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.

 Lemartes12 wrote:
HAHA ok if you say so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For those who still want to "debate" "argue" discuss whatever we are now calling this. Can anyone answer my question. Or site somehting that specifically states Turn = movephase

When did anyone say that Turn = Move phase?

The definition of "Turn" is {"Movement Phase", "Shooting Phase", "Assault Phase"} (in that order). What happens before the Movement phase?

 Happyjew wrote:

 Lemartes12 wrote:
HAHA ok if you say so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For those who still want to "debate" "argue" discuss whatever we are now calling this. Can anyone answer my question. Or site somehting that specifically states Turn = movephase

When did anyone say that Turn = Move phase?

The definition of "Turn" is {"Movement Phase", "Shooting Phase", "Assault Phase"} (in that order). What happens before the Movement phase?

I think there are some very important questions that need to be answered if we are ever going to get over just arguing.

1. What is the difference between Start of Turn and Start of Movement Phase?
2. Is a difference defined between Start of Turn and Start of Movement?
3. Why does the BRB and the new Codices still use both Start of Turn and Start of Movement instead of just one?

I would posit that Start of Turn dose not equate to Start of Movement as a way to limit some abilities from activating from Deep Strike. While, at the same time, have other abilities not limited by Deep Strike, but requiring you to use them before you start moving your models.

In short: It is Games Workshop so what do you expect at having two near identical terms that seem to be used interchangeably and not telling us which rules apply to which situations!

They did two major things wrong here in particular and caused this whole mess, two things which could of been easily avoided at that. The first was not having a phase dedicated to be the start of turn, at which certain abilities would need to be resolved in. The second was to release a FAQ granting you permission to resolve a start of movement ability before a start of turn ability, even though they had a wonderful chance to create a working timing system for these two near-identical terms.

So now I have spontaneously ranted a little back to your questions, from someone who is more on the fence about something I occasionally use:
1) Out side of the different wording there is nothing: they both occur at the very same point on the time line, which is supported by that FAQ answer.
2) To my knowledge, neither term is 'defined' by some part of the rule books as they are pretty self explanatory.
3) Because it is Games Workshop. Honestly, I do not have a good answer for this question as the above rant shows they could of easily prevent this.

After looking through the rule book once more I ended up back on the same concern I have always had for this question: Why is the terminology 'start of turn' used, in relation to abilities, only one place in the main rule book?

The terminology 'start of the movement phase' is far more predominate, found in several sections of the main rule book for several different abilities. Yet the start of the turn is found with in the reserve section of the book, most obviously in the sentence denying the use of start of the turn abilities. A quick flick through several codex's, all 6th edition of course, netted me only two uses of the 'start of turn' terminology in relation to a special rule, though one of the rules was seen twice in two different codex's. Of these two one was chapter tactics which has been discussed here prior while the other was in servitors mindlock. Now I might not be a marine player but don't they start the game with a tech-marine so it could never 'mindlock' while in reserves anyway?

It wasn't a too in-depth dig through the material I will admit but it does just highlight my concern about page 125: What sixth edition start of the turn ability could it be talking about?

Post below if you feel you might have the answer....

 Happyjew wrote:

 Lemartes12 wrote:
HAHA ok if you say so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For those who still want to "debate" "argue" discuss whatever we are now calling this. Can anyone answer my question. Or site somehting that specifically states Turn = movephase

When did anyone say that Turn = Move phase?

The definition of "Turn" is {"Movement Phase", "Shooting Phase", "Assault Phase"} (in that order). What happens before the Movement phase?

haha i shortend the question you have to read back a little bit for the actual question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nilok wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Lemartes12 wrote:
HAHA ok if you say so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For those who still want to "debate" "argue" discuss whatever we are now calling this. Can anyone answer my question. Or site somehting that specifically states Turn = movephase

When did anyone say that Turn = Move phase?

The definition of "Turn" is {"Movement Phase", "Shooting Phase", "Assault Phase"} (in that order). What happens before the Movement phase?

I think there are some very important questions that need to be answered if we are ever going to get over just arguing.



1. What is the difference between Start of Turn and Start of Movement Phase?
2. Is a difference defined between Start of Turn and Start of Movement?
3. Why does the BRB and the new Codices still use both Start of Turn and Start of Movement instead of just one?

I would posit that Start of Turn dose not equate to Start of Movement as a way to limit some abilities from activating from Deep Strike. While, at the same time, have other abilities not limited by Deep Strike, but requiring you to use them before you start moving your models.

Like i said earlier until as such time as the two are specified we can't call them one another. I like your last comment also.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
In short: It is Games Workshop so what do you expect at having two near identical terms that seem to be used interchangeably and not telling us which rules apply to which situations!

They did two major things wrong here in particular and caused this whole mess, two things which could of been easily avoided at that. The first was not having a phase dedicated to be the start of turn, at which certain abilities would need to be resolved in. The second was to release a FAQ granting you permission to resolve a start of movement ability before a start of turn ability, even though they had a wonderful chance to create a working timing system for these two near-identical terms.

So now I have spontaneously ranted a little back to your questions, from someone who is more on the fence about something I occasionally use:
1) Out side of the different wording there is nothing: they both occur at the very same point on the time line, which is supported by that FAQ answer.
2) To my knowledge, neither term is 'defined' by some part of the rule books as they are pretty self explanatory.
3) Because it is Games Workshop. Honestly, I do not have a good answer for this question as the above rant shows they could of easily prevent this.

I am going to research this one a little further now and see if I can find some sort of insight into why they left it a mess like this, will edit this post for more then just grammar, spelling and formatting if I find anything.

Yes they do seem lazy in that fact, one little sentence could have prevented this. somehting like "the Start of your turn is the Star of your movement phase". But ufortunealty they didn't. If you come up with anything official let me know. Otherwise im going to have to stick with you can use the wargear or "ability" even though i don't like calling it that IMO.

rigeld2 wrote:
Please do not misstate what people have said. That's impolite. I've done you that courtesy. No one has said that the writers of the FAQs are stupid except you.

Look its simple, you can't claim a use of a FAQ and thehn deny a use of a FAQ at the same time. Its called Hypocrisy. Its that simple and the point I was making is that you are just assuming that the Logan FAQ is a rules change while your FAQ is just fine and dandy. You might not have said that the FAQ writers were stupid but you certainly implied that they were incompetent.

We already know - factually - that the start of the movement phase starts at the same time as the start of the turn.

And I pointed out that doesn't mean that they equate to each other which you constantly ignored.

I disagree with that statement. Also, the relevancy hasn't been shown yet.

What? Are you serious? Of course it would be relevant. If they are different reverences then the rules obviously don't apply to each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Darth - so yet again you are misquoting people.

Noone said the writers are stupid - except for you. We said that the statement that FAQs do not change rules is, objectively, wrong, because they HAVE changed rules in FAQs.

This is the reason why I think you consider the writers stupid. I am not misquoting anyone here, its the way I see it. The reason for this is because it says under the FAQs themselves that they aren't rule changes but you accuse them of it anyway. And this means what exactly? That you consider the writers too stupid to even stick to their own set-up. Protest all you want, but I am not going to allow you to pick and choose the FAQs you want while declaring others inaccurate and wrong. If you think that Logans FAQ is a rule change then the FAQ you cite could also be a rules change. You can't have your cake and eat it.

If you cannot debate honestly, you will find that there will be fewer people willing to debate you

I am not debating dishonestly at all. I never said that you called the writers stupid, but I stated that from my point of view its seems like we are treating them as though they are stupid.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You can assume anything you like. You would be wrong.

There just comes a point when there isnt a debate, just people arguing. There's quite a key difference

Its certainly not a debate at this point. Thats just as much as your problem as it is mine.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and it isnt an attack - it is the literal truth. They havent debated honestly, as they have deliberately misrepresented others and their views. Not just once, but multiple times.

Pot meet kettle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, I was talking about Darths misrepresentation of the FAQ writers and what people wrote about them. Darth was, factually, incorrect. Absolutely. Proven.

Do I really care? I have already been called a liar in this thread. I don't care if you think I am misrepresenting anyone. My statement was based on a perceived observation. If you don't think the writers are stupid then please explain why to me. They have already said that their FAQs are not for rule changes but you continually cite that they have changed the rules with FAQs. What on earth am I supossed to think here? How else am I supossed to interpretate your argument other than the writers are stupid.

You are also misrepresenting others arguments, and have also done so consistently. Its why I have no interest in debating with you.

Of course. You don't want to debate us. Fine, let that be the end to it. I have after all already been called a liar in this thread and now I am being accussed of misreprenting people. However instead of just explaining this to me you have to accuse me of malice in the process as well by labelling me as dishonest. This might be the way that you debate things but its not the way I do it.

Do not mistake that for not having an argument. I do, and have countered yoru argument ad infintium. This is the argument vs debate point I was making.

You have just asserted the same things over and over again. I have made clear, time and time again the reasons why I disagree, but its just been constantly an assumption that the model with the PEN is using an ability at the start of the movement phase when he isn't.

 DarthOvious wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Please do not misstate what people have said. That's impolite. I've done you that courtesy. No one has said that the writers of the FAQs are stupid except you.

Look its simple, you can't claim a use of a FAQ and thehn deny a use of a FAQ at the same time. Its called Hypocrisy. Its that simple and the point I was making is that you are just assuming that the Logan FAQ is a rules change while your FAQ is just fine and dandy. You might not have said that the FAQ writers were stupid but you certainly implied that they were incompetent.

A) Being a rules change or not is irrelevant in both cases. You have evidence of intent for Logan's rule, you have no evidence of intent for the PEC. Even if they're written in the exact same way, GW could answer the PEC FAQ the opposite of Logan's.
B) it's not hypocrisy when one FAQ demonstrably applies (rules change or not) and the other is tangential.

Darth - no, I do not think they are stupid. I think they just do not actually look at rules the same way others do.

WE can absolutely, 100% prove that FAQs have changed rules. That is not a debateable topic - it is the literal truth. More than once as well, so you cannot claim something is isolated

As such trying to claim a very specific FAQ about a special rule of an individual, not even wargear, somehow extends across an edition to a different codex, is not a strong intent argument. Its certainly not a RAW argument.

It is certainly dishonest of you to claim we are calling the FAQ writers stupid, when e have done no such thing.

rigeld2 wrote:
A) Being a rules change or not is irrelevant in both cases. You have evidence of intent for Logan's rule, you have no evidence of intent for the PEC. Even if they're written in the exact same way, GW could answer the PEC FAQ the opposite of Logan's.

Until they do what do you suggest otherwise? If they work in the same way all we can do is use what they say themselves in the FAQ section of their website which is:

"FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation".

If they interpret Logans rule that way what differences are there that they would interpret the PEN differently? I already asked this question and I never got an answer.

B) it's not hypocrisy when one FAQ demonstrably applies (rules change or not) and the other is tangential.

It is hypocrisy, because you yourself said that the FAQs included rule changes. You then stated your belief that Logans rule was a rule change. However what stops the rule you cited from being a rules change? Perhaps the start of the turn and the movement phase don't happen at the same time and the FAQ was wrong.

Thats the point I am getting at. You can't cite that FAQ all the while declaring that some FAQs change the rules.

 DarthOvious wrote:
If they interpret Logans rule that way what differences are there that they would interpret the PEN differently? I already asked this question and I never got an answer.

Based on past experience, exactly the same as them interpreting it the same.

It is hypocrisy, because you yourself said that the FAQs included rule changes. You then stated your belief that Logans rule was a rule change. However what stops the rule you cited from being a rules change? Perhaps the start of the turn and the movement phase don't happen at the same time and the FAQ was wrong.

Thats the point I am getting at. You can't cite that FAQ all the while declaring that some FAQs change the rules.

The FAQs aren't wrong - I've never said that. The FAQ proves they are at the same time, rules change or not.
Citing Logan's ruling as absolute permission is simply incorrect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Darth - no, I do not think they are stupid. I think they just do not actually look at rules the same way others do.

So please expand on this in concerns to what they say on their site. For instance:

"FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation".

I am guessing that you don't think that FAQs are their interpretations of existing rules. Otherwise there would be no problem. So let me ask, in what way do you think they fail to meet this criteria?

WE can absolutely, 100% prove that FAQs have changed rules. That is not a debateable topic - it is the literal truth. More than once as well, so you cannot claim something is isolated

So how do you feel about the fact that they claim otherwise. Also would this be an argument from intent from you rather than me this time? People have said to me that I am arguing from intent, but GWs intent is right there in the quote of the FAQs and what they are supposed to be for. Wouldn't arguing differently from that perspective and say that FAQs do change rules be an argument of intent?

As such trying to claim a very specific FAQ about a special rule of an individual, not even wargear, somehow extends across an edition to a different codex, is not a strong intent argument. Its certainly not a RAW argument.

Indeed, Logan is different, but his rule is different for the worse. Logans rule is an ability for a start, which is listed under page 125, it is also a worded as a start of turn ability. So both those points actually put it in a worse off position than the PEN. The only reason I can think of for his rule to be OK and able to be used is that choosing a rule to use for a later phase is OK and doesn't count as using the ability. The using of said ability must happen when the resultant rule is being used instead and not the choosing of it. This is because the choosing of said rule is done by the player and is not done by the unit.

Now considering that the PEN is wargear and is not an ability or special rule in itself as well as the rule being a start of movement choice rather than start of turn, then surely this puts the PEN in a better position.

You can argue about intent all you want but the FAQ section makes it quite clear that they are not meant to be rule changes. If they are rule changes then you are the one arguing intent. I don't see how you can deny the use of the PEN when it is in a much better position than Logans rule in concerns to the rules and that Logans rule has been deemed legal. I think its obvious that when looking at Logans rule that they considered these kind of effects not to be relevant to page 125.

It is certainly dishonest of you to claim we are calling the FAQ writers stupid, when e have done no such thing.

I didn't say you called them stupid, but my interpretation was that you certainly consider them to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
If they interpret Logans rule that way what differences are there that they would interpret the PEN differently? I already asked this question and I never got an answer.

Based on past experience, exactly the same as them interpreting it the same.

So in the meantime what do we do? We have a rules conflict, so the only way we solve it is to look for similar rulings.

The FAQs aren't wrong - I've never said that. The FAQ proves they are at the same time, rules change or not.
Citing Logan's ruling as absolute permission is simply incorrect.

It certainly does show that just quoting page 125 isn't a straight deal though. You may see Logans rule as a direct conflict with page 125 but obviously GW doesn't. Thats the only point I've made. Considering the ruling its only natural for discussion to take place on why that ruling was made.

Saying that Logans rule is not absolute permission doesn't help matters either. All this means is we don't get a resolution and people just keep arguing over and over again. In the case of Logans ruling the question asked was in regards to if Logans mechanics allowed him to use his ability when coming in from reserve. If they answered that as a yes, then why can't we use that ruling in other situations?

For instance lets look at it again.:

Q: Can Logan Grimnar benefit from his The High King special rule
the turn he arrives from reserves? And can Logan use The High
King special rule at the beginning of the opponent’s turn? (p56)
A: Yes and yes.

The question was asked to say if Logans start of turn ability could be used when coming in from reserve. The answer was an enthuaistic yes with no further clarrification. I'm not sure how else I am supposed to interpret this otherwise. If you don't think this should apply to the PEN then I ask what differences can you cite which would hurt its use on the turn coming in from reserve? The conversation we have been having thus far has been centered around why this ruling was made and I have made several arguments indicate why it was made. It appears to that the rule on Page 125 does not apply to Logans ability.

Now you may think that Page 125 does apply to it and that this is a rule change thats been cited in the FAQ section, but then considering we have a section for Errata, then all this means is that GW isn't very good at their FAQs and rule clarrifications. It still does not answer the question in regards to the PEN because people have cited multiple ways in which the rule on Page 125 may not apply to the PEN.

So the only question remains, all arguments aside, should the PEN be allowed to work coming in from reserve? Some people have answered yes, somce people have answered no and thats the last thing to say really. I have already offered my side of the argument and others have offered theirs. I am obviously going to stick to my guns and others are going to stick to theirs. SO I think this should be the end of it.

Wow what people have said about the independent characters giving special rules to a unit they have joined is completely wrong!!!!

Have you read the rules/ codex????

Firstly only the bearer of a puretide chip can gain any benefit from it and I quote:

"At the start of the bearers movement phase, choose one of the following special rules: counter charge, furious charge, monster hunter, stubborn or tank hunter. The model with the Puretide Engram Neurochip has that special rule until the start of his next movement case" pg.73 of tau codex.

Now this model may be an INDEPENDENT CHARACTER that is in/ has joined another unit. However the special rule that the puretide chip gives the independent character IS NOT CONFERED TO THE REST OF THE UNIT!!! If you read the independent character section in the special rules part of the rule book (pages 32-43) you will see this rule, and I quote:

SPECIAL RULES:

"When an independent character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the stubborn special rule), the units special rules are not conferred upon the independent character, and the independent characters special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the independent character is with them." Page. 39 of 6th Ed rulebook.

So in answer to the original question in the thread: YES! People who are using it on buff commanders to grant attached units Monster Hunter or Tank Hunter rules etc, ARE CHEATING!!

Come on people read the rule book and we won't make mistakes like this

Monster Hunter and Tank Hunter rules are not give. To the unit.
Read the special rules in question and you'll see why the unit benefits.

Don't make assumptions that people are cheating or that a 7 page thread gets that far without noticing an obvious incorrect rule.

Come on people, read the rule book and you won't make mistakes like this.

Monster hunter and tank hunter rules are conferred to the rest of the unit if one model in the base unit, I.e. A basic tactical squad has either rule, this excludes independent characters that begin the game in the unit or join the unit throughout the game as independent characters CANNOT. confer their special rules to another unit!

Incorrect.

You're confusing "conferring" with "benefiting from".
The unit the IC joins does not gain the Tank Hunter special rule - that would be conferring it.
They do, however, benefit from said special rule.

Wrong, that is an unsupported assumption of yours.

It states that one model in the unit - whcih the IC indisputably is - means the models in the unit gain the BENEFIT of that rule.

You are mixing up conferring - i.e. granting / giving / presenting - a rule with gaining the benefit of that rule. The PEN does the latter.

I stand corrected, what you say is true (thoroughly re checked and cross referenced) my apologies sir!

Not a problem - best bet when coming into a topic this old is to not assume you have the gotcha! that everyone else missed, and double check first

Although not to say 7 pages in someone doesnt go "but....?" and find the easy answer - it has happened before

Isn't it like with Reserves and assault?

While the fas says that you decide in wich order things are done at the beginning of the movement phase, the fact that the unit came from reserve prohibit it to use the chip.

Like a unit comming from reserves isn't allowed to assault the same turn, its that simple.

The page 125 restriction, is just the same, in clear units coming from reserves can't do gak, be it assaulting or using stuff they use at the beginning of the turn.

With this i'm asking myself, why still use units in reserves at all...

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Isn't it like with Reserves and assault?

While the fas says that you decide in wich order things are done at the beginning of the movement phase, the fact that the unit came from reserve prohibit it to use the chip.

Like a unit comming from reserves isn't allowed to assault the same turn, its that simple.

The page 125 restriction, is just the same, in clear units coming from reserves can't do gak, be it assaulting or using stuff they use at the beginning of the turn.

With this i'm asking myself, why still use units in reserves at all...

Sometimes you might want to get that Team behind the Armor, sow confusion, protect a unit from getting shot at, or create a Hammer and Anvil type situation Tau players have been known in editions past to hide their Fire Warriors in Reserves for as long as possible.