PDA

View Full Version : Njal's Tempest Question



Weafwolf
11-24-2009, 03:45 PM
Ran into a weird one playing my Space Wolves the other day. I rolled for Njal's Tempest effect in turn 1, got the four, and read the effect, which was to cause all infantry to move as if in difficult terrain for the rest of the game turn. I hadn't noticed the wording before that moment, but it looks as though one could argue that, since I was going second, the effect ended at the end of turn one, and therefore had absolutely no effect. My friend agreed the power must be intended to continue until Njal's next turn (or until he died, which happened promptly), and let it go. Had he wanted to go RAW on me, however, I think I would have had to give it to him.

Just so you know, the Tempest power is rolled at the beginning of Njal's turn, not the beginning of the game turn.

Has anyone run into this, or I'm I just missing something obvious?

Lerra
11-24-2009, 03:55 PM
This is one of the many Space Wolves issues that I'm hoping to see in the Errata/FAQ. I usually play that the ability lasts for one full game turn (ie until your next turn). That seems to be the intention.

The AKH
11-25-2009, 04:43 PM
I'm going to agree with Lerra on this one - I usually take "game turn" to imply "your turn and your opponent's turn which follows yours", although I don't recall how it's defined in the BRB. That would be something to check out :D

DarkLink
11-25-2009, 08:04 PM
A game turn means two player turns. Typically this means player one turn, then player two turn, it in this case it'd be the other way around.

EmperorEternalXIX
11-28-2009, 02:10 PM
It may have been intended this way. Njal is crazy powerful with that storm thing...maybe this quirk was intended as a mitigating factor?

After all I don't imagine any self-respecting Space Wolves force going, "No no, please -- after you." and giving the first move away. hehe.

DarkLink
11-28-2009, 02:36 PM
It may have been intended this way. Njal is crazy powerful with that storm thing...maybe this quirk was intended as a mitigating factor?


There are much better ways of balancing rules than intentionally putting in a loophole that prevents a rule from working in specific, common, circumstances.