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.

But... but... it doesn't say at the end of the Morale Phase. It says at the end of the turn. How is that not equally broken?

I know I won't convince you and we won't agree, I'm just demonstrating that you can't be OK with one and be fine with the other and remain consistent. I just find that position a curious one to take.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Edit: "at the start of the turn, before the Movement Phase" is tautologous and unnecessary wording, probably exactly why they skipped it.

Not when the start of the turn is the start of the movement phase, its not!

There's a reason why many, many games have an extra phase at the start and end of the turn to resolve these kinds of effects. But again, 99% of the time it makes no difference, so I understand why GW would want to let it go, they just screwed up on only this ONE thing to my knowledge. Everything else works fine being at the 'start of the turn'/'start of the movement phase' and the 'end of the turn'/'end of the morale phase'.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
But... but... it doesn't say at the end of the Morale Phase. It says at the end of the turn. How is that not equally broken?

I know I won't convince you and we won't agree, I'm just demonstrating that you can't be OK with one and be fine with the other and remain consistent. I just find that position a curious one to take.

Really? You don't understand why resolving tactical objectives at the end of the morale phase (which is the same as the end of the turn) works perfectly fine?

The same reason that resolving 99% of 'start of the turn' things at the start of the movement phase (which is the start of the turn) works perfectly fine. Its just the very first/last thing you do at the start/end of the turn, which also happens to be the first thing you do at the start/end of those 2 phases.

 yakface wrote:

terry wrote:
There is no phase before the movement phase, but that doesn't mean there is nothing before the movement phase.

Yes, that's precisely what it means.

When you create a game, you start with a blank slate. There is nothing until you write it to be so. GW have written exactly what comprises a turn in the rulebook. There are only 6 phases and that's what makes up a turn. There is nothing else, as currently written, that makes up a turn, and therefore there is nothing else to a turn.

They could easily create one with any rule, by saying: 'at the start of the turn, before the movement phase...' or by coming out with a FAQ saying that things which happen at the 'start of the turn' occur before the movement phase, but until they do either of those two things, you are absolutely incorrect. The start of the movement phase is the start of the turn.

Start of Turn
| Acts of Faith
|Start of Movement Phase
|| Move your stuff around
|End of Movement Phase
|Other stuff
End of Turn

That's how I believe GW thinks of the phases, and incidently it also lets AoFs work as intended. I am not sure if there's something in the rules that actually tells us that the Start of a Turn and the Start of a Movement Phase aren't the same thing, but to me that's not really necessary? But I'm seeing it more like an XML structure anyway, and even though the turn doesn't do much on it's own and consists of multiple phases, it's still it's own thing and starting the turn is not the same as starting the first phase.

nekooni wrote:

Start of Turn
| Acts of Faith
|Start of Movement Phase
|| Move your stuff around
|End of Movement Phase
|Other stuff
End of Turn

That's how I believe GW thinks of the phases, and incidently it also lets AoFs work as intended. I am not sure if there's something in the rules that actually tells us that the Start of a Turn and the Start of a Movement Phase aren't the same thing, but to me that's not really necessary? But I'm seeing it more like an XML structure anyway, and even though the turn doesn't do much on it's own and consists of multiple phases, it's still it's own thing and starting the turn is not the same as starting the first phase.

Its fine that you feel that way, but currently that is not what the rules say.

Right now, if you have an ability that triggers 'at the start of the turn' and another ability that triggers 'at the start of the movement phase' then you should be using the sequencing rules to determine the order to resolve these two abilities.

Anyone claiming that the 'start of the turn' ability should automatically be going off before the 'start of the movement phase' ability is making things up that are not in the actual rules.

Again: if GW wants the game to function that way, THEY NEED TO FAQ IT like they did in 7th edition.

 yakface wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Edit: "at the start of the turn, before the Movement Phase" is tautologous and unnecessary wording, probably exactly why they skipped it.

Not when the start of the turn is the start of the movement phase, its not!

There's a reason why many, many games have an extra phase at the start and end of the turn to resolve these kinds of effects. But again, 99% of the time it makes no difference, so I understand why GW would want to let it go, they just screwed up on only this ONE thing to my knowledge. Everything else works fine being at the 'start of the turn'/'start of the movement phase' and the 'end of the turn'/'end of the morale phase'.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
But... but... it doesn't say at the end of the Morale Phase. It says at the end of the turn. How is that not equally broken?

I know I won't convince you and we won't agree, I'm just demonstrating that you can't be OK with one and be fine with the other and remain consistent. I just find that position a curious one to take.

Really? You don't understand why resolving tactical objectives at the end of the morale phase (which is the same as the end of the turn) works perfectly fine?

The same reason that resolving 99% of 'start of the turn' things at the start of the movement phase (which is the start of the turn) works perfectly fine. Its just the very first/last thing you do at the start/end of the turn, which also happens to be the first thing you do at the start/end of those 2 phases.

Yes really, hence asking. I'm trying to reason it out amicably.

It's not a dramatically important point I'll cede that, but until the Morale Phase has finished, how do you know the turn is ended to then do TOs? Sure, GW could have added a Start Phase and an End Phase but they seem to be operating on colloquialisms and 'simplest explanation' in this edition. Functionally, our takes are identical most of the time, but in rare occasions it will become important.

Back to the OP, whichever way you play it doesn't matter if the unit Falls Back, as the wording of Fall Back precludes Advancing or Shooting in the same turn. Had it's wording predicated doing something in the Movement Phase, we'd be having a disagreement, as I believe 'start of turn' = 'before Movement Phase' and you don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anyone claiming that the 'start of the turn' ability should automatically be going off before the 'start of the movement phase' ability is making things up that are not in the actual rules.

And I'd argue your take is the one not working within the rules, as you're referring to a Phase not yet begun.

 yakface wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Start of Turn
| Acts of Faith
|Start of Movement Phase
|| Move your stuff around
|End of Movement Phase
|Other stuff
End of Turn

That's how I believe GW thinks of the phases, and incidently it also lets AoFs work as intended. I am not sure if there's something in the rules that actually tells us that the Start of a Turn and the Start of a Movement Phase aren't the same thing, but to me that's not really necessary? But I'm seeing it more like an XML structure anyway, and even though the turn doesn't do much on it's own and consists of multiple phases, it's still it's own thing and starting the turn is not the same as starting the first phase.

Its fine that you feel that way, but currently that is not what the rules say.

Right now, if you have an ability that triggers 'at the start of the turn' and another ability that triggers 'at the start of the movement phase' then you should be using the sequencing rules to determine the order to resolve these two abilities.

Anyone claiming that the 'start of the turn' ability should automatically be going off before the 'start of the movement phase' ability is making things up that are not in the actual rules.

Again: if GW wants the game to function that way, THEY NEED TO FAQ IT like they did in 7th edition.

You can argue this all you want but I'm pretty sure most people agree that "start of the turn" comes before" start of the movement phase". Short of getting into an argument about grammar and timing which threatens to get a bit metaphysical in its definition of what time is.

Regardless only the most rule-lawyery of players would agree with you because it's something they could wring a small advantage out of it somehow.

 yakface wrote:
THEY NEED TO FAQ IT like they did in 7th edition.

That, I think, we can all agree on. Until then I'm going with what the authors obviously intended.

Sim-Life wrote:
Regardless only the most rule-lawyery of players would agree with you because it's something they could wring a small advantage out of it somehow.

Playing by the rules is being a rules lawyer now? I would counter by saying not playing by the rules makes you a cheater.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Sim-Life wrote:
Regardless only the most rule-lawyery of players would agree with you because it's something they could wring a small advantage out of it somehow.

Playing by the rules is being a rules lawyer now? I would counter by saying not playing by the rules makes you a cheater.

No one disagrees with that. However, we don't agree on the rules here. You're in the minority on this one, as consensus seems to largely be not in your favour. Disagreeing with you and Yakface does not equal cheating. It might be helpful if you stop throwing the term cheating around to try and shut down those who don't agree.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Sim-Life wrote:
Regardless only the most rule-lawyery of players would agree with you because it's something they could wring a small advantage out of it somehow.

Playing by the rules is being a rules lawyer now? I would counter by saying not playing by the rules makes you a cheater.

OK - once more:

We're all advocating to play the rules as intended. You're advocating to play rules as written. Both are valid points of view, although one COULD argue about what exactly is rules as written. You can't do that with the rules as intended, as the intention is obvious.
Since RAW isn't clear and one interpretation clearly contradicts RAI, it's fair game to use RAI. Playing it with your prefered RAW interpretation is simply slapping Sisters players in the face because GW failed to write a rule properly. Neither one is cheating.

Cheating would be to use Celestines Act of Faith to let an Exorcist fire as if it were the shooting phase - even though the Exorcist is unable to perform Acts of Faith as per the latest errata / FAQ document.

And to answer your question: Yes, refusing to use the obviously intended version of a rule just because the wording of the rule isn't precise enough IS what's commonly called "rules lawyering". "You know damn well what the author wanted the rule to do, and you refuse to accept that interpretation based on semantics and minute details."

Sim-Life wrote:

 yakface wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Start of Turn
| Acts of Faith
|Start of Movement Phase
|| Move your stuff around
|End of Movement Phase
|Other stuff
End of Turn

That's how I believe GW thinks of the phases, and incidently it also lets AoFs work as intended. I am not sure if there's something in the rules that actually tells us that the Start of a Turn and the Start of a Movement Phase aren't the same thing, but to me that's not really necessary? But I'm seeing it more like an XML structure anyway, and even though the turn doesn't do much on it's own and consists of multiple phases, it's still it's own thing and starting the turn is not the same as starting the first phase.

Its fine that you feel that way, but currently that is not what the rules say.

Right now, if you have an ability that triggers 'at the start of the turn' and another ability that triggers 'at the start of the movement phase' then you should be using the sequencing rules to determine the order to resolve these two abilities.

Anyone claiming that the 'start of the turn' ability should automatically be going off before the 'start of the movement phase' ability is making things up that are not in the actual rules.

Again: if GW wants the game to function that way, THEY NEED TO FAQ IT like they did in 7th edition.

You can argue this all you want but I'm pretty sure most people agree that "start of the turn" comes before" start of the movement phase". Short of getting into an argument about grammar and timing which threatens to get a bit metaphysical in its definition of what time is.

Regardless only the most rule-lawyery of players would agree with you because it's something they could wring a small advantage out of it somehow.

You might think it's rules-lawyery, but actually does have the advantage of being the rules whereas what you say isn't supported by a rules statement.

From the first page of the battle primer:

"Each turn consists of a series of phases, which must be resolved in order. The phases are as follows:

1. MOVEMENT PHASE"

They don't define a "start of turn" phase or anything that says you take care of things before the first phase, only that a turn consists of phases. Therefore, by RAW, the start of the turn is also the start of the first phase - the Movement phase.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if you're supposed to get a double move out of it, but I agree with Yakface that they need to clarify it with a FAQ because as it is, Hand of the Emperor takes place during the movement phase. I don't have a problem with playing it as a double move, as long as people realize that RAW it's messed up.

If there is no distinction between start of turn and start of movement phase, why does GW make one?

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Sim-Life wrote:
Regardless only the most rule-lawyery of players would agree with you because it's something they could wring a small advantage out of it somehow.

Playing by the rules is being a rules lawyer now? I would counter by saying not playing by the rules makes you a cheater.

OK - once more:

We're all advocating to play the rules as intended. You're advocating to play rules as written. Both are valid points of view, although one COULD argue about what exactly is rules as written. You can't do that with the rules as intended, as the intention is obvious.
Since RAW isn't clear and one interpretation clearly contradicts RAI, it's fair game to use RAI. Playing it with your prefered RAW interpretation is simply slapping Sisters players in the face because GW failed to write a rule properly. Neither one is cheating.

Cheating would be to use Celestines Act of Faith to let an Exorcist fire as if it were the shooting phase - even though the Exorcist is unable to perform Acts of Faith as per the latest errata / FAQ document.

And to answer your question: Yes, refusing to use the obviously intended version of a rule just because the wording of the rule isn't precise enough IS what's commonly called "rules lawyering". "You know damn well what the author wanted the rule to do, and you refuse to accept that interpretation based on semantics and minute details."

I disagree - RAW is clear, they've defined a turn as a series of phases, so the start of a turn is also the start of the first phase. You have to show something contradicting that for RAW to be unclear. I don't see a problem with playing it RAPI (rules as probably intended)

Again, GW makes a distinction where you don't. Many abilities are at the start of the movement phase, but not not this one.

The RAW is very clear that Acts of Faith are the first thing a Sisters player does each turn, before any other action-- including the movement phase.

 Melissia wrote:
Again, GW makes a distinction where you don't. Many abilities are at the start of the movement phase, but not not this one.

The RAW is very clear that Acts of Faith are the first thing a Sisters player does each turn, before any other action-- including the movement phase.

Then you have to provide the RAW indicating that the start of the turn is not also the start of the movement (the first) phase. I provided RAW indicating that says that how it works; you have to provide the rules quote to back up your statement that it's different. Saying "start of turn" instead of "start of movement phase" isn't enough, you need to show a statement that they're not the same. As Yakface said, it looks like something GW screwed up with when writing the rule.

 doctortom wrote:
Saying "start of turn" instead of "start of movement phase" isn't enough, you need to show a statement that they're not the same.

You need to show that they're the same, and you really haven't yet. You just assume they are.

 Melissia wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Saying "start of turn" instead of "start of movement phase" isn't enough, you need to show a statement that they're not the same.

You need to show that they're the same, and you really haven't yet. You just assume they are.

Yes, I have shown it. The turn is defined as a series of phases in sequence, starting with the first one - the movement phase. They do not define any pre-phase activity in their rules for the turn. You have to show that they do; you have to show something contradicting what I quoted.

That's not how it works. You're assuming. Show us where the rules say this thing happens in the Movement Phase. Because they don't, so you can't.

 doctortom wrote:
Yes, I have shown it..

You didn't even begin to; you started with an unproven assumption and expected me to believe that same assumption. I don't. Your assumption is wrong, and your argument is wrong as a result of a wrong assumption.

On page 176, under The Battle Round, the rulebook says "Each turn consists of a series of phases, which must be resolved in order." Then it lists the movement phase as the first phase that takes place. Under the same section ("The Battle Round"), it says "Once a player's turn has ended, their opponent starts their turn." Not "[...]their opponent starts their movement phase." as you suggest. You are thus wrong to suggest it. On page 177, the Movement phase states "Start your movement phase by picking[...]" not "Start your turn by picking[...]" as you suggest. You are thus wrong to suggest it. It does not say the movement phase and the start of the turn are the same thing; merely that the movement phase is the first phase to be taken. Your assumption is false.

By assuming the start of the turn and the start of the movement phase are one in the same and therefor there can be nothing between the two, you are actually inserting an idea that does not actually exist in the rulebook, and are not playing by the rules as written. The rules do not explicitly state the the two are the same thing. It states only that the movement phase is the first phase of a turn.

Specific rules override general ones. As an example, normally, you cannot shoot after falling back. However, units with the Fly rule are specifically stated as being able to. In general, the first thing you do when you start your turn is start the movement phase. However, in the specific instance of Sisters of Battle, their special rules indicate that you start your turn with Acts of Faith.

I quote:

ACTS OF FAITH
Roll a D6 at the start of each of your turns. On a roll of 2+, one unit from your army with the Acts of Faith ability can perform an Act of Faith chosen from the following list. Some abilities may allow you to use more than one Act of Faith in the same turn; when this is the case, a different unit must be chosen to perform each Act of Faith.

It does not say "at the start of each of your movement phases". It says "at the start of each of your turns". Normally, the turn starts with the movement phase, however, this specific rule overrides that, and thus the movement phase comes afterwards. Ergo, while it is a general rule that the first thing you do each turn is the movement phase, it is a specific rule for Sisters that the first thing they do is activate Acts of Faith. That is why the "Hand of the Emperor" rule says "as if it were" the movement phase. It allows a movement "as if it were" the movement phase because it doesn't take place in the movement phase.

Prove your argument's assumptions. You can't, but at least try, instead of expecting me to buy in to it. You are not, in fact, reading the rules as written.

 doctortom wrote:
I disagree - RAW is clear, they've defined a turn as a series of phases, so the start of a turn is also the start of the first phase. You have to show something contradicting that for RAW to be unclear. I don't see a problem with playing it (...)

At least in my German BRB there's at least one instance I could find (by literally looking at a total of three pages) that's clearly thinking of such a thing:

page 178, sidebar, should be called something like "order of operations". It describes that when determining the order of operations at e.g. the start of a battle round or the movement phase, the current player gets to decide the order of operations. HOWEVER for a case like the start of a round - which, by your definition is also the start of one of the players turns as well as his movement phase - it's unclear who gets to decide as it's noones turn yet, therefore you roll of. therefore the start of the first turn in a round is NOT the same as the start of the round, and if you take that concept it's clear that the start of a turn is not the same as the start of the movement phase.

On the pages before that the BRB - roughly translated - tells us that a battle round is made up of the two players turns, and each turn is made up of a set of phases. So I see no reason not to apply the above logic to "start of turn" and "start of movement phase".

(...)RAPI (rules as probably intended)

And could you guys please stop pretending there's an alternate intention for how Hand of the Emperor is supposed to work.
As I've asked multiple times now in here: Tell me what you think is the intent for Hand of the Emperor to do, if it's not "move twice in a turn". If you can't, please stop pretending there is just to "support" your rules as written argument. It's not helping your argument at all.

 Melissia wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Yes, I have shown it..

You didn't even begin to; you started with an unproven assumption and expected me to believe that same assumption. I don't. Your assumption is wrong, and your argument is wrong as a result of a wrong assumption.

No, I started with the rules quotation of what a turn is - not an assumption. You even bother to quote it again just below. I didn't realize that rules quoted from the book were assumptions.

 doctortom wrote:
No, I started with the rules quotation of what a turn is

And then inserted your own assumption in order to change the rules, instead of reading the rules as written.

Even though you insist that it does, the quote you gave does not say the start of the turn is the same thing as the movement phase. It gives a list of phases that happen once hte turn starts. Turn must actually start before the movement phase can start.

 doctortom wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
"So I see no reason not to apply the above logic to "start of turn" and "start of movement phase".

Translation - "I am making an assumption that these exist separately, but don't have any rules proof to back that up. Sorry, you shouldn't be accusing me of making assumptions and not following the rules when you so much as admit here you are making an assumption. If I have an assumption, it's that I'm not assuming there's anything in a turn other than what they say is in a turn, which they define as a series of phases, and I shouldn't try to read in rules that aren't there and claim them as RAW.. Since they don't state there is anything else to a turn, that's not really an assumption, that''s RAW.

If you're picking apart the quotes, at least get it right as to who you're quoting.And taking a single line of text, ignoring the entirety of the remaining argument, is simply dishonest. Feel free to continue arguing your point of view, I'll rest my case.

To paraphrase what I said earlier (and which you haven't responded to, presumably because you started typing your response before I finished my edit), the specific overrides the general. Normally, the turn starts with the movement phase because it is the first of several phases that must be done in order; however, this specific rule-- Acts of Faith-- overrides that, and thus the movement phase comes afterwards. Ergo, while it is a general rule that the first thing you do each turn is the movement phase, it is a specific rule for Sisters that the first thing they do is activate Acts of Faith.

The list of Phases to be done in order lists Movement first, therefor, generally, you do Movement first. However, Acts of Faith states specifically:

Roll a D6 at the start of each of your turns.

... it therefor happens at the start of the turn. And let's be clear here, GW does make a distinction between the start of a turn and the start of a phase. And again, the rules in the rulebook do not say "Once a player's turn has ended, their opponent then starts their movement phase." It very clearly states "Once a player's turn has ended, their opponent then starts their turn." And, as noted before, normally this means the movement phase goes first. However, the specific rules of Acts of Faith mean they go first instead, because they go at the start of the turn.

 doctortom wrote:
Since they don't state there is anything else to a turn

They do.

See: Index Imperium 2, page 90. Your base assumption remains wrong.

 Melissia wrote:

... it therefor happens at the start of the turn. And let's be clear here, GW does make a distinction between the start of a turn and the start of a phase. And again, the rules in the rulebook do not say "Once a player's turn has ended, their opponent then starts their movement phase." It very clearly states "Once a player's turn has ended, their opponent then starts their turn." And, as noted before, normally this means the movement phase goes first. However, the specific rules of Acts of Faith mean they go first instead, because they go at the start of the turn.

And again, just because a rule says 'the start of the turn' does not mean that cannot also be 'the start of the movement phase', which is exactly the same thing given the definition of what comprises a turn.

So just to reiterate what your arguments seem to be again and why they are based on fallacies:


1) Because the rules sometimes say 'start of turn' instead of 'start of the movement phase' that means there is a defined difference between the two. This is false, because the start of the turn can be the same thing as the start of the movement phase.


2) There must be a difference between the two terms because why else would GW use two different terms? There are a wide variety of reasons this could have happened, including the use of different writers, some less aware of this issue than others. As well as converting rules from previous editions that were written that way already. Or just anytime a writer wants to have an ability start at the beginning or end of the turn, the first thing they'd think of as a writer is to make that rule trigger at the 'start of the turn', because 99% of the time it works fine that way, not necessarily thinking that using one term over the other could create confusion, etc.

But regardless of 'why' GW sometimes uses two different terms ('start of the turn' vs. 'start of the movement phase'), that fact alone does not indicate there is any difference between the two, because the rules clearly define the turn as starting with the movement phase and ending with the morale phase, so 'start of the turn' = 'start of the movement phase' and 'end of the turn' = 'end of the morale phase'. No amount of ancillary evidence changes this.

 yakface wrote:
And again, just because a rule says 'the start of the turn' does not mean that cannot also be 'the start of the movement phase'

Prove they mean the same thing.

You haven't yet. You have merely assumed they mean the same thing, but you have put forth no argument that they in fact are the same thing, merely stated you believe they are.

Just because the movement phase is the first thing that happens in any given turn does not mean that no exceptions can be made for other things to happen before it. Just like with falling back stopping you from shooting, there is an exception.

 Melissia wrote:
Prove they mean the same thing.

You haven't yet. You have merely assumed they mean the same thing, but you have put forth no argument that they in fact are the same thing, merely stated you believe they are.

Just because the movement phase is the first thing that happens in any given turn does not mean that no exceptions can be made for other things to happen before it. Just like with falling back stopping you from shooting, there is an exception.

I have proved they are the same thing because the rulebook lays out what comprises the turn, and its only 6 phases. For there to be anything else, it would have to be specifically mentioned.

And before you say: 'well they have specifically mentioned it, because they say 'start of the turn'", again I will point out that the start of the turn CAN BE the same thing as the start of the movement phase, so the fact that they use two different kinds of terminology does not, in and of itself, mean anything.

So OF COURSE they can make exceptions that allow something to happen 'at the start of the turn, but before the movement phase', but until they actually write it that way, based on how they've laid out the turn there is literally nothing before the start of the movement phase, as that is the start of the turn.

This whole page is off topic anyway. I still disagree with Yakface on this one.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This whole page is off topic anyway.

Indeed. I will stop now, as it is a totally pointless exercise.

Sorry to revive a dead horse here, but the rules seem pretty clear to me that there is empty space before and after a turn, or at the very least between each battle rounds, in which to do things. If the minority group on here that says there is nothing before the movement phase is correct, we should move seamlessly from player B's morale phase to player A's movement phase, without stopping or pausing in between. It should always be either player A's turn, or player B's turn. But the rule book says that interpretation is incorrect. The sequencing rules in the sidebar state that if two or more abilities need to be resolved at the same time, the player whose turn it is chooses the order. But, if two or more abilities occur simultaneously at the start or end of a battle round, players roll off to decide the order. We need to roll off between rounds because it isn't either player's turn. In other words, there is empty space (at least between rounds) when we can resolve abilities.

For example, Mechanicus canticles are resolved at the start of the battle round. If two Mechanicus players face off, the main rules expressly tell you to roll off to determine the order for resolving them. We don't race into the movement phase. In other words, there is express permission in the rulebook to resolve effects outside of the boundaries of the six phases. I don't buy the argument that because we have six phases, we can't have a state of time that is before or after those phases. We have to end the turn, and that is a point in time. Then we start the next turn or end the round. And if nothing in the game triggers on these steps, feel free to blow right by them.

Their also appears to be a distinction between events that happen at the end of a turn (like scoring tactical objectives), and events that happen at the end of a round (like rolling to end the game). You resolve end of turn abilities before end of round abilities. Any other interpretation leads to absurd results, like someone sequencing the game to end before their opponent scores their tactical objectives.