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.

Had a funny stratagem interaction in a game the other day.

In my own movement phase, my Seraphim dropped from the sky and were set up within 9 inches of an enemy librarian. I used the 'Deadly Descent' stratagem to allow them to extend the range of their pistols and fire as if it were the shooting phase, selecting the Librarian as their target, as he was the closest unit.

As that happened, the space marine player used the 'Auspex Scan' stratagem, allowing a unit of his intercessors to fire at the seraphim as if it were his shooting phase.

Both stratagems seem to trigger at the same time: when the seraphim are set up on the board, and both have the same effect: allow a unit to fire as if it were their shooting phase, but the Librarian's life depends on which one of those get resolved first.

In cases like this, is there a fast and loose rule on which stratagems go first when their wording otherwise says they're triggered by the same event?

I take it you mean "Burning Descent?" Both that and the "Auspex Scan" stratagem use the wording "immediately" after the unit is set up, so there is indeed simultaneous timing here. So you refer to "Sequencing" on page 201 - as it's your turn, you get to choose.

Yeah, this is one of those rare circumstances where it actually is lupus. They really do happen at the same time, so you as the player whose turn it is gets to choose the order - presumably that you get to fire before they do.

As they both happen at the same time, Sequencing comes into effect.

Something funny can happen. Funny for the player whose turn it is, not the other player. If you kill his unit, his CP are lost, because a killed unit cant shoot back.

 p5freak wrote:
Something funny can happen. Funny for the player whose turn it is, not the other player. If you kill his unit, his CP are lost, because a killed unit cant shoot back.

Eh, you can be that particular guy, but I wouldn’t be as it’s not very sporting. If you manage to kill the unit with your Strat be a good sport and don’t dock them the CP as well as a unit! That’s HIWPI, as I enjoy being invited to play again in the future.

I think that's worth a caveat... I'd definitely want to give my opponent the chance to retract the Stratagem and save the points. However, because it's simultaneous timing and you have to actually make the call on which comes first - I'm still going to make them choose either way before I roll the dice. If they still chose to go ahead and risk the points, and I wipe the unit? So be it, that's the gamble they take. Likewise if they choose not to use the Stratagem after all and my attack then whiffs, I'm not going to allow changing their decision back again.

Wow, has to be one of the very few times that two rules interact at the exact same time.
As above, sequencing comes in then.


In terms of a CP used, technically it’s bad luck.
If you shoot the Libby then that has no effect on their intended targets from the intercessors.
So you’d kill the Libby and then the seraphim would get shot.

However, if you dropped in and fired at his intercessors that were going to shoot the seraphim first, I’d hand the CP back if they were dead and couldn’t use it.
By sequencing you have gone first, their action hasn’t yet come into play.


One of those situations though where it’s down to the players.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Eh, you can be that particular guy, but I wouldn’t be as it’s not very sporting. If you manage to kill the unit with your Strat be a good sport and don’t dock them the CP as well as a unit! That’s HIWPI, as I enjoy being invited to play again in the future.

So, playing by the rules makes you "that guy" ?

Thanks all, I appreciate the timely responses and discussion.

In this case the CP wasn't wasted because the intercessors shooting at the Seraphim were not the target of the Seraphim (that was the Librarian that they managed to drop in on at an opportune angle. They killed that Librarian and his buddies avenged him.

 Super Ready wrote:
I think that's worth a caveat... I'd definitely want to give my opponent the chance to retract the Stratagem and save the points. However, because it's simultaneous timing and you have to actually make the call on which comes first - I'm still going to make them choose either way before I roll the dice. If they still chose to go ahead and risk the points, and I wipe the unit? So be it, that's the gamble they take. Likewise if they choose not to use the Stratagem after all and my attack then whiffs, I'm not going to allow changing their decision back again.

Agree with this! Entirely sensible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Eh, you can be that particular guy, but I wouldn’t be as it’s not very sporting. If you manage to kill the unit with your Strat be a good sport and don’t dock them the CP as well as a unit! That’s HIWPI, as I enjoy being invited to play again in the future.

So, playing by the rules makes you "that guy" ?

Hahaha oh bless you for trying to bait me by misrepresenting my position, but I’m not biting, nope. My post had all it needed to say in it.

You are literally saying that playing by the rules makes you a bad sport.

What happens if you were only going to use the strat to stop the opponent from being able to use theirs?

In other words, you were only going to shoot at them to stop them from shooting at you. Shouldn't you then be able to retract your strat so you don't have to waste the CPs?

A fairer solution: if both players wish to use a strat at a specific time, they should decide in secret what strat they are going to use and which unit(s) it will targetm and write it down. Both players then reveal their choices and spend the CPs right then and there, and resolve them in the order chosen by the player whose turn it is.

 Cheex wrote:
What happens if you were only going to use the strat to stop the opponent from being able to use theirs?

You can do that.

 Cheex wrote:

In other words, you were only going to shoot at them to stop them from shooting at you. Shouldn't you then be able to retract your strat so you don't have to waste the CPs?

There is no retraction in the rules. You need to be aware of sequencing, and the player whose turn it is, resolves his rule first.

Agreed, it's a bad play but you don't have any recourse under the rules to "take back" bad plays, any more than you can decide to change the target of your lascannons shooting because it failed to wound an enemy unit.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You are literally saying that playing by the rules makes you a bad sport.

Nope. I’m not. I’m saying deciding to enforce this particular interaction isn’t very sporting and will engender bad feelings. Congrats for being the second person to deliberately misconstrue my post and try to bait. Back on topic now, pls. My post had HIWPI writ large. It said all it needed to. Away with you.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You are literally saying that playing by the rules makes you a bad sport.

Nope. I’m not. I’m saying deciding to enforce this particular interaction isn’t very sporting and will engender bad feelings. Congrats for being the second person to deliberately misconstrue my post and try to bait. Back on topic now, pls. My post had HIWPI writ large. It said all it needed to. Away with you.

You cant blame me, when you dont know the rules. You cant blame me for your mistakes.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Eh, you can be that particular guy, but I wouldn’t be as it’s not very sporting. If you manage to kill the unit with your Strat be a good sport and don’t dock them the CP as well as a unit! That’s HIWPI, as I enjoy being invited to play again in the future.

"It's not very sporting". To not be sporting is to be a bad sport.

It would be fine if you'd just said "HIWPI is to allow the person to take the stratagem back", but you didn't say that, you said anyone who doesn't is a bad sport.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You are literally saying that playing by the rules makes you a bad sport.

Nope. I’m not. I’m saying deciding to enforce this particular interaction isn’t very sporting and will engender bad feelings. Congrats for being the second person to deliberately misconstrue my post and try to bait. Back on topic now, pls. My post had HIWPI writ large. It said all it needed to. Away with you.

I disagree. It's a rules interaction that's detailed in the rulebook so it should be pretty clear to both players what the potential outcomes are. At the very most I'd maybe remind the player who will be shooting second that there's a chance his unit might die before it gets to shoot, but there's no obligation to do that. This falls squarely into the category of risk/reward for me and I don't see how you can say it's unsporting that a player is disadvantaged by taking a risk in order to potentially get an advantage if that risk pays off.

 p5freak wrote:

 Cheex wrote:
What happens if you were only going to use the strat to stop the opponent from being able to use theirs?

You can do that.

 Cheex wrote:

In other words, you were only going to shoot at them to stop them from shooting at you. Shouldn't you then be able to retract your strat so you don't have to waste the CPs?

There is no retraction in the rules. You need to be aware of sequencing, and the player whose turn it is, resolves his rule first.

My hypotheticals are aimed at JohnnyHell.

I'm normally all for sportsmanship, but allowing an opponent to retract the use of a strat because you got to use Sequencing to use your strat first could cause more problems than it solves.

Everyone’s fine to disagree, that’s how HIWPI works! I disagree it causes any issues here but everyone is free to play their preferred way. Whatever makes for the most fun game for you and your opponent.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Everyone’s fine to disagree, that’s how HIWPI works! I disagree it causes any issues here but everyone is free to play their preferred way. Whatever makes for the most fun game for you and your opponent.

Have fun with your house rules, then, while everybody else plays by the rules and doesn’t feel bad because they did it correctly in a competitive player against player game.

The sporting thing to do is to remind them that you get to shoot first and they can only respond with what's left afterwards before giving them the option to retract. That gives your opponent a decision point to weigh up and accept the potential consequences.

Giving them the CP back if the unit is wiped creates a couple problems. For one, it removes that decision by giving them an option that seems the best of both worlds. The bigger issue tough, is it can create a worse feels bad moment where they feel like they're getting the best of both worlds, but then you kill their unit down to 1 and they can TECHNICALLY shoot back, but not in a way that's probably worth the CP.

In most cases, being sporting AND by the book works out better than trying to overstep one or the other.

 LunarSol wrote:
The sporting thing to do is to remind them that you get to shoot first and they can only respond with what's left afterwards before giving them the option to retract. That gives your opponent a decision point to weigh up and accept the potential consequences.

That's HIWPI, too.

"sportsmanship" does not mean "play by the rules" exclusively, it also means being generous when appropriate - telling the other player that sequencing will come into play if he tries to use Auspex scan is simply following the rules, offering them to walk back that strat BEFORE resolving the sequencing conflict is being generous.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Everyone’s fine to disagree, that’s how HIWPI works! I disagree it causes any issues here but everyone is free to play their preferred way. Whatever makes for the most fun game for you and your opponent.

Have fun with your house rules, then, while everybody else plays by the rules and doesn’t feel bad because they did it correctly in a competitive player against player game.

Nothing about what I posted invalidates that way to play. It’s fine to do so and in a competitive environment would also be how I expect to play.

I also mention one house rule, where do you extrapolate this to ‘have fun with your house rules’ and the attempted derision that follows?

What don’t you get about a clearly-flagged HIWPI opinion? Do you think it’s something you have to try and prove me wrong or ‘win an argument’. Because the only person looking silly doing that isn’t me. Move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
The sporting thing to do is to remind them that you get to shoot first and they can only respond with what's left afterwards before giving them the option to retract. That gives your opponent a decision point to weigh up and accept the potential consequences.

Giving them the CP back if the unit is wiped creates a couple problems. For one, it removes that decision by giving them an option that seems the best of both worlds. The bigger issue tough, is it can create a worse feels bad moment where they feel like they're getting the best of both worlds, but then you kill their unit down to 1 and they can TECHNICALLY shoot back, but not in a way that's probably worth the CP.

In most cases, being sporting AND by the book works out better than trying to overstep one or the other.

I like this suggestion.