Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The definition of "per" according to Microsoft Word, "for each or for every thing mentioned". So, my TMC may fire in each or every shooting phase. Codex trumps rulebook, sooo...

So does this mean that if an Orc player goes second, the orc player get's to declare Waagh in his first shooting phase since it's the second turn? After all, the orc codex simply says "Cannot be used in the first turn." That's great!

Yup. But apparently that doesn't work according to the Orders camp, because its not fair!

@Gwar! 1st IG do have a rule that say they can. Their orders may be used eachturn and you must immediately do the order. there is no rule that says you can't.

Secondy open the book to page 9 and look at the second coloum, second paragraph, and read the following. "So, for example, in game turn 1 a player will take his player turn 1 and go through his Movement, Shooting and Assault phases. Then the other player will take his player turn 1 and go through his Movement, Shooting and Assault phases, thus ending game turn 1. Game turn 2 will then follow."

Yay! Copypaste from Pirate Rulebooks is fun! Glad to see you bothered to edit out the linebreaks.

And again, tell me why I cannot shoot with my Carnifex in your shooting phase. I can shoot 2 weapons PER shooting phase. This is the codex, so it trumps any and all rules in the BRB.

And what's with the Page 9 stuff? Are you referring to the Waaagh! argument or something else or what? How can you expect us to take you seriously at all if you are not taking us seriously?

Gwar!, you left out the qualification that a Tyranid creature requires two ranged weapon symbiots to be able to fire every shooting phase, as described on page 30 of their codex. So, yay for Dakkafexen!

That is only one definition. I'm sure we could find ten different ones all over the web. The problem is the difference between the relationships of each and per. If the Tyranid Codex said that a MC could do so per turn then I would give it to you, as RAW you'd be right. However, that is not what it says and we are left to infer on our own. What you infer is different then me and we'll just ave to agree to disagree on that point.

How is "per turn" and "per Shooting Phase" different? We using a different definition for "per" each time?

It is not "per turn" vs "per shooting phase." It is "each turn" vs "per shooting phase." "Per turn" would, by the rules, allow you to do the action per player turn.

Errr, "Each turn" is the EXACT SAME as "Per turn".

Do you even speak English?

"Each turn" would be the same as "per turn", but your rule says "per shooting phase", which is different.

Also why it may no be your intent I find some of your coments rather insulting, such as the "Do you even speak English?" comment, to which I haven't done anything to deserve.

It says "per shooting phase"...why would "per turn" make it more valid?

Defitinition of "per" from Webster's New World College Dictionary 4th Edition, per...2)for each, for every". The others don't make sense in the context. How many times do I have to show you the definition?

@Solkan- Yes, it really does make Dakkafexes look better. Of course, this is a ridiculous argument (just like the notion that IG get to fire and run in the enemies turn). I'd never even think of trying this in a game.

Edit- !?!?! It states "PER SHOOTING PHASE" (emphasis mine). It doesn't say only in the Tyranid player's, it says in every shooting phase.

So, "Each Turn" is the same as "Per Turn", but "Per Shooting Phase" is not the same as "Each Shooting Phase"?

How does that work?

Wow, this is absolutely ridiculous. They obviously can't shoot in the enemy phase, nor can they run since it says before they do it.

If that is the case, why not just have them issue that order infinite times, because, you know, why not?

As proven "turn" by the rules should be read as "player turn." If your argument had this I would support it as RAW would.

Gwar! wrote:So, "Each Turn" is the same as "Per Turn", but "Per Shooting Phase" is not the same as "Each Shooting Phase"?

How does that work?

Thats what i want to know , because thats the whole point here.

IF IG can issue order that way , so can your carnifex.

Ppl are saying its rediculous and i agree, which is why IG shouldnt be allowed to for the same common sense reasoning.

Sure, it is per player turn, that is fine, however, since you can't actually run or shoot in your players turn you never meet the "before" condition.

arinnoor wrote:As proven "turn" by the rules should be read as "player turn." If your argument had this I would support it as RAW would.

And why would "Per Shooting Phase" be read any different? Do Enlighten us oh Wise one.

Somnicide wrote:Sure, it is per player turn, that is fine, however, since you can't actually run or shoot in your players turn you never meet the "before" condition.

Yup, but apparently being able to shoot twice as much as any army and totally break the I-Go-You-Go structure of 40k was just so awesome that GW didn't want to tell us explicitly. Oh those crazy northerners!

The key here is not per or each but, the use of turn. Turn=player turn unless specified otherwise. When I see per shooting phase I see something that could mean every shooting phase or every shooting phase your allowed.

@Somnicide-There is no rule disallowinf firing in an opponents shooting phase. While normal this wouldn't all shooting the IG Orders say that they can be used each turn (which should read each player turn) and they do the action immediately.

Kinda off-topic, but where does one fill out the Dakka Code? I searched but couldn't find it in my profile, did I miss it?

Back on topic, arinoor, you still haven't proven why this doesn't work for the Carnifex when it works for the IG. Your whole "doesn't say turn" argument doesn't explain squat.

Edit- It says "every shooting phase". It never states only the ones allowed, it says EVERY shooting phases.

Errr... OK? It doesn't say "Your Shooting Phase", so therefore it must mean each and every one, otherwise they would have said "your shooting phase" wouldn't they?

arinnoor wrote:
@Somnicide-There is no rule disallowinf firing in an opponents shooting phase. While normal this wouldn't all shooting the IG Orders say that they can be used each turn (which should read each player turn) and they do the action immediately.

If there is no rule disallowing it, then everyone can do it not just guard. Rules are permissive.

You are right there isn't a rule I can think of that says it doesn't work for your Carnifex. However, you must also realize the IG rule is worded differently and by RAW it does work.

@Somnicide- Exactly rules are permissive, so the must say you can before you can.

So it does work for the Carnifex? Or it doesn't? If it doesn't, that disallows your entire "IG shooting in other peoples turns".

Psychers are allowed to make one (or more, depending on the codex) psychic test per player turn, and several psychic powers count as ranged weapons, and commonly that is listed as "instead of firing another weapon." Running is done instead of firing a weapon, and can be done even by models which have no weapons to fire. So, what's preventing a Fzorgle sorcerer from lashing units around during the opponent's turns? Also note that not being able to fire is appearantly no barrier to using Fzorgle because a Fzorgle prince has no weapons to fire at all.

The point is that a player is not allowed to do anything during their opponent's player turn unless explicitly authorized to do so.

arinnoor wrote:You are right there isn't a rule I can think of that says it doesn't work for your Carnifex. However, you must also realize the IG rule is worded differently and by RAW it does work.

Oh gee, well Now I am sold. "Oh, yeah, its, um, different and stuff, so it works!" BRILLIANT!

Please, tell me, where have you been all these years? Why are you not using your great capacity for debate and diplomacy to bring about world peace!

Oh, and in case that was too subtle:
</Sarcasm>

Sorry, but mumbling about how "oh, its, err, different lalalalalaala" is not very convincing.

Like I said I can think of no reason or rule as to why the Carnifex shouldn't work.

@Solkan, please show me the rule where it says you cannont do anything in the opponents turn unless specified. If you could provide a page number as well so I can find it in my BGB.

Edit-Gwar!-Is there a need for such sarcasm? Anyway you cannont look at those rulse and say they are exactly the same. Example fearless and synapse for morale and pinning they both do the same thing except they are still different rules.

LunaHound wrote:
Ppl are saying its rediculous and i agree, which is why IG shouldnt be allowed to for the same common sense reasoning.

"Common Sense" - why is it called that again when it's so rare?

Back on topic:

I would agree with Gwar!, RustyKnight and others who have said that it is rather rediculous to give orders in durring the opponents turn. Look guard players just got a new codex that trumps your last one, and imo it can really put the hurt on a bunch of armies. Is it that bad that you (nobody specific) really have to hunt for rules that aren't there?

arinnoor wrote:Like I said I can think of no reason or rule as to why the Carnifex shouldn't work so it should.

@Solkan, please show me the rule where it says you cannont do anything in the opponents turn unless specified. If you could provide a page number as well so I can find it in my BGB.

So, it's okay if I start using Fzorgle and Doombolt during your shooting phases, then?

This entire argument reminds me of the fleeting out of transports debacle.

Arinoor, you wouldn't have any problem with an opponent's Dakkafex firing in your turn?