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.

Ok, so me and the people I play with have playing blessings as they end at the end of the turn. However, upon picking up Tyranids, I noticed the way synapse works/the blessing that extends synapse would run out before synapse was relevant, so surely its useless. Then I reread the blessing section, and it says "... lasts until the end of the following turn".

I.e: if I cast a blessing during turn 1 movement, does it last till the end of turn 2?

Turn is always referring to player turn unless otherwise specified.
So a blessing cast in the top of turn 1 lasts until the top of turn 2.

One advantage you have here is that you can resolve casting Blessings before testing for Instinctive Behavior, meaning you can cast Dominion and not have to test for a unit that's 13" away from your Synapse.

Just say: Assuming Direct Control when you do it....
Sorry, for some reason couldn't resist the obvious joke.

Blessings are cast at the start of movement. IB is resolved at the start of the turn. Surely therefore, IB is resolved, and the extra 6 inches comes in after, too late?

Sidguard wrote:
Blessings are cast at the start of movement. IB is resolved at the start of the turn. Surely therefore, IB is resolved, and the extra 6 inches comes in after, too late?

Start of turn == start of movement.
Things that happen at the same time, the active player decides the order of. You can decide to resolve IB first if you want to, but I'd recommend doing Dominion first.

Sidguard wrote:
Blessings are cast at the start of movement. IB is resolved at the start of the turn. Surely therefore, IB is resolved, and the extra 6 inches comes in after, too late?

Please find where the rules state the start of the turn is not the start of the movement phase.

Please find where it is stated. Permissive ruleset you know.

The start of the turn and the start of the movement phase are synonymous because GW tells us so in the FAQ.

Which one ?

It's one of the most cited (and miss-cited) entries in the main rulebook FAQ:

Q: Blessings are manifested ‘at the start of the Psyker’s Movement
phase’ – does this mean they happen simultaneously with Reserves
rolls, Outflanking rolls etc and if so which is resolved first? (p68)
A: They do occur simultaneously – as such, the player whose
turn it is decides in what order these things occur as per
page 9 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.

This one, on page 7 of the FAQ

"Q: Blessings are manifested ‘at the start of the Psyker’s Movement phase’ – does this mean they happen simultaneously with Reserves rolls, Outflanking rolls etc and if so which is resolved first? (p68)
A: They do occur simultaneously – as such, the player whose turn it is decides in what order these things occur as per page 9 of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook."

It's more by implication than explicit. Reserve rolls occur at the start of the turn. Blessings are cast at the start of the movement phase. Blessings and Reserve Rolls occur simultaneously. Thus "start of the turn" and "start of the movement phase" mean the same thing.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Please find where it is stated. Permissive ruleset you know.

Logic also dictates that the start of the turn is the start of the movement phase as your turn starts with the movement phase.

The FAQ confirms this as well.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Please find where it is stated. Permissive ruleset you know.

Done. I have a start of turn, and three phases. I have no permission to treat the start of turn as anything other than the start of movement phase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Please find where it is stated. Permissive ruleset you know.

Done. I have a start of turn, and three phases. I have no permission to treat the start of turn as anything other than the start of movement phase.

The FAQ is the reason, not that. It doesn't come down to permissions but rather logic and the clarification of the FAQ.

Uptopdownunder,

Nosferatu1001 is correct, page 9 informs us what consists of a turn and there is no mention within this page of a 'start of turn phase' or 'end of turn phase.' Due to their absence within the book itself, we are forced to use a time line that begins in the movement phase and ends in the assault phase. These phases would be required to create a timeline that does not overlap with the phases we are provided on this page. That is why the Frequently Asked Question pointed out that they occur on the same point on the time line, because page 9 states they must.

Personally;
I would of liked a start and end of turn phase as there are rules that use this point in the time line that do not like each other at all during the few times they do clash!

Yeh, but it's got nothing to do with permissions.
It's simply that the start of the turn (and end) is an obvious point in time.

I agree that a specific start and end time would make a lot of thing simpler.

Yet in order to operate outside of this timeline one would need permission to do so, I think that is the point.

I think you will find people here a bit defensive when it comes to arguments concerning this point on the time line because of past experiences. To often have people tried to do so in order to lay the ground work that one has to treat them as different entities, this often concluding that one must therefore come before another. For example, their opponents can not do things like Blessings before Reserves. That is why that Frequently Asked Question exists after all, to inform us that there is only three phases for things to occur in.

I certainly agree that it has at times in the past been a widely accepted notion that the "start of the turn" is a distinct point in time from the "Start of the Movement Phase"

It still can be encountered from time to time, even here, which is why that Frequently Asked Question gets around... pity it was badly written.

More badly read than badly written

Given the amount of times it is pulled out for "oh my god guys, I found out I can bring a psyker in from reserves and then have them cast a blessing !!!! " posts I have to go with badly written at this point. It is not the only one I have found with such over-sights, as well as some questions I feel where loaded with answers as simple as 'yes' that greatly change rules, I have little of a view in Frequently Asked Questions in general for a reason. However they are official rules and at times they have been useful, so we abide by them, and doubly respect them here as they can be quoted as if they where law.

In God's name how when there is a specific rule that says they can't?

If that isn't bad reading what is it ?

That is why I consider such errors fairly benign:
Point out that page 67 and page 125 are both restrictions not being addressed by the Frequently Asked Question and move on.

We are getting a bit off topic here though, all over a interesting side argument that pops up from time to time that we are on the same side of.

I'm sorry but I don't understand you at all.

How does you saying it's bad writing and me saying its bad reading make us on the same side?

How does an explicit rule that says YOU CANNOT DO X make the confusion that the readers experience down to bad writing and not bad reading ?

Same side that we agree there is a clear restriction.

The reason why I consider it bad writing is very simple, these are rule books we are talking about here. Rules books are meant to be written in a way that is designed to prevent these sorts of confusions from occurring, and Game Workshop has a reputation of failing on that regard for a very good reason. The number of people whom have brought this Frequently Asked Question to the forum to ask either if it was a correct interpretation or sort of boast at the find makes me pause and really wonder if it is just 'bad reading.' Maybe an editor should of caught that there could of been a duel interpretation if people took it at face value or update it to fix the possible confusion that is clearly occuring.

What more can you do but write a rule that says "When you enter from reserve you cannot cast a blessing" or words to that effect?

How can that possibly have a dual interpretation ?

I am quite comfortable with the idea that most FAQ extend from poor reading and comprehension. That isn't to suggest there aren't some instances of poor or unclear writing but in any written work that is to be expected. It's why Solicitors have jobs.

The duel interpenetration isn't from the restriction itself, that is clear as a bell, but from the application of the Answer. Enough people have come forth with the incorrect interpretation that the Answer over-rides the restrictions for me to chalk it up to bad reading every time. Once is happenstance, Twice is Circumstance but dozens of times and I have to start wondering if there was an editor. Blab... blab... blab, insert another joke about Game Workshop paying their Editors in banana's.

How can an editor make "You cannot do this" any more clear?

Perhaps it isn't the Editors who have the banana diet.

How many times can I say:
It might be clear to you, it might be clear to me, but there are too many people out there whom it isn't clear for and the writers and editors are tasked to prevent that from occurring.

How many times can I ask, how more clear do you need to be for this to be a problem with the reader rather than the writer.