N18 Fast Shot and Vision Ark

[BranBuccarcher]

A) you may not be, but Tops is, and by your use of words such as theological and scrutinise it is fair to say you either have a pretty good grasp or a very good translation programme.

B) Tops is not arguing rules he is arguing that activation and activate are not the same meaning, however it is a verb of each other.

"As though it were their activation" and
"As though it were their to turn to activate"
Mean the same thing as noun form of activate is activation, which describes the process of starting or turning something on.

Or you are arguing that as they have used though which means "giving a possible explanation for something that something appears to be the case when it is not" rather than saying "the recipient receives a free round of activation" ? then the rules regarding being able to turn at the beginning of either action are to be ignored?

What this looks like is that someone has used this skill a little too effectively and rather than have a gentleman's agreement not to keep it in the game, you are searching for a way to hamper it's application....

Good day Beebop

 

[Aulenback]

But "Activate" and "do things as if they were Activated" do NOT mean the same thing. And GW (and Necormunda specifically) repeatedly use that sort of phrasing to make a distinction between the two. And that's the crux. They get two actions AS THOUGH they were Activating, BUT they are not Activating and do not spend a Ready Token and don't need to have a Ready Token [and thus also don't chain activate their Exotic Beast if they have one, and don't get a free turn to face before one of their Actions.... etc], and so on. Webbed is treated AS THOUGH they were Seriously Injured except they are not Seriously Injured and so Recovery is different, Lasting Injury is different, and so on.

So really, there is a solid case for either argument, depending on how the particular writer intended us to interpret the phrase THIS time.

Tops is not arguing that "Activate" and "Activating" are not the same. Tops is pointing out that "Activate" and "as if Activating but not actually Activating" are not the same.

 

[Beebopalulla]

Ah I just found what disturbed me in the title. Should it be vision arc and not ark?

 

[BranBuccarcher]

Okay so we come back to the changing facing rule that says verbatim: "changing facing in this way does not count as moving, and therefore combined with any other action."
Are we saying these actions aren't actions now as well?

Your example with webbed states how they are differentiated, if this was the same then the overseer would have a stipulation as to why it is not the actual activation, which with overseer it merely states that they do not lose their ready marker as any other way of writing that sentence would also need a clarification paragraph to stop deliberate misinterpretations.
What tops and Beebop are wanting to say is if you use overseer you aren't allowed to use your actions in the standard manner eg can only tell someone to shoot directly forwards or say as they aren't facing the door they are standing next too, they can't turn around and use the door handle, if this was the case would the writers not have said where and what actions are available to the targeted fighter Or have they said they can use two actions as though it were their turn?

 

[Beebopalulla]

a very good translation programme.

Nope i do not use the Abominable Intelligence.

 

[Aulenback]

I fear that you are accidentally cutting out the part that says WHEN ACTIVATED.

CHANGING FACING
Fighters can change their facing during their activation, representing them turning in place, or turning their head from side to side. When a Standing fighter is Activated, they may turn to faceany direction their controlling player wishes, before making either of their actions. Changing facing in this way does not count as moving, and thereforecan be combined with any other action.

During their Activation. When a (standing) fighter is Activated.

Arguably, very arguably, neither of those is happening during Overwatch or during Overseer (target of Overseer, not user of Overseer). It is not during the target's activation. It is not when the target is Activated.

Overseer does stipulate the difference: They are not being Activated. They don't need a Ready marker, or use a Ready marker, instead they simply perform two Actions without being Activated. What Actions entail is already explained earlier. Move Actions include turning to face during and at the end of the movement ["After moving, a fighter can turn to face any direction, whereas a vehicle’s facing will be determined by theaction it performed"]. Operate Door doesn't require vision arc, but merely 1" proximity. Coup de Gras, by contrast, requires both 1" and Vision Arc. Shooting requires Vision Arc. Bypass Loot Casket does not. Stand Up allows you to choose Vision Arc.

So again, it comes back to:
1. Either this particular writer meant by "as if Activating" that it is "actually Activating"
or they meant 2. by "as if Activating" that it is not Activating, but gets two Actions, which you normally only get while Activating.

Elsewhere, this and other writers have used that phrasing to mean "this has similarities, but IS NOT the same thing." This writer this time might have instead meant "this IS exactly the same thing." But that's trying to figure intent.

 

[BranBuccarcher]

Okay so how would you see Overseer working with regards me shooting at someone 90 degrees to the right of the target of the Overseer skill with an unwieldy weapon?

 

[Beebopalulla]

Okay so how would you see Overseer working with regards me shooting at someone 90 degrees to the right of the target of the Overseer skill with an unwieldy weapon?

Does it has a third arm? A suspensor? A servo harness?

If not maybe like this?

https://images.app.goo.gl/KqEpKWkNcAnRstSp9

 

[Aulenback]

How many heads does the Overseer target (not the Overseer skill user) have?

Two Heads: The Mutant does not suffer a penalty to hit when using the Twin Guns Blazing rule. In addition, their vision arc is increased to 180°.

 

[Ben_S]

Disclaimer: I don't play N18+ so what I am about to say is based entirely on quotations here and may have missed other things elsewhere in the rules. But...

Order (double); make a leadership test for this model. If test is passed, pick a friendly fighter within 6". That fighter can immediately take two actions as though it were their turn to activate, even if they are not ready. If ready these actions do not remove their ready marker.
Pg 260 core rulebook 23.

Note that this says they can take two actions, not that they activate.

Granted, the 'as though' part might apply only to 'their turn'. That is, one might perhaps read it as 'they activate, as if it was their turn to do so (though it isn't their turn)'. However, I don't think this is the intent.

If the writer meant that they activate, it would be simpler to say so. E.g. 'That fighter can immediately activate (and take two actions)'. Since they don't say this, it's reasonable to suppose that's not what they mean. Therefore, I read it as special outside-of-activation actions.

That said though, we then have this bit...

CHANGING FACING
Fighters can change their facing during their activation, representing them turning in place, or turning their head from side to side. When a Standing fighter is Activated, they may turn to face any direction their controlling player wishes, before making either of their actions. Changing facing in this way does not count as moving, and therefore can be combined with any other action.

This says that, during their activation, they can turn before performing their action. One might think this is irrelevant here, given that the fighter isn't actually activating (as per above). However, I don't think this is conclusive either.

The previous quoted bit says that they can take these actions 'as though it were their turn to activate'. And, if it were indeed their turn to activate, then they would be able to turn before each action too.

So, putting it all together, I think you could argue that (a) they aren't actually activated when performing these actions, but (b) they nonetheless still get to turn, because that is what they would get to do if they were activating (and they are acting exactly as if they were activated).

I'm not really taking any stance on what's right here. But it looks to me like there's a case on each side, from what I've seen of the rules. (Again, this is based only on what's been said here.)

 

[Aulenback]

All of which, again, brings it down to “knowing writer intent here is far from intuitive, and this and related things have yet to be FAQed. So neither argument is obvious, and neither argument is specious.”

 

[Beebopalulla]

Faq that desperatly need an update.

 

[BranBuccarcher]

So simple question again to everyone who's jumping on this bandwagon? Are you saying that the overseer target is not allowed to turn on the spot to change its fire arc as part of either of its actions because it does not specifically state that it is there activation?

As aulenback states only this and coup de gras would be affected, so why was it not noted that there is a caveat on these two types (3 with unwieldy shoot) of action and that you can't proceed as normal with them? Why does it not state you need to use one action as a move to turn on the spot.
Why is the most important action and the one most used with overseer not noted that you are unable to change your facing? Would this absolutely massive difference to a standard activation not be noted or have its own type of sub action added just as overseer gives ORDER?
Bearing in mind it has stated how it is different and why the "though" is used in that the difference between a standard activation and this is the the target needs neither to have a ready marker to use or loses the one the have.

Subquestion; are you happy telling your opponent he can't turn 47 degrees on the spot to shoot your model because there is an ambiguity regarding whether or not the model is actually activated and allowed to act in the normal way with regards shooting and without an FAQ saying he specifically can you aren't willing to let them do so?

 

[TopsyKretts]

Why those limitations were not written explicitly? Could be because the author didn't think about it. It has other consequences than just turn vision arc. For example group activation, pets etc. I thought I had seen another in depth discussion on a similar topic, but cannot find it again now unfortunately. Perhaps I misremembered. Normally I'd lean towards wordings like "as if X" to be basically a sloppy meaning exactly the same as X. For example webbed effect described as if seriously injured. Which for almost all purposes is Seriously Injured, with the explicit exceptions pointed out by webbed. I can well imagine that the exact wording here is intended to mean that it is an actual activation, but explained in such a way for people who don't easily understand the concept of a 2nd bonus activation. But for this case, there are a number of consequences which leans me towards that it would be better if it actually wasn't an activation. Regardless, we simply don't know as others pointed out above.

 

[Beebopalulla]

coup de gras

coup de grace.

But to be less pedantic a real question why in your example the trait unwieldy for a weapon is important?

Other question is your local comunity oriented realism or cinematic interpretation of the game? Because that's really important.

And of course i wish you a good day.

 

[Aulenback]

As aulenback states only this and coup de gras would be affected

And Overwatch. And any other "take an action outside of your activation" effects, such as Got Your Six. [Threat Response includes movement and therefore would include changing facing as part of movement.] For example.

So:
1. Overwatch skill
2. Overseer skill
3. Got Your Six skill
4. Swift Justice tactics card
5. Reaction Fire tactics card
6. Last Gasp tactics card
7. Snap Fire tactics card
And probably a small handful of others. Essentially, any effect which gives you an action outside of your activation that cares about vision arc (principally shooting, as most of the effects which give a Fight action also give movement, which alows a change of facing). There are not lots, but there are a few. And what sort of actions are affected by vision arc limits how much effect this has even further (shooting and coup de grace, principally would be the most common).

These Actions NOT being an Activation, as Tops has pointed out, ALSO bears on whether you chain activate Exotic Pets or other Group Activation effects. If I use Overwatch on my Champion, do they then get to use Group Activation (1) to add a SECOND shooter during my opponent's Activation? If yes, then they can also turn to face before shooting, because those two things have the same trigger (Activating the fighter). If I play Reaction Fire on my Leader, do they get to use Group Activation (2) while shooting during an opponent's Activation, allowing me to have three fighters total shooting and such? Again, Group Activation has the same trigger as the free change of facing. If I use Overseer and target a pet owner, does that chain activate the pet on the target instead of the pet on the Overseer figher? Did I Activate the Overseer fighter, or the target fighter?

So yes, it does get complicated. Sadly. Because writer intent isn't clear.
[If only this were, say, Mordheim, and we could just ask the writer what the RAI was, and they could and would just tell us.]

 

[BranBuccarcher]

So yet again you are over thinking this in that the explanation states the variation from a standard action by stating you do not lose ready marker or need one to begin with.
You have used this example yourselves to say where the exception caused by though is or are we disregarding this to prove your point?

 

[Aulenback]

In which case, the target of your Overseer can
1. Make a free turn to face for Activating.
2. Use their Group Activation special rule to also activate other fighters near them.
3. Use their Group Activation (Exotic Pet) to also activate their Exotic Beast.

And since the Overseer-using fighter IS Activated (Overseer being a Double Action used during their Activation), they too can
1. Make a free turn to face for Activating.
2. Use their Group Activation special rule to also activate other fighters near them.
3. Use their Group Activation (Exotic Pet) to also activate their Exotic Beast.

Do I understand your interpretation correctly? That at your tables BOTH the Overseer-skilled fighter AND their target are separately Activated for that turn, and therefore BOTH get access to free turns to face, Group Activations, Tactics cards played "when Activating a fighter," etc, that are triggered by being Activated?

 

[BranBuccarcher]

Okay so this is how I would apply the rules.
Nominate model to activate in this case overseer.
Overseer could then call for group activation being the very start of the owners turn and make it's free change of facing.
Overseer then uses order (double) ending its own actions and any pets that it may have without either models doing any other game interactions.
Target model then gains two actions "though" it does not lose its ready marker or has already used it's ready marker. Having passed the start of the player turn it is to late to add a group activation ( you'd have to be a right c**t to think this was still an option and that you could cram two group activations into one player turn...!!).
Either of these actions may use a change of facing. As the fighter can immediately take two actions as though it was their turn to activate. If they have a pet then that would also activate as part of the standard process.
Then you would continue with the group activation as standard.
Ie you hand over all of the Overseers turn bar the option of making a group activation using them, although it could be the target fighter that calls the group activation and then the overseer is first model used to give order and has no other part in the activation bar handing over their actions as such.

Maybe I'm just lucky and the people I play against aren't so desperate to prove intellectual superiority by arguing over simple semantics that are written this way to make it easy for people without an English language degree to follow, I personally would feel an absolute scumbag telling my opponent that because it hasn't specifically said this is a bonus activation then they aren't allowed to change facing with their heavy weapon to shoot me because they need to sacrifice an action to turn 46degrees to the side....

 

[Aulenback]

( you'd have to be a right c**t to think this was still an option and that you could cram two group activations into one player turn...!!).

But why? If both the Overseer and the target of Overseer are being Activated, both should entirely be able to trigger their Group Activations? Group Activation (whether of fighters or pets) doesn't trigger off the start of the player's turn. It triggers off the fighter being Activated.

ending its own actions and any pets that it may have without either models doing any other game interactions.

And how would the Overseer using a Double Action end their Exotic Beast's subsequent chain Activation? Did the Overseer fighter not Activate so as to be able to use the Overseer double Action?

All of which again goes to my intended point that interpretation of intent is huge in this. So neither side is simply "arguing a failed point." It's an unclearly written rule [one among many], requiring a lot of subjective nuance no matter how it is interpreted. And eaither intereptation ["Overseer gives a full Activation" or "Overseer gives two Actions but not an Activation"] has knock-on effects that then need to be considered, rather than simply accusing folks who actually then do one or the other of being a right c**t.

Note - one of the main reasons that I am currently leaning toward Overseer gives Actions but NOT Activation, is because of Group Activation (X), and the resulting mess. Free facing change is just an additional complication that is tied to Group Activation (X) because they share the same trigger.

Maybe I'm just lucky and the people I play against aren't so desperate to prove intellectual superiority by arguing over simple semantics