H.B.M.C. said:

ah sorry I confused Crushing Blow with Streetfighting.

As for the lightning attack one: what about Swiftattack? or is it ment like this: ...his turn only one of his attacks may have the chance of scoring additional hits.

ItsUncertainWho said:

H.B.M.C. said:

This is not true. There are several instances when you can use Reaction during your own turn

eg 1 Furious assault: "If the character successfully hits target using All Out Attack Action, he may spend his Reaction (and thus not being able to parry or dodge until his next turn) to make an additional attack..."

eg 2 Servo arm - the Heretic may strike with it as his Reaction for the round or use it to make a Standard attack - I understand this in the same way as furious assault, he may spend reaction to gain additional attack this round, foregoing his reaction until the start of his next turn.

eg 3 Ballistic mechadendrite// MIU weapon interface - The heretic may attack with this weapon as his Reaction. - Same thing here.

Do you think players can use those weapons only in someone else's turn? This makes no sense to me. Why would they be able to? There are only specific actions which allow it, and I don't thin these are the instance.

H.B.M.C. said:

I understood your examples, I am just not sure that is what the errata intended (unless you wrote it?). There has never been any question if someone in situation 2 could dodge. Of course they could. There was no conflict with the rules on Reactions. The only question was whether it was really intended that someone with higher Initiative could Delay and then get an unavoidable attack. For a Half-Action you could essentially get the equivalent of an automatically successful feint (which could also be done with ranged weapons). The fact that the phrasing of the errata is acting as if it is a clarification suggests (to me at least) that it is addressing the events of your first example, and actually saying you can dodge or parry. Example 2 needed no clarification (and is also incredibly unlikely... why would you wait to shoot a 3rd person in another person's turn? Either shoot them in your own turn, if you can already see them, or in their turn, when they bring themselves into your line of sight. Not saying it is against the rules... just that there is little point to it).

Unless the FAQ team just really didn't understand the question.

Oh, while I agree the Counter-Attack problem (which I think is partially solved by reinstating the +/-30 limit), as far as I am aware all attacks automatically miss on a 96-100 (pre-Black Crusade). Yes, you can easily get to an auto-parry, there is never an auto-hit on an attack. Now, I know it isn't very well explained, but that is how I always read the whole text from the "Jamming" text talking about "as well as being an automatic miss."

H.B.M.C. said:

No offense, but I don't see this as a leap of any sort. It is a simple reading of the text and the most logical conclusion. You seem to be wanting it to be way more complicated than it is. This is the way I and everyone I know who owns any 40K rpg's have read and used Delay since we first cracked open Dark Heresy.

You delay. An enemy moves, making themselves a nice big target. Before he finishes his turn, I act on my delayed action by shooting, thus continuing my turn and allowing my target to dodge. The target dodges, my turn ends, his continues.

Keep It Simple.

H.B.M.C. said:

Swift Attack (page 132): Replace the section beginning
with “The character’s speed with weapons is legendary...” and
ending with “...Melee weapons with the Unwieldy Special Quality
cannot be used to make Lightning Attacks.”

If you look this includes the entire description of the talent so it replaces the part in question here. So it is now clear you can do two(+?) lightning attacks with two(+?) weapons.

The only thing still unclear about this part is whether it is one half action to use multiple weapons or not since the two weapon weilder talent and two weapon fighting rule description sounds like two half actions for two weapons, while the swift attack and lightning attack actions sound like only one half action to use two weapons. Not to mention how multiple limbs might work here. (This was a non issue in the other systems since before they had the 'Multiple Attack' action which was a full action to attack more than once wether it was swift/lightning attack or with all your armed limbs or both. And a full action to do semi/full auto as well.)

(I have asked and will post the answer.)

ItsUncertainWho said:

I think ItsUncertainWho has what is logically the most likely interpretation. That part of the question and answer are pointless otherwise (and it also stops Delay becoming a stupidly powerful combat option, when it clearly was never intended to be so). There was never any question if a person being attacked with a delayed action could dodge if it wasn't their turn. The question was clearly not aimed at that issue, but at the issue of "If I am attacked with a Delay in my turn can I dodge?" That was the only place where there was ever any confusion, as a strict reading of the rules would suggest not, but it wasn't clear if that was ever the intention of the action. It made Delay into something much more significant than it ever seems it should have been, especially if you consider Feint. One would basically cost a half action to possibly bypass defences, while the other costs a half action to automatically bypass defences, the only caveat being that you have to choose to use your half action in their turn rather than anyone else's. It would also make gaining Initiative horribly powerful (rather than just a minor advantage).

Gaining Initiative is a 'minor' advantage?

And logical or not, he has to show where the rules say that. Clarifying ambiguous rules is one thing, but there's nothing ambiguous about not being allowed to use reactions in your own turn.

BYE

I would say it is a minor advantage. Well, unless you can use the fact you're going first to do something very important. In terms of attacking someone, unless you inflict enough damage that the opponent is either dead or seriously hampered (by Criticals or similar, for example), they are still going to get to shoot back at you. Ok, it might mean the difference between having cover and not having cover against a particular opponent's attack, which would be more important. Also, as you are earlier in the turn order so your targets are much more likely to have their Reactions remaining against your attacks. It would be this kind of thing Delay would be for: "****, I have a lascannon and I am first in the turn order... they'll probably just dodge my one shot" "OK, you delay, we will attack them to burn through their Reactions, and then you shoot at them". Ok, if they choose to keep their reactions for the upcoming lascannon shot, it doesn't do that very good, but then everyone else gets to attack them without having to deal with as many Reactions (essentially the targets looking over their shoulder at the guy with the big gun, meaning they don't devote their full attention to the other people shooting/trying to hit them).

The thing I keep saying about the FAQ though is that if it is meant to clarify something it only makes sense as clarifying using a Delay in your Target's turn.

In your second example (During A Delays, and then during B's turn A shoots at C) there never was any ambiguity (aside from whether you needed another half action available to use or not, and that is now clarified as well). C could always Dodge or Parry. It is not something that ever needed FAQing or Errataing. Also, as I said, it would be a rare occurance anyway. Delay is much more likely to be used to act during the turn of the person you are targeting.

The only ambiguity (or at least the apparent RAW seemed unreasonable) was if A Delays, then during B's turn shot at B. The RAW, as you say, seems to suggest that B cannot Dodge. However, there was always a question mark over this, as it seems to make Delay too powerful, especially, as I said earlier, if you look at Feint in comparison. It may have essentially been the intention that Delay essentially creates a sort of "mini" turn for the person using their Delayed Half Action, so it isn't the target's turn again and they can Dodge. It may have been a simple oversight (this is a collaboration between GW and FFG, two companies famed for the fact that their rules are never 100% foolproof, at least the first time). Or it may have actually been intended the way that you interpret it(and strict, unclarified RAWwould suggest), but on the balance of evidence I would not personally support that (and if it turned out that way, something I would certainly house rule).

I'm not saying that it doesn't make Delay too powerful, it certainly does do that (imagine 5 players fighting one big boss and all delaying until it's the boss' turn... now he can't avoid anything!), but it's also what the rules are.

I'm not arguing whether it should be that way, only stating that it is that way, for good or for ill (and in this case, I think ill).

BYE

So once again FFG fail to do their job properly.

I'm absolutely speechless. They don't respond, they don't listen, they don't care.

I'm done paying money to these clowns.

They don't respond? Where did you get that from?

I have now actually sent a question to the Rules Questions team to see what they say:

The new FAQ has still left some wondering about the Delay action. Am I correct that if player A delays, and then interrupts player B's turn by attacking player B, player B can still dodge or parry, or is B not allowed to use a Reaction as it is their turn?

If the latter is the case, it doesn't seem to balance very well with the Feint action, which uses a Half-Action to possibly bypass someone's Reactions, while Delay would effectively allow someone to spend a Half-Action to automatically ignore a person's Reactions (as long as they used the Delayed Half-Action in their target's turn).

ItsUncertainWho said:

I agree. I find the errata clear enough here, and I think trying to interpret the "as normal" to mean anything else is being willfully difficult

Darth Smeg said:

Willfully difficult is putting it politely.

Actively seeking to find a convoluted way to exploit something by making the choice to fail basic reading comprehension skills seems like a slightly more rude way to put it.

I have to disagree. While I agree with your interpretation I think there is some ambiguity, if read on its own. However, I think the context does make it clear (ie, it is meant to be clarifying something, and as there was only one situation where there was ambiguity, it is almost certain that it is clarifying that situation, rather than something that never needed clarifying in the first place). "As normal" could be interpreted as "as according to the normal rules" rather than "as if it was a normal attack." I don't think it is the most likely one, but it is a possible interpretation.

borithan said:

I never saw any problem or conflict due to the fact of what a delayed action is.

You are actively holding part of your turn to be used at a later point in the round. Once you decide to use your held action, you finish your turn. I don't understand how the basic function of the action gets lost in translation and turned into an exploit. To me, turning this into the "I'm using my held action, I am acting on someone elses turn, they don't get a reaction" false exploit takes way more effort to do and justify

Darth Smeg said:

I agree. I find the errata clear enough here, and I think trying to interpret the "as normal" to mean anything else is being willfully difficult

Sorry. I don't see how following the rules is being 'wilfully difficult' . Why is interpreting 'as normal' to mean 'follow the rules' an incorrect solution?

BYE

borithan said:

signoftheserpent said:

H.B.M.C. said:

That is why I phrased the question that way. I felt that if I didn't include the second part (or something similar) whoever was reading the rules may have just given the answer one way or the other with only a quick thought about the issues (whatever bit of the rules happened to be forefront in their mind). By highlighting the conflict with other elements of the rules and balance it can hopefully ensure 1) they think about it for a little longer and explicitly state what the position is in this regard 2) possible draw attention to something that in some people's eyes not been completely dealt with. I felt the question in the FAQ has that problem, as it is not necessarily clear whether the response is to the particular case of attacking someone in their own turn (as I and others have suggested it is) or whether it is a general statement of "do as the rules say in that specific situation" (as is your interpretation).

If it turned out that it actually was intended that Delay could be used to bypass defences then this question should generate such a statement, regardless of the fact that it is somewhat leading (as I will admit).

borithan said:

In my humble opinion, by stating "may dodge as normal" they are implying that this dodge is taken outside of the normal rules for reaction timing. In other words they're saying "You can dodge as if it was your turn", only in language that wouldn't suddenly open the gate for abuse of the "if it was your turn" clause. Or for simple writing and they just thought people would get the point.

It seems fairly straightforward to me, as well as several others here. It seems logical, it still takes up the player's reaction so they won't be able to use it for other abilities that use reactions or even for attempting to dodge things outside their turn. It's just burning up that reaction a couple phases earlier than usual, out of proper timing because the delay attack itself is outside of proper timing.

But that's just my opinion.

BYE