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.

The rule states that Tau Technical Drones (Forgeworld) can restore D3 wounds to a Battlesuit each turn on a 4+ roll on a D6.

I've read on a few pages that turn can be taken as your turn and then your opponents turn. Rather than once on turn 1, then turn 2, etc.

Can anyone confirm this rule and how it should be interpreted?

RAW you can use it in both shooting phases, but i don't think that was intended.

Thanks, surprised it wasn't in the errata. Appreciate the reply

 jolyas wrote:
RAW you can use it in both shooting phases, but i don't think that was intended.

Why do people insist on using RaW as some sort of slur? How else are you meant to play the game, by the Rules as Not Written?

To the OP: The BRB clearly defines what Turn means and what Battle Round means. The rule says "In the Shooting phase" and "Only one protocol may be activated per phase." So yes, you can use it once per Shooting phase, which means once per Turn, which is twice per Battle Round.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 jolyas wrote:
RAW you can use it in both shooting phases, but i don't think that was intended.

Why do people insist on using RaW as some sort of slur? How else are you meant to play the game, by the Rules as Not Written?

There is no need for your sarcasm, but the written rules may be poorly written, hence the term RAW.-

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 jolyas wrote:
RAW you can use it in both shooting phases, but i don't think that was intended.

Why do people insist on using RaW as some sort of slur? How else are you meant to play the game, by the Rules as Not Written?

To the OP: The BRB clearly defines what Turn means and what Battle Round means. The rule says "In the Shooting phase" and "Only one protocol may be activated per phase." So yes, you can use it once per Shooting phase, which means once per Turn, which is twice per Battle Round.

Why do you see it as a slur on the RAW if somebody states an opinion that they think the rule might not have been written as GW meant for it to be? That's just an opinion which people are free to ignore if they wish. We have many FAQs indicating that GW doesn't always write the rules the way they intended. Acting like it's a mortal offense to dare suggest a rule might not be written the way they meant to seems an overreaction, to say the least. You sound like you would challenge someone to a duel with pistols at dawn for insulting the honor of The Rules.

Because this isn't GW of the past where they don't fix things. The FW books have been errata'd to HFIL and back to fix both errors and to fix rules that didn't match the intent. With the amount of errata that has happened, with no change to the Tactical Drone rules, the only logical conclusion is that it must be intentional.

And that's the compromise middle of the road view. The more "extreme" view is that RaW = RaI. If they intend for a rule to do something different, they will change the rule. Rules did not spring from the Æther magically, they were intentionally written.

The fact GW have decided to errata by FAQ rather than actual errata is annoying to me but I accept it's what GW does.

In any case, the question is answered, the drones can use their special rule in both your shooting phase and the opponents shooting phase, RaW, RaI, RaNW, RaPluckedFromTheÆther and any other method of rules deduction.

Oh give it a rest... staring RAI differs from RAW is not a ‘slur’. You keep derailing threads with “RAW = RAI or they’d have changed it” and I’m pretty tired of it.

Yes, rules were intentionally written.

There’s another phrase: “to err is human”. FW make more mistakes than main GW and don’t fix them as quickly.

Claiming an unpatched error is the definitely the intent of the rule is just silly internet posturing, tbh.