Switch Theme:

Do enemy models consolidate before or after reanimation protocols?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

yukishiro1 wrote:

Are you saying that if RP said "resolve attacks, and then roll for RP," then it would happen at the same time as consolidation, but because it says "after you resolve attacks," it happens before consolidation? Or just quibbling over the word "immediately?" If the latter, that's irrelevant; the question was whether "after" and "and then" have any difference between them re: when something takes place. Neither rule says "immediately," so if that goes for the fight phase, it also goes for RP.


RP is a special rule, and those interrupt the normal flow of the game. When a unit fights, it piles in, makes its attacks, consolidates. Those are the steps in the fight phase. Again RP, doesnt say after a units fights. If RP said that, it would happen after consolidation. There is a comma between making attacks and consolidation, indicating its a separate step. RP says "after it makes its attacks". So it happens at that time, before consolidation.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I don't know why you keep talking about RP not being after a unit fights. Everyone agrees about that. RP happens after a unit attacks.

The point is, consolidation *also* happens after a unit attacks. So both occur at the same time by that logic.

The only way you get away from this is by following Solkan's train of thought that consolidation is a step, not an ability, and therefore cannot be sequenced with an ability, no matter what the language says. This argument is that an ability always happens *before* the next step in a sequence, even if that next step in the sequence would otherwise occur at the same time if it was an ability instead. I am not sure this is correct, but it's at least a clear argument that works on its own terms.

In other words, if consolidation was a strat or unit-specific ability, not a basic part of the fight sequence, it would occur at the same time as RP, and therefore the player whose turn it is could choose which happened first. But because it is a base part of the fight sequence, RP always occurs first.



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/07 07:01:30


 
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't know why you keep talking about RP not being after a unit fights. Everyone agrees about that. RP happens after a unit attacks.


Yes, RP happens after a unit makes its attacks, because it says so. Its pile in, making attacks, RP, consolidation.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't know why you keep talking about RP not being after a unit fights. Everyone agrees about that. RP happens after a unit attacks.

The point is, consolidation *also* happens after a unit attacks. So both occur at the same time by that logic.

The only way you get away from this is by following Solkan's train of thought that consolidation is a step, not an ability, and therefore cannot be sequenced with an ability, no matter what the language says. This argument is that an ability always happens *before* the next step in a sequence, even if that next step in the sequence would otherwise occur at the same time if it was an ability instead. I am not sure this is correct, but it's at least a clear argument that works on its own terms.

In other words, if consolidation was a strat or unit-specific ability, not a basic part of the fight sequence, it would occur at the same time as RP, and therefore the player whose turn it is could choose which happened first. But because it is a base part of the fight sequence, RP always occurs first.





Solkan has a point, but through this thread people repeatedly pointed out that RP says "after it makes its attacks", not "after it fights" or "after it consolidates", which also indicates that it is not simultaneous with consolidation. It would happen before consolidation.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 doctortom wrote:

Solkan has a point, but through this thread people repeatedly pointed out that RP says "after it makes its attacks", not "after it fights" or "after it consolidates", which also indicates that it is not simultaneous with consolidation. It would happen before consolidation.


Nope, that is what is wrong. That would be at the same time as consolidation if they are two effects of the same type that can be sequenced. After one thing doesn't also necessarily mean before something else that also occurs after that thing, it means at the same time as the other thing that also occurs after that thing. If you wanted to be clear that it occurred before the next thing as well, you'd have to say that. Without it, they resolve simultaneously, if they are the same sort of effect.

I.e. if consolidation was a strat that said "Select a target unit. Allocate that unit's attacks, and then make a consolidation move," it would absolutely occur at the same time as RP, and you would sequence them. Nobody addressed this in the thread until Solkan pointed out that consolidation is not an ability but rather a step in the attack sequence, and therefore not something you sequence in the first place.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

yukishiro1 wrote:
 doctortom wrote:

Solkan has a point, but through this thread people repeatedly pointed out that RP says "after it makes its attacks", not "after it fights" or "after it consolidates", which also indicates that it is not simultaneous with consolidation. It would happen before consolidation.


Nope, that is what is wrong. That would be at the same time as consolidation if they are two effects of the same type that can be sequenced. After one thing doesn't also necessarily mean before something else that also occurs after that thing, it means at the same time as the other thing that also occurs after that thing. If you wanted to be clear that it occurred before the next thing as well, you'd have to say that. Without it, they resolve simultaneously, if they are the same sort of effect.

I.e. if consolidation was a strat that said "Select a target unit. Allocate that unit's attacks, and then make a consolidation move," it would absolutely occur at the same time as RP, and you would sequence them. Nobody addressed this in the thread until Solkan pointed out that consolidation is not an ability but rather a step in the attack sequence, and therefore not something you sequence in the first place.
What does being an ability have to do with it?

Sequencing says "While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time..."

If there are two or more rules that are to be resolved at the same time, you use sequencing.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Right, but Solkan's point, which I am coming around to, is that consolidation is not a rule to be resolved at a particular point in time, it's a step in the combat sequence.

If consolidation was an effect (.e.g a strat or unit ability) that stated "allocate this unit's attacks, and then make a 3" inch move yadda yadda," then it would sequence with anything else that resolves at that particular point in time, i.e. RP.

But consolidation is a step, not a rule that resolves at a particular time, so there's no sequencing. The effect goes off first, then you go to the next step in the combat sequence; the effect doesn't sequence with the next step, because it's a step, not another effect. It's not something that comes up much because GW usually words the time an effect occurs as either at the start or end of a step, not between steps. For example, most strats say something like "at the end of the movement phase," not "after the movement phase." If RP was worded more consistently with GW's general practice, it would say "at the end of allocating the unit's attacks," not "after allocating the unit's attacks." But it really means "at the end of," not "after."

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/07 18:29:23


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
Your example there is faulty, you could just as easily say "Eat, then clean your room, and after go to bed" and it'd mean the exact same thing; the order there is based on the order of the words, not the content of the words. The correct example would be:

"Clean your room after you eat."

"Eat, then clean your room."

Which obviously have exactly the same meaning when it comes to how soon after eating they occur.

If you can come up with an actual example where "after" and "and then" don't mean the same thing please do so, but the example you gave actually proves my point, and undermines yours.


Your last point seems to be your opinion.

In your opening statement you even point out that "then" and "after" can be separate times, but the premise of your argument is they are the same time. The premise of your argument is in conflict with the rules, and the example you listed.

Do you have a citation that generally "After attacks" is the same timing as consolidation? Otherwise your entire point has no actual merit. If there is no citation of such a rule, then they are not the same time. If an unit has an effect on it that causes it to fight "After all other units have made their attacks" does that happen concurrently with the consolidation step of the last unit to fight- or after that step.

You are the one asserting that "After attacks" is generally ruled as happening at the same time as "then you resolve consolidation" Back it up with some actual rules and not the premise that sometimes then can be used as after in english language.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






By extension of this logic, models under the effect of Astartes Banner can stay on the battlefield indefinitely until it makes a shooting attack or melee attack because the rule simply states "after the attacking model's unit has finished making its attacks" and not "immediately after". Surely, bottom of turn 5 is still after the event of 'attacking model's unit has finished making its attacks'.

You're overthinking this. You don't need a 10-step logical statements to arrive at the conclusion that things interrupt normal sequence all the time in the game.

You don't always need to prove a negative in order for a logical statement to be true. In fact, if you require proof of a negative to arrive at a conclusion, it is likely a inductive reasoning, which, by sheer virtue of what it is, is not a suitable logic to arrive at a RAW analysis based conclusions (which necessarily shall be a valid & sound deductive reasoning).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/04/07 19:55:05


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 skchsan wrote:
By extension of this logic, models under the effect of Astartes Banner can stay on the battlefield indefinitely until it makes a shooting attack or melee attack because the rule simply states "after the attacking model's unit has finished making its attacks" and not "immediately after". Surely, bottom of turn 5 is still after the event of 'attacking model's unit has finished making its attacks'.


No, that isn't an argument anyone was making, and it isn't an extension of anyone's logic. Everyone here has been on the same page the whole time that RP happens when you have finished allocating attacks, the question was whether that is the same time as consolidation, which also normally happens when you have finished allocating attacks, or whether it wedges itself between the two. Please don't beat on straw men, it's a waste of everyone's time and insulting to everyone's intelligence.

You could, however, raise the same question as to the Banner re: whether the dying model fights before or after the unit that killed it consolidates. So if you wanted to cite the Banner, that would be the way to do it, not that ridiculous straw man about waiting till turn 5. And the result would be the same based on the logic that consolidation is the next step in the combat sequence, not an effect that resolves at the end of the allocating attacks step; the dying model would therefore fight before consolidation, not after.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/07 20:11:16


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






No, the issue is that you actually don't have a stance of your own and are asking others to form your opinion. The last two pages have been nothing but moving goal posts.

This is your underlying 'argument' in this thread:
"I think there is something weird going on with the wording here. I need to know what I can tell my opponent when I/he/she tries to use RP. What you guys are saying is wrong because that's not what the rules say, but I cannot offer any counter points because the rules simply say 'after', which can be read in a obscured way to read 'that RP and consolidate has same priority in the sequence of things as laid out on the BRB because they both happen 'after' attacking."

Stop inserting your opinion on as to how the text should be read and you will realize there is no issue here, at all.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/07 20:08:59


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Wishing I was back at the South Atlantic, closer to ice than the sun

It may be my suspicious nature, but I cant help but feel there is an ulterior motive here. Why argue so hard that you consolidate before RP kicks in?

The only reason I can think of is Unit Coherency, careful use of that consolidation can result in the inability to place any model within coherency, and if you cant place it, its gone.

This game has a legacy set of rules in which codex always take precedence on brb and that's what many players fall back to.

RP is a core rule of Necrons, I hardly think that the rule is designed to work only half of the time. (That's just my opinion not an appeal to emotion)

Cheers

Andrew


I don't care what the flag says, I'm SCOTTISH!!!

Best definition of the word Battleship?
Mr Nobody wrote:
Does a canoe with a machine gun count?
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 skchsan wrote:
No, the issue is that you actually don't have a stance of your own and are asking others to form your opinion. The last two pages have been nothing but moving goal posts.

This is your underlying 'argument' in this thread:
"I think there is something weird going on with the wording here. I need to know what I can tell my opponent when I/he/she tries to use RP. What you guys are saying is wrong because that's not what the rules say, but I cannot offer any counter points because the rules simply say 'after', which can be read in a obscured way to read 'that RP and consolidate has same priority in the sequence of things as laid out on the BRB because they both happen 'after' attacking."

Stop inserting your opinion on as to how the text should be read and you will realize there is no issue here, at all.


This is a thread about what the rule is. It isn't moving goal posts to actually discuss the rule and change one's opinion as that discussion evolves. When someone actually came up with a good rationale that explained the difference between consolidation occurring after allocating attacks and RP occurring after allocating attacks, I acknowledged that that explanation made sense and resolved the question. You have a really weird idea of what this forum is supposed to be if you think it's a place where you have to stake out an argument and then stick with it, unchanging, no matter what other people add to the discussion. I apologize for engaging with you, it was obviously a mistake, and I won't make it again.

Thanks to the poster who answered my question in a way that made it clear why the two are different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AndrewC wrote:

The only reason I can think of is Unit Coherency, careful use of that consolidation can result in the inability to place any model within coherency, and if you cant place it, its gone.


No, that hadn't even occurred to me, and the chance you could actually do that in 9th is absolutely tiny and would only occur if your opponent really misplayed.

I was asking because it makes a tremendous difference for controlling objectives when the RP kicks in. There are potentially situations where the Necron player would want to have it resolve after consolidation too, BTW, if they could make the choice as the player whose turn it was.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/07 20:24:24


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






Resolving a "step in the combat sequence" is still nonetheless resolving the rules.

You don't need to force these false, intermittent inductions ('consolidate is not an ability, it's a step in the combat sequence, so the sequencing rule doesn't come into play because one is a rule and the other is not') to see that there is no issue. You just refuse to accept it as a suitable answer to your question because [REASONS].

99% of the time, rule is rule simply because of what it is, not because it is unproven to be false. There's no reason to prove that RP happens before consolidate. It just does - because the rule tells you to resolve it after the unit has made all of its attacks.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/04/07 20:31:07


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I don't think there's any point in going further in circles here. Your argument doesn't convince me and I think it is the wrong reason that RP happens before consolidation; we've already been over why, and I have given reasons, just not ones you like. The other guy's explanation resolves the issue for me because it addresses my question directly, it doesn't just tell me "you're wrong, stop overthinking." You're free to think I'm wrong too, it's no skin off my back. I won't respond further; feel free to have the last word if you like.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/07 20:40:39


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






Yes, that's perfectly fine HIWPI/How I Would Interpret It, but that doesn't make your understanding as RAW.

The purpose of this forum is "what the rules say", not "what I think the rules say". All everyone's been telling you is that you need to remove the "think" portion (i.e. "they happen at the same time, because they both happen 'after'") because the rule is clear enough to be understood without doubts.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/07 20:47:53


 
   
Made in us
Boosting Black Templar Biker






 skchsan wrote:
Yes, that's perfectly fine HIWPI/How I Would Interpret It, but that doesn't make your understanding as RAW.

The purpose of this forum is "what the rules say", not "what I think the rules say". All everyone's been telling you is that you need to remove the "think" portion (i.e. "they happen at the same time, because they both happen 'after'") because the rule is clear enough to be understood without doubts.


This is such typical rules forum bs. You don't get to just dismiss the guy's argument by saying "you're overthinking it" and then claim that what you think is the one true RAW. Disprove the argument or accept that you disagree on the interpretation and therefore the RAW is unclear.

Or, you know, don't, but consider the fact that you've done nothing here but raise the temperature of the thread by dismissively claiming superiority over a person who is arguing in good faith.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

To me, this is just another classic case of GW not writing the rules in a strict technical manner. The vast majority of us agree that reanimation protocols happens after the attacks and before consolidation. The rules are not written technically enough to prove that point. We are looking at a "X, then Y, then Z" along with "after Y" and trying to determine where "after Y" is supposed to fit. I'm pretty sure neither "then" or "after" are defined in the 40K ruleset, so we are left with common meaning and deductive reasoning to resolve this.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Nate668 wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Yes, that's perfectly fine HIWPI/How I Would Interpret It, but that doesn't make your understanding as RAW.

The purpose of this forum is "what the rules say", not "what I think the rules say". All everyone's been telling you is that you need to remove the "think" portion (i.e. "they happen at the same time, because they both happen 'after'") because the rule is clear enough to be understood without doubts.


This is such typical rules forum bs. You don't get to just dismiss the guy's argument by saying "you're overthinking it" and then claim that what you think is the one true RAW. Disprove the argument or accept that you disagree on the interpretation and therefore the RAW is unclear.

Or, you know, don't, but consider the fact that you've done nothing here but raise the temperature of the thread by dismissively claiming superiority over a person who is arguing in good faith.
I'm addressing the RATIONALE of his arguments. That's within the rules of this subforum - it's by no means asserting "superiority over a person".

RAW rarely has absolute meaning, because language & grammar is inherently ambiguous. That doesn't mean that you get to enforce the most perverse interpretation of the rules because "that is RAW". RAW analysis necessarily includes weighing in the 'correctness' of the various possible interpretations and picking the 'most right' answer, or rather, the answer that cannot be false under the given pretext. Note, that it is not about being unproven to false. Same thing is true when you take English reading comprehension tests - there is never THE right answer, and you must choose the BEST right answer within the given pretext without any external bias/assumptions.

The comment "you're overthinking this" aims to address the insertion of all the unsubstantiated assumptions/inductions that were presented as a part of the OP's argument below:

Right, but Solkan's point, which I am coming around to, is that consolidation is not a rule to be resolved at a particular point in time, it's a step in the combat sequence.

If consolidation was an effect (.e.g a strat or unit ability) that stated "allocate this unit's attacks, and then make a 3" inch move yadda yadda," then it would sequence with anything else that resolves at that particular point in time, i.e. RP.

But consolidation is a step, not a rule that resolves at a particular time, so there's no sequencing. The effect goes off first, then you go to the next step in the combat sequence; the effect doesn't sequence with the next step, because it's a step, not another effect. It's not something that comes up much because GW usually words the time an effect occurs as either at the start or end of a step, not between steps. For example, most strats say something like "at the end of the movement phase," not "after the movement phase." If RP was worded more consistently with GW's general practice, it would say "at the end of allocating the unit's attacks," not "after allocating the unit's attacks." But it really means "at the end of," not "after."


Let's dissect this argument:
consolidation is not a rule to be resolved at a particular point in time, it's a step in the combat sequence... consolidation is a step, not a rule that resolves at a particular time, so there's no sequencing. The effect goes off first, then you go to the next step in the combat sequence; the effect doesn't sequence with the next step, because it's a step, not another effect.
This is an unsubstantiated assumption. A step in a combat (fight) sequence is nonetheless part of the rules. You don't have the explicit permission to dismiss it as if it's not a rule to be resolved because "its a step in the combat sequence."

There is nothing in the rules that support the idea that "step in combat sequence is not considered to be a rule for sequencing purposes" because there's nothing in the rules to consider Consolidate as a "step", rather than simply part of the rules, because that's not a thing as defined in the rules. Therefore, the above justification does not deductively arrive at the conclusion "roll for RP before consolidate".

Logical arguments weaken as more inductions are involved in it. True statements do not need to be unproven to be false to remain true.


Reanimation protocols
Each time an enemy unit shoots or fights, after it makes it attacks, if any models were destroyed as s result of those attacks but this unit was not destroyed, this unit’s reanimation protocols are enacted and those destroyed models being to reassemble.

Here we could note the particular temporal signifiers for when RP procs: “each time… enemy… shoots/fights” (so, during shooting, as if shooting, fight, as if fight phases), “after it makes its attacks” (after completing the 5-step process on pg 18).

So, we can see that there’s a specific clause that tells you exactly when to apply RP. Then,

FIGHT
When you select a unit to fight, it first piles in, then the models in the unit must make close combat attacks, and then the unit consolidates.
When we look at the rules for FIGHT, the three steps are presented as a sequential series of events, denoted by “first, then, and then”. The rules are clear in that:
1. You cannot pile in after attacking and consolidating
2. You cannot attack before piling in and after consolidating
3. You cannot consolidate before piling in or attacking
Because otherwise you cannot adhere to the rules as given.

In an alternate take, the paragraph can be parsed in way to say:
1. Pile in must occur before attack and consolidate occurs
2. Attack must occur after pile in, but before consolidate occurs
3. Consolidate must occur after pile in and attack occurs

This is the limits of the information that can be gathered from that paragraph. The rules do not provide the provisions that limits any interruptions or that this is a fixed order of events. So, it’s fallacious to say rolling for RP before consolidating violates any rules, whether that be sequencing or any other related rules. This is simply unsubstantiated.

Within the limits of information, one way to apply the rules in a way that adheres to the rules the best is to take the information at face value:
1. RP is rolled for “after [enemy unit] makes its attacks”
2. There are three subphases in Fight phase, in the order of pile in, attack, consolidate.

So, in analyzing this, we can see that:
1. if consolidate happens after attack, then you followed rules for 'FIGHT' subheading in full.
2. if consolidate happens after attack and after RP, then you have followed the rules for 'FIGHT' subheading in full.
3. if consolidate happens after attack but before RP, then you have followed the rules for 'FIGHT' subheading in full.

Then,
1. if RP happens after attack, then you have followed the rules for RP in full.
2. if RP happens after attack and after consolidating, you have followed the rules for RP but there's a room for doubt due to the lack of phrasing such as "immediately after attack". RP has occurred after attack in addition to after consolidate.
3. if RP happens after attack but before consolidating, you have followed the rules for RP in full.

Notice how the change up of order creates a room for doubt. It IS true, but it is not ABSOLUTLY true. In RAW analysis you cannot assume that it meant immediately after or not. Thus, it's fallacious to say "doesn't RP and consolidate occur at the same time, thus requires the sequencing rule to be invoked?"

Thus, the best answer is that RP happens before consolidate. There is no reason to prove that it's true by proving that it is not false.

This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2021/04/09 16:02:18


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 skchsan wrote:

So, we can see that there’s a specific clause that tells you exactly when to apply RP. Then,

FIGHT
When you select a unit to fight, it first piles in, then the models in the unit must make close combat attacks, and then the unit consolidates.
When we look at the rules for FIGHT, the three steps are presented as a sequential series of events, denoted by “first, then, and then”. The rules are clear in that:
1. You cannot pile in after attacking and consolidating
2. You cannot attack before piling in and after consolidating
3. You cannot consolidate before piling in or attacking
Because otherwise you cannot adhere to the rules as given.

In an alternate take, the paragraph can be parsed in way to say:
1. Pile in must occur before attack and consolidate occurs
2. Attack must occur after pile in, but before consolidate occurs
3. Consolidate must occur after pile in and attack occurs

This is the limits of the information that can be gathered from that paragraph. The rules do not provide the provisions that limits any interruptions or that this is a fixed order of events. So, it’s fallacious to say rolling for RP before consolidating violates any rules, whether that be sequencing or any other related rules. This is simply unsubstantiated.


With you to here.

 skchsan wrote:
Within the limits of information, one way to apply the rules in a way that adheres to the rules the best is to take the information at face value:
1. RP is rolled for “after [enemy unit] makes its attacks”
2. There are three subphases in Fight phase, in the order of pile in, attack, consolidate.

This is where I lose you, as this "subphases" construction doesn't exist. Your premise 2 here I deem to be false, or at least unsubstantiated and unproven. In fact, I haven't seen the term "subphases" anywhere in your or GW's construction of the fight Phase until now. These are "just things that happen", much like RP is. If I were to rephrase, I would write:

1. RP is rolled for “after [enemy unit] makes its attacks”
2. Consolidation happens after a unit makes its attacks. (strictly speaking "a unit makes its attacks and then consolidates")

 skchsan wrote:
So, in analyzing this, we can see that:
1. if consolidate happens after attack, then you followed rules for 'FIGHT' subheading in full.
2. if consolidate happens after attack and after RP, then you have followed the rules for 'FIGHT' subheading in full.
3. if consolidate happens after attack but before RP, then you have followed the rules for 'FIGHT' subheading in full.

So far, so good.

 skchsan wrote:
Then,
1. if RP happens after attack, then you have followed the rules for RP in full.
2. if RP happens after attack and after consolidating, you have followed the rules for RP but there's a room for doubt due to the lack of phrasing such as "immediately after attack". RP has occurred after attack in addition to after consolidate.

There is no doubt in my mind that RP has occurred after the attack, irrespective of what came in-between. Therefore, you have followed the rules for RP in full, no ambiguity.
 skchsan wrote:
3. if RP happens after attack but before consolidating, you have followed the rules for RP in full.

Yep.

 skchsan wrote:
Notice how the change up of order creates a room for doubt.

Not if you aren't looking for doubt in the first place. RP says it happens after attacks, did it happen after attacks, yes. Any doubt that exists is manufactured.

 skchsan wrote:
It IS true, but it is not ABSOLUTLY true.

True or false are already absolutes in logic. There's no "more true" or "absolutely true". There's either true, or false.

 skchsan wrote:
In RAW analysis you cannot assume that it meant immediately after or not.

Well, actually, you can assume that it DIDN'T mean immediately after, since it didn't say immediately after. That's what RAW is - reading the words, and not adding your own.

 skchsan wrote:
Thus, it's fallacious to say "doesn't RP and consolidate occur at the same time, thus requires the sequencing rule to be invoked?"

I don't agree with this conclusion given the false premise you invoked, the injection of manufactured doubt where there is none (and suggesting the existence of a simultaneous "truth" and "absolutely true" and having them be different answers), and the assertion that "it isn't clear whether they meant immediately or not" at the same time as invoking RAW on a sentence that pretty clearly doesn't include immediately.

 skchsan wrote:
Thus, the best answer is that RP happens before consolidate. There is no reason to prove that it's true by proving that it is not false.

Your argument did not convince me for the reasons outlined above.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/13 14:48:53


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
It IS true, but it is not ABSOLUTLY true.

True or false are already absolutes in logic. There's no "more true" or "absolutely true". There's either true, or false.
This is only true in pure logic (i.e. math). It is not so in logic involving language due to semantics and grammar.

A valid deductive reasoning can be either sound or unsound. There are differing degrees of "trueness" within deductive reasoning.

Not all people who eat carrots are quarterbacks.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/04/13 16:08:02


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 skchsan wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
It IS true, but it is not ABSOLUTLY true.

True or false are already absolutes in logic. There's no "more true" or "absolutely true". There's either true, or false.
This is only true in pure logic (i.e. math). It is not so in logic involving language due to semantics and grammar.

A valid deductive reasoning can be either sound or unsound. There are differing degrees of "trueness" within deductive reasoning.

Not all people who eat carrots are quarterbacks.


You are correct that validity and soundness are both required for an argument to be proven true, but that doesn't mean truth is not an absolute.

An argument that is unsound is simply false, not "less true".
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Then,
1. if RP happens after attack, then you have followed the rules for RP in full.
2. if RP happens after attack and after consolidating, you have followed the rules for RP but there's a room for doubt due to the lack of phrasing such as "immediately after attack". RP has occurred after attack in addition to after consolidate.

There is no doubt in my mind that RP has occurred after the attack, irrespective of what came in-between. Therefore, you have followed the rules for RP in full, no ambiguity.
It would be cherry picking by consciously choosing to consider what happened in between to be irrelevant to the logical argument.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/13 16:32:12


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 skchsan wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
Then,
1. if RP happens after attack, then you have followed the rules for RP in full.
2. if RP happens after attack and after consolidating, you have followed the rules for RP but there's a room for doubt due to the lack of phrasing such as "immediately after attack". RP has occurred after attack in addition to after consolidate.

There is no doubt in my mind that RP has occurred after the attack, irrespective of what came in-between. Therefore, you have followed the rules for RP in full, no ambiguity.
It would be cherry picking by consciously choosing to consider what happened in between to be irrelevant to the logical argument.


It would be spurious to claim that something is relevant to an argument with no evidence that it is.

Can you explain why something happening in between has any bearing on RP at all, given that it doesn't have the word immediately in it? And why that same concern doesn't seem to arise when applied to something between attacks and consolidation rather than attacks and RP?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/04/13 16:40:08


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Can you explain why something happening in between has any bearing on RP at all, given that it doesn't have the word immediately in it? And why that same concern doesn't seem to arise when applied to something between attacks and consolidation rather than attacks and RP?
Because you've inferred that whatever happened in between is irrelevant to the logical argument under the premises that the word "immediately" or equivalent is excluded in the sentence despite the lack of clarity in the language. You've ASSUMED that it doesn't matter - the fact is that we don't know if it matters or not because it's not information that we can gather from the immediate context, therefore you must consider both. We can draw the conclusion based on what we know that not all people who eat carrots are quarterbacks, but all people who eat carrots may all be quarterbacks in, say, Wakanda.

The whole purpose of this post is to determine whether or not RP & consolidate are function of permutation or combination (rather, WHY this is a permutational function) by using the language that is presented to us. You can't disregard middle steps if this is indeed permutational function.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/13 17:32:30


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

I've assumed it doesn't matter because nothing tells me it does, and what you've said still hasn't convinced me it matters.

At best, you've convinced me "it might matter but we just don't know" which is still a far cry from "RP always happens before consolidation categorically" and at best lies in the realm of "unknown, play it how you and your opponent agree because it's ambiguous." Which is fine, too; I could accept that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/13 17:14:58


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I've assumed it doesn't matter because nothing tells me it does, and what you've said still hasn't convinced me it matters.

At best, you've convinced me "it might matter but we just don't know" which is still a far cry from "RP always happens before consolidation categorically" and at best lies in the realm of "unknown, play it how you and your opponent agree because it's ambiguous." Which is fine, too; I could accept that.
Which is why I've consistently stated that it's the BEST answer, not THE answer.

We don't know if it matters or not. All we know is that it is presented to us as facts, and within the limits of information we cannot conclude that it doesn't matter therefore it must be considered.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/13 19:16:14


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

So the best answer is "undefined, talk to your opponent."

Well, that doesn't answer the question but I will accept it.
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




I think that this whole line of thought also applies to the shooting phase. I think that you could shoot, with the same unit, twice and then use RP since it would happen after the unit finishes its ranged attack. I'm still not convinced that a necron unit gets 2 RP attempts when a unit uses the same phase to attack twice.

I see it similar to what happens when a unit has different weapons and makes an attack. You don't use RP until all the weapons have made all of their attacks.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/13 21:01:13


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I think that this whole line of thought also applies to the shooting phase. I think that you could shoot, with the same unit, twice and then use RP since it would happen after the unit finishes its ranged attack. I'm still not convinced that a necron unit gets 2 RP attempts when a unit uses the same phase to attack twice.

I see it similar to what happens when a unit has different weapons and makes an attack. You don't use RP until all the weapons have made all of their attacks.
This is incorrect. Rare Rules Shoot Again notes "If a rule allows a unit, model, or weapon to shoot again, then it must completely resolve its first shooting attack before resolving the second." Thus, once it has resolved its first shooting attack, the Necron player gets RP per that rule.

As for the larger debate, it's about logical sequencing versus specific rules sequencing. This is a tiny bit of technical rules failure on GWs part.

To use an analogy, when you take a break at work, you may use the toilet, then return to work. If you use the toilet, you then wash your hands. Do you wash you hands before or after you return to work?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: