If another character had also delayed and they both decided to act now then they would do an opposed Agility test to see in which order they act, although both would act before B. Any alternative makes the Delay action stronger than Overwatch and removes any use for it.

I like the example; mostly because it seems to fit with my experience with delays in other systems I've played.

On that not I can only comment from my experience from other systems:

Delay actions are a common thing in D&D and they don't interrupt an action, you just get to insert your turn somewhere else in the initiative order. There are Readied actions that let you do exactly that but, like overwatch, you have to specify what the action is and what the trigger will be. IF there is no trigger before your turn comes around, then you lose your turn for that round. I think it's probably more like a Delay than a Readied. But that's just my opinion. Also, if 2 people delay and want to act at the same time, the person with the higher initiative always gets to go first...or if 2 people who readied want to go last, the person with the highest initiative gets to do so - ie: they have the advantage because they won initiative. That's just how it works in D&D.

I don't buy that an opponent would lose his dodge because you're doing an attack on the opponents turn. It's great for things like double-team, where you delay your action until an ally moves to get your bonuses. Although it's a half-action to delay so I'm not sure how that'd work.

Ugh. After re-re-reading both Delay and Reactions, I'd like to take back my previous statement.

OK, first off, the wording of the delay action has not significantly changed since DH. Nor has how it functions. The only 'issue' anyone reading it has is with not understanding the meaning of the words DELAY and RESERVED. That is all.

You spend a half action to delay your attack (should i attack now or wait? I choose wait.), reserving a half action to use later in the round. That's what it says, that's what it does. It doesn't say you spend a half action to be magically granted another half action later in the round to use at your leisure.

Both RT and DW follow delay with an example emphasizing this. DH and BC don't have an example, but as I said if you know what delay and reserve mean there is no question as to how the action functions.

Overwatch, again from my reading has undergone no significant wording changes. It works essentially the same in all systems with minor differences i.e. what you can use (standard/auto/semi/suppressing).

An example of how I have used overwatch. My squad of marines are being advanced on by mindless ogryn attempting to engage us in melee. My turn comes up I declare overwatch 45 degree angle directly infront of me, Fullauto burst with my bolter. When do I fire? When they reach point blank range ofcourse for +50 to hit (30PBR, 20FA, and a Pinning Test).

Now, the Ogryn spends its turn to move and attack me. I fire on it as it cross the threshold technically interupting his move action expending overwatch. The description for overwatch doesn't preclude you from interrupting another's action.

What it says is if you are acting at the same time as another person's action the one with the higher agility gets to act first or you make an opposed roll (when tied). This means that the nasty Ogryn can close on me until overwatch is triggered.

Once that happens if his agility is higher than mine he continues until his half move action is completed and I fire. It is important to note in this example I am not in melee combat until he makes an attack which now follows my full-auto burst. If my agility is higher or I win the opposed roll the Ogryn can be shot and killed having never completed his move action or being able to land his subsequent half action attack.

Delay functions similarly in that it can be used during another's action effectively terminating it (assuming they are dead). The only difference being you always get to go first when using it except when facing off against another delayed action (opposed roll).

While by the book reactions are only allowed to be used outside of a player's turn many gms will allow dodge or parry actions regardless. It should also be noted a delayed attack is calculated so by the book it should be unavoidable, however for melee attacks there is feint that already does this.

Ideally, delay would be used in an instance where a player would want to do something like overwatch, but wants a degree of flexibility (since it isn't limited like overwatch nor does it benefit from the addition of a pinning test).

Like the overwatch example above if my marine instead had an astartes combat shotgun and I was confident of the scatter killing it I would have delayed and fired once the Ogryn entered point blank range for the bonus to hit. My problem with delay is it can't be used in conjunction with aim i.e. full aim, delay, shoot at PBR (but that is neither here nor there).

OK, first off, the wording of the delay action has not significantly changed since DH. Nor has how it functions. The only 'issue' anyone reading it has is with not understanding the meaning of the words DELAY and RESERVED. That is all.

While the action itself has not, the ruleset around it has. Full-auto is no longer a full action, for example. Also, the issues go far beyond any intentional or unintentional misreading of the text. And if saying something is true made it so, I'd be a chaos space marine capable of magic!

You spend a half action to delay your attack (should i attack now or wait? I choose wait.), reserving a half action to use later in the round. That's what it says, that's what it does. It doesn't say you spend a half action to be magically granted another half action later in the round to use at your leisure.

It is listed as half-action. So either my reading is correct, and it grants a half-action, or your reading is correct, in which case using delay after your other half action does nothing, since there's no half action to delay. So either it's overpowered, or it's inexplicably a half action that does NOTHING if used after something else. In, which case, why the bloody hand of Khorne is it a half action, when using it like a half action makes it not work unless you use it first, in which case it ends your round like it was a full action? Regardless of interpretation, it's terribly bad rule design!

Both RT and DW follow delay with an example emphasizing this. DH and BC don't have an example, but as I said if you know what delay and reserve mean there is no question as to how the action functions.

Examples from other games means nothing, since, you know, different rules. Or I could use design examples from DW to get more stuff during chargen, and BC examples for combat to full-auto as a half action in DH. Also, I'm fully aware of what delay and reserved means. However, just to point it out, you might very well be RESERVING the half action you DELAYED, rather than RESERVING another half action than the one you used to DELAY.

While by the book reactions are only allowed to be used outside of a player's turn many gms will allow dodge or parry actions regardless. It should also be noted a delayed attack is calculated so by the book it should be unavoidable, however for melee attacks there is feint that already does this.

So? That something isn't a problem with house rules doesn't make it any less of a problem. It just highlights that, hey, it's a problem that needed house ruling! We can't very well argue from anything but the actual published rules we bought, can we?

Also, feint requires an opposed weapon skill test. It creates a chance to prevent evasions, based on the characters respective skills and chance. Using Delay presents no means of prevention, apart from getting a higher initiative roll on the first round of combat.

Wow, I can see there is no pleasing you mort. Pointing out the the wording hasn't changed, the manner in which the action is used hasn't changed, and providing an explanation of how the action works has had absolutely no effect on you. Choose to ignore the rules all you want and exploit your 'interpretation' of them.

FFG cannot give examples for every rule and action in the game, and the fact that there are now more valid half action attacks is irrelevant. Delay is a half action to use, it then reserves your other half action to use at another point in the round. So you are correct using it after any other half action is idiocy and garners no benefit to the player as it becomes a wasted action.

As you said it could have been made a full action, but then you wouldn't have a half action to hold in reserve would you? If it was a full action then it would need to be reworded. As it stands there is nothing wrong with it. What you are attempting to do is turn delay into a free action which it explicitly is not (that's why it says half-action).

A literal interpretation of the rule is all that is required. If that is beyond you then your reading comprehension is the only problem I see.

You are literally trying to make an issue out of nothing based on your own bias, and refusing to accept clarification from anyone but a developer it would seem (though i reckon you would dispute their claims as well). So since you are unwilling or unable to accept the literal meaning of the word reserved I suggest you submit a support question next time rather than posting a rules question in the forum and ignoring those that seek to help you.

Additionally, your comment that the rules around the action have changed is also irrelevant for there is but one rule that effects Delay and it hasn't changed (hint its DELAY ).

Wow, I can see there is no pleasing you mort. Pointing out the the wording hasn't changed, the manner in which the action is used hasn't changed, and providing an explanation of how the action works has had absolutely no effect on you. Choose to ignore the rules all you want and exploit your 'interpretation' of them.

I don't want to exploit this. Hell, I stated IN THE VERY POST YOU REPLIED TO that it's overpowered. That doesn't change the fact that it's there. It's there so that I, as a player, have to deal with it. It's there so that I, as a GM, have to deal with it. It's there so that I, as a customer, get annoyed that such a unclear, badly designed rule exists in something I pay money for.

FFG cannot give examples for every rule and action in the game, and the fact that there are now more valid half action attacks is irrelevant. Delay is a half action to use, it then reserves your other half action to use at another point in the round. So you are correct using it after any other half action is idiocy and garners no benefit to the player as it becomes a wasted action.

Context matters. Where previously it couldn't be used, with say full auto or lightning attack, it now can. That's a rather significant change, since previously you traded the ability to use your full attack capacity for the ability to use a limited capacity at a more opportune time. That trade-off no longer exists. Also, if it DOES NOT WORK AS A HALF ACTION, WHY IS IT A HALF ACTION?

As you said it could have been made a full action, but then you wouldn't have a half action to hold in reserve would you? If it was a full action then it would need to be reworded. As it stands there is nothing wrong with it. What you are attempting to do is turn delay into a free action which it explicitly is not (that's why it says half-action).

So instead of rewording it, and making it clear that it does not delay the half action you spend for it, it's better to keep it a half action that doesn't work if used as a half action, is unclear enough in it's wording that it can go either way and that can quite easily be interpreted as completely bypassing a couple of major checks and balances of the system? Yeah, so much more work than rewriting it so clearly conveys it's intent. Instead, let's keep it the only half action in the entire game that can serve absolutely no purpose if used after another half action, and then not clarify this in any way, shape or form in it's description. Because that's good design!

Also, to reiterate, it can easily be construed that the half action you use to delay, is the one you then hold in reserve! Because it's delayed! Nowhere in the writing does it say "keeps the character's remaining half action in reserve". It merely says "a half action". Hell, since your turn is explicitly over, your remaining half action is irrelevant, since you only get two of those to spend ON YOUR TURN. Which is now over!

A literal interpretation of the rule is all that is required. If that is beyond you then your reading comprehension is the only problem I see.

I'd point out that this is an ad hominem attack that does nothing to prove your point, but I'm just gonna point this out: a literal interpretation is the most obvious one. To me, my reading is the most obvious one. Ergo, my reading is literal. So is yours. Ergo, both our points are equally biased. Quite a headspinner huh? For extra fun, literal interpretations tend to be the ones requiring the least reading comprehension, since the ability to read subtext, implications and double meaning are usually held up as hallmarks of more advanced readers.

You are literally trying to make an issue out of nothing based on your own bias, and refusing to accept clarification from anyone but a developer it would seem (though i reckon you would dispute their claims as well). So since you are unwilling or unable to accept the literal meaning of the word reserved I suggest you submit a support question next time rather than posting a rules question in the forum and ignoring those that seek to help you.

Additionally, your comment that the rules around the action have changed is also irrelevant for there is but one rule that effects Delay and it hasn't changed (hint its DELAY ).

No I'm not literally trying to make anything, unless you mean to say I'm typing it, in which case yes, I am literally making an issue due to expressing said issue in writing. Even then, I'm not making anything, I merely highlighted an existing problem. See, that was also a literal interpretation. Clearly I'm capable of them!

Also, you're saying no other actions or rules impact delay? Then here's a fun question: What do you do with the half action from delay? You use it for other actions. ACTIONS WHICH HAVE CHANGED! It's almost like it's an interconnected system where altering one part has repercussions that affect the other connected parts.

However, you seem to radically misinterpret my intent here. I don't give a flying Vargouille's kiss about having clarification. I don't care how the designers intended the rule to work. I'm highlighting the fact that THE WRITING DOES NOT ADEQUATELY CONVEY INTENT. It's an issue. It's a big, glaring, painfully unclear and badly designed rule (regardless of which literal interpretation you pick) that has somehow survived several games, albeit now heavily exasperated due to surrounding rule changes. I am pointing this out so that it can be fixed in the only way the rules wanking lawyers some of us have to deal with don't argue with: ERRATA.

This post was made to see if I was missing something in the rules that prevented this exploit. I've yet to see credible evidence to that fact. The only counter so far is rule zero. And if a rule relies on rule zero to work, it's not a good rule.

So to summarize:

Delayed actions, which can now encompass the most potent offensive moves, bypass the defenses of all lower initiative targets. You yourself admit this exploit only doesn't work if house ruled. Bad design.

Delay is either capable of bypassing keyword limits (my literal interpretation) or a half action that can not be used with another half action (your interpretation). Either way it's bad design.

Ad hominem attacks and insulting presumptions don't prove your point. (See how this paragraph doesn't actually have anything to do with the actual topic, yet bolsters my case by indirectly attacking your arguments by attacking you? This is a fallacy, because it does nothing to disprove your point. Please stop presuming upon my personality, accusing me of bias without proof and insulting my reading comprehension. None of it has any bearing on this debate.)

Fun fact: the wording of the Delay action seems to remain unchanged since WFRP 2e. I just checked that.

Somewhat ironically, I also checked the WFRP book translated to my native language, and the wording is crystal clear there - you lose one Half Action to set up Delay, then you can use the other Half Action any moment later in the round. That's why I was absolutely certain that it works this way in the first place.

I'm of the conviction that if several interpretations are possible from the wording, then the least broken one is probably the right one, so I think I'll stick to what I've known for years.

If any of my PC's ever tried to make delay action work as Rev suggests, I would give them a 5 second silent stare, and then liberally apply the BC rulebook to their head.

Hopefully this will be clarified in errata to nip any aspiring rules lawyer in the bud.

Morangias, English is not your first language? You have a great command of written English sir! I am quite crap at languages, so my hat comes of to you with sincere respect!

Thank you very much. I'm from Poland, but I've been learning English for almost as long as I remember. I have quite a knack for it, or so I've been told.

Heres the exact wording from my DW book (don't have BC with me, but they're the same, right?).

"When a character chooses Delay, his Turn ends, but he reserves a delayed Half Action for later use..."

This is the only statement that refers to "where" the reserved Half Action comes from. It does not clearly state that it is the "other half action" that is reserved, especially as it is now a "delayed Half Action". It just as easily reads that by using the delay action, your turn ends, and you get a half action later (regardless of how many half actions you had remaining your turn). The point I'm trying to make is that no, you cannot say that these rules are clear, and that a strict interpretation of the rules will allow you to arrive at the "right" answer.

If you read that as acting like a full round action, then why would they not make a full round action, and describe the delay action as "creating" a new Half Action for use later? For a player, it would be misleading to look at the table, read delay as a half action, and then realize that it is essentially a full round action.

It is in fact critical to determine if a delayed action can interrupt a characters turn such that the character can not dodge. If this is the case, then delay is still quite broken in BC, as yes, the fact that the "major" attack actions are all now Half Actions matters quite a bit now.

Also, another thing to point out, with delay, the only time you ever need to make the opposed agility check to see who goes first is when two characters are declaring the use of their delayed Half Actions at the same time. Otherwise, the one delaying always "wins" as opposed to anyone acting normally.

One thing to point out, is that in BC, this rule fails the "Why doesn't everyone use this test" horribly. If delayed actions are indeed allowed to interrupt other turns, then fights clearly should turn into matches of delaying, and then attacking the first opposing party that has their turn come about. Doing so removes their ability to dodge.

KommissarK said:

KommissarK said:

If you are delaying part of your turn, you are not interupting or acting during someone elses turn, you are mearly finishing your turn. You are going before, after, or between another characters actions. To try to argue that delay grants such an overwhelmingly great advantage is worthy of nothing but a smack upside the head.

This is a non-issue.

ItsUncertainWho said:

Reverend mort said:

Your turn ends = you stop being able to do stuff because you are holding the second half of your turn for later use that round.

How and why is that so hard to grasp?

Reverend mort said:

"It is what the rules somewhat less clearly say"....that is your argument? Really???

Your turn ends = you stop being able to do stuff because you are holding the second half of your turn for later use that round.

How and why is that so hard to grasp?

Because nowhere does the rule say that's how it works. There is no clarification, no reference to another page or more detail. All it says is that your turn ends. Ergo, your turn is over and any subtype limits no longer applies, since the turn upon which they happened has clearly ENDED. It doesn't say your turn is delayed, postponed, held back or any other synonym for that. It says ENDS. It. Is. OVER. And your delayed action gets to be used somewhere between the end of the turn you just ended, and the start of your next one. Ergo, not your turn. Unless you mean to say it restarts something that's ended and must happen before it itself happens. Which is just... really bad writing.

"It is what the rules somewhat less clearly say"....that is your argument? Really???

No. My arguments (plural) are that the writing is unclear, the rule interacts badly with other written rules and is, regardless of interpretation, not designed well. You can read them in the original post and the others I've made in this topic.

Though I suppose a more snappy response would be:

" " Is this YOUR argument? 'Cause I don't actually see another one.

Oh, and for clarification "what the rules less clearly say" was a reference to how the writing is ambiguous and thus fails to convey it's intent in a clear and obvious way. Which, you know, is sorta bad when writing rules. Though if you wish to start quoting out of context and use that in lieu of actual arguments, feel free. Though if you do, please quote properly, rather than merely quoting the latter half a of a sentence and capitalizing the first letter, making it appear that was the entire argument. It could be considered dishonest.

Before this degenerates any further.

Reverend mort said:

Your statement, quoted in it's entirety, is saying that while you don't believe what your arguing is true, if read in a literal, without using basic reading comprehension skills, twisting as much as possible, this could be the way it is read.

I found the "...somewhat less clearly say' to be a hilariously funny statement.

You also left out the "somewhat" in your re-quote and that radically alters the meaning of the statement.

You and some others see an unclear rule. This has happened before, it will happen again. I and others see a simple rule that explains an action. If you so choose you might be able to twist it into an exploit. That is a choice that takes effort in my view. If you have to work to justify something it is not what was intended.

Your statement, quoted in it's entirety, is saying that while you don't believe what your arguing is true, if read in a literal, without using basic reading comprehension skills, twisting as much as possible, this could be the way it is read.

Not quite. I'm saying while I don't believe that what we got is what the writers intended, it is none-the-less what we got. Even without twisting, the mechanics of delay are incredibly vague and, to me, the most basic and straight forward interpretation is one that is highly open to exploits. It's very unclear on how it interacts with a number of other rules and is phrased in such a way that it's interactions with those rules are further complicated. No, I do not believe that is what they intended to make. But if a man intends to sell me a bike and I get a car, I still have a right to complain I don't have a bike.

I found the "...somewhat less clearly say' to be a hilariously funny statement.

You also left out the "somewhat" in your re-quote and that radically alters the meaning of the statement.

But it shouldn't! After all, my intent was to convey the exact same message as I previously had, yet through the wording of my writing, that message was changed. My intent was, truly, to re-quote exactly, but laziness got in the way. So clearly nothing ought to have changed, since my intent remains the same. Or maybe when what is written and what was intended differ, confusion arises...

Phrasing, especially when dealing with rules, needs to be as precise and clear as possible. Delay fails on this point and a few others.

You and some others see an unclear rule. This has happened before, it will happen again. I and others see a simple rule that explains an action. If you so choose you might be able to twist it into an exploit. That is a choice that takes effort in my view. If you have to work to justify something it is not what was intended.

Ahh. So the key to proving your point against detractors is to not justify the point, since arguing the point takes work and thus you prove your point is false?

Now that is funny! Especially since almost everyone so far has worked to justify their point. Thus all points would be invalid, no?

That said, it's not merely an unclear rule, it's a bad one. Regardless of which of the many interpretations that have been put forth so far, something conflicts with something. That could be it's a half action that needs to be treated as a full action to function, it could be it bypasses reactions, it could be that it bypasses subtype limits, or it could be any fun combination of the above! I have yet to see any interpretation which is free of noticeable issues.

And rules should, to as large a degree as possible, be designed so as to prevent even willful misinterpretation. Delay definitely fails on that front.

Reverend mort said:

You seem to like to choose to willfully misinterpret things.

Arguing a point was not what I was talking about above. The effort it takes to willfully misinterpret a rule, to twist it into an exploit, is something that takes too much effort to justify as the intentional meaning of the designer.

Willful misinterpretation is not possible to counter. It should not and can not be required of the designers to waste time trying. If the only joy someone gets from a game is figuring out how to purposefully exploit the rules there is no way to stop it.

If you choose to ignore multiple people who have said the same thing, something you seem to understand and even agree with on some level, and continue to choose to read the rule as a way to exploit and effectively break the game, then so be it. There is no use in continuing this thread.

Unlike Morangias, English IS my first language. Unfortunately, I'm not as elequent as he is, but I wanted to put my 2 cents in.

I'm not an experienced 40k player - most probably guessed that from my previous post - but even if the wording for delay seems unclear, it was not my first instinct to assume that you could interrupt someone elses action. Only after reading this thread and doing some more "homework" and actually picking apart the particular descriptions of "Delay" and "Reaction" did I see that it could be interpreted as such. After reading a bit more I noticed the only action from the list that allows you to interrupt an action is overwatch and that is specifically stated in the description. I think the thing that makes Delay a bit confusing is this:

" When a character chooses Delay, his Turn ends..."

If that phrase wasn't in the description, I don't think this would be such a big argument. I may be wrong on that point. In any case, I asked myself, then, why did the developers put that in the description?

What I've come up with is this:

If I go on initiative turn 10 and I want to delay until 5, if you assume that my turn hasn't ended, then it could be also be assumed that I am unable to perform any reactions until I choose to use my second half action. This would make Delaying very risky and it probably wouldn't be used much at all.

I think most will agree that the description of delay is vague, so I won't try to argue that point. I will, though, finish my post by giving my interpretation of delay, which will be similar to my earlier post.

I don't really think you can interrupt an opponents action:

1. It doesn't specifically say so like it does in the description of "overwatch". It may imply it, but it doesn't State it. I know there's the whole RAW and RAI but I tend to think that if it's must be specifically stated in once instance, then it must be an exception and therefore must be stated in every instance the exception occures.

2. With the exception of Overwatch, it seems that you can only do reactions on other people's turns. As I've stated before, I don't know the rules well, so that may not be true, but if it is the case, then you shouldn't be able to interrupt an opponents turn because you are reserving a Half action and not a Reaction . If the description of Delay specified that you were reserving a Half action that you could use as a Reaction, then I'd be on board to say that you can interrupt.

So with that said, I think you just delay your second half action at some point down the initiative track between other peoples' turns.

So that's my opinion - for what it's worth.

You seem to like to choose to willfully misinterpret things.

Arguing a point was not what I was talking about above. The effort it takes to willfully misinterpret a rule, to twist it into an exploit, is something that takes too much effort to justify as the intentional meaning of the designer.

Willful misinterpretation is not possible to counter. It should not and can not be required of the designers to waste time trying. If the only joy someone gets from a game is figuring out how to purposefully exploit the rules there is no way to stop it.

If you choose to ignore multiple people who have said the same thing, something you seem to understand and even agree with on some level, and continue to choose to read the rule as a way to exploit and effectively break the game, then so be it. There is no use in continuing this thread.

Except that's not my argument. Nor is that my point. As I said above, regardless of which of the interpretations you pick of the ones presented, ALL, every single one, fails on some level to make sense.

I am not "choosing" to read the rule in the most exploitative way possible. I'm choosing to read it. And regardless of how I do, I see issues.

If I read it as delaying the remaining half action, it's a half action that needs to be treated as a full action, or fail to work. This is bad design, since it conveys the impression that it can, like all other half actions, be used on it's own. A few other half actions boost others, but they both clearly convey this is what they do, and usually allow you to extend their benefits across rounds. Delays makes no effort to say anything on the subject. This is misleading, confusing to players and GM's alike, and a really awkward way of designing it. Thus, this interpretation needs errata.

If I read it as delaying the half action used to delay, it's phrasing clearly states the the turn ends. Thereof, a character could attack and then delay their remaining action. Since their turn has clearly ended, the remaining half action would not be constrained by the subtype limits and they could thus attack twice in a single round. This is a bad rule, thus this interpretation needs errata.

Regardless of interpretation, since the delayed action is clearly not on the attack's turn, it will occur on another. If the person being attacked is done so on their own turn, they are denied their evasion. This is a bad rule, thus this interpretation needs errata.

Now do you see? My argument here isn't that there is only one possible reading of this rule. It's that there are many, equally valid, interpretations of this rule and they all cause issues within the system. It is not merely an unclear rule (which is bad enough) but one that causes problem regardless of how one applies it, unless one adds personal house rules to make it workable. This should not be needed, and should thus be fixed.

The point of this thread was to see if there was something else in the book that made this rule work, and failing that, highlight a fix was needed. So far, nothing in the book has been presented to clarify how it's supposed to work. Other books might offer clarity, but since I suspect no player would pay 60 dollars for a game they don't play merely to get an example of how a rule in the supposed "improved" system they bought works, it's not really an applicable solution.

Also, I don't think the reading "the half action used to delay is the one used later" is intentionally exploitative either, nor am I willfully misinterpreting it. It's a different reading from yours, and certainly more beneficial, but aside from the interconnected issues it causes, it's not necessarily unfairly so.

While the issues that arise are clearly usable as exploits, they don't emerge only from intentionally exploitative use. They show up during normal play when one attempts to apply the rules of the game. This doesn't require some insane combination of features mashed together for power purposes to emerge. It emerges the instant one player delays an action, and the question of whether the half action granted is the one used to delay or the other one. It emerges when they use that action to attack, and wonders of this counts as their subtype action. And it emerges when the victim of that attack attempts to dodge, and someone points out that you can't dodge on your turn. The delay rule offers no explanation or clarification on how these situations are supposed to be handled, one way or another.

It needs to be fixed.

Now, if you think this thread should not continue, you are free to stop posting in it. I, however, will gladly remain to see if there something in the rules I've missed that clears up this issue, or if there's a reading that does not provoke conflict. If you can offer either, I will gladly concede there's an existing solution within the confines of the book.

@ Lecram

While I can agree with the "if a exception is stated one place and not another, it only applies where it's stated", there are no pauses in between turns, and delay does not clarify it may only be interjected between turns. It says at any time. Which implies, well, at any time. If it does, that too needs to be clarified.

As for only being allowed to use half actions on your turns... bit complicated. Reactions are, on pg 234, defined as being allowed only on turns not your own. Half actions, however, are not explicitly denied. It's merely stated that a characters gets two on his own turn. There exists several ways to perform various actions outside your own turn, including not only delay and overwatch, but counter attack as well (though counter attack is very clear on what it allows). If the action from delay is only allowed on your own turn, you may not spend it, since it may only be spent before your next turn, and delaying explicitly ends your current turn.

A nice attempt and a very fair reading, but unfortunately I still see very obvious issues

@Lecram

The problem is, at any moment in the Round, there's always someone's Turn, so if it's not yours, it must be someone else's. Thus, if Delay doesn't allow you to act on someone's Turn, it doesn't allow you to act at all, which clearly cannot be the intent. Also, Delay says specifically that you can act "any time before the start of your next Turn", and arguably "any time" should include "right in the middle of X's action". And since whether you can or can't React is governed by rules outside of the Delay action, I see no conflict here.

Theoretically, it's possible that Delay creates what's effectively another Turn for you to act, inserted at any moment between others' Turns, but that sounds overly convoluted (as in, something like that should rather be spelled out clearly) and drastically limits the usefulness of Delay - and I'm not even talking about depriving the enemy of his Reactions, I'm talking about the basic utility of "guy X moves, I use my delayed action to shoot him before he gets to attack", something that IMO shouldn't be restricted to Overwatch if Delay is to remain useful at all.

The real conflicting part is IMO still whether Delay works like "Spend Half Action on whatever, another Half on Delay, then get a Half Action outside your Turn" or like "Spend your first Half Action on Delay, then the second one outside your Turn". While I can't in good faith claim that any interpretation is more valid by RAW, I'm still willing to go with the latter option due to all the problems that the former scenario entails.

Reverend mort said:

I think most people agree.

Reverend mort said:

While I can agree with the "if a exception is stated one place and not another, it only applies where it's stated", there are no pauses in between turns, and delay does not clarify it may only be interjected between turns. It says at any time. Which implies, well, at any time. If it does, that too needs to be clarified.

There exists several ways to perform various actions outside your own turn, including not only delay and overwatch, but counter attack as well (though counter attack is very clear on what it allows). A nice attempt and a very fair reading, but unfortunately I still see very obvious issues

Counter Attack is very clear on how it is supposed to work. It allows you to get a free attack when it isn't your turn and it specifies that it is a Free Action. You can assume the person being attacked doesn't get his dodge because he's being attacked on his own turn. So this is an example of an exception that is clearly spelled out. I get the feeling that most exceptions in the book are to be read this way.

@Morangias

The real conflicting part is IMO still whether Delay works like "Spend Half Action on whatever, another Half on Delay, then get a Half Action outside your Turn" or like "Spend your first Half Action on Delay, then the second one outside your Turn". While I can't in good faith claim that any interpretation is more valid by RAW, I'm still willing to go with the latter option due to all the problems that the former scenario entails.

I thought your translation cleared that part up. That was the impression I got.

Theoretically, it's possible that Delay creates what's effectively another Turn for you to act, inserted at any moment between others' Turns, but that sounds overly convoluted (as in, something like that should rather be spelled out clearly) and drastically limits the usefulness of Delay - and I'm not even talking about depriving the enemy of his Reactions, I'm talking about the basic utility of "guy X moves, I use my delayed action to shoot him before he gets to attack", something that IMO shouldn't be restricted to Overwatch if Delay is to remain useful at all.

I don't see what is so convoluted about it. You just insert your half action somewhere else in the initiative order.

I'm also not sure that a Delay should be the Be All End All. It's supposed to have limited usefulness. I'll go back to my double-team example. An enemy wins initiative and moves into melee and attacks. On my turn, I choose to Delay, wait for 1 or more of my allies to move in and, after they do, I reap the benefits of the talent and get a bonus to hit the enemy. It's not going to happen all the time, but it has its place and usefulness.

So yeah. All my PoV. I know how my goup and I will deal with it.

Hope it all gets figured out! I know it's not the only place in the book that needs re-wording.

Indeed the rule is written terribly, but to be honest it's not entirely unexpected with FFG (love their systems, but they need moar editors)

Just going to put out how our group has dealt with it (houseruled effectively)

Delay is a full round action that gives you another half action that can be inserted into the initiative order at any point.

We also have done one other thing, which is remove the rule about only able to use reactions when it is not your turn (I am aware it does say it specifically). I cannot think of, or have heard of, a good reason as to why you cannot use an evasion reaction on your own turn.

I don't really see why it should cost you anything (like a half action) in order to do something you could have done for free if you had worse/lower stats.

Ie, you wish to act after Bob, who is a real slow-mover. If you had an Agility of 20, you could, with no penalties. But since you have 40, you now react so quickly that you have to stand around and wait... and somehow you no longer have the ability to do what you could before.

Add to the fact that the Delay action is a half action, and the rules do not state that it has to be the first Action you take. Move + Delay is a perfectly Valid combination, and nowhere does it say that the Delay Action is now useless because you do not have a spare Half Action to reserve.

So thus I conclude that Delay lets you postpone the very Half Action used on the Delay Action, to be used later. I remember being miffed that this still would not let you do Full Actions like Auto Burst after Bob, but now you can Perhaps a talent that would let you delay your entire Turn, letting you take a Full Action

As for the interruption thing, it's been debated for a long time, and I'm still not sure what the official ruling is.

Nimas said: