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.

Since the example given in the CT rule clearly provides intent, I don't really see any question that it references game turn when determining the number of units to which a special rule is granted. Also, as previously stated, individual player turns are not numbered, so the statement "equal to the number of the turn being played" clearly indicates it would be game turn.

Sloppy writing, sure, but at least they clear it up in the same rule without waiting 6 months (or longer) for a FAQ, so it can be forgiven. GW could learn a thing or two from the FW writers about odd rules.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
As to the other question, regarding Inquisitors and the Soritas...

FW staff wrote:
The Chapter Tactics document is correct and has been written to cover any future releases or changes. At this point we can't say any more than this, but it will become apparent at a later date.

I know emails aren't "permissible evidence," but this is somewhat exciting, eh? A SoB supplement with Inquisitors, perhaps?

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

A lot of people seem to think that such a release would come from GW, but what about FW? Maybe they plan on releasing a book where the SoB are involved?