Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Question regarding Auspex Scan


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
31 replies to this topic

#1
Thee85

Thee85

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 8 posts
  • Location:South Dakota
  • Faction: Probably Ultramarines?

Fellow battle brothers (and sisters),

 

A friend and I have recently started playing 40k, and as such it seems like we come up with a host of new rules questions everytime we play the game.  A few that came up during our recent game were related to the Auspex Scan strategem.  Our questions are as follows:

 

1.  If multiple units are being deployed from tactical reserves in the same turn, can the player using Auspex Scan pick which target to shoot at as long as all of them are within the range specified in the stratagem (12 inches I think)?

 

For example, in our game my opponent deployed a squad of raptors, a sorcerer in terminator armor, and a demon prince with with wings (we realized later that he couldn't deploy his prince this way, but that's another matter).  His contention was that I had to shoot the raptors, since they were deployed first, but to me the wording of the strategem doesn't support this line of thinking?  It seems like I should be able to shoot any of the 3 if all are deployed within 12 inches?

 

2.  My second question is in relation to drop pods:  If he deploys a unit in a drop pod, my understanding is that Auspex Scan can only be used to fire at the drop pod, not at the unit inside after it disembarks?   Is this correct?

 

3.  My last questions doesn't deal with Auspex Scan, but is related to the units disembarking from the pod.  If a unit of Grav Devestators disembarks from the pod, do their grav cannons get -1 to hit from moving?  We weren't sure about this.

 

Thanks in advance for any insight, we both appreciate it!



#2
sfPanzer

sfPanzer

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 18,951 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Faction: Knights of Baal, Dal'yth Sept

Fellow battle brothers (and sisters),

 

A friend and I have recently started playing 40k, and as such it seems like we come up with a host of new rules questions everytime we play the game.  A few that came up during our recent game were related to the Auspex Scan strategem.  Our questions are as follows:

 

1.  If multiple units are being deployed from tactical reserves in the same turn, can the player using Auspex Scan pick which target to shoot at as long as all of them are within the range specified in the stratagem (12 inches I think)?

 

For example, in our game my opponent deployed a squad of raptors, a sorcerer in terminator armor, and a demon prince with with wings (we realized later that he couldn't deploy his prince this way, but that's another matter).  His contention was that I had to shoot the raptors, since they were deployed first, but to me the wording of the strategem doesn't support this line of thinking?  It seems like I should be able to shoot any of the 3 if all are deployed within 12 inches?

 

2.  My second question is in relation to drop pods:  If he deploys a unit in a drop pod, my understanding is that Auspex Scan can only be used to fire at the drop pod, not at the unit inside after it disembarks?   Is this correct?

 

3.  My last questions doesn't deal with Auspex Scan, but is related to the units disembarking from the pod.  If a unit of Grav Devestators disembarks from the pod, do their grav cannons get -1 to hit from moving?  We weren't sure about this.

 

Thanks in advance for any insight, we both appreciate it!

 

1. You deploy one unit after another. After each you can decide to use the Auspex Scan Stratagem or not. If you decide not to use it against the Raptors when they get deployed then you can't go back to them anymore etc.

 

2. It's in the FAQs. Auspex Scan would target the Drop Pod but not the unit disembarking from it.

 

3. Yes they'd get -1 to-hit for shooting with heavy weapons after moving.


Also welcome to the hobby. ;)


Disclaimer:

If my posts appear rude to you, I apologize. It's not meant to be rude in any way, it's just the way folks are in my country. It's really more about being direct than being rude. I know how it's perceived in the english speaking community and I already try to tone it down but I barely notice when it's too much since it's normal for me.


So yeah, I'm really not rude it's basically just cultural differences that act against me here. Again, I apologize.

gallery_62972_10568_7658.jpgbFk9acX.pnggallery_62972_14467_40478.pnggallery_62972_14467_3819.jpggallery_62972_10568_4118.jpg


#3
Tyriks

Tyriks

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 3,047 posts
  • Location:Ohio
I agree with the above - the player setting up units chooses to do so one unit at a time, and the other player has the option to use Auspex Scan after each unit is set up (max once per phase in matched play). So if your opponent sets up raptors and you save Auspex Scan for terminators, but he then decides not to set up his terminators this turn, you don't get to use Auspex Scan on the raptors, but he also can't force you to use it on any individual unit.

#4
Thee85

Thee85

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 8 posts
  • Location:South Dakota
  • Faction: Probably Ultramarines?

Thanks for the input guys, I really appreciate it!



#5
Wassa

Wassa

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 542 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Faction: Astra Militarum, Blood Angels
Slightly related...

Infiltrators prevent deep strike within 12”.
Can drop pods deep strike 12” away, and then the units disembark 3”. Can these then disembark 9” away from the infiltrators as it’s a disembark rather than a deep strike?

gallery_30308_9518_8251.png


#6
Tyriks

Tyriks

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 3,047 posts
  • Location:Ohio
Correct.

#7
dode74

dode74

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 76 posts

I'm going to disagree on the Auspex Scan answer.  Here's the text:

 

 

Use this Stratagem after your opponent sets up a unit on the

battlefield within 12" of any ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY
units from your army. Select one of those units from your
army to shoot at that enemy unit as if it were your Shooting
phase; when resolving these attacks, subtract 1 from hit rolls.

 

Note that it does not state "immediately after".  This suggests you can wait until all units are set up then choose to use the strat, selecting as a target any qualifying unit, i.e. any unit which is set up on the battlefield within 12" of an ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY unit.



#8
sfPanzer

sfPanzer

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 18,951 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Faction: Knights of Baal, Dal'yth Sept

I'm going to disagree on the Auspex Scan answer.  Here's the text:

 

 

Use this Stratagem after your opponent sets up a unit on the

battlefield within 12" of any ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY
units from your army. Select one of those units from your
army to shoot at that enemy unit as if it were your Shooting
phase; when resolving these attacks, subtract 1 from hit rolls.

 

Note that it does not state "immediately after".  This suggests you can wait until all units are set up then choose to use the strat, selecting as a target any qualifying unit, i.e. any unit which is set up on the battlefield within 12" of an ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY unit.

 

If we go with that definition then you could theoretically use Auspex Scan in turn 6 for a unit that got deployed turn 2. That's obviously ridiculous, so the only possible meaning can be after as in immediately after.


Disclaimer:

If my posts appear rude to you, I apologize. It's not meant to be rude in any way, it's just the way folks are in my country. It's really more about being direct than being rude. I know how it's perceived in the english speaking community and I already try to tone it down but I barely notice when it's too much since it's normal for me.


So yeah, I'm really not rude it's basically just cultural differences that act against me here. Again, I apologize.

gallery_62972_10568_7658.jpgbFk9acX.pnggallery_62972_14467_40478.pnggallery_62972_14467_3819.jpggallery_62972_10568_4118.jpg


#9
dode74

dode74

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 76 posts
False dilemma. You're right insofar as the RAW allows what you describe, and that is ridiculous, but it is also reasonable to suggest that it is limited to units deployed during that movement phase.

#10
sfPanzer

sfPanzer

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 18,951 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Faction: Knights of Baal, Dal'yth Sept

Good luck trying to use that kind of argumentation in real games or even on tournaments.


Disclaimer:

If my posts appear rude to you, I apologize. It's not meant to be rude in any way, it's just the way folks are in my country. It's really more about being direct than being rude. I know how it's perceived in the english speaking community and I already try to tone it down but I barely notice when it's too much since it's normal for me.


So yeah, I'm really not rude it's basically just cultural differences that act against me here. Again, I apologize.

gallery_62972_10568_7658.jpgbFk9acX.pnggallery_62972_14467_40478.pnggallery_62972_14467_3819.jpggallery_62972_10568_4118.jpg


#11
dode74

dode74

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 76 posts
That's not an argument. I agree the strict raw interpretation is silly, but the "limited to that phase" interpretation is neither silly nor against the rule.

#12
sfPanzer

sfPanzer

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 18,951 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Faction: Knights of Baal, Dal'yth Sept

It doesn't say it works only in that phase, that's completely your own addition to undermine my argument. So in the end we go back to whether "after" means "immediately after". The answer would be yes because everything else would be ridiculous and nobody will let you use it that way anyway.


Disclaimer:

If my posts appear rude to you, I apologize. It's not meant to be rude in any way, it's just the way folks are in my country. It's really more about being direct than being rude. I know how it's perceived in the english speaking community and I already try to tone it down but I barely notice when it's too much since it's normal for me.


So yeah, I'm really not rude it's basically just cultural differences that act against me here. Again, I apologize.

gallery_62972_10568_7658.jpgbFk9acX.pnggallery_62972_14467_40478.pnggallery_62972_14467_3819.jpggallery_62972_10568_4118.jpg


#13
Slasher956

Slasher956

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,398 posts
  • Location:The Kingdom of the East Saxons!
  • Faction: OoOML, Ulthwé

I'm going to disagree on the Auspex Scan answer.  Here's the text:

 

 

Use this Stratagem after your opponent sets up a unit on the

battlefield within 12" of any ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY
units from your army. Select one of those units from your
army to shoot at that enemy unit as if it were your Shooting
phase; when resolving these attacks, subtract 1 from hit rolls.

 

Note that it does not state "immediately after".  This suggests you can wait until all units are set up then choose to use the strat, selecting as a target any qualifying unit, i.e. any unit which is set up on the battlefield within 12" of an ADEPTUS ASTARTES INFANTRY unit.

 

Except according to general timings once the opponent has gone on to the next unit OR the next phase it is no longer 'after your opponent setups up a unit' but rather after something else has happened which has happened after the unit was deployed.


  • Tyriks likes this

Dyspraxic & Dyslexic  - So I might not write/explain what I think I have as clearly as intended to.... 


#14
dode74

dode74

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 76 posts
Sfpanzer - we're both adding things. You are adding an immediately. The question is only one of which is the more reasonable and most in line with the written rule.

Slasher - after is after and is inclusive of all times after. As written it could be used in the next turn or battle round, but we agree that is unlikely to be the intent. Whether you add immediately or add phase it's still adding a restriction which is not in the rule as written.

Edited by dode74, 08 November 2019 - 10:31 AM.


#15
Jolemai

Jolemai

    ++ CERDONIS CÆDIS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 13,728 posts
  • Location:Ynyshir, Porth
  • Faction: Blood Angels
Could you explain why the FAQ says you must target a Drop Pod and not it's contents if your definition is correct please?

gallery_62972_14467_5178.jpggallery_62972_14467_1351.jpggallery_62972_14467_4151.jpggallery_62972_14467_3390.jpg

Blogs Blood Angels | Veritas Vitae | Battle Reports | Terrain | IXth Legion | Miscellaneous Imperials
1000 Scout list W:0 D:0 L:4
1250 Death Company List (jump) W:0 D:0 L:4
1500 Light Mech List W:0 D:0 L:0 Dreadnought List W:1 D:0 L:1
1750 Hybrid List W:1 D:0 L:0
1850 Death Company List (mech) W:0 D:0 L:0
2000 Heavy Mech List W:0 D:0 L:0 Two Towers List W:4 D:0 L:4
Apocalypse W:1 D:0 L:0 | Heresy 2500 Mechanised IXth W:0 D:0 L:0

#16
dode74

dode74

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 76 posts
Disembarking vs reinforcements

#17
sfPanzer

sfPanzer

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 18,951 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Faction: Knights of Baal, Dal'yth Sept

At this point you are just arguing semantics for sake of having an argument. That's not exactly helpful for anybody.


Disclaimer:

If my posts appear rude to you, I apologize. It's not meant to be rude in any way, it's just the way folks are in my country. It's really more about being direct than being rude. I know how it's perceived in the english speaking community and I already try to tone it down but I barely notice when it's too much since it's normal for me.


So yeah, I'm really not rude it's basically just cultural differences that act against me here. Again, I apologize.

gallery_62972_10568_7658.jpgbFk9acX.pnggallery_62972_14467_40478.pnggallery_62972_14467_3819.jpggallery_62972_10568_4118.jpg


#18
BluejayJunior

BluejayJunior

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 407 posts
  • Location:Atlanta, GA
  • Faction: Blood Angels

Sfpanzer - we're both adding things. You are adding an immediately. The question is only one of which is the more reasonable and most in line with the written rule.

Slasher - after is after and is inclusive of all times after. As written it could be used in the next turn or battle round, but we agree that is unlikely to be the intent. Whether you add immediately or add phase it's still adding a restriction which is not in the rule as written.

That is not how the English language works. If something is phrased "After X happens, then Y happens" then the intent is that Y happens immediately after X. That is how that phrase works. It is much more likely that the stratagem uses common phrasing in its commonly used definition. After does not always mean inclusive of all times after a specific event. It can also mean a moment immediately after the preceding event. Once other events have taken place, the time is no longer "after event X". You must use the context to determine its usage. 

All the context of the way it is worded and their rulings on the stratagem points to after meaning immediately after. 

If it was meant to be used once your opponent had placed all their reserves, it would intentionally be worded differently. Something like "Use at the end of your opponents movement phase. If any of your opponents' units were placed within 12" of an ADEPTUS ASTARTES unit, you may pick one of the those units to shoot as if it was the shooting phase...."


  • Tyriks and Slasher956 like this

gallery_62972_10568_12006.jpggallery_48988_15465_18311.pnggallery_48988_15465_10130.png


#19
Dam13n

Dam13n

    ++ CÆLATOR ALTRICES ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 2,391 posts
  • Location:Poole, UK
  • Faction: The Scions
Let's not have this descend into bickering.

#20
Cornishman

Cornishman

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 105 posts

If I recall correctly all reinforcements arrive 'at the end of the movement phase'.

 

Thus, the question would seem to be do the reinforcements arrive 'at the end of the movement phase' 1) In a series of discrete events or 2) Simultaneously (noting that practically that it may not be possible to place all of the models at once).

Thus, giving the different sequences for arrival as:

  1. Unit A arrives from ‘reserves’
  2. Affects that (may) trigger after arrival from reinforcements are resolved
  3. If Unit A is Drop Pod (or similar) embarked units disembark
  4. Repeat steps 1-3 for next unit to arrive until there are no more units to arrive
  5. The movement phase ends, and the Psychic Phase starts

Or:

  1. All units arrive simultaneously – The instant each unit arrives has already been defined as the ‘end of the movement phase’
  2. Affects that (may) trigger from arrival from reinforcements are resolved against any/all of the units that have arrived
  3. If any Units are Drop Pod (or similar) any units embarked on such units disembark
  4. The movement phase ends, and the Psychic Phase starts

Given the 'End of the Movement Phase' is already adding a step into the movement phase, RAW I'd say that there isn't a clear answer to this. Personally I'd lean on the latter (as the 'End of the Movement phase' appears to be a set point in the turn, thus any units being deployed on to table at this point would appear at the same time).


Edited by Cornishman, 08 November 2019 - 04:06 PM.


#21
dode74

dode74

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 76 posts

That is not how the English language works. If something is phrased "After X happens, then Y happens" then the intent is that Y happens immediately after X.

Actually it's exactly how it works.  My honeymoon happened after my wedding.  It was not immediate but it was after.  If I tell my kids to tidy their rooms after dinner that is not an instruction that, on taking the last mouthful of their food, they should head upstairs to tidy their rooms, it is an indication that they can eat dinner first then do it after.  It is an indication of the order of events rather than a distinct timing.  Hence the use of "immediately after" in many other rules which *mean* immediately after.  The use of Drop Pods is a case in point: units must "immediately disembark".  What that means is that Auspex has something happen between deployment of the Pod and strat usage - it is distinctly *not* immediately after, yet we know due to FAQ that it can be used after disembarkation happens.

 

 

At this point you are just arguing semantics for sake of having an argument. That's not exactly helpful for anybody.

No, I'm not.  Everyone here is arguing how they would play it as opposed to RAW, because RAW you can use it in the morale phase if you want, and (I hope) none of us thinks the RAI is that you can.


Edited by dode74, 08 November 2019 - 06:50 PM.


#22
BluejayJunior

BluejayJunior

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 407 posts
  • Location:Atlanta, GA
  • Faction: Blood Angels

 

At this point you are just arguing semantics for sake of having an argument. That's not exactly helpful for anybody.

No, I'm not.  Everyone here is arguing how they would play it as opposed to RAW, because RAW you can use it in the morale phase if you want, and (I hope) none of us thinks the RAI is that you can.

 

That is not RAW. That is being that guy and trying to reinterpret how something is written to take it to absurd lengths, when the definition is quite clear from the context of the wording. No one here is saying that the way it is played is not RAW. It is quite obvious that you are not interested in having a good faith discussion of the rule when you say that I can use it at any point in the game after a unit arrives. 


gallery_62972_10568_12006.jpggallery_48988_15465_18311.pnggallery_48988_15465_10130.png


#23
Slasher956

Slasher956

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,398 posts
  • Location:The Kingdom of the East Saxons!
  • Faction: OoOML, Ulthwé
@dode...so your kids can go to bed, get up have breakfast go to school, go swimming then go round a mates before tidying their room...and because it’s still after dinner they’re not in trouble?

No because after dinner they’ve gone to bed...so anything following that is after having gone to bed.

Dyspraxic & Dyslexic  - So I might not write/explain what I think I have as clearly as intended to.... 


#24
dode74

dode74

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 76 posts

That is not RAW. That is being that guy and trying to reinterpret how something is written to take it to absurd lengths, when the definition is quite clear from the context of the wording. No one here is saying that the way it is played is not RAW. It is quite obvious that you are not interested in having a good faith discussion of the rule when you say that I can use it at any point in the game after a unit arrives. 

I would be being "that guy" if I were advocating playing it that way.  I am not, as I have been clear about.  The rule, though, simply says "after", and "after" includes any point in time post the event.  By the strict (and clearly not intended) interpretation of the rule you *could* play it that way.  Nothing about the context constrains the point in time at which it can be played: it is only limited to use "after".  I am *not* arguing that anyone *should* play it that way, though, so please don't suggest that I am or that in denying it should be played that way that I am arguing in bad faith.

 

The fact is that the rule is badly written (unless morale-phase use is the intent, which I very much doubt).  Given the above strict reading (which, again, I am *not* advocating using), this is a question of HIWPI rather than anything else.  In every case it involves adding some form of restriction to the rule to prevent it being played in the "that guy" way.  What many of you are advocating is adding an "immediately" which does not exist.  What I am advocating is limiting it to the phase in which the reinforcement arrives (which is also something which does not exist in the rule).  Neither one is strictly RAW correct and both would be considered some form of necessary house rule for that badly written rule. 

 

Personally I have only seen it played the "phase" way the few times there have been multiple viable targets turn up.  Clearly some of you have seen it played "as if immediately".  That's all fine as both are valid alterations to make the rule playable.  My argument would be that the "phase" method is closer to the strict RAW reading than adding "immediately".  Adding "immediately" has the impact of removing information from the player using the strat: other, better targets may arrive after it has already been used.  Limiting to the phase allows for the player to make use of that information.  The strict RAW reading would also allow the player to use that information since it allows strat use "after" reinforcements have arrived.  Therefore the "phase" method is closer to RAW while removing the ridiculousness of being able to Auspex in the morale phase.



#25
dode74

dode74

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 76 posts

@dode...so your kids can go to bed, get up have breakfast go to school, go swimming then go round a mates before tidying their room...and because it’s still after dinner they’re not in trouble?

No because after dinner they’ve gone to bed...so anything following that is after having gone to bed.

It is *also* after they have gone to bed.  A thing can be after two things.  If I want them to do it *today* I will specify *today*.  That means before midnight, and since they are aware that they don't get up after they are in bed (until the next morning) that means the limitation is to do it before bed.

 

Curious, do you have kids?  Mine are 8 and 10 and you literally have to be that specific with the little sh... darlings.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users