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.

So recently at the London Open Part 2, Bethany Taylor used the stratagem "Aquisition at any cost" multiple times in the same end of turn on the same unit.



Since the end of turn isnt a phase (much like the beggining of the game), is that a legal move?

This has been discussed multiple times here, and it always ended in disagreement. It is unclear if the end of a phase is still during the phase, or not. The rules dont say anything about it, and GW hasnt provided any FAQ clarification. What they have done is a tournament house rule. HIWPI, if it mentions the name of a phase its still during a phase. If it says something like end of turn, start of battle round, during deployment, then its not during a phase, and its the only one time per phase limitation doesnt apply.

The BRB pg. 215 gives two examples what is not during a phase, "before the battle begins" and "at the end of a battle round". Judging from that "the end of any of your turns" is not during a phase, ands the stratagem can be played multiple times.

Seconded - but I would add at an event like the london Open if the opponent was unhappy they should get a ruling at the event and if they were not unhappy they accepted the result.

Nameing players and then assessing the legality of their approach publically is not fair when they may not be able to defend themselves and it could effect their reputation.

A1+1 used three times still equals 2. That would be my debate against the opponent.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
A1+1 used three times still equals 2. That would be my debate against the opponent.

1+1+1+1 = 2?

I mean, i'm no mathematician but im pretty sure that's not the case.

The stratagem says that it adds 1 to the saves and attacks, not that your save/attacks become (unmodified stat + 1)

You can't do this in matched play (the end of the turn is the same as the end of the Morale Phase), so it's a moot point (if you're playing Narrative or Open play, just forge the narrative or something).

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You can't do this in matched play (the end of the turn is the same as the end of the Morale Phase), so it's a moot point (if you're playing Narrative or Open play, just forge the narrative or something).

I think the point of this thread is that it WAS matched play since it was a GT.

I can see arguments for both sides based on GW's FAQ's. Without the FAQ's, I'd say BCB is right. RAW though, the FAQ's, functioning as erratas, have created some extra parts to a turn.

Audustum wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You can't do this in matched play (the end of the turn is the same as the end of the Morale Phase), so it's a moot point (if you're playing Narrative or Open play, just forge the narrative or something).

I think the point of this thread is that it WAS matched play since it was a GT.

I can see arguments for both sides based on GW's FAQ's. Without the FAQ's, I'd say BCB is right. RAW though, the FAQ's, functioning as erratas, have created some extra parts to a turn.

If there is an FAQ that says otherwise, of course it outranks RaW (as much as I hate Special Snowflake FAQS).

 p5freak wrote:
This has been discussed multiple times here, and it always ended in disagreement. It is unclear if the end of a phase is still during the phase, or not. The rules dont say anything about it, and GW hasnt provided any FAQ clarification. What they have done is a tournament house rule. HIWPI, if it mentions the name of a phase its still during a phase. If it says something like end of turn, start of battle round, during deployment, then its not during a phase, and its the only one time per phase limitation doesnt apply.

The BRB pg. 215 gives two examples what is not during a phase, "before the battle begins" and "at the end of a battle round". Judging from that "the end of any of your turns" is not during a phase, ands the stratagem can be played multiple times.

Neither "before the battle begins" or "at the end of a battle round" is "at the end of the turn" (which is the end of the Morale Phase).

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You can't do this in matched play (the end of the turn is the same as the end of the Morale Phase), so it's a moot point (if you're playing Narrative or Open play, just forge the narrative or something).

I think the point of this thread is that it WAS matched play since it was a GT.

I can see arguments for both sides based on GW's FAQ's. Without the FAQ's, I'd say BCB is right. RAW though, the FAQ's, functioning as erratas, have created some extra parts to a turn.

If there is an FAQ that says otherwise, of course it outranks RaW (as much as I hate Special Snowflake FAQS).

 p5freak wrote:
This has been discussed multiple times here, and it always ended in disagreement. It is unclear if the end of a phase is still during the phase, or not. The rules dont say anything about it, and GW hasnt provided any FAQ clarification. What they have done is a tournament house rule. HIWPI, if it mentions the name of a phase its still during a phase. If it says something like end of turn, start of battle round, during deployment, then its not during a phase, and its the only one time per phase limitation doesnt apply.

The BRB pg. 215 gives two examples what is not during a phase, "before the battle begins" and "at the end of a battle round". Judging from that "the end of any of your turns" is not during a phase, ands the stratagem can be played multiple times.

Neither "before the battle begins" or "at the end of a battle round" is "at the end of the turn" (which is the end of the Morale Phase).

It's true, but the latter would mean you could pull this trick IF you were going second since the end of the battle round is also the end of the 2nd player's turn.

I have to disagree. Your turn consist of phases, but the beginning and ending of your turn are outside of the phases. You start your turn and then start your movement phase. You end your Morale phase and then you end your turn. They are not synonymous with each other.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You can't do this in matched play (the end of the turn is the same as the end of the Morale Phase), so it's a moot point (if you're playing Narrative or Open play, just forge the narrative or something).

Citation please where it says that the end of the turn is the same as the end of the morale phase. Citation please where it says that the end of the morale phase is still during a phase.

If the end of the morale phase is the same as the end of turn, why do some stratagems say something like end of turn, instead of end of morale phase ? Why, if both are the same ? Why write something different ? Because they are not the same.

 p5freak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You can't do this in matched play (the end of the turn is the same as the end of the Morale Phase), so it's a moot point (if you're playing Narrative or Open play, just forge the narrative or something).

Citation please where it says that the end of the turn is the same as the end of the morale phase. Citation please where it says that the end of the morale phase is still during a phase.

I already have, multiple times, in the previous threads on the matter. Explicitly for you, in fact. Feel free to go re-read them.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I already have, multiple times, in the previous threads on the matter. Explicitly for you, in fact. Feel free to go re-read them.

No, you dont.

If the end of the morale phase is the same as the end of turn, why do some stratagems say something like end of turn, instead of end of morale phase ? Why, if both are the same ? Why write something different ? Because they are not the same.

 p5freak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I already have, multiple times, in the previous threads on the matter. Explicitly for you, in fact. Feel free to go re-read them.

No, you dont.

If the end of the morale phase is the same as the end of turn, why do some stratagems say something like end of turn, instead of end of morale phase ? Why, if both are the same ? Why write something different ? Because they are not the same.

Because GW are incompetent?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I already have, multiple times, in the previous threads on the matter. Explicitly for you, in fact. Feel free to go re-read them.

No, you dont.

If the end of the morale phase is the same as the end of turn, why do some stratagems say something like end of turn, instead of end of morale phase ? Why, if both are the same ? Why write something different ? Because they are not the same.

Because GW are incompetent?

Thats true. And you are wrong.

This old chestnut.

Suffice it to say that this causes a big argument here every time the issue comes up.

GW have not been clear on what the intention is, and the RAW is lacking too. Just read the old threads and make up your own mind, and make sure to discuss with your opponent or TO before the game if you will be relying on it working one way or the other.

This topic brings memories of me being a yu-gi-oh player where phases are clearly defined.

40k really needs a Start Phase and End Phase. You would resolve these effects at the relevant place.

Turn
Start Phase > Move > Psychic > Shoot > Charge > Fight > Morale > End Phase.

With the way I view game mechanics. At the end of the phase, is still that phase for the relevance of rules etc.
Ergo it's a timing window before the phase moves on to the next phase.

Each phase being broken down to
Start > Mid > End for timing windows.

It doesnt need a start or end phase. It needs clarification from GW what counts as during a phase, and what not.

 p5freak wrote:
It doesnt need a start or end phase. It needs clarification from GW what counts as during a phase, and what not.

No it does, there are tons of rules that have [at the start of X] [At the end of Y]
The above you could just move them to the correct start or end phase. It's superior rules writing.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
A1+1 used three times still equals 2. That would be my debate against the opponent.

1+1+1+1 = 2?

I mean, i'm no mathematician but im pretty sure that's not the case.

The stratagem says that it adds 1 to the saves and attacks, not that your save/attacks become (unmodified stat + 1)

But "attacks characteristic" is not the same as "number of attacks", current or otherwise, its the value written on the data sheet.

So something that "adds 1 to the characters attacks" doesnt change the data sheet, unless its already included and in that case its explictly stated so.

Hence it adds 1 to any save and 1 to attacks, no matter how many times you use it.

ThatMG wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
It doesnt need a start or end phase. It needs clarification from GW what counts as during a phase, and what not.

No it does, there are tons of rules that have [at the start of X] [At the end of Y]
The above you could just move them to the correct start or end phase. It's superior rules writing.

We know that GW is pathetic at rules writing. Adding two new phases would require a lot of changes to all rules which happen at the start/end of turn, start/end of battleround, during deployment, etc. Its easier to clarify that anything that mentions the name of a phase is considered to be during a phase, and everything else isnt.

 p5freak wrote:

ThatMG wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
It doesnt need a start or end phase. It needs clarification from GW what counts as during a phase, and what not.

No it does, there are tons of rules that have [at the start of X] [At the end of Y]
The above you could just move them to the correct start or end phase. It's superior rules writing.

We know that GW is pathetic at rules writing. Adding two new phases would require a lot of changes to all rules which happen at the start/end of turn, start/end of battleround, during deployment, etc. Its easier to clarify that anything that mentions the name of a phase is considered to be during a phase, and everything else isnt.

It's not like they haven't added two phases before (psychic phase, morale phase). They were able to adjust there.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Neither "before the battle begins" or "at the end of a battle round" is "at the end of the turn" (which is the end of the Morale Phase).

No - as written - the end of the Morale Phase is the end of the Moral phase. The end of the turn is the end of the turn. If you're going to be hyper-RAW, then fine, be Hyper Raw. But don't try and add more than what was written to decide what you want.

If the stratagem was meant to be used at the end of the morale phase it would say at the end of the morale phase.

It doesn't say that.

essentially RAI I think GW meant certain before the battle and end of turn Strategems to be "used once per battle round" The problem is they would have to specify which ones. Like putting units in reserves ones are understood to be meant to be used more than once while this particular one I do believe its meant to be used only once.

IF you compare the end of turn effects for any other game. After you finish you activate each one then the turn is over. This would only allow you to proc the stratagem one time.

personally gw does need to address this because i dont think anyone is going to reach a consensus. It's up to the TO at the point being a GT.


Edit: another point about the phases. GW set the game up into phases and outside those phases of your turn. It is your opponents turn. If you have something that activates at the end of your turn. This is essentially after the end of the charge/fight phase, after all attacks are done. You would activate it then your turn would end. There is no end of turn phase. it is the last possible action of the last phase of your turn. You couldn't activate this strategem then decide to select another unit to fight. its the last possible action.

mhalko1 wrote:
essentially RAI I think GW meant certain before the battle and end of turn Strategems to be "used once per battle round" The problem is they would have to specify which ones. Like putting units in reserves ones are understood to be meant to be used more than once while this particular one I do believe its meant to be used only once.

IF you compare the end of turn effects for any other game. After you finish you activate each one then the turn is over. This would only allow you to proc the stratagem one time.

personally gw does need to address this because i dont think anyone is going to reach a consensus. It's up to the TO at the point being a GT.


Edit: another point about the phases. GW set the game up into phases and outside those phases of your turn. It is your opponents turn. If you have something that activates at the end of your turn. This is essentially after the end of the charge/fight phase, after all attacks are done. You would activate it then your turn would end. There is no end of turn phase. it is the last possible action of the last phase of your turn. You couldn't activate this strategem then decide to select another unit to fight. its the last possible action.

Well one could argue if you used an end of X stratagem, then X just ended and you can't use another end of X stratagem - whether it's the same one or a different one. That would be how I'd deal with it if someone tried to push it on me.

Breton wrote:


Well one could argue if you used an end of X stratagem, then X just ended and you can't use another end of X stratagem - whether it's the same one or a different one. That would be how I'd deal with it if someone tried to push it on me.

I don't see why I can't use sequencing to do multiple end of X things. Just declare I'm doing end of X things, and then complete them one by one with sequencing rules.

I don't see why you can't add to the sequence as you execute it either.

Sequencing comes into play when two rules happen at the same time, and the player whose turn it is, decides the order. You can't prevent a player from using multiple stratagems which aren't limited by strategic discipline, and happen at the same time.

 p5freak wrote:
Sequencing comes into play when two rules happen at the same time, and the player whose turn it is, decides the order. You can't prevent a player from using multiple stratagems which aren't limited by strategic discipline, and happen at the same time.

Agreed.

I don't think many people play that the player who's turn it is chooses the order the Stratagems resolve in when you use multiple end of X Stratagems at the same time in your opponent's turn, but RAW that would seem to be the way to do it.

 Stux wrote:

Breton wrote:


Well one could argue if you used an end of X stratagem, then X just ended and you can't use another end of X stratagem - whether it's the same one or a different one. That would be how I'd deal with it if someone tried to push it on me.

I don't see why I can't use sequencing to do multiple end of X things. Just declare I'm doing end of X things, and then complete them one by one with sequencing rules.

I don't see why you can't add to the sequence as you execute it either.

I don't see how you can do something during the end of X after you did something at the end of X which already ended X. Sure if everyone's playing friendly go to town. If you're doing the super Strat over and over, I'm no longer friendly enough to let the end of X stretch out. You did something at the end of X that thusly ended X - if doing something at the end of X didn't end X, then you didn't do it at the end of X and thus weren't allowed to do it the first time. It's axiomatic.