Bladestorm and Overwatch

[Feste]

They can't fire, because they're reloading. This persists until at least after their own next Shooting phase because that's what it says. Otherwise, Bladestorm actually has no detriment to it.

 

In fact it says though,

 

they may not fire in the subsequent shooting phase as they reload.

 

Which you're taking to mean that they fire in their shooting phase, reload during the opposing player's turn and their next shooting phase and are then finished. However that quote can also be taken to mean that they reload in solely in their next shooting phase.

 

Which in fact is the only thing that it can mean. Previously there was no reason to ask what they where doing in the opponent's turn as they were literally doing nothing, this game has no concept of simultaneity and certainly no stated linear time frame.

[Aidoneus]

Thade, please don't get upset with us for reading what the rules say literally. Perhaps you're happier playing according to how you think it's meant to work, or how you imagine it in terms of fluff or cinematics, in which case, go for it! But this is the official rules forum, so don't be surprised when we carefully consider the implication of the official rules. :D

 

In this case, the rule says "the subsequent shooting phase." It does not say "their subsequent shooting phase" or "until after their their subsequent shooting phase." It's a clearly-written rule. Do I think that's what GW intended? Of course not! But then they should write better rules, which is something I think we can all agree on. In the meantime, Bystrom is entirely correct. Bladestorm only ever denies you shots when you use it during Overwatch, because that's the only time you would even have the choice to fire in "the subsequent shooting phase."

 

That is the official rule we have been given by GW.

[thade]

I like how I'm getting lectured here much in the way I used to come down on people in the same way when I first got here. It's like my penance crusade, I guess.

 

You are highlighting here one of MANY examples as to why 40K is poorly suited for competitive play; by competitive play I mean "You pay $X and win some prize" for which you'd hope you had a fair chance with a solid rule-set. The rule-set is not solid; it just isn't. Anybody who's placed the game for longer than a few months should be well aware of that fact. :D When you spend so much time digging around verbiage and subtle nuances in the text trying to wring out some meaning, you're probably wasting time. If you are looking for WAAC-support, you are definitely wasting time.

 

The rules say you can't shoot because you're "reloading". I'm sorry that's too ambiguous for you, but no amount of twisting the definition of "turn" is going to change that. If the Eldar can't fire in their subsequent phase because they're "reloading" why can they suddenly fire beforehand? Rules lawyering? I'm sorry, but I think that's unfair to anybody you might play the game against.

 

The more word-level/legal-style analysis you need to visit upon a rule, the less and less correct you are about it; this is true in general for this game. No amount of underlining, bold-facing, or ad hominem slander against me will change that fact. Rolling into a game with this kind of approach can make for an uncomfortable atmosphere. In the very least, talk it out with your opponent before saying "BTW I am totally going to lawyer you to death right now."

[dswanick]

Ok, here's the deal :

RAW - I think it's safe to conclude that, by RAW:

- an Eldar player can Bladestorm during his shooting phase. Consequently he can not shoot during his opponent's shooting phase because "they're reloading".

- an Eldar player can then Bladestorm again during his opponent's Assault phase Overwatch shots. If he does so he is giving up shooting in his own shooting phase.

RAI - I think it's safe to conclude that:

- an Eldar player can Bladestorm during his shooting phase. He should then give up his next shooting phase.

RAI - It's probably adviseable for an Eldar player to consult his opponent before planning on:

- Bladestorming in his shooting phase, and counting his opponent's shooting phase as "the next shooting phase".

- Bladestorming in his opponent's assault phase Overwatch.

 

Full disclosure - I do not play Eldar. I own an Eldar army which my wife (or my children when they get old enough) may play. I do not want to be on the receiving end of my RAW interpretation. I have no problem being on the receiving end of my RAI intrerpretation. If I'm in a tournament, I don't expect much sympathy if I do find myself on the receiving end of RAW.

[Feste]

Sorry Thade, but I don't think that you need to go throwing around terms like rules-lawyering. We're all trying to figure out a good and solid consensus on what a balanced and reasonable interpretation of 4th edition rules in a 6th edition world looks like. I'm also sorry if you feel that I'm in part lecturing you, there's certainly no intention to do so. :)

 

The problem is that RAW is particularly unhelpful, while RAI is almost impossible to divine as there's absolutely no way they had intentions regarding Overwatch at the time the Bladestorm rules where written.

 

This might touch on something you've discussed a lot elsewhere, but part of my issue with saying that they're reloading throughout the opponents turn is that this implies some weird linear time frame. I've always assumed some overlap in turns and that what you're seeing is a broken down representation of actions that are happening at the same time.

[Feste]

dswanick, I'm in much the same boat as you. My girlfriend runs Eldar and I really don't want to have to assault them with 30 Orks (more like 20 after the Avengers are through with them) and they're shooting 30 overwatch shots at their full BS thanks to Eldar psychic shenanigans.

[pingo]

Wow. This got more heated than I imagined!

 

I think we need to forget about the whole bit about 'reloading'. This is basically just fluff to provide a narrative reason why the Dire Avengers can't fire in the next shooting phase. GW could have just as easily said they were too busy admiring their wonderful marksmanship, or having a well-deserved cup of coffee and it would have no bearing on the rule. GW throw fluffy narrative hooks into their rules all the time. We need to sift these out and focus on what they are directing the player to do in the game.

 

RAW - I think it's safe to conclude that, by RAW:

- an Eldar player can Bladestorm during his shooting phase. Consequently he can not shoot during his opponent's shooting phase because "they're reloading".

- an Eldar player can then Bladestorm again during his opponent's Assault phase Overwatch shots. If he does so he is giving up shooting in his own shooting phase.

 

I'm confused here. Since when do we read the term 'turn' as 'maybe player turn, maybe game turn, depending on interpretation'?

 

Bladestorm: The Dire Avengers empty their weapons in a devastating hurricane of bladed discs. The Exarch and his squad may choose to add one to the number of shots they each fire with their shuriken weapons that turn. If they do so they may not fire in the subsequent shooting phase as they reload.

 

Emphasis mine.

 

Firstly, 'turn' only ever means 'player turn' and never, ever, means 'game turn'.

 

'That turn' can only mean the player turn in which Bladestorm is cast. If not, then what turn?

 

Bladestorm (unless I am wrong, in which case throw things at me) is cast in the Eldar player's player turn.

 

Bladestorm effects shooting only in the player turn it is cast.

 

So I just don't get how the Eldar player can add one to the number of shots fired during overwatch, an action that is not performed in the Eldar player's player turn.

 

I admit, I know precious little about the Eldar codex so I may be missing something here.

 

---

 

As an addendum, I just want to point out that I totally get RAI and it is extremely important. Especially if you just want a fun and friendly game. I just figured this was an interesting point to RAWisfy.

 

However, applying RAW can serve several important functions:

 

1) helps us determine the intent of the games developers where this is not apparent

2) helps players reach a mutually agreeable course of action if they are keen to follow the rules as best they can

3) helps us better learn and understand the rules

4) forces us to read the rules properly and critically

5) it can be interesting and entertaining as an intellectual exercise

 

RAW isn't a dirty word. And it need not be set against RAI. Both are important to the game.

[thade]

I'm also sorry if you feel that I'm in part lecturing you, there's certainly no intention to do so. :)

No real offense taken; don't worry about it. We all take the gloves off at times in here.

 

The problem is that RAW is particularly unhelpful, while RAI is almost impossible to divine

(Emphasis mine.)

 

This is a common misconception I'd like to touch on briefly; RAI is actually rather easy to come up with, as I've seen us reach concensus on RAI much more quickly than RAW at times. When a rule really seems confusing, RAI has proven very useful at airing it out, time and time again.

 

This might touch on something you've discussed a lot elsewhere, but part of my issue with saying that they're reloading throughout the opponents turn is that this implies some weird linear time frame. I've always assumed some overlap in turns and that what you're seeing is a broken down representation of actions that are happening at the same time.

The most granularity we have for time frame (eschewing "initiative passes" in the assault phase) are the phases themselves and the turns. Since this "reloading" state persists for two player turns (long enough to forbid the Space Elves from firing again in their next Shooting phase) it still seems clear to me (and others here) that it's outside of the rules for them to fire. Justifying otherwise is kinda cheeky.

[dswanick]

Bladestorm: The Dire Avengers empty their weapons in a devastating hurricane of bladed discs. The Exarch and his squad may choose to add one to the number of shots they each fire with their shuriken weapons that turn. If they do so they may not fire in the subsequent shooting phase as they reload.

 

Emphasis mine.

 

Firstly, 'turn' only ever means 'player turn' and never, ever, means 'game turn'.

 

'That turn' can only mean the player turn in which Bladestorm is cast. If not, then what turn?

By RASW - you are correct, turn only ever means "player turn", so "that turn" only every means "the player turn in which it is used".

But where do you get the idea that Bladestorm has some prohibition that it can only be used in the Eldar player's turn? That's not specified anywhere in the rule quoted. So, unless you can quote something which limits Bladestorm usage to the Eldar player's turn, it can be used in either player's turn - in which case it can be used in the opponent's turn when making Overwatch shots.

[Feste]

The initial problem is that the rules say nothing about when they can use their power, just that it's in a turn. As such, you've almost got to assume by your own logic that it's each player turn.

 

As a parallel contemporary example, Force weapons and Warp Charge don't specifically mention anything about whether a psyker can use and generate them in his or his opponents turn. However, assuming the status quo, we know that the BRB refers to generating warp charge in 'at the start of each turn' and means each and every player turn.

 

By that same logic, Dire Avengers could use Bladestorm in the opponents turn, and because the rule only mentions them being unable to fire in the subsequent shooting phase, would suggest they can Bladestorm in back-to-back Shooting and Assault phases.

[thade]

By RASW...

What?! Another acronym?! What is it?!?! Aaaahhhhhh!!!!!

[pingo]

But where do you get the idea that Bladestorm has some prohibition that it can only be used in the Eldar player's turn? That's not specified anywhere in the rule quoted. So, unless you can quote something which limits Bladestorm usage to the Eldar player's turn, it can be used in either player's turn - in which case it can be used in the opponent's turn when making Overwatch shots.

This was kind of exactly my point. If that is permissible, sure, why not. If you can cast bladestorm in the opponent's player turn, then of course you can bladestorm during overwatch.

 

Sounds dubious to me though, though I won't judge you wrong without evidence. There are really no rules telling Eldar players when to cast powers?

[thade]

The initial problem is that the rules say nothing about when they can use their power, just that it's in a turn. As such, you've almost got to assume by your own logic that it's each player turn.

Look at you, using some reasonable RAI. :) See? It's not so bad.

 

By that same logic, Dire Avengers could use Bladestorm in the opponents turn, and because the rule only mentions them being unable to fire in the subsequent shooting phase, would suggest they can Bladestorm in back-to-back Shooting and Assault phases.

Actually, it doesn't specify "their" subsequent shooting phase, right? It just says something about "the subsequent shooting phase". How do we know that it refers to the Shooting phase in which they could otherwise normally fire (instead of the other player's Shooting phase which is technically next).

 

That is what I'm on about. Sometimes we have to make simple assumptions to play this game; because you just know they see our posts on here and they think "What, are they daft? Of COURSE you can't use your S10 hammer at I10. Ye gods." (Well, that's how I picture them speaking, anyway.)

[Feste]

Rules As Sacrilegiously Worded?

[dswanick]

By RASW...

What?! Another acronym?! What is it?!?! Aaaahhhhhh!!!!!

Curses, typoed again.... :)

But where do you get the idea that Bladestorm has some prohibition that it can only be used in the Eldar player's turn? That's not specified anywhere in the rule quoted. So, unless you can quote something which limits Bladestorm usage to the Eldar player's turn, it can be used in either player's turn - in which case it can be used in the opponent's turn when making Overwatch shots.

This was kind of exactly my point. If that is permissible, sure, why not. If you can cast bladestorm in the opponent's player turn, then of course you can bladestorm during overwatch.

 

Sounds dubious to me though, though I won't judge you wrong without evidence. There are really no rules telling Eldar players when to cast powers?

Dubious? Sure. But WAAC usually is. Just pointing out all the angles.

[pingo]

Dubious? Sure. But WAAC usually is. Just pointing out all the angles.

Lol, I doubt I could be less WAAC. I'm just interested in the issue.

 

Just seems weird to me that Eldar players have no instruction when to cast powers. Perhaps this is just how it used to be and only now does it matter.

[Feste]

For my next trick I'll tell you what number you're thinking of. Hint: It's got complex, unreal components.

 

Thade, I agree that we have to make simple assumptions to ensure that the game is actually playable. The problem is that I guess we've got slightly dissimilar ideas of what is reasonable. For example, I see that a lot of the new psychic powers refer to them lasting until the end of the next turn. Which is pretty close to some of the definitions of Bladestorm's duration we've discussed.

[Legatus]

I see no problem with Dire Avengers generally being able to use Bladestorm when firing on overwatch. Whenever a unit is allowed to fire their weapons, they can put on Bladestorm, as far as I am concerned.

 

I just don't think they can do that after having just used it in their own previous shooting phase. And I also don't think they can fire on overwatch at all if they had just used Bladestorm, since their guns should be out of ammo at that point.

[pingo]

I see no problem with Dire Avengers generally being able to use Bladestorm when firing on overwatch. Whenever a unit is allowed to fire their weapons, they can put on Bladestorm, as far as I am concerned.

I guess we think of it like a 'firing mode' then. I can go with that.

 

I just don't think they can do that after having just used it in their own previous shooting phase. And I also don't think they can fire on overwatch at all if they had just used Bladestorm, since their guns should be out of ammo at that point.

I would tend to agree. This is how it should work.

 

I hope GW FAQ this as such. Makes for a more interesting rule and a tactical decision.

[Feste]

I like it. It reeks of the Xeno's fear and desperation as their doom bears down on them.

Well, as long as that cursed Farseer hasn't been playing with Fate anyway.

[Grey Mage]

RAW: You can fire overwatch after bladestorming AND Bladestorm again while doing it with no further repercussions. Its pretty darn ironclad.

 

RAI? I wont do it. Ive got thousands of points of eldar three feet from here and I wouldnt touch this tactic with a 10' measuring stick and loaded dice.

[thade]

<3

[dizzy-xc]

Has anyone considered the fact that using overwatch in 6th has weapons firing a lot faster now? Bolt guns get to rapid fire, then overwatch. Then rapid fire again. Thats a whole lotta ammo getting cooked off in a very short time now. Yet many of you still want to limit the eldar bladestorm use based off of old rules. Now, obviously there has to be some detriment to using overwatch bladestorm, or why include rules on reloading? so Im fine with it being RAW when you bladestorm on overwatch, you cant shoot in your following shooting phase. That's about it. Those short ranged shurikens just got a little more shooty imo.

[Grey Mage]

Has anyone considered the fact that using overwatch in 6th has weapons firing a lot faster now? Bolt guns get to rapid fire, then overwatch. Then rapid fire again. Thats a whole lotta ammo getting cooked off in a very short time now. Yet many of you still want to limit the eldar bladestorm use based off of old rules. Now, obviously there has to be some detriment to using overwatch bladestorm, or why include rules on reloading? so Im fine with it being RAW when you bladestorm on overwatch, you cant shoot in your following shooting phase. That's about it. Those short ranged shurikens just got a little more shooty imo.

Yes, theres nothing wrong with that.

 

BUT some Eldar players are stating you can bladestorm during your own shooting phase, then bladestorm again when assaulted via overwatch. That I take issue with.

[dswanick]

BUT some Eldar players are stating you can bladestorm during your own shooting phase, then bladestorm again when assaulted via overwatch. That I take issue with.

Unfortunately, that is the clearest part of this debate - by RAW, "a turn" has been clearly defined as "a player turn" and the Bladestorm rule is suffering from "4th Ed rule in a 6th Ed game" syndrome.

 

On a related note, this came to me in the "Signum v Snap Shots" thread :

The most interesting part of the GW response, for me, is this tidbit :

I got a response from my email to GW about this question, I'll quote it here,

 

> 3) If I use a signum to make a shooter BS5, does that override the snapfire

> restriction for firing a moving heavy weapon or shooting a flyer?

>

> Yes but it can only be used in the Shooting phase, not when being charged.

Now where in the text of the Signum does it say that it can only be used in the Shooting phase?

Signum

A model can use a signum in lieu of making a shooting attack of his own. If he does so, one model in his squad is Ballistic Skill 5 for the remainder of the Shooting phase. Declare that the signum is being used before any rolls to hit are made.

The "use a signum in lieu of making a shooting attack of his own" is the only limitation that I can see, but a Snap Shot in the opponent's Assault phase is still a shooting attack, is it not? So the Sergeant can make a Shooting attack (Overwatch) so should be able to give up that Shooting attack in order to give one of his guys a BS5 as well. If there is some additional prohibition or caveat in the rules which is preventing the Signum from being used in opponent's Assault phase - then this may have bearing on the "Bladestorm v Overwatch" debate here in the +OR+ :