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 us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Pretty much what the title says. The rule on reanimation says it occurs "each time an enemy unit shoots or fights, after it makes its attacks." Consolidation also occurs after a unit makes its attacks. Does this mean that the player whose turn it is gets to choose what order these rules resolve in, leading to the rather strange result that it can happen both before or after, depending? Or is there something I've missed that actually prioritizes one over the other?
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






According to another thread on the front page of the 40K You Make Da Call forum, RP starts immediately after attacks and before consolidation.

That being this thread: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/797374.page

If you also want to know more about the interaction of Resurrection Protocol, check this thread: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/797299.page

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/04/06 03:21:52


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Haha, thanks. That teaches me to try to use the search function instead of just reading, I guess.

edit: Though it doesn't actually answer my question. The guy who said consolidation happens after just quoted the same thing I did, which doesn't actually say it takes precedence over consolidation. They both happen "after a unit makes its attacks," so it would seem to me that the order is then determined by the player whose turn it is.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/06 03:41:20


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






yukishiro1 wrote:
Haha, thanks. That teaches me to try to use the search function instead of just reading, I guess.

edit: Though it doesn't actually answer my question. The guy who said consolidation happens after just quoted the same thing I did, which doesn't actually say it takes precedence over consolidation. They both happen "after a unit makes its attacks," so it would seem to me that the order is then determined by the player whose turn it is.


 p5freak wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
A unit is done making its attacks after the consolidate step of the fight phase, as noted on P. 22 of the PDF Rules.


Not true. Necrons get to do RP before consolidation.

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



P. 21 core rules
When a unit fights, it piles in, then it makes close combat
attacks, then it consolidates.


This sums it up pretty clearly to me.

I suppose you could argue that the player whose turn it is can say they want to consolidate before the RP, but that's more along the lines of "the rules didn't say I couldn't do this" which is a rabbit hole of problems across the board.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I don't think it's a question of the rule saying you can't do something. It's a question of whether one thing that happens after a unit makes its attacks happens before the other thing. One thing happens "after a unit makes its attacks," the other thing happens "and then" in a sequence, listed immediately after the unit makes its attacks. Do we think that "after" is clearly sooner than "and then" when the "and then" immediately follows the same thing that the other thing happens "after?" My take on English is that there is no clear temporal precedence to either term, at least not when used in this context.

I'm totally happy with it happening before consolidation if that's what the rule actually says - but it's actually extremely important which happens first in some circumstances, so I'd want to get it right.
   
Made in de
Fresh-Faced New User




Reanimation protocols happends “each time an enemy attacks, after it makes it’s attacks”.

The consolidate step in the fight phase is after the damage and save and ignoring wounds rules have been solved.

Consider reanimation protocols as an “extra” ignoring wounds rule.

   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






Think of it as a FNP that only activates when the model is slain, triggered at the end of attacking unit's resolution of attacks, but only if the unit isn't destroyed completely.

So:

1. check if attacking unit finished allocating & resolving all of its attacks, if yes, then:
2. check if your defending unit is not destroyed, if yes, then:
3. check if any defending models were slain, if yes, then:
4. roll for RP for slain models

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/04/06 16:09:16


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





RP happens before consolidate, it happens after the attack step- not at the start of the consolidate step. This shouldn't be a timing issue. Claiming that the consolidate step happens at timing similar to the attack step would allow people to pile in, consolidate, fight on their turn for example. Which is silly.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/06 17:55:47


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 skchsan wrote:
Think of it as a FNP that only activates when the model is slain, triggered at the end of attacking unit's resolution of attacks, but only if the unit isn't destroyed completely.

So:

1. check if attacking unit finished allocating & resolving all of its attacks, if yes, then:
2. check if your defending unit is not destroyed, if yes, then:
3. check if any defending models were slain, if yes, then:
4. roll for RP for slain models


But that's not what the text says. It says it triggers "after" all the unit's attacks are resolved, which is the same time that consolidation triggers (resolve attacks, "and then" consolidate). Unless you think "and then" is more temporally removed than "after?"

Obviously most people aren't seeing the issue I'm seeing here, but I'm trying to see why it is people think there isn't an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote:
RP happens before consolidate, it happens after the attack step- not at the start of the consolidate step. This shouldn't be a timing issue. Claiming that the consolidate step happens at timing similar to the attack step would allow people to pile in, consolidate, fight on their turn for example. Which is silly.


Nobody's claiming consolidation happens during the attack step, the question is when reanimation occurs. The text says it occurs "after" the attack step, which is the same time that it says consolidation occurs. Consolidation is part of a unit fighting, it isn't a separate phase. Reanimation appears to trigger at the same point in the fight sequence - after attacks - that consolidation does. So I'm trying to pin down why people think the one has priority over the other.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/06 18:11:20


 
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

I think you are confusing fighting with making attacks. If RP would say "after a unit fights", it would be after consolidation, because when a units fights, it piles in, makes its melee attacks, and consolidates. But RP says after making attacks, which happens right after a unit made its melee attacks, before consolidation.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 p5freak wrote:
I think you are confusing fighting with making attacks. If RP would say "after a unit fights", it would be after consolidation, because when a units fights, it piles in, makes its melee attacks, and consolidates. But RP says after making attacks, which happens right after a unit made its melee attacks, before consolidation.


I'm not confusing anything. I'm not saying RP happens after consolidation, I'm saying they both say they happen after a unit makes its attacks, i.e. both seem to happen at the same time. RP says "after" a unit makes its attacks; the normal sequence says you make attacks "and then" consolidate. My question is why everyone seems to think "after" comes before "and then" in the sequence. This is not how we normally use English. E.g. "I took a shower, and then I went to the store" vs "I went to the store after I took a shower" - you cannot say that one of these sentences denotes that you went to the store more quickly after taking a shower than the other, they have the same meaning.

You have inserted a "right" before the "after" that is not in the RP rule itself. The RP rule simply says it occurs after a unit makes its attacks, which seems to be the identical time that consolidation happens. Again, unless we think that "after" and "and then" mean different things re: sequencing, and that "after" takes precedence over "and then."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/06 20:20:28


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






yukishiro1 wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
I think you are confusing fighting with making attacks. If RP would say "after a unit fights", it would be after consolidation, because when a units fights, it piles in, makes its melee attacks, and consolidates. But RP says after making attacks, which happens right after a unit made its melee attacks, before consolidation.


I'm not confusing anything. I'm not saying RP happens after consolidation, I'm saying they both say they happen after a unit makes its attacks, i.e. both seem to happen at the same time. RP says "after" a unit makes its attacks; the normal sequence says you make attacks "and then" consolidate. My question is why everyone seems to think "after" comes before "and then" in the sequence. This is not how we normally use English. E.g. "I took a shower, and then I went to the store" vs "I went to the store after I took a shower" - you cannot say that one of these sentences denotes that you went to the store more quickly after taking a shower than the other, they have the same meaning.

You have inserted a "right" before the "after" that is not in the RP rule itself. The RP rule simply says it occurs after a unit makes its attacks, which seems to be the identical time that consolidation happens. Again, unless we think that "after" and "and then" mean different things re: sequencing, and that "after" takes precedence over "and then."
1. The RP rule specifically tells you to resolve for it after the attacks have been made. As per RAW, invoking RP after consolidate violates the given provisions as the rules do not tell you that you can roll for RP AFTER consolidation. The only way to satisfy the rules in full is if you roll for RP before you consolidate.
2. Either way, specific (RP rule) overrides general provisions (the BRB). It's common in the game for specific rules to change the normal sequence of things as outlined in the BRB.
3. It doesn't matter if they indeed hold same priorities/triggers at the same time. The defending player can still decide when to trigger RP because of sequencing rule.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/06 21:15:44


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




1. This doesn't address my point. The consolidation rule also specifically tells you to resolve it after attacks have been made. Everything you say here goes both ways - again, unless we think "and then" is different from "after." Unless we think that's true, they both occur at the same time - after a unit makes its attacks. So we have to decide which effect occurring at the same time actually happens first. The way the game does that is via sequencing, and it means that effects can in fact occur after they normally would; that's what sequencing is. Your objection here goes to any situation where sequencing applies.

2. Do you have a source for a specific rule prevailing over a general one? This would resolve the issue, but I can't find anything in the rulebook anywhere that says that specific rules sequence ahead of general ones. In fact, the game says the exact opposite in saying that it doesn't matter whether something is specific or not, if it happens at the same time as something else, it's resolved according to sequencing.


3. Sequencing is done by whose turn it is, not who is the "defending player." If you agree that the player whose turn it is gets to decide whether RP or consolidation resolves first, we're on the same page. But to the extent that you say "it doesn't matter," this is totally wrong, as it absolutely does matter if a player (doesn't matter who) gets to decide which resolves first and which resolves second vs. it always happening before consolidation. In fact, it could be critically important and easily decide close games, as being able to consolidate before RP vs after can often determine who gets control of an objective.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/06 21:25:05


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






Take for example:

“unit A has finished making its attacks, then consolidated, then enemy unit B rolled for RP
-RP was rolled after having finished making its attacks (true)
-RP was rolled after having consolidated (true)
In this case, RP was rolled after the attacks have been made, but it was also after consolidation move was completed. While it does satisfy the RP rule, it has an additional baggage to consider. It is technically/circumstantially true, but not absolutely true without a doubt.

“unit A has finished making its attacks, then enemy unit B rolled for RP, then unit A consolidated.”
-RP was rolled after having finished making its attacks (true)
-RP was rolled after having consolidated (false)
In this case, RP was rolled after the attacks have been made, and only after attacks have been made. This satisfies all the rules without leaving any room for ambiguity. This is technically, circumstantially, and absolutely true.

RAW analysis requires you to interpret the rules in a way that is most clear and free of ambiguity (because by nature, language is ambiguous).

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/04/06 21:38:45


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
1. This doesn't address my point. The consolidation rule also specifically tells you to resolve it after attacks have been made. Everything you say here goes both ways - again, unless we think "and then" is different from "after." Unless we think that's true, they both occur at the same time - after a unit makes its attacks. So we have to decide which effect occurring at the same time actually happens first. The way the game does that is via sequencing, and it means that effects can in fact occur after they normally would; that's what sequencing is. Your objection here goes to any situation where sequencing applies.

2. Do you have a source for a specific rule prevailing over a general one? This would resolve the issue, but I can't find anything in the rulebook anywhere that says that specific rules sequence ahead of general ones. In fact, the game says the exact opposite in saying that it doesn't matter whether something is specific or not, if it happens at the same time as something else, it's resolved according to sequencing.


3. Sequencing is done by whose turn it is, not who is the "defending player." If you agree that the player whose turn it is gets to decide whether RP or consolidation resolves first, we're on the same page. But to the extent that you say "it doesn't matter," this is totally wrong, as it absolutely does matter if a player (doesn't matter who) gets to decide which resolves first and which resolves second vs. it always happening before consolidation. In fact, it could be critically important and easily decide close games, as being able to consolidate before RP vs after can often determine who gets control of an objective.


1. skchsan addressed this point. There's a lot extra to have to deal with if you RP after consolidation and not before.

2. Every single codex that has special rules for that army that override the general main rules show specific overriding general.

3. This brings us back to RP saying that you you do it after attacks have been made, not after the unit has completed fighting (in other words, after consolidation). This seems to indicate that RP occurs before consolidation and that they're not something that you should sequence togehter.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






yukishiro1 wrote:
2. Do you have a source for a specific rule prevailing over a general one? This would resolve the issue, but I can't find anything in the rulebook anywhere that says that specific rules sequence ahead of general ones. In fact, the game says the exact opposite in saying that it doesn't matter whether something is specific or not, if it happens at the same time as something else, it's resolved according to sequencing.
If you're serious about this, none of the codex can be used. You can only use the BRB.

Since I see that you're from the States, think of reading the rules as if you were solving SAT English section - you're not looking for THE right answer; you're looking for the BEST answer.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/06 21:53:48


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





RP doesn't happen during attacks.
RP does happen after attacks.
RP doesn't happen during consolidation.

I think it's clear that it does not have a timing issue, I realize the language "after attacks" could be read ambiguously to mean something other than after an unit resolves it's attacks at the attack step. The question then is where does it say it happens at consolidate, maybe after could be any time like morale phase.

From the rules itself we are not given permission to use it during consolidation, I realize that is after attacks in the same way that morale is after attacks and the next turn is after attacks, or wen your opponent has gone to the loo after the game is also after attacks. Given there is no permission for timing to roll them other then after attacks I would say this happens during the attack step, but after the attacks have resolved.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/06 22:02:10


 
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

yukishiro1 wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
I think you are confusing fighting with making attacks. If RP would say "after a unit fights", it would be after consolidation, because when a units fights, it piles in, makes its melee attacks, and consolidates. But RP says after making attacks, which happens right after a unit made its melee attacks, before consolidation.


I'm not confusing anything. I'm not saying RP happens after consolidation, I'm saying they both say they happen after a unit makes its attacks, i.e. both seem to happen at the same time. RP says "after" a unit makes its attacks; the normal sequence says you make attacks "and then" consolidate. My question is why everyone seems to think "after" comes before "and then" in the sequence. This is not how we normally use English. E.g. "I took a shower, and then I went to the store" vs "I went to the store after I took a shower" - you cannot say that one of these sentences denotes that you went to the store more quickly after taking a shower than the other, they have the same meaning.

You have inserted a "right" before the "after" that is not in the RP rule itself. The RP rule simply says it occurs after a unit makes its attacks, which seems to be the identical time that consolidation happens. Again, unless we think that "after" and "and then" mean different things re: sequencing, and that "after" takes precedence over "and then."


And why should it be after consolidation ? Why do you think RP and consolidation are "at the same time" ? Do you have a citation for that ? Why isnt RP happening at the end of the turn ? The end of the turn is also "after it makes its attacks".
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 p5freak wrote:
Why isnt RP happening at the end of the turn ? The end of the turn is also "after it makes its attacks".
Because the rules for RP states 'each time... shoots or fights', ergo in shooting or fight phase.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 p5freak wrote:


And why should it be after consolidation ? Why do you think RP and consolidation are "at the same time" ? Do you have a citation for that ? Why isnt RP happening at the end of the turn ? The end of the turn is also "after it makes its attacks".


It shouldn't be after consolidation. Please read what I'm writing. It should be at the same time as consolidation. Both rules state they occur after the unit makes its attacks. Hence, two effects occuring at the same time.

I've already made my citation: one occurs "after a unit makes its attacks," the other occurs "and then" after a unit makes its attacks. My thesis is "after attacks " and "attacks, and then" both mean immediately after attacks. Do you disagree?

Why do you think consolidation happens after RP? They both occur after a unit makes its attacks according to the rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote:
RP doesn't happen during attacks.
RP does happen after attacks.
RP doesn't happen during consolidation.

I think it's clear that it does not have a timing issue, I realize the language "after attacks" could be read ambiguously to mean something other than after an unit resolves it's attacks at the attack step. The question then is where does it say it happens at consolidate, maybe after could be any time like morale phase.

From the rules itself we are not given permission to use it during consolidation, I realize that is after attacks in the same way that morale is after attacks and the next turn is after attacks, or wen your opponent has gone to the loo after the game is also after attacks. Given there is no permission for timing to roll them other then after attacks I would say this happens during the attack step, but after the attacks have resolved.


Consolidation doesn't happen during attacks.
Consolidation does happen after attacks.
Consolidation doesn't happen during RP.

Why is this not equally accurate?

It has nothing to do with what "after attacks" means. After attacks clearly means immediately afterward. But "attack, and then consolidate" also means immediately after. Or do you disagree that "after X, do Y" and " do X, and then Y" have the same meaning for purposes of what happens first?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/06 22:35:03


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I disagree, because RP isn't stated as happening during or before consolidation.

The pile in then fights then consolidate spaces these steps out as happening at different times.

The assumption that after fights always means during consolidation isn't supported by permissive rules anywhere, and further RP itself makes no reference to consolidation therefore when you go to that step you have gone too far in timing.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 skchsan wrote:
Take for example:

“unit A has finished making its attacks, then consolidated, then enemy unit B rolled for RP
-RP was rolled after having finished making its attacks (true)
-RP was rolled after having consolidated (true)
In this case, RP was rolled after the attacks have been made, but it was also after consolidation move was completed. While it does satisfy the RP rule, it has an additional baggage to consider. It is technically/circumstantially true, but not absolutely true without a doubt.

“unit A has finished making its attacks, then enemy unit B rolled for RP, then unit A consolidated.”
-RP was rolled after having finished making its attacks (true)
-RP was rolled after having consolidated (false)
In this case, RP was rolled after the attacks have been made, and only after attacks have been made. This satisfies all the rules without leaving any room for ambiguity. This is technically, circumstantially, and absolutely true.

RAW analysis requires you to interpret the rules in a way that is most clear and free of ambiguity (because by nature, language is ambiguous).


Replace RP with consolidation, and consolidation with RP, and your examples have the exact same issue. If you RP before consolidation, consolidation is now not happening "and then" after attacks, you're putting a step in -between. This isn't actually an issue, though, as the game rules specifically provide for what happens if two things happen at the same time. If RP was happening after consolidation in your example, it would only because the player chose to sequence them that way; the two effects were actually occurring at the same time per rules, but were sequenced to determine which of two simultaneous effects occurs first.

I've still yet to have anyone actually answer whether they think "after" is different than "and then." It would really help me understand if you'd express an opinion on this. Is it this difference in language yourself that you think is significant, or do we agree that in terms of language itself, these things mean the same thing, and that the reason you think there's a difference is not to do with the language itself?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote:
I disagree, because RP isn't stated as happening during or before consolidation.

The pile in then fights then consolidate spaces these steps out as happening at different times.

The assumption that after fights always means during consolidation isn't supported by permissive rules anywhere, and further RP itself makes no reference to consolidation therefore when you go to that step you have gone too far in timing.


Again, please read what I'm actually writing. I'm not saying RP happens after consolidation. I'm saying they both happen at the same time - after resolving attacks. RP says it happens "after resolving attacks." Consolidation happens "and then" after resolving attacks. I am saying that "after" and "and then" both indicate something that happens directly after the thing before it. RP says it happens directly after attacks, before anything else happens. Consolidation also says it happens directly after making attacks, before anything else happens. If we think RP nevertheless still occurs before consolidation, we need some reason for that that isn't tied to the text itself, because the text itself says both things happen immediately after resolving attacks.

The only reason I have been given here that seems like it gets to the issue is that RP is a more specific rule than consolidation, and we should therefore assume it overrides the normal sequence of events rather than becoming a part of it. Is that what you are getting at?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/04/06 22:57:21


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I fully understand your point, you believe they happen at the same time and want use timing to make one happen first.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'm trying to understand your point, hence why I asked the question. The text for both rules says they occur immediately after resolving attacks. If RP nevertheless wedges itself in-between resolving attacks and consolidating, there needs to be a reason for that other than the text, because the text says they both occur as the next step after making attacks.

The only reason I've seen advanced in this thread for why that would happen is that RP is a more specific rule and should therefore be read as overriding the normal chain of events, not merely adding another step to the normal chain. If it simply adds another step to the chain that occurs after resolving attacks, that means it happens at the same time as consolidation. For it to happen before, it needs to override the normal chain.

In other words, the argument is over whether we should take the RP's rules statement that it occurs "after a unit makes its attacks" and add onto that an implied "but before it consolidates." Because if it really does only mean "after a unit makes its attacks," that's the same time as consolidation occurs, not before.

FWIW, though, it's not what I want. I don't personally care at all what the rule is, as long as I know what it is. If this thread doesn't convince me that it happens before consolidation, next time I play a necron player, I'll just ask their understanding of the rule and go with whatever they think it means. The important thing is just knowing what the rule is so nobody gets surprised halfway through.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/04/06 23:41:28


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





The text for both rules does not say they occur immediately after resolving attacks.

You keep assuming after attacks is the same as when consolidation occurs because after and then could be synonyms. The problem is they can also mean different things like clean your room after you eat then go to bed- doesn't mean clean your ro while you go to bed.

There are many interactions that happen in 40k that occur during a time after other things, it does not mean that interaction occurs after that point in time but rather it becomes the last thing to happen at that time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/07 00:29:21


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/04/07 02:34:13


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







Why are you arguing about the price of tea in China?

The combat sequence isn't a set of sequential effects that rules end up being simultaneous with. The combat sequence is a series of steps, and if an effect or ability says that you do something "after" one of those steps, then you resolve that effect or ability before you go on to the next step.

That's why the other thread ended with "there's no ambiguity".
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 solkan wrote:
Why are you arguing about the price of tea in China?

The combat sequence isn't a set of sequential effects that rules end up being simultaneous with. The combat sequence is a series of steps, and if an effect or ability says that you do something "after" one of those steps, then you resolve that effect or ability before you go on to the next step.

That's why the other thread ended with "there's no ambiguity".


Do you have a citation for this? Because you've laid out the issue correctly, but then just jumped to a certain conclusion. As far as I can tell, the rules don't say anything one way or another about what the combat sequence actually is. It just lays out a series of things that happen one after the other. They're clearly not separate phases, but what they are isn't defined - just a list of things that happen in a certain order. If something happens after a certain time, I can't find anything that clarifies whether you interpose that between steps, or apply it at the same time as the next step.

I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you, just that I'm not sure off the top of my head that you're right. This would answer the question though if it is correct, so we're getting to the heart of the issue at least. It isn't about "after" vs "and then," it's about whether or not RP is fundamentally different from consolidation because one is a step in a process, and the other is an effect, and whether that means it's impossible for them to happen at the same time, even if they would based on the language used if they were both effects.

I'm not saying this is dispositive, but I looked at the counter-offensive stratagem because it's another thing that alters the normal sequence of the fight phase (though in this case it alters the order of selecting units to fight, not what happens within one selection), and it includes language specifically specifying that the unit you are interrupting with fights "next," i.e. that it overrides the normal order. If your theory is correct, the "next" is meaningless surplussage, right? Because you would be able to fight with that unit immediately no matter what, since it says it happens "after" something in the normal order. But it does say "next." So at a minimum, this suggests that GW thinks it needs to clarify that it happens not only at the same time as the next step, but before it. Which kinda undermines the idea it's inherent. Of course, it could just be GW being inconsistent, and that they would have said "after a unit resolves its attacks, but before consolidation" in the RP rule too if they had been thinking of it.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/04/07 04:50:44


 
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

yukishiro1 wrote:

I've already made my citation: one occurs "after a unit makes its attacks," the other occurs "and then" after a unit makes its attacks. My thesis is "after attacks " and "attacks, and then" both mean immediately after attacks. Do you disagree?

Why do you think consolidation happens after RP? They both occur after a unit makes its attacks according to the rules.


Yes, i disagree that "after attacks " and "attacks, and then" both mean immediately after attacks. Because the fight phase rule dont say immediately. Its common for special rules (like RP) to interrupt the normal flow of the game. I already said that RP happens before consolidation. RP doesnt say after a unit fights, because then it would happen after consolidation.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/07 05:27:56


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 p5freak wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:

I've already made my citation: one occurs "after a unit makes its attacks," the other occurs "and then" after a unit makes its attacks. My thesis is "after attacks " and "attacks, and then" both mean immediately after attacks. Do you disagree?

Why do you think consolidation happens after RP? They both occur after a unit makes its attacks according to the rules.


Yes, i disagree that "after attacks " and "attacks, and then" both mean immediately after attacks. Because the fight phase rule dont say immediately. Its common for special rules (like RP) to interrupt the normal flow of the game. I already said that RP happens before consolidation. RP doesnt say after a unit fights, because then it would happen after consolidation.


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. But I am not sure it makes sense to go further down the distinction between "after" and "and then," it seems to me that Solkan's argument that there is no possible sequencing between a fight phase step and an ability, no matter what specific words are used, is the much more promising one.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/04/07 06:05:28


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: