"Like The Wind!"

[Turner]

A Space Marine Dreadnaught assaults a 50man blob of guardsmen, who have no melta bombs, no krak grenades and basically no way of hurting the dreadnaught. After passing their moral test (with a little help from their commissar) it is the IG player's turn. Thankfully Captain Al'Rahem is on the scene with four, count em, four melta guns! Oh and two penal legion squads are also near by but nobody really pays much attention to them anyways.

So it's the shooting phase and Captain Al'Rahem attempts to issue an order to the 50man (now 40ish man) group of guardsmen,

Side note
"Orders cannot be issued to squads that are embarked in a transport vehicle, or units that have already run, made a shooting attack or have already received an order that turn (whether or not the prior order was sucessful). Unless otherwise stated, orders cannot be issued to units taht are falling back or have gone to ground."

He issues "Like The Wind!" which states "If the order is sucessfully issued, the ordered unit immediately makes a shooting attack (it may not run). When this has been resolved, the unit immediately moves D6" in a direction of your choice."

So the 50man blob of guardsmen move D6" directly away from the dreadnaught (this IG player is on fire and rolls a 6) and Al'Rahem's squad pumps four meltaguns into the dreadnaught, who is in melta range. If, for whatever reason the dice Gods frown upon this, the two penal legion squads will perform a run action and move directly towards the dreadnaught (remaining 1" away from him) to form a circle around him, if possible.


So, is this possible?

[I NoSe]

As the rules are right now as long as Al'Rahem wasn't locked in assault this was a legal move. Its weird I'll give you that but the rule for receiving orders mentions every other situation that unit could possibly be in, but leaves out assault.

[DarkLink]

No, this doesn't work. If the Dreadnought is locked in combat, it may not be shot. Nothing about the order allows you to make a shooting attack against something you couldn't normally shoot.

Edit: I'll also note that, because the guardsmen consolidate 6" towards the Dread at the beginning and end of combat, so the Dread should be completely surrounded by guardsmen. Any unit attempting to assault must be able to get into base contact with the target, so until the Dread kills off ~40 guardsmen it is effectively impossible to assualt the Dread.

Basically, the Dread is untouchable until it kills all the Guardsmen.

[wkz]

Hmmm.... my opinion:
- You can issue the order to the guardsmen.
As said, there is no restriction against that.

- The guardsmen obviously cannot shot.
Well duh, they're locked in combat

- The guardsmen unit MAY NOT move D6" due to the order.
Pg40 "Pile in" - "While a unit is locked in combat it may only make pile-in moves and may not otherwise move or shoot."

- Other units MAY NOT shoot the Dreadnought.
Thanks to the above, the Dreadnought is still BtB with someone, and thus is STILL locked in combat. You obviously cannot shoot something engaged in this way.

- The guardsmen are STILL stuck in combat with the Dreadnought.
Thanks to the above

- Captain Al'Rahem just wasted an order.
Truth.

[DarkLink]

Ohhhh, I though someone else was trying to shoot the Dreadnought.

No, that doesn't work either. You can't make shooting attacks while locked in CC. And even if you could, you still can't Run. And even if you could do both, you're still actually locked in combat so you would be forced to consolidate back into base contact.

[Hive Mind]

But Codex rules supplant Rulebook rules. I don't have C:IG or the Rulebook on me right now so I'm assuming that all the relevant info is in Turner's post... So...

RAW says that you can issue an order to a unit locked in an assault. RAW says that unit can then shoot and move d6". Codex specific rule trumps Rulebook rule.

On the facts provided, it's a good move. Of course, RAI would be different but I know how you feel about RAI DarkLink...

[wkz]

But Codex rules supplant Rulebook rules. I don't have C:IG or the Rulebook on me right now so I'm assuming that all the relevant info is in Turner's post... So...

RAW says that you can issue an order to a unit locked in an assault. RAW says that unit can then shoot and move d6". Codex specific rule trumps Rulebook rule.

On the facts provided, it's a good move. Of course, RAI would be different but I know how you feel about RAI DarkLink...

Codex rules supplant Rulebook rules, if it ACTUALLY supplant that rule specifically.


"Like The Wind!" : "If the order is sucessfully issued, the ordered unit immediately makes a shooting attack (it may not run). When this has been resolved, the unit immediately moves D6" in a direction of your choice."
So the unit gets to shoot, and it gets to move.

Guess what, a shooting attack cannot be performed in close combat. Movement other than piling in cannot be performed in close combat. Sure, you have to do those 2 things, but they're locked up, and cannot be done.



This is similar to the Astral Aim issue: Codex rules supplant Rulebook rules, and Astral Aim supplant Rulebook's LOS issues, so the unit with Astral Aim can shoot everywhere... if the unit is allowed to shoot, which Astral Aim does not supplant.

If the unit RAN, it can't shoot, so it can't use Astral Aim. Similarly, if a unit is locked in close combat, it can't shoot or move even if abilities or spells activate its movement or shooting abilities...

[DarkLink]

Right, I would agree with wkz. Were the guardsmen allowed to make shooting attacks or move, then they could do so, but I don't see anything in the order that overrides the specific CC rules.

[SeattleDV8]

agreed, the codex trumps the BRB only if there is a conflict in the rules.

In this case there is no conflict....so the codex can go **** itself.

Ahem...sorry...heh

[I NoSe]

Good save WKZ I only checked the IG book and FAQ.

[Turner]

Makes sense to me, the move D6" in the direction of my choice didn't quite seem to contradiction the"Pile in" rule enough. Thanks for the help everyone.

[JamesP]

Codex rules supplant Rulebook rules, if it ACTUALLY supplant that rule specifically

It would be handy if GW put a disclaimer at the beginning of the rules/stats section of each Codex stating just this and used the same wording in the rulebook too. A general note that 'Codex trumps Rulebook' isn't accurate enough.

As for the OP's query, I agree with what others have already said: Like The Wind! does not enable those in receipt of the order to shoot when the rules prohibit them from shooting - locked in combat, riding inside a vehicle with no fire ports, etc.. It enables them to make a run move after shooting but does not override restrictions on when they are allowed to shoot.

It's still a very handy order despite this, having been on the receiving end of it a few times.

[Lerra]

Bonus Points for creativity, though.

[Hive Mind]

Codex rules supplant Rulebook rules, if it ACTUALLY supplant that rule specifically.
.

The orders rules say you can issue an order to a unit in an assault and the rules for that order say you can shoot and then move d6". You're simply ignoring that the Codex doesn't prevent an order being issued to a unit in an assault. So, RAW says Codex rule trumps rulebook rule prohibiting movement or shooting while locked in an assault.

FWIW I agree that this shouldn't be allowed. However, RAW says it is allowed.

[Skragger]

I do have to agree that the RAW says "make shooting attack, then move". If they're locked in CC they can't shoot. If it was the other way around we'd enter a huge RAI battle-o-doom, but in this case, it's shoot -> move.

[dannyat2460]

RAW says you must 1st shoot then you can run, if you cant shoot then you cant run.

RAI officer shouts "OI YOU THERE IN COMBAT, SHOOT IT THEN RUN AWAY"
sgt replys "yes sir 3 bags full sir"

sgt to squad "youll never guess what the idiot general wants, he wants us to shoot in combat"
squad "WTF?!?!"

[Paul]

RAW says you must 1st shoot then you can run, if you cant shoot then you cant run.

RAI officer shouts "OI YOU THERE IN COMBAT, SHOOT IT THEN RUN AWAY"
sgt replys "yes sir 3 bags full sir"

sgt to squad "youll never guess what the idiot general wants, he wants us to shoot in combat"
squad "WTF?!?!"

I suppose you're fluff example makes sense. I mean, if I was fighting a dreadnought I'd certainly want to club it with my rifle butt than shoot it with my meltagun. Psssh, yeah. Using guns against a 10 foot walker is really hard. Clubbing it is much easier.

[Skragger]

I suppose you're fluff example makes sense. I mean, if I was fighting a dreadnought I'd certainly want to club it with my rifle butt than shoot it with my meltagun. Psssh, yeah. Using guns against a 10 foot walker is really hard. Clubbing it is much easier.

Nah, we just need one lad who's good with a screwdriver. One thing I never got was the whole "attacking front armour on a walker". We're swarming all over and around it, you'd think some would hit that squishy rear armour.

[Hive Mind]

There's no requirement for a Codex rule to explicitly over-rule a Rulebook rule. Saying that one exists is RAI, not RAW.

Thus, using RAW, the rules for Orders and Like The Wind implicitly over-rule the Rulebook prohibition on shooting and moving whilst locked in an assault. Which is an absurd result (in game terms) IMO and so I'd use RAI to over-rule it.

[SeattleDV8]

There's no requirement for a Codex rule to explicitly over-rule a Rulebook rule. Saying that one exists is RAI, not RAW.

Thus, using RAW, the rules for Orders and Like The Wind implicitly over-rule the Rulebook prohibition on shooting and moving whilst locked in an assault. Which is an absurd result (in game terms) IMO and so I'd use RAI to over-rule it.

No, it is stated
BRB pg. 62 Smoke Launchers,
"...might use differerent versions of smoke launchers, which have slightly different rules. As normal, the rules in the Codex take precedence."

BRB pg.74
"... if any of the Codexes include one of these special rules and the rule is different, the one in the Codex takes precedence..."

Both of these statements show that the codex only trumps if there is a conflict .
Like the Wind doesn't work on unit locked in CC.

[Turner]

I guess I wasn't being very specific and/or being a little vague with my description of what exactly is happening and what I was trying to do...

1) A Space Marine Dreadnought assaults a 50man blob on the Space Marine's Turn.

2) The IG player's turn Al'Rahem moves within 6" of the assault mess and the two penal legion squads move within 2" of the mess in the movement phase.

3) Al'Rahem orders the 50man blob to "Like The Wind!" which the order is successful.

4) The 50man blob, attempts to shoot which they can't because they are locked in close combat.... however would they move 6" away from the Dreadnought, as per the second half of the "Like The Wind!" order. (Also the IG player just happens to roll a 6 for his d6 move)

If the 50man blob can move D6" away from the Space Marine Dreadnought, in the shooting phase, then I would like to perform one of two subsequent actions:

Have Al'Rahem's squad pump the Space Marine Dreadnought full of melta


BUT, if the Dreadnought and 50man blob are still locked in combat, even though they are separated by d6" (which in this specific case just happens to be 6") then...


The two penal legion squads would perform a run action and surround the Space Marine Dreadnaught (remaining 1" away from him) so that when the assault phase begins, the 50man blob and Space Marine Dreadnaught would consolidate towards each other buuuuut be prevented due to the circle created by the two penal legion squads.




And I'm fairly certain it was decided that this D6" move cannot happen. Clearly the shooting into close combat cannot, but the D6" move away from close combat was the real question. (and if this broke close combat)

Anyways, thanks for answer my misguided question!

[Hive Mind]

Both of these statements show that the codex only trumps if there is a conflict .


Giving a unit that is locked in an assault an Order to shoot and then move conflicts with the Rulebook rules. So the Codex rules, as provided by Turner, take precedent.

It makes no sense but that's the RAW answer.

[SeattleDV8]

No, there is no permission to fire if locked in CC.
There is no permission to move out of CC.
All Wind's does is allow a unit to shoot and then run...Thats it.
The rule is just that simple.
Your way makes no sense because it is not RAW.

[Sir Biscuit]

OP, it doesn't work. It doesn't matter if you move out of base to base with the dreadnought, as being in base to base is NOT the qualifier for being "locked in combat". Even if you moved fully 6" away, you would still count as locked in combat and you would pile back in as soon as the assault phase started. Furthermore, since the dreadnought is still locked with you you cannot shoot it with ANY units.

Second, no, you can't shoot the squad that is locked in melee. Like the Wind! allows you to make a shooting attack- this is in no way special, and offers no exemptions to the normal rules of shooting. While the argument that "codex trumps rulebook" and thus "makes a shooting attack" > "cannot make a shooting attack" IS true, it's foiled by page 40 of the BRB:

"Models belonging to units locked in combat may not fire weapons in the shooting phase."

So yes, you get a ranged attack, but you are still disallowed from firing any weapons.

What this means is that Like the Wind! can be used to slightly shuffle your units in assault, but in no circumstances can it be used to let ANY unit shoot while in assault, and it will never remove units from being locked in assault.

[DarkLink]

The guardsmen attempt to shoot and run, but they fail to do so because they are locked in combat. Nothing about the order overrides that. You can attempt to move and shoot all you want, you just fail at it.

[Hive Mind]

No, there is no permission to fire if locked in CC.
There is no permission to move out of CC.
All Wind's does is allow a unit to shoot and then run...Thats it.
The rule is just that simple.
Your way makes no sense because it is not RAW.

I don't want to keep repeating myself so I'll just say that I totally disagree.

[SeattleDV8]

Disagree all you want, without rules to back your opinion, thats all you got ...opinion.

[Hive Mind]

Disagree all you want, without rules to back your opinion, thats all you got ...opinion.

I've got my opinion and you've got your invented 'explicit over-ruling' clause.

One more time;

Orders can be given to a unit locked in an assault.
Like The Wind is an Order.
Like The Wind says that the unit it is given to can shoot then move d6 inches.
Orders and Like The Wind are both Codex rules.
Codex rules over-rule Rulebook rules.

So yeah. Go ahead and rag on my opinion while you cross your fingers and hope that no-one notices that you've invented a condition that doesn't exist in the RAW in order to pass off your version of RAI as RAW.

[lattd]

I've got my opinion and you've got your invented 'explicit over-ruling' clause.

One more time;

Orders can be given to a unit locked in an assault.
Like The Wind is an Order.
Like The Wind says that the unit it is given to can shoot then move d6 inches.
Orders and Like The Wind are both Codex rules.
Codex rules over-rule Rulebook rules.

So yeah. Go ahead and rag on my opinion while you cross your fingers and hope that no-one notices that you've invented a condition that doesn't exist in the RAW in order to pass off your version of RAI as RAW.

Even if they can be given to units locked in combat, haven't checked the FAQ, the rule does not say they can leave close combat so no it does not work.

[Hive Mind]

Even if they can be given to units locked in combat, haven't checked the FAQ, the rule does not say they can leave close combat so no it does not work.

The specific tactic outlined by Turner might not work but whether it does or doesn't hasn't formed any part of my posts.

[Wildeybeast]

Hive mind, you are being incredibly beardy about this. Do you honestly think that 'like the wind' was created to allow you to fire whilst in combat or to break from combat. There is a rule which allows you to break from combat, called 'hit and run'. 'Like the wind' does not confer 'hit and run'. If GW had wanted this, they would have written it in the codex. It was clearly created to allow units to shoot and run, provided they are normally allowed to shoot or run.

The codex takes precedence only where it specifically over rides the rulebook. Like the wind does not say that you may shoot and run when not normally allowed to do so, so you can't. Simple commone sense and the fact that everyone disagrees with you should tell you that, in this instance, you are wrong. If in doubt, call your local GW store and they can offically tell you are wrong.

[Turner]

Alright, forget the shooting part. I'm not trying to shoot into close combat at all.

As a side note, I've always been told (heard it) via the codex overrules the main rulebook if the codex directly contradicts the main rule book. A simple example is the ever popular Necron "We'll be back" rule. A Necron Warrior is shot by a Space Marine: He hits the Necron Warrior, he wounds the Necron Warrior, the Necron Warrior fails his armour save. Now by all accounts the main rulebook states that the Necron Warrior model (who was hit, wounded and failed his armour save) is removed from the table as a casualty. However the Necron codex has the "We'll be back" special rule where "Any Necron model that is reduced to 0 Wounds, or would otherwise be removed as a casualty, remains on the tabletop and is laid on its side to show that it's damaged." I'm sure we all know what happens next, the rolling of the die, the standing up of said Necron Warrior and the whole process starts all over again."



What I am trying to do is move away from the Space Marine Dreadnought my shooting phase and shoot at him with another squad. It has been decided that the 50man blob is still locked in close combat with the Space Marine Dreadnought, totally fine.
Now I wish to move both penal legion squads (in the same shooting phase via a run action) to form a barrier around the Space Marine Dreadnought so that in the very, next, phase, (the IG player's assault phase) the 50man blob will consolidate 6" towards the Space Marine Dreadnought and be prevented from basing the Space Marine Dreadnought because of the Penal Legion Squads that surrounded it AND the Space Marine Dreadnought will consolidate 6" towards the 50man blob but ALSO be prevented from basing any of the models due to the two Penal Legion Squads who have formed the protective barrier around him. (the Space Marine Dreadnought must stay at least 1" away from the penal legion squad because he is not assaulting them, in fact he is still locked in close combat with the 50man blob)

At this time (somewhere in the IG player's assault phase) since neither squad is in base to base with each other and they cannot consolidate towards each other to become basing one another, the "they break off and aren't assaulting each other anymore" checks and they aren't assaulting one another.


I'm simply trying to get my 50man blob at least 2" away from the Space Marine Dreadnought so I can slide my penal legion squads in and block the Space Marine Dreadnought.

[Hive Mind]

Hive mind, you are being incredibly beardy about this. Do you honestly think that 'like the wind' was created to allow you to fire whilst in combat or to break from combat.


No I don't. As I've already stated I think it leads to an absurd result and in games amongst my gaming group it certainly wouldn't be allowed.



There is a rule which allows you to break from combat, called 'hit and run'. 'Like the wind' does not confer 'hit and run'. If GW had wanted this, they would have written it in the codex. It was clearly created to allow units to shoot and run, provided they are normally allowed to shoot or run.


Well the easy counter to that would be to say that if GW hadn't wanted an Order which can be issued to a unit that is locked in an assault to be effective whilst in an assault they'd mention it.

"This order cannot be issued to a unit that is assaulting or being assaulted" takes less than twenty seconds to type.

I agree that it probably wasn't intended to be used to shoot whilst in an assault. That's not what's at issue though. I probably wouldn't have gotten this invested in this thread if a poster who recently proclaimed RAI to be, to paraphrase, 'douchebags wanting to cheat' had not passed of their version of RAI to be the RAW.



The codex takes precedence only where it specifically over rides the rulebook. Like the wind does not say that you may shoot and run when not normally allowed to do so, so you can't. Simple commone sense and the fact that everyone disagrees with you should tell you that, in this instance, you are wrong. If in doubt, call your local GW store and they can offically tell you are wrong.

There is nothing in print to say that a Codex rule must explicitly over-rule a Rulebook rule.

'Everyone' disagreeing with me is immaterial. To quote a Peep Show character "you can't trust people - people vote for the ****s and buy Coldplay albums".

Again, I think using Like The Wind to shoot whilst locked in an assault is a joke. Unfortunately someone insisting on strict RAW in one thread and then casually inventing rules to justify their version of RAI in another is a bigger joke.

Nothing personal to anyone involved. Hypocrisy just irritates me greatly.

[DarkLink]

A codex rule, and any rule, needs to explicitly contradict a more general rule, always.


In fact, Codex>BRB isn't quite correct. It's actually Specific Rule>General Rule. In this case, however, Like the Wind is actually the general rule (typically, you issue the order then move then shoot), while the assault rules are the specific rules (you can't move and shoot while in CC).


Now, if the specific rule explicitly overrides the general rule, you use the specific rule. Like the Wind does not do this. It just says "move and shoot". You are normally allowed to move and shoot, but you are disallowed this by RAW as you cannot move and shoot in CC.


Like the Wind allows you to move d6" and shoot the same way that the BRB movement and shooting sections allow you to move and shoot. If you could move and shoot from Like the Wind because the rule says you can, then by the exact same logic you could just walk out of combat or shoot in combat. Except that the assault rules explicitly bar that.

No, Like the Wind would need to specifically mention it. It does not. In order for Like the Wind to trump the assault rules, they would need to specifically and explicitly contradict them, in which case they would be a more specific rule and you could do this.

[Hive Mind]

A codex rule, and any rule, needs to explicitly contradict a more general rule, always.


Show me this rule. Tell me on what page of which GW publication it's written

[Lemt]

Show me this rule. Tell me on what page of which GW publication it's written

I don't think it is written. I also don't think it's needed.

You have a rule that says "X". To be able to break that rule, you need another rule that says "not X". If another rules says "Y", you can't decide it says "not X", no matter how awesome you think that would be.

[DarkLink]

It doesn't need to be written, it's basic logic. You have rule A. You must follow rule A, unless rule B explicitly contradicts it. If rule B does not contradict it, then you still follow rule A.

[ArchonPhelps]

In the BRB pg 40 states on the Pile-in Section, "While a unit is locked in combat it may only make pile-in moves and may not otherwise move or shoot." Just throwing that one out there first off.

Yes I understand that the Codex over rides but the Codex doesnt say you can disengage from CC. For example, the Order "Get back in the fight" states, "If the order is successfully issued, the ordered unit immediately regroups if falling back (even if it would not normally be able to do so due to casualties suffered, enemy proximity and so on . . . )"

There the Codex states that it over rides the BRB and should be used as written. For "Like The Wind" it does not say you are able to shoot or move even if you are not allowed to.

And if you say that, "Well it doesnt say you cant do it." argument, then youre just a tard and deserve to be put down like a stupid cow. Thats like saying I cops can arrest someone for breathing because the law doesnt say it is illegal.

[Hive Mind]

It doesn't need to be written, it's basic logic. You have rule A. You must follow rule A, unless rule B explicitly contradicts it. If rule B does not contradict it, then you still follow rule A.

So you're advancing RAI and not RAW?


In the BRB pg 40 states on the Pile-in Section, "While a unit is locked in combat it may only make pile-in moves and may not otherwise move or shoot." Just throwing that one out there first off.

Yes I understand that the Codex over rides but the Codex doesnt say you can disengage from CC. For example, the Order "Get back in the fight" states, "If the order is successfully issued, the ordered unit immediately regroups if falling back (even if it would not normally be able to do so due to casualties suffered, enemy proximity and so on . . . )"


Totally irrelevant. I'm not claiming that it allows you to disengage from combat.



There the Codex states that it over rides the BRB and should be used as written. For "Like The Wind" it does not say you are able to shoot or move even if you are not allowed to.

Again, there's no requirement anywhere in the RAW for there to be an explicit over-ruling of a Rulebook rule.



And if you say that, "Well it doesnt say you cant do it." argument, then youre just a tard and deserve to be put down like a stupid cow. Thats like saying I cops can arrest someone for breathing because the law doesnt say it is illegal.

More irrelevance. Codex rules for Orders and Like the Wind implicitly over-rule the Rulebook rules, just like the various RAW Public Order Acts and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that afford a police officer the power to arrest virtually at will implicitly over-rule the RAI idea that you should only be arrested if there's reasonable suspicion that you've committed a criminal offence or to secure evidence of a crime. Watch an episode of Road Wars, Cops With Cameras or COPS if you're American. I guarantee you'll see at least one person who has not committed a crime and/or is not suspected of committing a crime and/or is not a threat to the evidential chain be arrested per episode. At least one.

I'll say it again because it seems to be being overlooked, I don't think that you should be able to make a shooting attack while you're in an assault if this order is given but the fact is that there is nothing in the RAW to say that. Asserting that Like the Wind doesn't allow the shooting attack is to argue RAI, not RAW. Hence, it's the hypocrisy I take issue with more than anything else. Because RAI is just WAAC douchebags cheating. Until it suits, apparently.

[dannyat2460]

Totally irrelevant. I'm not claiming that it allows you to disengage from combat.

so if the unit is still locked in combat they still suffer from the same rules as units that are locked in combat including been unable to shoot, running in the shooting phase is done instead of shootingnormaly (in this case the order does over ride the BRB) so if your unable to do this the order rule is unable to override it.

[Lemt]

Again, there's no requirement anywhere in the RAW for there to be an explicit over-ruling of a Rulebook rule.


Please excuse me, but this is silly. Of COURSE there's no rule that tells you you have to follow the rules. That's why they are the rules in the first place. So unless a rule tells you SPECIFICALLY to break another rule, you have to follow them.

Your reasoning seems to be "since no rule says I have to follow the rules, I don't have to follow the rules".

Either that, or I don't get what you're trying to say at all.

[wkz]

I disappear for a day or so, and this happens :(

Alright, here comes round 2 :
Hive Mind's main arguement says "because the good Captain Al'Rahem says to shoot then move, it IS a case of codex supplanting rulebook, thus the move is legal by RAW".

Now here's the thing: the ORDER says to shoot, then to move. Here's the order yet again."If the order is successfully issued, the ordered unit immediately makes a shooting attack (it may not run). When this has been resolved, the unit immediately moves D6" in a direction of your choice."

What then is shooting? What is moving?
- Shooting is EVERYTHING as described in "The Shooting Phase" chapter (BRB 15 to 32) and any add-ons (such as "shooting at Vehicles" in the Vehicle section)
- Movement is EVERYTHING as described in "The Movement Phase" chapter (BRB 11 to 14) and any add-ons (such as "Fall Back!" in the Morale section)

Your main contention is this: Although a "Shooting attack" is obviously a no-no, because of a very direct ruling*, it however states a "Move D6" for the follow up movement. And "move" does seem to be straightforward Move = "Pick up model and shift it", correct? So the unit in question moves, out of sequence and out of phase, out of a lot of things.

* "Disallowed Shooting", Shooting Chapter, pg15 BRB: "...prevent a unit from firing...Units that are locked in close combat with the foe"

HOWEVER, note that the order still says MOVE. The precise word is called MOVE. And in the great big rules pileup we call the BRB, there is this sentence of interest (repeated again):

Pg40 "Pile in" - "While a unit is locked in combat it may only make pile-in moves and may not otherwise move or shoot."

True, Codex supplant Rulebook. However, as I've said before, only if it ACTUALLY supplant that rule specifically. The base rule the Order is using is MOVE. However, the meaning of the word MOVE as used in the game is as said in the BRB... and if the unit is in close combat that meaning of MOVE is now shackled with additional rules that directly affect the word MOVE. Thus, since this new meaning has "...may not otherwise move...", it means what it says: no movement, because basic movement is now disallowed.

This is the exact same thing that happened with shooting earlier in fact: "Units is shooting... except shooting is shackled with "...may only make pile-in moves and may not otherwise move or shoot." Thus, no shooting.

And that's my view of the whole matter.


Last of all rules-wise, one curious note: IF, after everything is said and done, the guardsmen are allowed to move out of the way thanks to something or other... ... if there are no combatants in BtB with each other, the units involved are NOT locked in combat anymore.

This is due to the curious wording in "Who can fight", Assault phase chapter: "Units that have one or more model in base contact with enemies are said to be "locked in combat...". Thus, if you have a unit move out of BtB... you're not locked anymore... I guess Pile-in moves are precisely made to PREVENT this from happening.


Last of all:

...
I agree that it probably wasn't intended to be used to shoot whilst in an assault. That's not what's at issue though. I probably wouldn't have gotten this invested in this thread if a poster who recently proclaimed RAI to be, to paraphrase, 'douchebags wanting to cheat' had not passed of their version of RAI to be the RAW.
...

More irrelevance. Codex rules for Orders and Like the Wind implicitly over-rule the Rulebook rules, just like the various RAW Public Order Acts and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that afford a police officer the power to arrest virtually at will implicitly over-rule the RAI idea that you should only be arrested if there's reasonable suspicion that you've committed a criminal offence or to secure evidence of a crime. Watch an episode of Road Wars, Cops With Cameras or COPS if you're American. I guarantee you'll see at least one person who has not committed a crime and/or is not suspected of committing a crime and/or is not a threat to the evidential chain be arrested per episode. At least one.

I'll say it again because it seems to be being overlooked, I don't think that you should be able to make a shooting attack while you're in an assault if this order is given but the fact is that there is nothing in the RAW to say that. Asserting that Like the Wind doesn't allow the shooting attack is to argue RAI, not RAW. Hence, it's the hypocrisy I take issue with more than anything else. Because RAI is just WAAC douchebags cheating. Until it suits, apparently.
I don't think you're arguing for the best of intentions, Mr Hive Mind.

First up, RAI and RAW in real life: This does apply in the game, but a SUSPICION of someone being a douchbag is automatically allowed to be arrested... By BOTH RAW and RAI: the idea being to allow the officer to hold the suspect as more investigations is carried out on said person, before the crime of somebody loses something/gets property damage/gets harmed or killed is carried out.

This does apply in this game of 40k from one point of view: Tournament Organizers. TOs are allowed power to judge over rules disputes almost as if the GOD-EMPEROR himself just decreed it. They also have the power to instantly kick out a person for being a douche, or even a suspected douche, pretty much immediately too. That is their power, and the RAW, with full weight of RAI, does support it: most tournament packs will state, stuff like "the tournament organizers reserves the right to... allow you to play" or "The TO's judgement is final" or some other wording will be in that pack somewhere.



Secondly, the "ignore some parts of RAW to push other interpretations of RAW" is precisely where RAW douches usually come from. That part you're showing it in FULL.

Congrats. You are now a RAW douchebag. Good job. How's that for hypocrisy, o champion of RAI?

As I've stated up and down this ENTIRE forum, douchbags comes in all shapes and sizes. Hell, even something as innocent as Modellers can even count within the ranks of douchebags. (ever heard of "Modelling for advantage"?)

RAI people are WAAC douchebags cheating. That is minorly correct and oh so utterly wrong. Just like "RAW people are WAAC douchebags cheating", "Modellers people are WAAC douchebags cheating", "BOLS people are WAAC douchebags cheating", etc.

You, and whoever ticked you off with the initial sentence, are so wrong it is not funny. Stop attacking the wrong people. By spreading the wrong interpretation of the rules forcefully to try and prove the WRONG point against RAW people, you've just became the person whom you're trying to fight against: An utter, irredeemable, hypocritical DOUCHEBAG.

There is something to be said about "he who fight monsters..." here...

[DarkLink]

I agree that it probably wasn't intended to be used to shoot whilst in an assault. That's not what's at issue though. I probably wouldn't have gotten this invested in this thread if a poster who recently proclaimed RAI to be, to paraphrase, 'douchebags wanting to cheat' had not passed of their version of RAI to be the RAW.


I know this is directed at me. First off, if you got 'douchebags wanting to cheat' out of my previous statements, then either you missed the point or I misspoke. RAI is not cheating. It can be use for cheating, but RAI is not inherently so. RAI is making up your own rules, and trying to justify them in the context of the rulebook. You are trying to take a set of what is unarguably houserules, and pass it off as something GW said.

This isn't inherently bad, but whether or not your houserule is something GW would back is irrelevant. What matters is 'is the houserule balanced'. Playing the RAI card simply distracts from that question, and can be used as ammo for the much hated WAAC/rules lawyer type player. There's not reason to cry RAI, because it really doesn't matter. You are making up your own houserules, so just say that and focus on making those rules as balanced as possible.




Now, I see RAW as being, pretty clearly, that you cannot move and shoot. At the risk of sounding like Tynskel(;)), when you read the rules you have to take them in full context. If one were to simply look at the Like the Wind rule on its own, one could bull**** their way through the argument and try to convince their opponent that

The point I'm want to make is that this is all RAW. You read the rules, try and understand them, and come to a conclusion on what the rules actually say. There is no RAI involved in this process.

Now, if you come across a situation in which no clear conclusion can be reached, you will have to agree with your opponent on the most balanced way to solve that problem. That means houserules, and luckily this doesn't come up too often if you take some time to think through the conundrum. Once again, there is no RAI involved.

The only time RAI is involved is when someone tries and pass off their houserules as being backed by GW's authority. Instead of looking over the rules to see if there is a solution, or discussing the issue and coming up with a balanced houserule, they are just saying "we have to do this my way, because that's what GW intended". This is essentially a form of an 'appeal to authority', a logical fallacy based on invoking an expert's opinion on a subject to lend weight to an argument. In this case, GW is the expert, and while they attempt to claim their support the support itself (or lack thereof, in this case), is irrelevant, at least until GW releases and FAQ/Erratta.




Incidentally, playing the devil's advocate and trying to show the flaws in RAW by acting like one of the absurd WAAC players you don't like invokes a whole slew of logical fallacies. Trying to disprove the conclusion that RAW is prefered by acting like a WAAC douche is both a red herring and an irrelevant conclusion. The devil's advocate character you adopt is also inherently a strawman, as he refused to consider certain aspects of the presented counter arguments in order that you could continue to try and make your point.

[ArchonPhelps]

More irrelevance. Codex rules for Orders and Like the Wind implicitly over-rule the Rulebook rules, just like the various RAW Public Order Acts and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that afford a police officer the power to arrest virtually at will implicitly over-rule the RAI idea that you should only be arrested if there's reasonable suspicion that you've committed a criminal offence or to secure evidence of a crime. Watch an episode of Road Wars, Cops With Cameras or COPS if you're American. I guarantee you'll see at least one person who has not committed a crime and/or is not suspected of committing a crime and/or is not a threat to the evidential chain be arrested per episode. At least one.

Actually Law Enforcement can only arrest someone if they have Probable Cause (P.C.), atleast here in Texas thats the case. Reasonable Suspicion gives the Law Enforcement the ability to detain someone, not arrest. The fact that you bring up an Act from 1984 is a good start but you forget about the Case Laws and new Acts that changed it, aka newer additions. I do watch Cops all the time atleast 4 times a day for 10 hours a day, and they all have PC for the arrest. And Law Enforcement cannot arrest anyone they want even if they have PC. If the crime is a misdeamor it has to have happen in the presense of the law enforcement officer. Just saying.


I'll say it again because it seems to be being overlooked, I don't think that you should be able to make a shooting attack while you're in an assault if this order is given but the fact is that there is nothing in the RAW to say that. Asserting that Like the Wind doesn't allow the shooting attack is to argue RAI, not RAW. Hence, it's the hypocrisy I take issue with more than anything else. Because RAI is just WAAC douchebags cheating. Until it suits, apparently.

What I am saying that in the IG Codex that there are order in there that says it overwrites the BRB. I mean you are more than happy to issue the order "Like the Wind" but it is not going to do anything for the squad. It is goingto be a wasted order.

[Hive Mind]

Orders can be given to a unit locked in an assault.
Like The Wind is an Order.
Like The Wind says that the unit it is given to can shoot then move d6 inches.
Orders and Like The Wind are both Codex rules.
Codex rules over-rule Rulebook rules.


Res ipsa loquitur.

Until someone can show me a sentence from a GW 40k publication that says that a Codex rule must explicitly over-rule a Rulebook rule then the above is correct and RAW.

[dannyat2460]

No, it is stated
BRB pg. 62 Smoke Launchers,
"...might use differerent versions of smoke launchers, which have slightly different rules. As normal, the rules in the Codex take precedence."

BRB pg.74
"... if any of the Codexes include one of these special rules and the rule is different, the one in the Codex takes precedence..."

Both of these statements show that the codex only trumps if there is a conflict .
Like the Wind doesn't work on unit locked in CC.

there you go hive mind

[The Nubslug]

I was wondering why it is ok to ignore the shooting in combat rule but the movement rule must be enforced. Under Hive Minds argument the 'order' would override all previous rules and the squad would be forced to shoot then make the d6 move. The good book says no shooting in CC and no movement in CC except for pile in moves, if the codex takes precedence shouldn't the squad be forced to make a shooting attack then be forced to make the d6 move because that's what the order says? If you only argue on half the order whats the point. By saying this is a forced compulsory move given priority because of how orders work then the shooting attack should be just as compulsory because the order would over rule the rule book.

[Hive Mind]

there you go hive mind

Except they don't say what they're being passed off as saying.

[dannyat2460]

I was wondering why it is ok to ignore the shooting in combat rule but the movement rule must be enforced. Under Hive Minds argument the 'order' would override all previous rules and the squad would be forced to shoot then make the d6 move. The good book says no shooting in CC and no movement in CC except for pile in moves, if the codex takes precedence shouldn't the squad be forced to make a shooting attack then be forced to make the d6 move because that's what the order says? If you only argue on half the order whats the point. By saying this is a forced compulsory move given priority because of how orders work then the shooting attack should be just as compulsory because the order would over rule the rule book.

exactly they are been forced to attempt something they cant do because of other rules

[Hive Mind]

exactly they are been forced to attempt something they cant do because of other rules

'Other rules' that the Codex rules take precedence over...

[dannyat2460]

no because the codex dosnt say it over rides them

[Brad]

I was wondering why it is ok to ignore the shooting in combat rule but the movement rule must be enforced. Under Hive Minds argument the 'order' would override all previous rules and the squad would be forced to shoot then make the d6 move. The good book says no shooting in CC and no movement in CC except for pile in moves, if the codex takes precedence shouldn't the squad be forced to make a shooting attack then be forced to make the d6 move because that's what the order says? If you only argue on half the order whats the point. By saying this is a forced compulsory move given priority because of how orders work then the shooting attack should be just as compulsory because the order would over rule the rule book.
c

I totally agree

The other thing is RAI.... you only guessing wot is RAI until they add in wot they actually meant.... which can only be clarified by GW adding a FAQ which states that this Order is made using all normal restrictions...OR that it can be made as an exception to all normal rules(those in BRB)

Either way until an faq who really knows wot they mean exactely:confused:

[Tynskel]

I am so famous that I am Infamous!!!

[wkz]

'Other rules' that the Codex rules take precedence over...

No they don't.

If you don't like to read my big block of text, here's a tl:dr: The order says "MOVE". "Move" refers to 40k movement rules. 40k Movement rules in close combat says you can't relocate minis. Ergo, you can't.

You're taking the dictionary meaning of the word. THAT is wrong, and other rules should have stopped you... but you keep trying to be "unstopped". This is the douchebag behavior I was talking about in the 2nd half of my post earlier. Please stop.


I am so famous that I am Infamous!!!
Oh gods, not another Mr T... I can't stand it, I can't stand it no more ...

[Tynskel]

Rules as written is an interpretation of the rulebook. In all interpretations of the rulebook, one must account for all the rules before making a decision.

Like the Wind, when isolated, breaks every rule in the rulebook. However, when including the context of how the rules fit together, Like the Wind is clearly a shooting phase rule for shooting, and this rule does not override the shooting rules.

what Like the Wind overrides is the Run or Shoot rule subset within the rulebook. Like the wind allows you to both shoot and run in the same phase, when you can only do one or the other normally.

[wkz]

Also,
Res ipsa loquitur.

Until someone can show me a sentence from a GW 40k publication that says that a Codex rule must explicitly over-rule a Rulebook rule then the above is correct and RAW.
I don't need to show you this. I just need to show you something else: The moment I say Rulebook > Codex... virtually EVERY SINGLE special ability, army ability, mastercrafted ability, named-character ability, etc... will shut down right on the spot. EVERY codex rule that has as its core a modification of the core rules will become useless, because the core rules will very obviously say otherwise.

Stormboys can jump more than 12"? Sorry, Rulebook > Codex, Jump infantry can only move 12". Flash Gits can pre-measure distances between themselves and other units? Rulebook says that's illegal. Kommandos can enter from the opponent's deployment edge? Nope, no mention in the reserves rules, so no dice. The Vulture Squad's stormboys can charge on the same turn they deepstruck? REALLY no dice, that's illegal. Etc, etc, etc...

(And all of these examples are only from ONE codex. Who knows what rules get shut down from other codexes... lemme see: We'll be back, Monolith reserves teleportation, webway teleportation, armor defenses such as blessed hulls and holo fields, Psychic defense of every stripe, wriathsight, harlequins' ignore difficult terrain .... that's all the stuff I got from less than 2 minutes of thinking.... and I keep forcing myself to stop editing from easily 10 times the number of codex rules which will be affected...)



As for the "Explicit" keyword, I don't see "close combat" or "despite being engaged in CC" explicitly mentioned anywhere inside the good Captain's order description, instead it only mentions "Move". And that means you make a normal move... which is taken in the shooting phase thanks to the phase in which the good Captain give his orders.

And (this is the 3rd time), normal move rules say you can't move when engaged in CC. Thus, no movement.

[Hive Mind]

Yeah, you'd have a point if GW hadn't said over and over and over again that where Codex rules clash with Rulebook rules the Codex rules take precedence. Since the Codex rules for Orders and Like the Wind clash with the Rulebook rules they take precedence until GW says they don't.

Again, I wouldn't play this way. I wouldn't try to use Like the Wind to shoot and move in an assault even though the RAW says I can. It produces an absurd result therefore I'd use RAI. I'm only here posting because of the utter hypocrisy of someone saying that RAI is just WAAC cheating and then passing off their RAI as the RAW mere moments later.

And once more, it's not personal. I just despise hypocrisy.

[gcsmith]

Yes they take precedance in conflicts but wat conflict????

In this situation there exists no conflict, yes you can shoot then run, however these both follow the normal rules for shooting and running since thats wat they are, since niether can be done in combat, neither can be done here.

[Hive Mind]

Yes they take precedance in conflicts but wat conflict????

In this situation there exists no conflict, yes you can shoot then run, however these both follow the normal rules for shooting and running since thats wat they are, since niether can be done in combat, neither can be done here.

Which would be A-OK if it couldn't be issued to a unit locked in an assault. Since the Codex rules say that a unit in an assault can shoot and move they take precedence. According to RAW. It doesn't say that they can shoot and move if they are able to and it doesn't say that it's ineffective if issued to a unit in an assault. Ergo, there's no basis in the RAW to support a claim that Like the Wind is simply wasted if issued to a unit in combat.

I'm really bored with this now. I'm just repeating myself over and over. I've made my point. One last time; I wouldn't play like this. I wouldn't use Like the Wind to try to shoot in an assault even though, if you think about it, it makes sense that a squad with several melta/plasmaguns would just shoot the dreadnought instead of pounding on it with their fists. I'm only arguing what I am because of the hypocrisy and because I like arguing I suppose, though this has gotten tedious now.

[Lemt]

Res ipsa loquitur.

Until someone can show me a sentence from a GW 40k publication that says that a Codex rule must explicitly over-rule a Rulebook rule then the above is correct and RAW.

Until you take the time to read my very short post and answer to it, I'll assume you're just in denial.

[Hive Mind]

This one?


Please excuse me, but this is silly. Of COURSE there's no rule that tells you you have to follow the rules. That's why they are the rules in the first place. So unless a rule tells you SPECIFICALLY to break another rule, you have to follow them.

Your reasoning seems to be "since no rule says I have to follow the rules, I don't have to follow the rules".

Either that, or I don't get what you're trying to say at all.

I'm not alleging that you can break the rules willy-nilly, only that where there is a conflict between what the Codex says you can do and what the Rulebook says you can do (as there is here) the Codex rules takes precendence, as per what GW has written on the subject. They haven't said that a Codex rule must specifically over-rule the rulebook, all caps or not. They've said that in event of a conflict you follow the Codex rules.

When/if GW FAQ this I'll happily concede that RAW say you can't use Like the Wind to make a shooting attack in an assault. Until that point if you use strict RAW then you can. By using Like the Wind to make a shooting attack in an assault I'm following the rules, not breaking them.

Your point would only be relevant if I were simply pulling Codex rules taking precedence out of my derriere. Since I am not, it doesn't apply.

[Sir Biscuit]

Didn't I solve this on page 3?


OP, it doesn't work. It doesn't matter if you move out of base to base with the dreadnought, as being in base to base is NOT the qualifier for being "locked in combat". Even if you moved fully 6" away, you would still count as locked in combat and you would pile back in as soon as the assault phase started. Furthermore, since the dreadnought is still locked with you you cannot shoot it with ANY units.

Second, no, you can't shoot the squad that is locked in melee. Like the Wind! allows you to make a shooting attack- this is in no way special, and offers no exemptions to the normal rules of shooting. While the argument that "codex trumps rulebook" and thus "makes a shooting attack" > "cannot make a shooting attack" IS true, it's foiled by page 40 of the BRB:

"Models belonging to units locked in combat may not fire weapons in the shooting phase."

So yes, you get a ranged attack, but you are still disallowed from firing any weapons.

What this means is that Like the Wind! can be used to slightly shuffle your units in assault, but in no circumstances can it be used to let ANY unit shoot while in assault, and it will never remove units from being locked in assault.

[SeattleDV8]

Your point would only be relevant if I were simply pulling Codex rules taking precedence out of my derriere. Since I am not, it doesn't apply.

Codex rules take precedence where the Codex and the BRB have the same USR or Wargear.
Thats the RAW. BRB pg 62 & 74
The idea you have is totally out of your ***.

Logicial game design tells us specific>general.
Most of the time that will mean codex> BRB but is not always the case (ie sweeping advance)

Like the Wind may be a Codex rule but lacks the specific over-rule it needs to break the assault rules.
Look at other rules that allow you to move out of assault, they all tell you you may or tell you to consolidate afterwards.
Without the permission clearly stated the codex rule is not allowed to break other rules.
Another example Power of the Machine Sprirt (codex) allowed fire one more weapon than would normnally be allowed, Smoke Launchers (BRB pg.62) still stop them from working.
Why? Because PotMS didn't specify that it works against smoke.

Again Codex>BRB is not a rule, what is a rule is where the BRB and the Codex have the same USR or wargear the Codex has precedence.
Specific>general is what you should use to judge rules and rules conflicts.

[Hive Mind]

Codex rules take precedence where the Codex and the BRB have the same USR or Wargear.
Thats the RAW. BRB pg 62 & 74
The idea you have is totally out of your ***.


Your case would be much stronger if the two quotes you insist on repeating actually said what you want them to instead of being just another example of RAI being passed off as RAW.

[Tynskel]

I understand your argument, Hive Mind. In its own way, it makes sense--- If I were you, I would apply the same thought process to any Codex rule that you come across. You should give us other examples. This may not win over the 'aggressive' forum responders, but it might make a few people think about interpretations of the rules.

I believe you will find that the average BoLS player does not interpret the rulebook the way you are right now.

RAW is a framework for interpreting the rules. However, it is still an interpretation that does not necessarily have the same interpretation between two people.

'Like the Wind' phrasing, from one RAW point of view, is specifically targeting the rules for Run/Shoot. Therefore, 'Like the Wind' only applies to Run/Shoot.
'Like the Wind' phrasing, from another RAW point of view, is a rule that applies to all situations, because of the order system. Therefore, 'Like the Wind' applies to any situation.

Hive Mind is defining his 'system' to be the framework of the 'orders rules'.
Others define their system by 'the most similar rule from the rulebook'.

[SeattleDV8]

Your case would be much stronger if the two quotes you insist on repeating actually said what you want them to instead of being just another example of RAI being passed off as RAW.
Really? I give quotes from the rules and thats somehow RAI??
BRB pg. 62 Smoke Launchers,
"...might use differerent versions of smoke launchers, which have slightly different rules. As normal, the rules in the Codex take precedence."

If wargear has different rules your Codex rules are used.

BRB pg.74
"... if any of the Codexes include one of these special rules and the rule is different, the one in the Codex takes precedence..."
If a USR is different use your Codex rules.

Okay Mr. RAW, now show me where in the rules it is stated that Codex always Trumps BRB.

[Hive Mind]

I believe you will find that the average BoLS player does not interpret the rulebook the way you are right now.


And nor should they. I don't do it this way myself when I'm playing. I'm well aware that I'm being 'beardy' or whatever you wish to label it.


Really? I give quotes from the rules and thats somehow RAI??


Your quotes are obviously RAW for the rules they correspond to. Attempting to apply them to another, totally different, scenario makes it RAI.



Okay Mr. RAW, now show me where in the rules it is stated that Codex always Trumps BRB.

Mr. RAW? Just totally ignoring the numerous times I've said that I wouldn't do this in a game and am in fact simply proving a point here?

Every GW 40k publication mentions, several times usually, that in event of a conflict the Codex rules take precedence. The Rulebook, FAQs, whatever. They all say it. Repeated instances makes precedent. Two isolated examples among many does not.

Seriously now. I'm bored as hell with this. If you must post more questions or wish to push your RAI some more could you save me the effort of typing out a response and just quote one of the many posts where I've already answered you? I've covered all the bases and I'm tired of repeating myself ad nauseum.

[Tynskel]

I win!

[Morgan Darkstar]

I win!

No, no you don't!

[Tynskel]

No, no you don't!

I win Internets!

[Morgan Darkstar]

I win Internets!

you fail internets! Mwahahahaha :D

[Fellend]

Drop it already, he admits in every post that he doesn't play this way, he ignores every counter argument and repeats "I don't think it is that way because if I twist the words often enough it fits what I want to make my argument"
Infact since it all started all he does is saying "this is not RAW"
STOP... FEEDING...THE...TROLL!

[SeattleDV8]

Your quotes are obviously RAW for the rules they correspond to. Attempting to apply them to another, totally different, scenario makes it RAI.
You're funny.



Mr. RAW? Just totally ignoring the numerous times I've said that I wouldn't do this in a game and am in fact simply proving a point here?
Which you still haven't proven, you're the one claiming RAW, show us, prove it.


Every GW 40k publication mentions, several times usually, that in event of a conflict the Codex rules take precedence. The Rulebook, FAQs, whatever. They all say it. Repeated instances makes precedent. Two isolated examples among many does not.
Really? are you sure, well then show us where, actual quotes.
It's going to be tough as those are the only places I know of in the BRB (There may be one more)


Seriously now. I'm bored as hell with this. If you must post more questions or wish to push your RAI some more could you save me the effort of typing out a response and just quote one of the many posts where I've already answered you? I've covered all the bases and I'm tired of repeating myself ad nauseum.

Why ask more when you cannot prove your view is RAW, you know Rules As Written.
I think it's clear who is pushing his RAI.

[Tynskel]

you fail internets! Mwahahahaha :D

I win epic fail internets!

[DarkLink]

Do you want a cookie for that;)

[wkz]

Yeah, you'd have a point if GW hadn't said over and over and over again that where Codex rules clash with Rulebook rules the Codex rules take precedence. Since the Codex rules for Orders and Like the Wind clash with the Rulebook rules they take precedence until GW says they don't.

Which would be A-OK if it couldn't be issued to a unit locked in an assault. Since the Codex rules say that a unit in an assault can shoot and move they take precedence. According to RAW. It doesn't say that they can shoot and move if they are able to and it doesn't say that it's ineffective if issued to a unit in an assault. Ergo, there's no basis in the RAW to support a claim that Like the Wind is simply wasted if issued to a unit in combat.

When/if GW FAQ this I'll happily concede that RAW say you can't use Like the Wind to make a shooting attack in an assault. Until that point if you use strict RAW then you can. By using Like the Wind to make a shooting attack in an assault I'm following the rules, not breaking them.

Your point would only be relevant if I were simply pulling Codex rules taking precedence out of my derriere. Since I am not, it doesn't apply.

And I've said again and again HOW the Codex rules clash with the Rulebook rules (out of phase movement, "run" and shoot in the same shooting phase), BUT does not prevent or circumvent the actual rule that is in effect from the Rulebook rules (unable to move or shoot in CC).

You're ignoring that fact again and again: you have to take the rules as a WHOLE, both from the codex and the rulebook. Our dear Captain's orders does allow shooting attacks, but does not have wording to work around the CC restriction for shooting. Our dear Captain's orders does allow D6 movement too, but does not have wording to work around the CC restriction for movement.

Thus: No movement and shooting allowed. Stop ignoring this facet of this rules.


Again, I wouldn't play this way. I wouldn't try to use Like the Wind to shoot and move in an assault even though the RAW says I can. It produces an absurd result therefore I'd use RAI. I'm only here posting because of the utter hypocrisy of someone saying that RAI is just WAAC cheating and then passing off their RAI as the RAW mere moments later.

And once more, it's not personal. I just despise hypocrisy.

I'm really bored with this now. I'm just repeating myself over and over. I've made my point. One last time; I wouldn't play like this. I wouldn't use Like the Wind to try to shoot in an assault even though, if you think about it, it makes sense that a squad with several melta/plasmaguns would just shoot the dreadnought instead of pounding on it with their fists. I'm only arguing what I am because of the hypocrisy and because I like arguing I suppose, though this has gotten tedious now.

Then please stop trying to force an idea down our collective throats to see us "RAW" types squirm. If I really wanted to be a hypocrite myself, I can personally think of 3 RAI-based rules right now that is "blatantly groan-inducingly wrong" if I so wish JUST to see you RAI types squirm, and if I think hard enough I should easily be able to produce more

But seriously now: its too easy to do so with GW's ruleset to go both ways (anti-RAW or anti-RAI), especially if we "conveniently exclude/emphasize a few things". There's a reason why douches are called douches, and why the community in general can "play friendly".

To be honest, with your loud proclamations that you're standing in the RAI side of things, YET blatantly ignoring chunks of RAW rules to push a "RAW is a WAAC cheating" agenda... From my point of view you have just re-enforced the "RAI is just WAAC cheating" stereotype right now, and I cannot see your BOLS handle without automatically thinking "RAI stubbon bast**d, NEVER trust him when it comes to rules...".

I bet a few readers of the BOLS forums are thinking the same too.

(there is only one other person in here which I have that viewpoint.... and even I think he's a lot less worse only because he truly believes in his ruleset, instead of "corrupting for corruption's sake, to prove hypocrisy by using hypocrisy")

How's that for ironic hypocrisy, Mr Hive Mind.

Stop being a douche for douche's sake.



Your case would be much stronger if the two quotes you insist on repeating actually said what you want them to instead of being just another example of RAI being passed off as RAW.
RAI is useful, there's no denying that fact. But you're making a really poor case of it right now: Technically you're forcing your RAI down our throats, as your argument is technically not RAW: True RAW takes all the rules and examine it before making a judgement. You're not.

Your "mission" has just made RAI players, and RAI in general, look extremely bad. I repeat: You're making all RAI players look like "a collection of douches" a lot more than they are/should. Bravo.

I'll stop here now. There's no need to feed the troll any further.




...
'Like the Wind' phrasing, from one RAW point of view, is specifically targeting the rules for Run/Shoot. Therefore, 'Like the Wind' only applies to Run/Shoot.
'Like the Wind' phrasing, from another RAW point of view, is a rule that applies to all situations, because of the order system. Therefore, 'Like the Wind' applies to any situation.

Hive Mind is defining his 'system' to be the framework of the 'orders rules'.
Others define their system by 'the most similar rule from the rulebook'.
This is a dangerous interpretation, Mr T. "Rules are rules, and all the rules apply" is what I would like to say. Ultimately, the order system is using modifications, but ultimately it still follows the rulebook rules other than what it breaks.

For example: "First rank, second rank Fire!!" order? It uses as its base shooting rules, but it breaks the shooting rules by adding a "+1" profile to the weapons being shot.

The "Run run run!!" Order? It uses as its base "Run" rules, but it breaks the run rules by the number of dice it can throw

BUT: shooting attacks are still shooting attacks: "First rank, second rank Fire!!" does not allow shooting for units that are not in LOS. "Run run run!!" is still a run" it does not allow units to run out of close combat.

Are we allowed to "Run run run!!" units out of close combat, because the codex says so? Are we allowed to "First rank, second rank Fire!!" hidden targets, because the codex says so? Why is our dear Captain's "Swift as the Wind" any different??

Edit:


I win epic fail internets!
Here, have a cookie.

[Paul]

I lost track on Page 4, but here goes.

1) Order can be issued to unit in CC.
2) Order is passed successfully.
3) Can unit shoot? Not by BRB, Yes by Codex.
4) Codex > BRB in event of conflict.
Unit can shoot.

5) Can unit move 1d6? Not by BRB, yes by Codex.
6) Codex > BRB in event of conflict.
Unit can move 1d6.

7) Is unit in combat?
8) BRB: (paraphrase) units must have at least 1 model in b2b to fight in the assault phase.
Unit is not in combat.

Relevant notes:
the 1d6" movement is NOT considered a Run move and your are compelled to do it if you give the order, no questions asked.

The way I think about it:
If you have to choose between breaking a BRB rule or your Codex rule, break the BRB rule because the Codex rule takes precedence. You are not allowed to NOT do Rahem's 1d6" move if the order is given. Therefore, to avoid breaking Codex rules, you have to break BRB rules instead normally not allowing you to move away from combat.

[Hive Mind]

I lost track on Page 4, but here goes.

1) Order can be issued to unit in CC.
2) Order is passed successfully.
3) Can unit shoot? Not by BRB, Yes by Codex.
4) Codex > BRB in event of conflict.
Unit can shoot.

5) Can unit move 1d6? Not by BRB, yes by Codex.
6) Codex > BRB in event of conflict.
Unit can move 1d6.

7) Is unit in combat?
8) BRB: (paraphrase) units must have at least 1 model in b2b to fight in the assault phase.
Unit is not in combat.

Relevant notes:
the 1d6" movement is NOT considered a Run move and your are compelled to do it if you give the order, no questions asked.

The way I think about it:
If you have to choose between breaking a BRB rule or your Codex rule, break the BRB rule because the Codex rule takes precedence. You are not allowed to NOT do Rahem's 1d6" move if the order is given. Therefore, to avoid breaking Codex rules, you have to break BRB rules instead normally not allowing you to move away from combat.

If I were you I'd save my keyboard springs the effort. No matter how many times you walk them thru it they won't listen.

And when they don't have an answer, they'll just repeat the same old nonsense that you've answered already, then they'll call you a troll and then they'll call you a douche. Because Internet Tough Guys apparently exist on forums dedicated to toy soldiers too and you're never too old to call someone who has tried extremely hard to be perfectly civil childish names.

But alas, you probably shouldn't listen to me. I have disgraced myself.

[wkz]

Since you've lost track, I'll give you my version in points form:

1) Order can be issued to unit in CC.
2) Order is passed successfully.
3) Unit gets to make a free shooting attack.
3-1) Can any and all units shoot in CC? Order does not say. Rulebook says No.
4) Codex > BRB in event of conflict, but there is no conflict.
Unit cannot shoot.

5) Unit gets to make a free move, 1d6.
5-1) Can any and all units move in CC? Order does not say. Rulebook says No.
6) Codex > BRB in event of conflict, but there is no conflict.
Unit does not move 1d6.

7) Is unit in combat?
8) BRB: (paraphrase) units must have at least 1 model in b2b to fight in the assault phase.
Unit did not move, thus still in BtB. Unit is still in combat.
(yes, this two are truth if the unit gets to move in the first place)

Relevant notes:
the 1d6" movement is NOT considered a Run move, but is considered under the superclass MOVE, with no lifting of the restrictions shackled on you due to CC. Your are compelled to do it if you give the order, no questions asked, but you're stuck there due to that close combat.

The way I think about it:
If you have to choose between breaking a BRB rule or your Codex rule, start by examining every single rule that comes into contact, and determine which rule exactly the Codex is breaking. Yes, our good Captain's order does break certain rules, but ultimately his order does not break the CORE movement and shooting rules.

Thus, the core rules for movement and shooting still work the same, including any additional shackles such as CC's restriction on movement and shooting.



If I were you I'd save my keyboard springs the effort. No matter how many times you walk them thru it they won't listen.

And when they don't have an answer, they'll just repeat the same old nonsense that you've answered already, then they'll call you a troll and then they'll call you a douche. Because Internet Tough Guys apparently exist on forums dedicated to toy soldiers too and you're never too old to call someone who has tried extremely hard to be perfectly civil childish names.

But alas, you probably shouldn't listen to me. I have disgraced myself.
*looks back at 8 pages of dodging questions and repetition of the same thing despite evidence to the contrary, in order to prove RAW people are douches and thus "yours truly" is an avatar of righteousness and a true internet tough guy.*
right...

Oh, and about repeating the same answer, here's an example of this logical fallacy:
What is 1+1: 2.
What is 1+1: 2.
What is 1+1: 2.
What is 1+1: 2.
What is 1+1: 2.
What is 1+1: 2.
What is 1+1: 2.
STOP GIVING THE SAME ANSWER!!
(was waiting for "3"?)

Oh wait, I did say to stop feeding the troll... ****e.

[Hive Mind]

My favourite bit is when the Codex tells you to do something that the Rulebook says you can't but there's no conflict between them. That bit's classic.

It's the way you tell 'em.

[wkz]

My favourite bit is when the Codex tells you to do something that the Rulebook says you can't but there's no conflict between them. That bit's classic.

It's the way you tell 'em.My favourite bit is when the Codex does not unshackle the rulebook's "you can't", but you keep saying you can. That bit's classic.

By your logic, "First rank, Second Rank" and "Bring down my target" will allow you to shoot out of CC, and "Run Run Run" allows you to run out of CC. But that's how ridiculous RAW is supposed to be, correct?

[Paul]

Since you've lost track, I'll give you my version in points form:

1) Order can be issued to unit in CC.
2) Order is passed successfully.
3) Unit gets to make a free shooting attack.
3-1) Can any and all units shoot in CC? Order does not say. Order says you must, emphasis on must.Rulebook says No.Therefore, there is a conflict between "must shoot" and "Cannot shoot" which is resolved in favor of the codex.
4) Codex > BRB in event of conflict, but there is no conflict.Except the one I showed you above.
Unit shoots.

5) Unit gets to make a free move, 1d6.
5-1) Can any and all units move in CC? Order does not sayOrder says the Unit must move.. Rulebook says NoExcept that you totally can, see "Pile In Moves."6) Codex > BRB in event of conflict, but there is no conflict.You're right, you can move in assault.
Unit does move 1d6.

7) Is unit in combat?
8) BRB: (paraphrase) units must have at least 1 model in b2b to fight in the assault phase.
Unit did not move, thus still in BtB. Unit is still in combat.
(yes, this two are truth if the unit gets to move in the first place)

Relevant notes:
the 1d6" movement is NOT considered a Run move, but is considered under the superclass MOVE, with no lifting of the restrictions shackled on you due to CC. You can move in CC, see "pile in moves" and "charge reaction" Your are compelled to do it if you give the order, no questions asked, but you're stuck there due to that close combat. No, you're not.

The way I think about it:
If you have to choose between breaking a BRB rule or your Codex rule, start by examining every single rule that comes into contact, and determine which rule exactly the Codex is breaking. Yes, our good Captain's order does break certain rules, but ultimately his order does not break the CORE movement and shooting rules. Why not? Seems like they do to me.

Thus, the core rules for movement and shooting still work the same, including any additional shackles such as CC's restriction on movement and shooting.Not in the event of conflict they don't.


My favourite bit is when the Codex does not unshackle the rulebook's "you can't", but you keep saying you can. That bit's classic.

By your logic, "First rank, Second Rank" and "Bring down my target" will allow you to shoot out of CC, yes, they do. and "Run Run Run" allows you to run out of CCNo, because you specifically cannot "Run" in CQB. You may MOVE, but you may not RUN.. But that's how ridiculous RAW is supposed to be, correct?Yeah, RAW is a *****. But so are double standards.

Edits in red.

[SeattleDV8]

I though you were bored Hivemind....heh
Now try to answer my questions, no more dodging.

Paul: you claim the order says 'must' , it doesn't
"If the order is sucessfully issued, the ordered unit immediately makes a shooting attack (it may not run). When this has been resolved, the unit immediately moves D6" in a direction of your choice."
There is nothing in this rule that allows you to shoot when locked in CC.
There is no 'must' anywhere in the order.

[wkz]

Since you've lost track, I'll give you my version in points form:

1) Order can be issued to unit in CC.
2) Order is passed successfully.
3) Unit gets to make a free shooting attack.
3-1) Can any and all units shoot in CC? Order does not say. Order says you must, emphasis on must.There are a LOT of "Must" rules that are overruled by other rules. I do believe this is one of them.. but I'll give it to you, Must does sound definitive, especially when it Must be done in the codex vs rulebook. Rulebook says No. Therefore, there is a conflict between "must shoot" and "Cannot shoot" which is resolved in favor of the codex.IMO there is only a conflict of "shooting attack". A shooting attack is a shooting attack, and follows all the rules for shooting attacks, include that little rule that says you cannot shoot in CC.
4) Codex > BRB in event of conflict, but there is no conflict.Except the one I showed you above.Explained above.
Unit cannot shoot.

5) Unit gets to make a free move, 1d6.
5-1) Can any and all units move in CC? Order does not say. Order says the Unit must move.. Again, as above.Rulebook says No.Except that you totally can, see "Pile In Moves.""Pile In Moves" is a rule which prohibit ALL movement EXCEPT FOR the special "moving into base contact with the enemy" pile in move.
6) Codex > BRB in event of conflict, but there is no conflict. You're right, you can move in assault.If you're moving by using Pile in moves, then yes.
Unit does not move 1d6.

7) Is unit in combat?
8) BRB: (paraphrase) units must have at least 1 model in b2b to fight in the assault phase.
Unit did not move, thus still in BtB. Unit is still in combat.
(yes, this two are truth if the unit gets to move in the first place)

Relevant notes:
the 1d6" movement is NOT considered a Run move, but is considered under the superclass MOVE, with no lifting of the restrictions shackled on you due to CC. You can move in CC, see "pile in moves" and "charge reaction" But only in the case of Pile-in moves. Our dear Captain's orders are not specifically listed as a pile-in move.Your are compelled to do it if you give the order, no questions asked, but you're stuck there due to that close combat. No, you're not.IMO, yes you are.

The way I think about it:
If you have to choose between breaking a BRB rule or your Codex rule, start by examining every single rule that comes into contact, and determine which rule exactly the Codex is breaking. Yes, our good Captain's order does break certain rules, but ultimately his order does not break the CORE movement and shooting rules. Why not? Seems like they do to me.Hmmm... how to explain it better... ... see below

Thus, the core rules for movement and shooting still work the same, including any additional shackles such as CC's restriction on movement and shooting.Not in the event of conflict they don't.Here's the point: IMO they don't conflict




My favourite bit is when the Codex does not unshackle the rulebook's "you can't", but you keep saying you can. That bit's classic.

By your logic, "First rank, Second Rank" and "Bring down my target" will allow you to shoot out of CC yes, they do. And I say no you can't, and "Run Run Run" allows you to run out of CC No, because you specifically cannot "Run" in CQB. You may MOVE, but you may not RUN.. ... ... run is a form of move. And where specifically says running is disallowed?. But that's how ridiculous RAW is supposed to be, correct? Yeah, RAW is a *****. But so are double standards.I fear this statement can also be applied to your statements :(
My responses in blue...
...
And can you please don't quote-color answer this? Its surprisingly tough to respond to your post.


Let me repeat my position: The part we both agree we are disagreeing on is the fact inside these core rules there's a subclause called "Close combat", and it is playing merry hell with the Orders as they are. So does the Orders allow the IG units to do otherwise impossible stuff such as running out of close combat?


My stance, and why I disagree with your stance is because ultimately all the Orders are using the core rules to do their job for them. "Use a shooting attack", "Run, but with 3D6, pick highest", "fire 3 shots", "move D6", etc. It does not say HOW to shoot, run or move, it let the codex explain how to do so.

For example, "First rank fire, second rank fire!!" says: Choose a target, unit immediately "fire 3 shots" (or 2, but I digress). It does not include the pages upon pages of information regarding the shooting phase, including: Who can you shoot. How to roll BS. How to allocate wounds. What is cover. Etc, etc, etc...

So, if there is a rule inside "Shoot" that says "you cannot shoot" (due to lack of LOS, or due to unit being in Close Combat). what happens? My opinion: you just simply CAN'T.

This is not a case of Codex > Rulebook. This is the case of Codex using the Rulebook to do its talking for it, and the Rulebook saying "No, you can't".

Similarly, MOVE D6 (which started this whole mess), is under the movement rules: you still have to follow the rules for moving through enemy models, difficult dangerous and impassable terrain, various movement distances due to unit types, and movement in close combat. (which, due to the "Pile in" rules consist of ONLY "move into BtB or closer to the enemy, or you don't move")

All rules apply, all the time. You cannot ignore DT rolls during movement now, can you? Your Rough Riders is still affected by Fleet now, arn't they? Why then should double standards be applied to the "Movement in Close Combat" rule? That rule, as with every other, should, would and must apply. Unless overwritten of course, but the Codex did not overwrite CC rules with "can move even if unit is in close combat".

All the codex did ending up saying is "Move", basically asking the rulebook to fill in the blanks... and due to CC rules the end result is "No Movement."


tl;dr:

This is not a case of Codex > Rulebook. This is the case of Codex using the Rulebook to do its talking for it, and the Rulebook saying "No, you can't"... and the codex going nyron~~~ :(.

[SeattleDV8]

Well stated WKZ

[Paul]

Alright. I don't use Al'Rahem or orders anyways being the Forge World Armored Battlegroup.

I actually was extremely surprised to learn that orders were allowed to be Issued into CQB at all, so there you have it.

Good job boys, you've won me over. :P

[dannyat2460]

Any more questions as i think WKZ just laid this baby to rest