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.

Here's the document in question:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/F/FWchaptertactics.pdf

The Red Hunters (p6) says, "Once per game, at the beginning of any one player turn, the controlling player may declare that a number of their units with CT (RH), including Dreads, equal to the number of the turn being played will have one of the following special rules..."

So, per the BRB p9, "Whenever a rule refers to 'a turn' it always means 'player turn' unless it specifically refers to a 'game turn'."
But I've never seen a rule that counts player turns in this manner. This would mean that, at the bottom of Game Turn 4, the Red Hunters player would get 8 units that gain special rules, yes?

It's kind of clear from the example that they are counting the turns not the player turns. I get what you are saying though.

RAW I'd say yes - that means 8.
It's an obviously flawed sentence though and it should be 4. Assuming they meant player turn leads to reading the sentence in an awkward way.

Any thoughts on the wording of 'number of the turn' rather than 'number of turns'?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Red Hunters get SOB as Battle Brothers if the SOB detachment includes an inquisitor... wait a second.

I missed that the first dozen times I read it.
Silly FW - there's easier ways to word this.

edit: bwahahaha... or hints for the future?

 pretre wrote:

Also, Red Hunters get SOB as Battle Brothers if the SOB detachment includes an inquisitor... wait a second.

AND only so long as the GK/AS is the Allied Detachment. If your Primary Detachment is GK/SOB...then your allied Red Hunters are Allies of Convenience :/

Still Space Marines with Allied GK SHUDDER.

Don't the already get the 2+ invul guy? How much worse does it get...

 pretre wrote:
Don't the already get the 2+ invul guy? How much worse does it get...

Those are the Red Scorpions you're thinking of.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Don't the already get the 2+ invul guy? How much worse does it get...

Those are the Red Scorpions you're thinking of.

Tells you how much I know about FW.

 pretre wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Don't the already get the 2+ invul guy? How much worse does it get...

Those are the Red Scorpions you're thinking of.

Tells you how much I know about FW.

It's okay, I've been drooling over that pdf and the upcoming FW order, so I've been reading it off and on all day.

 pretre wrote:
Don't the already get the 2+ invul guy? How much worse does it get...

Not that it really matters. He can't give it to a whole squad, and once he's on his own he dies just fine to mass lasguns/bolters/etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Don't the already get the 2+ invul guy? How much worse does it get...

Not that it really matters. He can't give it to a whole squad, and once he's on his own he dies just fine to mass lasguns/bolters/etc.

Yeah, I was mostly being silly. I wonder what kind of amusing shenanigans you can pull with SM allied BB with GK.

Uber Chapter Master added to a Draigowing might be fun.

rigeld2 wrote:
Uber Chapter Master added to a Draigowing might be fun.

That's kind of along the lines I was thinking. I'm sure Draigowing shenanigans are possible. SOB would have really benefited by getting another Battle Brother, but that clearly isn't happening.

As usual poorly written but the intent is clear since they give the Turn 3 example = 3 units. The inquisitor part is puzzling

I see it as only game turn as it states "equal to the turn being played" so regardless of if your player turn is the top or bottom of a game turn you are still playing Turn 3 for example. Also they use Turn 3 as their example, if it is Turn 3 you may select 3 units.

Gads, Red Hunters is rough, but Red Scorpions able to take apothecary in every tac squad

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Here's the document in question:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/F/FWchaptertactics.pdf

The Red Hunters (p6) says, "Once per game, at the beginning of any one player turn, the controlling player may declare that a number of their units with CT (RH), including Dreads, equal to the number of the turn being played will have one of the following special rules..."

So, per the BRB p9, "Whenever a rule refers to 'a turn' it always means 'player turn' unless it specifically refers to a 'game turn'."
But I've never seen a rule that counts player turns in this manner. This would mean that, at the bottom of Game Turn 4, the Red Hunters player would get 8 units that gain special rules, yes?

I don't see any confusion at all in this tbh.

At the beginning of any one player turn (ie : yours OR your opponents player turn) you may declare that a number of your units with CT (RH) equal to the number of the (Game) turn being played will have one of the following special rules.

(parts in brackets mine added to properly parse the sentence)

The use of both Player Turn and Game turn in the same sentence is because you can use the ability on your opponents player turn, not just your own player turn in the current game turn.

Simple.

Parts in parentheses are yours, not brackets. Also, you can't just add game turn in there since the main rulebook says that whenever you refer to turn without the words game, it means player turn.

 pretre wrote:
Parts in parentheses are yours, not brackets.

Fine, and irrelevant. (fyi : "parenthesis" are also "round brackets", not that I'm interested in getting into a punctuation and literacy debate)

Also, you can't just add game turn in there since the main rulebook says that whenever you refer to turn without the words game, it means player turn.

Very well, misread that part and had it backwards.

If that's the case, then it is either written incorrectly or it does indeed mean that you count the number of player turns.

 pretre wrote:
Parts in parentheses are yours, not brackets. Also, you can't just add game turn in there since the main rulebook says that whenever you refer to turn without the words game, it means player turn.

Is there any context where player turns are numbered? Because if there isn't then saying "equal to the turn number" unambiguously implies that it's talking about the game turn.

I think by not properly quoting the text, the original poster has misled the other posters. The Chapter Tactics yield a special rule to up to seven units (if the rule were activated on Turn 7)

In addition, once per game at the beginning of any one
player turn, the controlling player may declare that a number
of their units with Chapter Tactics (Red Hunters), including
Dreadnoughts, equal to the number of the turn being played
will have one of the following special rules, chosen by the
controlling player, until the beginning of their next turn. For
example, if the protocols are activated in Turn 3, then three
units may choose a single special rule from the following to
apply:

 Smashotron wrote:
I think by not properly quoting the text, the original poster has misled the other posters. The Chapter Tactics yield a special rule to up to seven units (if the rule were activated on Turn 7)

In addition, once per game at the beginning of any one
player turn, the controlling player may declare that a number
of their units with Chapter Tactics (Red Hunters), including
Dreadnoughts, equal to the number of the turn being played
will have one of the following special rules, chosen by the
controlling player, until the beginning of their next turn. For
example, if the protocols are activated in Turn 3, then three
units may choose a single special rule from the following to
apply:

I take umbrage at your accusation; you either think I'm dumb for misquoting, or I'm malicious for deliberately tweaking the text. I am neither. I definitely properly quoted the rules, although I did abbreviate the words "Dreadnought" and "Chapter Tactics (Red Hunters)" to "Dread" and "CT (RH)" respectively. I thought people were competent enough to follow along with those shorthands.
In the bolded section of your quote, it says, "Turn 3." Per the BRB, this means Player Turn 3, which would be the top of Turn 2. It's certainly a strange way to count...but FW is a strange place.
Check the BRB p122, "Variable Game Length" for an example of the rules using the phrase "Game Turn X" to mean "Game Turn X." When the phrase occurs sans the word "game," it means "player," as per the BRB rules on page 9.

I think he was implying that you left out the explination of turn 3 = 3 tactics.

Still your correct that the BRB would force them to specify game turn or it reverts to player turn.

RAW I guess it counts every player turn.

RAI its almost exactly opposite because they specify that you can use it on any player's turn but that you declare a number of units equal to the turn being played.

RAI is probably that them meant game turn by turn being played.

If I was playing a friendly game with somone who was running it or running it myself I would probably go with once per game turn.

Not sure it really matters though except in that case as i don't know of any tournaments that allow you to use FW armies, which would include the chapter tactics.

Also if you do decide that its one tactic per player turn you only get the power for one player turn, where if you rule it as game turn then you would get it for an entire game turn.

If they had meant player turn in the turn 3 example they would have probably said player turn as they did in the first sentance.

I was not implying any of those things. I was simply providing the full text, including the writer's example. The example is clear.

To be fair the example isn't clear from a RAW perspective because in 40k "turn" doesn't mean game turn.

 pretre wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Uber Chapter Master added to a Draigowing might be fun.

That's kind of along the lines I was thinking. I'm sure Draigowing shenanigans are possible. SOB would have really benefited by getting another Battle Brother, but that clearly isn't happening.

Draigowing shenaningans should not be possible since you will have no room for Draigo in the allied detachment.

I emailed Forgeworld. The answer to the player/game turn is rather disappointing:

FW staff wrote:In the example in the Red Hunter section, it explains that if the protocol is activated on turn 3, then 3 units may choose a special rule from the list.

So they obviously don't understand the problem, and think that "Turn 3" means "Game Turn 3" when it in fact means "Player Turn 3." Bummer. But the intent is clear.

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?

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I emailed Forgeworld. The answer to the player/game turn is rather disappointing:

FW staff wrote:In the example in the Red Hunter section, it explains that if the protocol is activated on turn 3, then 3 units may choose a special rule from the list.

So they obviously don't understand the problem, and think that "Turn 3" means "Game Turn 3" when it in fact means "Player Turn 3." Bummer. But the intent is clear.

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?

Or a proper 'dex with inquisitors included?