isn't writing a program. Wow.

JohnnyHell wrote:Still, code interpretation of a rule isn't very helpful to anyone, to be honest.

That's how you should interpret rules RAW. It removes any possible misunderstanding / ambiguity of human language.

Look up answer set programming sometime.

edwardmyst wrote:I am not the rules lawyer some of you are, but here is where I don't get this, so please explain where I am wrong here.
Does a rule have to say "the unit picked must be allowed to shoot" for the rules governing which units may shoot to apply during the shooting phase? So if anything doesn't say "The unit must be allowed to shoot" those rules are thrown out? I disagree with this theory completely. (outside the shooting phase, yes the shooting phase rules do not apply)

I'm just snipping out this past because I feel it summarises your whole post.

In this case, we have:
Rule A) Core Rulebook: A unit who advances, falls back or is within 1" of an enemy unit may not be chosen to shoot.
Rule B) Core Rulebook: A unit may shoot once.
Rule C) Stratagem: This unit may be chosen to shoot.
Rule D) Stratagem: This unit may shoot twice.

There are two sets of contradictory rules here. A and C can be contradictory and B and D are directly contradictory (as there is no statement about overriding existing rules on either of them), so much so that they cannot exist within the same game state.

Which ones do you pick to interpret and why? If you interpret [A+D] then [B+C] is an equally valid choice, as either way you are ignoring half the rules in both sources. The only reasonable interpretation is either [A+B] or [C+D], the former of which makes about 90% of stratagems literally useless and the latter of which is the only sensible interaction, as the use of the stratagem overrides all other rules.

**Ice_can**

It changes more than you think as it doesn't specify the unit must be able to be chosen to shoot normally to be a target of the stratageum.
It then states "This unit may be choosen to shoot twice this phase, but all models in the unit must target the closest enemy unit each time they do so." I may choose this unit because of the stratageum, the reason that this must be overriden by later rules is otherwise units with fly can't shoot, ultramarines can't fallback and shoot despite their rules saying they can. Hence the convention is latest rules overrules BRB.

The second sentence is just GW rues missing thr mark of playable by a mile. If its closest unit but we have to apply the BRB rules it's a strat that can be easily shut down so why even bother including it as you'll never be able yo use it 90% of games.
As I said I believe it should be closest visable (fluff based) or closest legal target (crunch based).

**edwardmyst**

Good points.
In reality, are we really down to GW should have written the rule to say: Choose a unit to shoot, this unit must meet the basic rules for being able to shoot: (as listed here, say) In addition, this Unit must target the nearest unit, but meet the remainder of the requirements for targeting (as listed here, say) Furthermore, this unit may be chosen twice as a unit to shoot during the shooting phase.
If this last is really the bottom line, than forget the rest of this post, it is really just arguing because I like the way you guys/gals? have placed excellent logic out here, and still find some disparity.

Ice_can: I would like to first point out I wasn't arguing against any form of overriding, only I think it is being interpreted to overwrite far more than it does. Overwrite must happen. To compare: White Scars overwrite the portion of the charge rules that say a unit that falls back cannot charge, and that is it. It does not overwrite the rules for 12" distance, etc. I feel the interpretation here is overreaching what is replaced if that makes sense. Hmmm or are people interpreting it exactly that way, and my white scars who fall back can now choose as a target a unit that is outside of 12"? (this could matter with all the consolidate etc shenanigans)

MachinaMandala:
Why isn't there an If? This unit may be chosen to shoot, if (shooting rules are met, etc)? Or are we back to interpretation assumption? As in RAI vs RAW?
I guess my interpretation has always been, in the shooting phase, those rules are followed unless replaced by a later rule. I don't read the stratagems "this unit may be chosen to shoot" as overiding anything but the portion that says choose a unit to shoot (and then adding "you may choose it twice").
On the argument that it negates 90% of choice etc...do you really have games where 90% of your units can't shoot by the rules? If the unit does not meet the remainder of the rules for choosing to shoot, do not choose it or Do not use the stratagem. I thought that was part of the tactics of the game, to put a unit in a position where it can use this stratagem?

So on the ABCD thing earlier where it is suggested only A+B or C+D are realistic choices...why can't it be C if A is met? or D overides B but not A so A must still be met? Because they did not say that?

{edited forgot to delete a section after I moved it}

PS:
I happen to be a History prof, so I completely agree with the GW please write more clearly!!! My field can (and is trained to be) extremely pedantic and anal about such things, And it does drive me nuts that they won't hire me (or people better than me) to edit/clarify. Or at least find the person on the design team who does do this well, and hand them EVERYTHING!
I spend my daily life frustrated by the assumption that writing, explaining, teaching can be done by anyone, rather than someone who spent the time training and working in the field.

**JohnnyHell**

MachinaMandala wrote:
Captyn_Bob wrote:... you're not joking are you? Playing a game isn't writing a program. Wow.

JohnnyHell wrote:Still, code interpretation of a rule isn't very helpful to anyone, to be honest.

That's how you should interpret rules RAW. It removes any possible misunderstanding / ambiguity of human language.

Look up answer set programming sometime.

Except we're discussing rules written in English, with those nuances and ambiguities baked in. Boiling them out when they're clearly there is no longer discussing the rule. That was my point. It's entirely possible to write out an unambiguous explanatory logical flow in English without going into coding.

**MachinaMandala**

edwardmyst wrote:Good points.
In reality, are we really down to GW should have written the rule to say: Choose a unit to shoot, this unit must meet the basic rules for being able to shoot: (as listed here, say) In addition, this Unit must target the nearest unit, but meet the remainder of the requirements for targeting (as listed here, say) Furthermore, this unit may be chosen twice as a unit to shoot during the shooting phase.
If this last is really the bottom line, than forget the rest of this post, it is really just arguing because I like the way you guys/gals? have placed excellent logic out here, and still find some disparity.

Pretty much.

edwardmyst wrote:MachinaMandala:
Why isn't there an If? This unit may be chosen to shoot, if (shooting rules are met, etc)? Or are we back to interpretation assumption? As in RAI vs RAW?
I guess my interpretation has always been, in the shooting phase, those rules are followed unless replaced by a later rule. I don't read the stratagems "this unit may be chosen to shoot" as overiding anything but the portion that says choose a unit to shoot (and then adding "you may choose it twice").
On the argument that it negates 90% of choice etc...do you really have games where 90% of your units can't shoot by the rules? If the unit does not meet the remainder of the rules for choosing to shoot, do not choose it or Do not use the stratagem. I thought that was part of the tactics of the game, to put a unit in a position where it can use this stratagem?

So on the ABCD thing earlier where it is suggested only A+B or C+D are realistic choices...why can't it be C if A is met? or D overides B but not A so A must still be met? Because they did not say that?

It doesn't negate 90% of shooting by the rules, but it negates 90% of usefulness of stratagems or special rules for other units since a lot of them (other than the copy and pasted ones that should've been USRs) have the level of interpretation we can see from Hot-Blooded.

You summarised it well in your very last bit. If (to me) means something very, very specific. They didn't state any restrictions and the stratagem rule clearly contradicts the base rulebook (and therefore takes precedence).

JohnnyHell wrote:Except we're discussing rules written in English, with those nuances and ambiguities baked in. Boiling them out when they're clearly there is no longer discussing the rule. That was my point. It's entirely possible to write out an unambiguous explanatory logical flow in English without going into coding.

You are correct, it is possible to do that. However, you cannot write something potentially ambiguous in a unambiguous way in English without fundamentally changing it's meaning.

Current sentence:
"The unit may be chosen to shoot twice."

Possible unambiguous sentences:
"The unit can be chosen to shoot, ignoring core rules. They may shoot twice."
"The unit may shoot twice, if able to be chosen to shoot."

Two sentences that may or may not mean what the original sentence was trying to convey. (And there's probably some level of ambiguity here anyway.)

Writing it out in code interprets the English into a format with no ambiguity. Machines do not accept ambiguity, this is the first lesson of programming.

EDIT: To put it in plain English. There's a bowl of apples on the table in the kitchen. I say to you, "As long as you are in the kitchen, you may not take any apples." Then I say to you, "You may take apples." What is your interpretation of this?

**JohnnyHell**

And once again, the rules aren't written in code, so there's limited benefit in translating into code. All you're doing is codifying your interpretation, which is then no longer the original rule. This forum is not for rewriting the rules, it's for interpreting and figuring out how to play them. YMMV, but that's how I see it.