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.

CountCyrus wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 M0ff3l wrote:
grammatically yes

That's all that matters.

Not really,

You are correct, it isn't always the case.
But specific to this case, do you have anything to suggest that "Game Turn" and "Turn of the game" do not mean the same thing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 M0ff3l wrote:
actually i just realized that turn of the game has a possesive meaning, so i retract my statement where i agreed with you on a gramatic level.

A Game comprises of Turns.
A Game Turn comprises of 2 player Turns.

So a Turn belonging to a Game (and not a player) would be a Game turn, if you want to go down the possesive route.

 grendel083 wrote:

CountCyrus wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 M0ff3l wrote:
grammatically yes

That's all that matters.

Not really,

You are correct, it isn't always the case.
But specific to this case, do you have anything to suggest that "Game Turn" and "Turn of the game" do not mean the same thing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 M0ff3l wrote:
actually i just realized that turn of the game has a possesive meaning, so i retract my statement where i agreed with you on a gramatic level.

A Game comprises of Turns.
A Game Turn comprises of 2 player Turns.

So a Turn belonging to a Game (and not a player) would be a Game turn, if you want to go down the possesive route.

I dont want to go down any gramatical routes anymore, i clearly stated how i interpreted the rules.

If they meant game turn they would have specifically written first game turn, as the rules tell us thats how they write turn related rules.
They didnt write game turn so to me its player turn.

And so this will be the end of this discussion for me.

Also a turn belonging to the game is not automatically a game turn. Because a player turn is also a turn that belongs to the game.

 M0ff3l wrote:
They didnt write game turn so to me its player turn.

They wrote something that means Game Turn. Rules wise, there's no difference.

 grendel083 wrote:

 M0ff3l wrote:
They didnt write game turn so to me its player turn.

They wrote something that means Game Turn. Rules wise, there's no difference.

sigh its hard to stop if you dont read my entire posts....

Also a turn belonging to the game is not automatically a game turn. Because a player turn is also a turn that belongs to the game.

Well I didn't realise it was such a highly debated topic, obviously it's ambiguous as we can't come to a consensus.

Does anyone know how the large tournament have ruled it (did it come up), they aren't always right but in these situation it's good to let a third party decide to save on continuing arguments as we can't decide ourselves.

I'd like to point out the 5th ed rule:
"A Deathstrike missile may not be fired on the first turn of the game......"

And the newer rule:
"may not be fired during the first turn of the game".

6th ed was the first edition to clarify that any reference to "turn" meant player turn. 7th carried this over as well.

The rule has three parts.
1. Statement of the rule restriction, "may not be fired"
2. When the rule restricting will apply, this could be any number of things, IE: before, during, after, while, etc. In this case it is "during"
3. When this restriction is applied, "the first turn of the game"

The first two parts are not being debated.
The third part is, the first turn of the game can also be written, due to the BRB, "the first (player) turn of the game" because of the new rules.

I think alot of you are confusing the 5th edition rulebook ruling and applying to the new book.

Ask yourself this, if the 5th ed unit never existed, would you be arguing so hard about something that is clearly meant to prevent the first player from alpha striking the bejezus out of their opponent should be ruled like the 5th ed codex?

 M0ff3l wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 M0ff3l wrote:
They didnt write game turn so to me its player turn.

They wrote something that means Game Turn. Rules wise, there's no difference.

sigh its hard to stop if you dont read my entire posts....

Also a turn belonging to the game is not automatically a game turn. Because a player turn is also a turn that belongs to the game.

I did read it.
It's a route that leads no where.

If you think it's refering to the turn belonging to the Game you'll have to back that up.
Game turns belong to the Game.
Player turns belong to Game turn.
Does that mean Player turns belong to the game? Maybe, maybe not.

So if "Turn of the game" means a turn belonging to the game then it could be Game Turn, or player turn (depending on if or not that sort of indirect possession applies). So no real answer. Hence i did not respnd to it.

And since they used a term that means "Game turn", there was again no need to go down a route that will prove nothing.

 sfshilo wrote:
I'd like to point out the 5th ed rule:
"A Deathstrike missile may not be fired on the first turn of the game......"

And the newer rule:
"may not be fired during the first turn of the game".

6th ed was the first edition to clarify that any reference to "turn" meant player turn. 7th carried this over as well.

The rule has three parts.
1. Statement of the rule restriction, "may not be fired"
2. When the rule restricting will apply, this could be any number of things, IE: before, during, after, while, etc. In this case it is "during"
3. When this restriction is applied, "the first turn of the game"

The first two parts are not being debated.
The third part is, the first turn of the game can also be written, due to the BRB, "the first (player) turn of the game" because of the new rules.

I think alot of you are confusing the 5th edition rulebook ruling and applying to the new book.

Ask yourself this, if the 5th ed unit never existed, would you be arguing so hard about something that is clearly meant to prevent the first player from alpha striking the bejezus out of their opponent should be ruled like the 5th ed codex?

All im arguing is that how 7th edition worded its rules about player/game turns and how the rule says turn of the game (which can be either), in an ambigious case it should be ruled player turn.

 WisdomLS wrote:
Well I didn't realise it was such a highly debated topic, obviously it's ambiguous as we can't come to a consensus.

You only have one person stating it doesn't refer to game turn, despite being aware that the two terms share the same meaning.

 M0ff3l wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:
I'd like to point out the 5th ed rule:
"A Deathstrike missile may not be fired on the first turn of the game......"

And the newer rule:
"may not be fired during the first turn of the game".

6th ed was the first edition to clarify that any reference to "turn" meant player turn. 7th carried this over as well.

The rule has three parts.
1. Statement of the rule restriction, "may not be fired"
2. When the rule restricting will apply, this could be any number of things, IE: before, during, after, while, etc. In this case it is "during"
3. When this restriction is applied, "the first turn of the game"

The first two parts are not being debated.
The third part is, the first turn of the game can also be written, due to the BRB, "the first (player) turn of the game" because of the new rules.

I think alot of you are confusing the 5th edition rulebook ruling and applying to the new book.

Ask yourself this, if the 5th ed unit never existed, would you be arguing so hard about something that is clearly meant to prevent the first player from alpha striking the bejezus out of their opponent should be ruled like the 5th ed codex?

All im arguing is that how 7th edition worded its rules about player/game turns and how the rule says turn of the game (which can be either), in an ambigious case it should be ruled player turn.

I think I am agreeing with you? But you replying like this is confusing me?

RAW and RAI for once are in alignment in my opinion.

RAW, first player turn can't shoot giant death missile.
RAI, first player turn can't shoot giant death missile.

 sfshilo wrote:
RAW, first player turn can't shoot giant death missile.

Can you please point out the use of the term "player" in the sentence that instead mentions "game" when refering to turns?

 sfshilo wrote:

 M0ff3l wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:
I'd like to point out the 5th ed rule:
"A Deathstrike missile may not be fired on the first turn of the game......"

And the newer rule:
"may not be fired during the first turn of the game".

6th ed was the first edition to clarify that any reference to "turn" meant player turn. 7th carried this over as well.

The rule has three parts.
1. Statement of the rule restriction, "may not be fired"
2. When the rule restricting will apply, this could be any number of things, IE: before, during, after, while, etc. In this case it is "during"
3. When this restriction is applied, "the first turn of the game"

The first two parts are not being debated.
The third part is, the first turn of the game can also be written, due to the BRB, "the first (player) turn of the game" because of the new rules.

I think alot of you are confusing the 5th edition rulebook ruling and applying to the new book.

Ask yourself this, if the 5th ed unit never existed, would you be arguing so hard about something that is clearly meant to prevent the first player from alpha striking the bejezus out of their opponent should be ruled like the 5th ed codex?

All im arguing is that how 7th edition worded its rules about player/game turns and how the rule says turn of the game (which can be either), in an ambigious case it should be ruled player turn.

I think I am agreeing with you? But you replying like this is confusing me?

RAW and RAI for once are in alignment in my opinion.

RAW, first player turn can't shoot giant death missile.
RAI, first player turn can't shoot giant death missile.

I couldnt really tell your opinion from your post, to me it was more of a summary and a why are we having this discussion post, which was needed in this thread (partially thanks to me).

But i did not try to come over as offensive, i just wanted to clearly state how i interpretate the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

 WisdomLS wrote:
Well I didn't realise it was such a highly debated topic, obviously it's ambiguous as we can't come to a consensus.

You only have one person stating it doesn't refer to game turn, despite being aware that the two terms share the same meaning.

When will you let go that i said once that it was gramatically the same but not rules wise and then later redacted that statement when i figured out it was a possesive sentence? its really starting to piss me off that you misquote me every second post of yours. Also there have been like 2 other people besides me saying its player turn.

 M0ff3l wrote:
When will you let go that i said once that it was gramatically the same but not rules wise

Gramatically? As in what the words means? Because rules are written in words. Grammer is a part of the language, it's what gives it meaning. To say that you agree with one but not the other makes no sense. You agree with the meaning, but somehow the meaning makes no difference? The rule can't work without the meaning of the sentence.

and then later redacted that statement when i figured out it was a possesive sentence?

Have you been able to prove this wild theory? You say you've worked it out, please enlighten us. How is it possesive, and what does that mean?

 grendel083 wrote:

 M0ff3l wrote:
When will you let go that i said once that it was gramatically the same but not rules wise

Gramatically? As in what the words means? Because rules are written in words. Grammer is a part of the language, it's what gives it meaning. To say that you agree with one but not the other makes no sense. You agree with the meaning, but somehow the meaning makes no difference? The rule can't work without the meaning of the sentence.

and then later redacted that statement when i figured out it was a possesive sentence?

Have you been able to prove this wild theory? You say you've worked it out, please enlighten us. How is it possesive, and what does that mean?

As i said im not arguing with you about the gramatical implications of game turn vs turn of the game. if they really mean the same why didnt they write first game turn.

All im asking you is if you would please stop misquoting me, thank you.

 M0ff3l wrote:
All im asking you is if you would please stop misquoting me, thank you.

I wasn't trying to misquote you, and I shall do my best not to.

Problem is your statement makes no sense. You're saying you agreed that is what the sentense means, but that the meaning of words don't apply to rules? How can that work?

Grammer doesn't apply to rules, is that what you're saying?

 grendel083 wrote:

 M0ff3l wrote:
All im asking you is if you would please stop misquoting me, thank you.

I wasn't trying to misquote you, and I shall do my best not to.

Problem is your statement makes no sense. You're saying you agreed that is what the sentense means, but that the meaning of words don't apply to rules? How can that work?

Grammer doesn't apply to rules, is that what you're saying?

for the last time, im saying that:

first turn of the game means the games first turn.
a game turn is not the same as a games turn. turn of the game is a games turn.
because of this ambiguity there is no specific reference to game turn, so it should be ruled player turn.
Another evidence providing point is that they did not write game turn but turn of the game. game turn needs a specific reference, player turn is in all other cases. If they meant game turn why didnt they just write game turn.

Thats how i understand the gramatical implications and the rulings on this issue, thats my view and even if its skewed i would like you to not quote me on it anymore thank you.

Turn of the game == game turn. That is a specific reference to game turn, because thats how language works.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Turn of the game == game turn. That is a specific reference to game turn, because thats how language works.

So first player turn of the game would also be a game turn according to you. Because of the game is specificly refering to game turn and the rules say if it specificly says game turn its a game turn. how does that make sense?

 M0ff3l wrote:

Angelic wrote:
Is "turn of the game" not "game turn"?

No, because the rules for player turn and game turn state that only Game Turn means Game Turn. First turn of the Game, means first player turn of the game for that reason.

If you actually believe this then there isnt anything anyone here can do to help you.


Its talking about game turn and not mentioning a single players turn.

 Eihnlazer wrote:

 M0ff3l wrote:

Angelic wrote:
Is "turn of the game" not "game turn"?

No, because the rules for player turn and game turn state that only Game Turn means Game Turn. First turn of the Game, means first player turn of the game for that reason.

If you actually believe this then there isnt anything anyone here can do to help you.


Its game turn.

So then explain to me how first player turn of the game is not a game turn according to you.

EDIT: as you have editted your post here is my response to that: If any other rule says: First player turn of the game, according to your arguement it must mean game turn. And that certainly doesnt make sense, so why would a turn of the game be a game turn?

Oddly enough, when you change the words, you change the meaning of the sentence. Not sure why you are asking such obvious questions, apart from to prop up a crumbling position.

The first player turn of the game, is the first player turn from the point at which the game starts.

The first turn of the game is the first game turn.

Different sentences giving different answers. Shocking.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Oddly enough, when you change the words, you change the meaning of the sentence. Not sure why you are asking such obvious questions, apart from to prop up a crumbling position.

The first player turn of the game, is the first player turn from the point at which the game starts.

The first turn of the game is the first game turn.

Different sentences giving different answers. Shocking.

the first player turn of the game can also be intepreted as the first turn of the game, as a game turn consists of 2 player turns, the first player turn and the first game turn start at the same time.

 M0ff3l wrote:


So then explain to me how first player turn of the game is not a game turn according to you.

Because a game turn comprises two player turns. First 11 words under "Game Turns and Player Turns" in the rulebook.

 M0ff3l wrote:

...why would a turn of the game be a game turn?

What? Because it is?

A game turn is a turn of the game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 M0ff3l wrote:


the first player turn of the game can also be intepreted as the first turn of the game

No, the first player turn of the game is the first player turn of the game. The first turn of the game (or game turn) again, comprises two player turns.

 M0ff3l wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Oddly enough, when you change the words, you change the meaning of the sentence. Not sure why you are asking such obvious questions, apart from to prop up a crumbling position.

The first player turn of the game, is the first player turn from the point at which the game starts.

The first turn of the game is the first game turn.

Different sentences giving different answers. Shocking.

the first player turn of the game can also be intepreted as the first turn of the game, as a game turn consists of 2 player turns, the first player turn and the first game turn start at the same time.

No it cannot, as "player turn" is unambiguous in meaning.

How would interpret the rule if "of the game" was removed from it?

It would be player turn correct?
Because turn = player turn
And game turn = game turn.

So i read the sentence the same as this: first (player) turn of the game

Because i see the prepositional phrase as nothing more than an irrelevant descriptor of the object turn. which is a player turn, by default.
first turn of the game
first turn of the day
first turn of the night
first turn of the event

I read these all the same.

But i do believe GW's RAI was to not let the deathstrike fire until game turn 2

 deviantduck wrote:
How would interpret the rule if "of the game" was removed from it?

It would be player turn correct?
Because turn = player turn
And game turn = game turn.

So i read the sentence the same as this: first (player) turn of the game

Because i see the prepositional phrase as nothing more than an irrelevant descriptor of the object turn. which is a player turn, by default.
first turn of the game
first turn of the day
first turn of the night
first turn of the event

I read these all the same.

But i do believe GW's RAI was to not let the deathstrike fire until game turn 2

Why do you believe the RAI is game turn 2? If its just not the first player turn the opponent has his deployment and 1 movement and shooting phase to prepare for it. IF its game turn 2 he could shoot and move twice, which could lead to him killing it before being fired pretty easily. (not trying to argue here, I would just like your opinion on the RAI)

The Authors allow the Player going first to be able remove an Enemy as a Casualty before that Enemy has had a chance to shoot or even move, so why would we conclude it is any different here?

It is entirely up to the Second Player to account for the fact the First Player will get to go first during every Turn, and all that entails, as part of their tactics. Failure to do so, leading to an expensive Model being removed before it can get into a position to do anything, has always been the fault of the player's choice in tactics, not the Rules themselves. The Deathstrike Missile is one of several Model which require extra care during deployment, regardless of who is going first, and the player utilizing it needs to take that into account.

So, unless you want to argue that the Authors intended to protect someone from a bad tactical decision, First Turn of the Game is pretty self explanatory.