Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 15:19:20


Post by: SemperMortis


"Could you clarify if abilities and stratagems used after the initial deploymen on the 1st turn t that remove a unit of the table and allow us to place again such as Gate of Infinity are usable according to the new tactical reserves rule?"

"You can indeed Gonçalo - those units have started the game deployed on the battlefield and can benefit from psychic powers such as Gate of Infinity and Da Jump.".

That came right from GWs Warhammer 40k account.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 15:21:04


Post by: Formosa


you would be better off posting the actual email or something, either way people will say it has no bearing as its not in an FAQ.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 15:28:44


Post by: Emulgator


the problem is also that the response is phrased (poorly) in a way that i fail to see how it clariefies anything.
All he/she says is that we can use psychic powers like gate and jump on deployed models (duh)
The response does however NOT adress how the subsequent effect of those powers - the redeployment - interacts with the new tactical reserves.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 15:31:20


Post by: Backspacehacker


Link to post


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 15:36:56


Post by: ArmchairArbiter


This gak and the intent of the rule is obvious. It always amazes me how to people try to pick apart these rules to find the worst ruling possible.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 15:38:27


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


SemperMortis wrote:
"Could you clarify if abilities and stratagems used after the initial deploymen on the 1st turn t that remove a unit of the table and allow us to place again such as Gate of Infinity are usable according to the new tactical reserves rule?"

"You can indeed Gonçalo - those units have started the game deployed on the battlefield and can benefit from psychic powers such as Gate of Infinity and Da Jump.".

That came right from GWs Warhammer 40k account.


GW's COMMUNITY team clarified this; they've said many times before that they're not the rules writers and their word doesn't mean anything. Nothing can be drawn from the community team giving a certain answer.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 15:39:49


Post by: Backspacehacker


ArmchairArbiter wrote:
This gak and the intent of the rule is obvious. It always amazes me how to people try to pick apart these rules to find the worst ruling possible.


Well unfortunately people need to have clear rules because remember this is a game where someone actually asked the question and GW answered it in an FAQ. "How much is an inch"
GW needs to be very clear and very precise on what they say and what it means when they answer it. The above answer can be taken ambiguously to mean that yes, you can still use those powers but can't use it to get into the enemy deployment. Or yes you can use it and use it into the enemy deployment zone.

We needs to know which is true. Clear rules make for less arguments. If there is one crime 8th has done is the ambiguity of rules and lack of clarificstion


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
"Could you clarify if abilities and stratagems used after the initial deploymen on the 1st turn t that remove a unit of the table and allow us to place again such as Gate of Infinity are usable according to the new tactical reserves rule?"

"You can indeed Gonçalo - those units have started the game deployed on the battlefield and can benefit from psychic powers such as Gate of Infinity and Da Jump.".

That came right from GWs Warhammer 40k account.


GW's COMMUNITY team clarified this; they've said many times before that they're not the rules writers and their word doesn't mean anything. Nothing can be drawn from the community team giving a certain answer.


Well unfortunately in the real world their word is just as good as any other source of GW. It's like sending a letter on company letterhead. It does not matter if what you wrote is or is not the views of the company, it came from an official source meaning it has validity. If GW does not want community from weighing in on rules it should be a policy they don't respond to question a out rules.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 15:46:57


Post by: InstaAxeToast


There was a better reaponse in regards to the Deceiver's ability.

While this does not override the FAQs / Beta rules it does show their intent. And the may FAQ this.

"Does the grand illusion (C'tan shard of the deceiver ) get affected by the "deploy in your own deployment zone on turn 1" ? I'm curious as the units are already deployed in my deployment zone but then I can move d3 of them anywhere before the 1st turn begins thats more than 12 inches away from an enemy unit."

Warhammer 40k

"As Chris has said, this can be benefited from as you're re-deploying a unit which is already on the table."



[Thumb - Screenshot_2018-04-19-08-42-40.png]
[Thumb - Screenshot_2018-04-19-08-42-21.png]


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 15:51:20


Post by: Bharring


GoI and such are not 'As Chris has said' (as it's not 'and it is before the first battle round'). It strongly seems to imply what you're hoping it said, but unfortunately doesn't say so.

I would love to see clarification, and would expect it to be what you're hoping it is.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 15:51:57


Post by: Backspacehacker


That's still not answering it.

It's a yes or no question
"Can units already depolyed on the battle field then be redeployed outside of the controlling players deployment zone via abilities, spells, and relics, such as gates of infinity and dark matter crystal" yes or no.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 15:57:42


Post by: Ordana


The Deceiver Shard is before the first turn begins. Its the same clause that covers Forward Operative and Strike from the Shadows.
It has no bearing on the other abilities.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 15:58:20


Post by: Dionysodorus


 Backspacehacker wrote:

Well unfortunately in the real world their word is just as good as any other source of GW. It's like sending a letter on company letterhead. It does not matter if what you wrote is or is not the views of the company, it came from an official source meaning it has validity. If GW does not want community from weighing in on rules it should be a policy they don't respond to question a out rules.

I mean, this just isn't true. You should distinguish between how you would like the world to work and how it does work -- your use of "unfortunately" is particularly weird since you're just making up rules about what's valid. Many, many fewer people will play according to this interpretation than they would if it were delivered in a way that people other than you deem more official.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 16:02:40


Post by: Daedalus81


 Backspacehacker wrote:
That's still not answering it.

It's a yes or no question
"Can units already depolyed on the battle field then be redeployed outside of the controlling players deployment zone via abilities, spells, and relics, such as gates of infinity and dark matter crystal" yes or no.


I asked this very question just now. I'll respond back if they reply.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 16:04:21


Post by: tneva82


Can people provide direct links rather than screenshots? Fb comments are of dubious use already but screenshots are 100 percent useless as proof


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 16:10:47


Post by: InstaAxeToast


 Ordana wrote:
The Deceiver Shard is before the first turn begins. Its the same clause that covers Forward Operative and Strike from the Shadows.
It has no bearing on the other abilities.


The part that I found relevant is where they say that re-deploying is not affected by the new rules.

As I said, we will have to wait for a FAQ to the new Beta rules


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 16:12:29


Post by: Pancakey


Will all of the top tourney spammers move to orks and gk now?




Welcome to 9th ed. The script has been flipped and we are less than a year in.

Whats next? Armor? Vehicle facing?


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/19 16:27:39


Post by: Backspacehacker


Pancakey wrote:
Will all of the top tourney spammers move to orks and gk now?




Welcome to 9th ed. The script has been flipped and we are less than a year in.

Whats next? Armor? Vehicle facing?



Omg dude if they added facing and armor back yaaaasssss please! I'm sorry tried of a bane blades firing all it's guns out the front of it's tred


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:13:16


Post by: GuardStrider


On the official FB

[Thumb - 30741643_2013246645662631_1042334780829253208_n.jpg]


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:20:16


Post by: An Actual Englishman




Vindication (again)!

Is this official enough for everyone?


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:21:04


Post by: Daedalus81


 GuardStrider wrote:
On the official FB


Excellent.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:21:04


Post by: Cephalobeard


I can confirm it absolutely will not be official enough for everyone.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:21:48


Post by: Silentz


Confirms what was being discussed in another thread - that GK are TOTALLY unaffected by the escalating smites. Not just on their mini-smites, but all units which have Brotherhood of Psykers.

Smite and teleport to your heart's content, moaners.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:21:55


Post by: BaconCatBug


Hey I just got a post from the community team, it says that if I paint my Space Marines blue I automatically start the game with 40,000 victory points.

1) If it's not in an errata, it's less than meaningless.

2) Anyone using Facebook to try and worm their way out of explicitly clear RaW is not someone I would want to play.

3) It's a beta rule anyway so why are you playing with it if you're just going to try and ignore it?

4) Even if you take this at face value, nothing has changed. You can still Da Jump or GOI first turn, nothing has changed that. You're still limited to your deployment zone though.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:22:02


Post by: GuardStrider


 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Vindication (again)!

Is this official enough for everyone?


Someone is going to say it's the community team so it's not right (because there is no contact between teams it seems)


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:24:01


Post by: Daedalus81


 GuardStrider wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Vindication (again)!

Is this official enough for everyone?


Someone is going to say it's the community team so it's not right (because there is no contact between teams it seems)


They aren't unaware of the rules. They just don't write them. I would bet they consulted with the rules team.

Regardless - it is GW's official communication channel to the players and that is more than enough.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:25:10


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 GuardStrider wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Vindication (again)!

Is this official enough for everyone?


Someone is going to say it's the community team so it's not right (because there is no contact between teams it seems)


They aren't unaware of the rules. They just don't write them. I would bet they consulted with the rules team.

Regardless - it is GW's official communication channel to the players and that is more than enough.
No, the Errata is the official way of changing the rules, not facebook.

Did I mention Facebook also said if I paint my Tau Purple I automatically hit with all my shots? True story!


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:25:56


Post by: Daedalus81


 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, the Errata is the official way of changing the rules, not facebook.



The errata doesn't conflict with this interpretation - at least for many people.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:26:37


Post by: Slinky


If only you could super-ignore people, so you can't even click on their messages and accidentally read them...


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:26:46


Post by: GuardStrider


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, the Errata is the official way of changing the rules, not facebook.



The errata doesn't conflict with this interpretation - at least for many people.


Yep, this is the interpretation of the rules I always had, so they are not changing anything for me, just clarifying.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:27:15


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, the Errata is the official way of changing the rules, not facebook.



The errata doesn't conflict with this interpretation - at least for many people.
There is only one interpretation that is correct though, and that's the one that follows the rules. You can Da Jump and GoI turn 1 just fine, but you're still limited to your deployment zone Turn 1 if you do.

If/When GW change that rule, I'll be all on board for it, until then if you want to use the Beta rules, use them properly.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:27:42


Post by: Silentz


 Slinky wrote:
If only you could super-ignore people, so you can't even click on their messages and accidentally read them...

I know. I do this with people out of sheer masochism.

Maybe what [REDACTED] said this time is sensiblOH MY GOD IT'S WORSE THAN I THOUGHT!

Not you, BCB.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:28:01


Post by: Crimson


Good enough for me.

And even I was in UK, I would never play with BCB, so this is not an issue.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:28:52


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Slinky wrote:
If only you could super-ignore people, so you can't even click on their messages and accidentally read them...
I made a css style to do just that, see my signature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 GuardStrider wrote:
On the official FB
You do realise the official facebook/website also says Iron Hands can stack Feel No Pain? And look how that turned out. If their "intent" was for Da Jump to work T1, they NEED to change the rule.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:31:18


Post by: DominayTrix


 GuardStrider wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Vindication (again)!

Is this official enough for everyone?


Someone is going to say it's the community team so it's not right (because there is no contact between teams it seems)

"And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers." There ya go. The community team themselves saying that they are not a source for rules questions. Make all the Also Ill gladly deepstrike with everything now since nothing that deepstrikes uses the word deploy. Their pretty picture means gak. Do I get 4 guns on crisis suits because the community team posted 4 guns on the preview article even though the codex says 3? No I don't think so. No matter how many copies I print out the community team still gets overruled by the actual rules.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:31:21


Post by: Daedalus81


 BaconCatBug wrote:
You do realise the official facebook/website also says Iron Hands can stack Feel No Pain? And look how that turned out.


Irrelevant. It's a living rule set. Their statement was 100% true at the time.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:32:47


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
You do realise the official facebook/website also says Iron Hands can stack Feel No Pain? And look how that turned out.


Irrelevant. It's a living rule set. Their statement was 100% true at the time.
And their statement is 100% false this time. Maybe I am showing my age, but I remember a time when sending the same question 3 times got 4 wrong and different answers back from their Email.

The ONLY rules are found in the Rulebooks and Errata, not facebook, not discord chats, NOTHING ELSE.

Until GW change the rule or make a Special Snowflake FAQ, that will not change.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:33:26


Post by: Galef


The Errata only addresses units that started in tactical reserves and were NOT deployed as normal.

If the unit has actually deployed on turn 1 and did not start in reserves, than the Errata doesn't affect that unit.
An ability that puts them into reserves does not retroactively consider them to have started there.

No clarification was even needed, though it is welcome.

-


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:33:59


Post by: Daedalus81


 DominayTrix wrote:

"And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers." There ya go. The community team themselves saying that they are not a source for rules questions. Make all the Also Ill gladly deepstrike with everything now since nothing that deepstrikes uses the word deploy. Their pretty picture means gak. Do I get 4 guns on crisis suits because the community team posted 4 guns on the preview article even though the codex says 3? No I don't think so. No matter how many copies I print out the community team still gets overruled by the actual rules.


1) They're not responding to a question with this post
2) They do not make that disclaimer on said post


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:35:03


Post by: Asmodios


I'm just surprised people were even saying that these rules (da jump, the shard of the deceiver, ect) didn't work like pic above. Glad GW did post something quick though just to clear it up for those misinterpreting it.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:35:09


Post by: Daedalus81


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
You do realise the official facebook/website also says Iron Hands can stack Feel No Pain? And look how that turned out.


Irrelevant. It's a living rule set. Their statement was 100% true at the time.
And their statement is 100% false this time. Maybe I am showing my age, but I remember a time when sending the same question 3 times got 4 wrong and different answers back from their Email.

The ONLY rules are found in the Rulebooks and Errata, not facebook, not discord chats, NOTHING ELSE.


So you'll only be happy if they go modify an article from ELEVEN MONTHS ago? Good grief, dude. Good grief.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:37:02


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Wow.

The amount of willful ignorance (if they chose not to understand it) or genuine disingenuity (if they understand it, but pretend not to) in this thread is staggering. It's clear as day to me what is being said.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:40:55


Post by: Cephalobeard


Weren't people applying a segment regarding heavy weapons firing from reserve, then applying that to how things enter from deep strike as justification for "nope you can't"?

Isn't that reaching further than GW literally producing a document saying "this is exactly what it means", even though it's not in magenta?

I dunno, I'm all for playing things as accurate as possible, but It seems the justification for saying no to begin with was kind of a stretch.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:41:22


Post by: An Actual Englishman


Sometimes I wonder if there are people on here who are so completely deluded they actually believe without a shadow of a doubt that they know the rules better than the gw rules writers. Unbelievable.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:42:58


Post by: Ordana


 Cephalobeard wrote:
Weren't people applying a segment regarding heavy weapons firing from reserve, then applying that to how things enter from deep strike as justification for "nope you can't"?

Isn't that reaching further than GW literally producing a document saying "this is exactly what it means", even though it's not in magenta?

I dunno, I'm all for playing things as accurate as possible, but It seems the justification for saying no to begin with was kind of a stretch.
I think the rule clearly says No. But considering this latest bit I will happily agree that GW wants these abilities to work turn 1.
They should just learn to write better rules so this confusion didn't happen in the first place (and they definitely should update the faq to be clear).


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:44:22


Post by: Cephalobeard


Hell, even per GW, on the post: "this post has been written with the studio so is 100% how these rules work under the beta Tactical Reserves rules."


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:46:08


Post by: DominayTrix


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 DominayTrix wrote:

"And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers." There ya go. The community team themselves saying that they are not a source for rules questions. Make all the Also Ill gladly deepstrike with everything now since nothing that deepstrikes uses the word deploy. Their pretty picture means gak. Do I get 4 guns on crisis suits because the community team posted 4 guns on the preview article even though the codex says 3? No I don't think so. No matter how many copies I print out the community team still gets overruled by the actual rules.


1) They're not responding to a question with this post
2) They do not make that disclaimer on said post

You are right it isn't on their post it is on their about me for the entire page. Hey its ok though, if we are going to go strictly RAW then I will deepstrike on the first turn with no problem. I will happily hand you my codex and point out that my deep strike rules do not deploy on the first turn. Nope they set up on the first turn. Don't get me wrong I think shunts should work on the first turn, but I think they should be allowed because the FAQ says so. "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone." So far I have checked Necrons, Tau, Tyranids, and CSM. Not a single one of them "deploys" arriving by deep strike. There isn't a caveat that says anything about having come from reserves. You can either generalize deploy to mean set up which unfortunately includes the shunts or you use strict language which makes it do nothing. It is poorly written and needs to be fixed.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:48:01


Post by: GuardStrider


 Cephalobeard wrote:
Hell, even per GW, on the post: "this post has been written with the studio so is 100% how these rules work under the beta Tactical Reserves rules."


Yep, I can understand people being sceptical of quick replies on the comment section where the community team may be missing something, but this was clearly a previously thought and prepared posted by them with the intent of clarifying.



GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:51:24


Post by: BaconCatBug


Here, GW I'll do your job for you, for free even.

"Units that begin the first turn on the battlefield, but are for any reason removed and then set up again during the first turn are not affected by this rule."

One line, ONE line is all you need.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:51:55


Post by: Crimson


Warhammer 40000 FB wrote:
Well [redacted], we stand by the fact that we here in the Community Team have no influence over the rules. But luckily, this post has been written in collaboration with the studio and reviewed by the rules writers. As such, it's legit. We are not the same team... but we talk to each other. A lot.



GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:51:58


Post by: Dionysodorus


 GuardStrider wrote:
 Cephalobeard wrote:
Hell, even per GW, on the post: "this post has been written with the studio so is 100% how these rules work under the beta Tactical Reserves rules."

Yep, I can understand people being sceptical of quick replies on the comment section where the community team may be missing something, but this was clearly a previously thought and prepared posted by them with the intent of clarifying.

Yeah, pretty much. It seems a lot more likely than not that this reflects how the rules team wants it played, and I bet most people take it that way even if the RAW clearly goes the other way.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:52:37


Post by: warhead01


A FB post by GW is good enough for me. They stated their intent. It's still unfortunate that some one asked the question and used the word "usable" which is completely subjective. (And very lazy.) I'm pleased that GW has enough mind reading ability to distill, "can we still first turn jump into the enemy deployment Zone?" from the word "usable".


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:53:31


Post by: Silentz


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Here, GW I'll do your job for you, for free even.

"Units that begin the first turn on the battlefield, but are for any reason removed and then set up again during the first turn are not affected by this rule."

One line, ONE line is all you need.

In seven different languages, to be fair.

Plus you then need to ensure the layout of the 7 documents are correct.

It's not like "bang in a line of text DONE!"


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:56:17


Post by: Daedalus81


There. Are we done now?



GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:56:49


Post by: Formosa


 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if there are people on here who are so completely deluded they actually believe without a shadow of a doubt that they know the rules better than the gw rules writers. Unbelievable.



There are plenty of people who know the rules better than the gw design team, it’s people who think they know the intent better than the design team that are funny.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:57:08


Post by: lolman1c


This thread is a beautiful example of everything wrong with the 40k community and why i suggested making beta rules a beta only. The majority of people are fine but there are "those guys and gals" who even when given official confirmation still want to take advantage and manipulate rules to ruin other people's fun. I sure hope I never get into a game with any of those people. Uou all know who you are.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:58:07


Post by: Formosa


 Daedalus81 wrote:
There. Are we done now?



That’s about as cut and dry as you can get without an FAQ update, it’s official.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 16:58:26


Post by: Audustum


 GuardStrider wrote:
On the official FB



 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Vindication (again)!

Is this official enough for everyone?



So, uh, the Community team muddled it up in the comments to that very post.


Warhammer 40,000: This is direct from the studio, Logan: 'Treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'.


In response to Logan McLaren about 1 minute ago. Counting as having arrived from reserves seems to muddle things RIGHT BACK UP AGAIN.

EDIT: Please note I don't maintain a Facebook and have no idea how to blow up posts for those screenshots.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:01:04


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Audustum wrote:
 GuardStrider wrote:
On the official FB



 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Vindication (again)!

Is this official enough for everyone?



So, uh, the Community team muddled it up in the comments to that very post.


Warhammer 40,000: This is direct from the studio, Logan: 'Treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'.


In response to Logan McLaren about 1 minute ago. Counting as having arrived from reserves seems to muddle things RIGHT BACK UP AGAIN.


No it doesn't.

It's clear that they can be deployed anywhere, not just their own DZ. It's also clear that they count as having moved and cannot be warptimed/whatever'd to move again.

I can understand this, why can't you?


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:01:52


Post by: Galef


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Here, GW I'll do your job for you, for free even.

"Units that begin the first turn on the battlefield, but are for any reason removed and then set up again during the first turn are not affected by this rule."

One line, ONE line is all you need.

One line that is completely unneeded. If the unit begin the first turn deployed, it is ALREADY not affected by the Tactical Reserves errata.

-


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:04:08


Post by: Audustum


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 GuardStrider wrote:
On the official FB



 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Vindication (again)!

Is this official enough for everyone?



So, uh, the Community team muddled it up in the comments to that very post.


Warhammer 40,000: This is direct from the studio, Logan: 'Treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'.


In response to Logan McLaren about 1 minute ago. Counting as having arrived from reserves seems to muddle things RIGHT BACK UP AGAIN.


No it doesn't.

It's clear that they can be deployed anywhere, not just their own DZ. It's also clear that they count as having moved and cannot be warptimed/whatever'd to move again.

I can understand this, why can't you?


Because they said it counts as reinforcements and reinforcements literally prevents that movement?


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:04:29


Post by: Wayniac


 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if there are people on here who are so completely deluded they actually believe without a shadow of a doubt that they know the rules better than the gw rules writers. Unbelievable.


To be fair though, a huge part of that is that GW writes rules that require figuring out what they mean most of the time, which is an anathema for tournament/competitive players who feel RAW is all that matters. If they wrote clear and concise rules that weren't ambiguous, you would not have that problem.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:05:20


Post by: Asmodios


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 GuardStrider wrote:
On the official FB



 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Vindication (again)!

Is this official enough for everyone?



So, uh, the Community team muddled it up in the comments to that very post.


Warhammer 40,000: This is direct from the studio, Logan: 'Treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'.


In response to Logan McLaren about 1 minute ago. Counting as having arrived from reserves seems to muddle things RIGHT BACK UP AGAIN.


No it doesn't.

It's clear that they can be deployed anywhere, not just their own DZ. It's also clear that they count as having moved and cannot be warptimed/whatever'd to move again.

I can understand this, why can't you?

I think at this point people are trying to misinterpret the rules because they hate the FAQ and they are trying to get other people to dislike it because of abstract logic they applied to rules.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:06:00


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Audustum wrote:
Because they said it counts as reinforcements and reinforcements literally prevents that movement?


I agree, and also fail to see the problem.

They count as reinforcements, but can leave their DZ turn 1, since they were deployed. This is because the new BETA tactical reserves rule is distinct from the FAQ answer/errata disallowing units to e.g. warptime.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:07:31


Post by: warhead01


And besides, with bespoke rules some units will have exemptions and some wont much like how they mentioned GSC being an exception to which ever rule.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:09:14


Post by: Audustum


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Because they said it counts as reinforcements and reinforcements literally prevents that movement?


I agree, and also fail to see the problem.

They count as reinforcements, but can leave their DZ turn 1, since they were deployed. This is because the new BETA tactical reserves rule is distinct from the FAQ answer/errata disallowing units to e.g. warptime.


That's not the logic. The beta tactical reserve rule says: "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player's first turn...". Reinforcements begins by saying units that are reinforcements are set up on the battlefield mid-turn. Since they count as reinforcements, they arrived mid-turn and are locked. That's the RAW.

Warptime is an entirely different can of worms because it doesn't remove you from the board and make you arrive mid-turn.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:11:26


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Audustum wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Because they said it counts as reinforcements and reinforcements literally prevents that movement?


I agree, and also fail to see the problem.

They count as reinforcements, but can leave their DZ turn 1, since they were deployed. This is because the new BETA tactical reserves rule is distinct from the FAQ answer/errata disallowing units to e.g. warptime.


That's not the logic. The beta tactical reserve rule says: "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player's first turn...". Reinforcements begins by saying units that are reinforcements are set up on the battlefield mid-turn. Since they count as reinforcements, they arrived mid-turn and are locked. That's the RAW.

Warptime is an entirely different can of worms because it doesn't remove you from the board and make you arrive mid-turn.


That was RAW, but is no longer, obviously. (Good job FB team getting with the rules writers!)

No, but Warptime is prevented for units that arrived mid-turn, which these units count as, except for the ability to arrive outside of their own DZ, as outlined by the team today.

Are you honestly struggling to understand? Is this really an intellectual challenge for you? Or are you just being willfully ignorant or disingenuous?


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:11:58


Post by: Martel732


" That's the RAW. "

But not the RAI. Just drop it. It's obvious what they meant now.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:13:15


Post by: tneva82


Wayniac wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if there are people on here who are so completely deluded they actually believe without a shadow of a doubt that they know the rules better than the gw rules writers. Unbelievable.


To be fair though, a huge part of that is that GW writes rules that require figuring out what they mean most of the time, which is an anathema for tournament/competitive players who feel RAW is all that matters. If they wrote clear and concise rules that weren't ambiguous, you would not have that problem.


Thing is we haven't HEARD what rules writer have to say about it. What we have is beta rules which is unclear and then unrelated team member's unofficial opinion.

If confirmation comes from rules writer then good. But so far all we HAVE from rules writer is the very unclear beta rules which can be read either way.

AAE is the one actually claiming to know rules better than rules writer. Others realize they don't know what rule writers meant as the rules are so unclear and rule writers haven't clarified it yet.

(though knowing rules better than rule writers doesn't actually require that much as evidenced by all the "oops did it do that?" reactions by GW when players realize their screw ups)


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:14:49


Post by: DominayTrix


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Because they said it counts as reinforcements and reinforcements literally prevents that movement?


I agree, and also fail to see the problem.

They count as reinforcements, but can leave their DZ turn 1, since they were deployed. This is because the new BETA tactical reserves rule is distinct from the FAQ answer/errata disallowing units to e.g. warptime.

Where does it say anything about allowing them to setup in the enemy deployment since they were already deployed. Here's the entire text about limiting where you can deep strike. "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer Cultsunit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems)." People aren't doing this out of malice because they don't want armies to do things or they hate the faq. They just want the rules to do what they say they do. The rules only say you can set up in the enemy deployment if it is before the first turn ie infiltration or from the 2nd turn onward. If they want exceptions and caveats they should write them in the rules.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:15:41


Post by: lolman1c


This is the problem with Beta rules and why I made a thread about it... Beta rules are never fully clear because it suggests GW themselves havnt even figured out or written the rules properly.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:17:24


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 DominayTrix wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Because they said it counts as reinforcements and reinforcements literally prevents that movement?


I agree, and also fail to see the problem.

They count as reinforcements, but can leave their DZ turn 1, since they were deployed. This is because the new BETA tactical reserves rule is distinct from the FAQ answer/errata disallowing units to e.g. warptime.

Where does it say anything about allowing them to setup in the enemy deployment since they were already deployed. Here's the entire text about limiting where you can deep strike. "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer Cultsunit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems)." People aren't doing this out of malice because they don't want armies to do things or they hate the faq. They just want the rules to do what they say they do. The rules only say you can set up in the enemy deployment if it is before the first turn ie infiltration or from the 2nd turn onward. If they want exceptions and caveats they should write them in the rules.


Reading the thread has its advantages:
 GuardStrider wrote:
On the official FB


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:17:41


Post by: lolman1c


tneva82 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if there are people on here who are so completely deluded they actually believe without a shadow of a doubt that they know the rules better than the gw rules writers. Unbelievable.


To be fair though, a huge part of that is that GW writes rules that require figuring out what they mean most of the time, which is an anathema for tournament/competitive players who feel RAW is all that matters. If they wrote clear and concise rules that weren't ambiguous, you would not have that problem.


Thing is we haven't HEARD what rules writer have to say about it. What we have is beta rules which is unclear and then unrelated team member's unofficial opinion.

If confirmation comes from rules writer then good. But so far all we HAVE from rules writer is the very unclear beta rules which can be read either way.

AAE is the one actually claiming to know rules better than rules writer. Others realize they don't know what rule writers meant as the rules are so unclear and rule writers haven't clarified it yet.

(though knowing rules better than rule writers doesn't actually require that much as evidenced by all the "oops did it do that?" reactions by GW when players realize their screw ups)



Dude...


They confirmed this is from the official rule writers.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:21:15


Post by: Formosa


Gw just posted this

[Thumb - 2E390D55-FD86-449A-B612-86469D16CADA.jpeg]


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:22:47


Post by: Audustum


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Because they said it counts as reinforcements and reinforcements literally prevents that movement?


I agree, and also fail to see the problem.

They count as reinforcements, but can leave their DZ turn 1, since they were deployed. This is because the new BETA tactical reserves rule is distinct from the FAQ answer/errata disallowing units to e.g. warptime.


That's not the logic. The beta tactical reserve rule says: "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player's first turn...". Reinforcements begins by saying units that are reinforcements are set up on the battlefield mid-turn. Since they count as reinforcements, they arrived mid-turn and are locked. That's the RAW.

Warptime is an entirely different can of worms because it doesn't remove you from the board and make you arrive mid-turn.


That was RAW, but is no longer, obviously. (Good job FB team getting with the rules writers!)

No, but Warptime is prevented for units that arrived mid-turn, which these units count as, except for the ability to arrive outside of their own DZ, as outlined by the team today.

Are you honestly struggling to understand? Is this really an intellectual challenge for you? Or are you just being willfully ignorant or disingenuous?


There's no struggle here. This isn't a change to the RAW. If you can actually point to any part of their post changing the RAW it would be a small miracle. This post is addressing tactical reserves but the problem was always reinforcements, which they explicitly confirmed these guys are. GW doesn't realize what the problem actually is.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:23:55


Post by: DominayTrix


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Because they said it counts as reinforcements and reinforcements literally prevents that movement?


I agree, and also fail to see the problem.

They count as reinforcements, but can leave their DZ turn 1, since they were deployed. This is because the new BETA tactical reserves rule is distinct from the FAQ answer/errata disallowing units to e.g. warptime.

Where does it say anything about allowing them to setup in the enemy deployment since they were already deployed. Here's the entire text about limiting where you can deep strike. "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer Cultsunit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems)." People aren't doing this out of malice because they don't want armies to do things or they hate the faq. They just want the rules to do what they say they do. The rules only say you can set up in the enemy deployment if it is before the first turn ie infiltration or from the 2nd turn onward. If they want exceptions and caveats they should write them in the rules.


Reading the thread has its advantages:
 GuardStrider wrote:
On the official FB


This is how poorly written rules stick around. I understand what they intended. I get it I really really do. I have no shadow of a doubt what their intentions are after this image. What I am saying is where the gak in the FAQ rules text does that support their claim. Oh it doesn't? Sounds like something needs to get changed. The rules team can intend for a unit to move 10 inches all they want, but if they wrote 8 inches that is what it is. They can release a big pretty picture that says how they want it to move 10 inches, and how great 10 inches is going to be. It does not change that the rule that is written down is 8 inches.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:26:36


Post by: Audustum


 DominayTrix wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Because they said it counts as reinforcements and reinforcements literally prevents that movement?


I agree, and also fail to see the problem.

They count as reinforcements, but can leave their DZ turn 1, since they were deployed. This is because the new BETA tactical reserves rule is distinct from the FAQ answer/errata disallowing units to e.g. warptime.

Where does it say anything about allowing them to setup in the enemy deployment since they were already deployed. Here's the entire text about limiting where you can deep strike. "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer Cultsunit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems)." People aren't doing this out of malice because they don't want armies to do things or they hate the faq. They just want the rules to do what they say they do. The rules only say you can set up in the enemy deployment if it is before the first turn ie infiltration or from the 2nd turn onward. If they want exceptions and caveats they should write them in the rules.


Reading the thread has its advantages:
 GuardStrider wrote:
On the official FB


This is how poorly written rules stick around. I understand what they intended. I get it I really really do. I have no shadow of a doubt what their intentions are after this image. What I am saying is where the gak in the FAQ rules text does that support their claim. Oh it doesn't? Sounds like something needs to get changed. The rules team can intend for a unit to move 10 inches all they want, but if they wrote 8 inches that is what it is. They can release a big pretty picture that says how they want it to move 10 inches, and how great 10 inches is going to be. It does not change that the rule that is written down is 8 inches.


There we go. I agree with this.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:31:36


Post by: Sunny Side Up


 DominayTrix wrote:


This is how poorly written rules stick around. I understand what they intended. I get it I really really do. I have no shadow of a doubt what their intentions are after this image. What I am saying is where the gak in the FAQ rules text does that support their claim. Oh it doesn't? Sounds like something needs to get changed. The rules team can intend for a unit to move 10 inches all they want, but if they wrote 8 inches that is what it is. They can release a big pretty picture that says how they want it to move 10 inches, and how great 10 inches is going to be. It does not change that the rule that is written down is 8 inches.



No it's not. The Beta Rules specify that the Tactical Rules Matched Play Beta Rules applies to units set up in reserves during the deployment. This facebook pic clarifies it for people who doubted that this restriction applied to all aspects of that particular beta rule.

And RAW, any possible rule ambiguity in 40K (such as you doubting that beta tactical reserve rules only apply to units set up in reserve during deployment, arguing instead they partly apply to all reserves, including those set up on the battlefield) needs to be resolved by intent (which is clarified by the Facebook pic) or a D6.

Textualism in rules reading is illegal in 40K and always has been, explicitly being banned by "The most important rule" / "The Golden Rule".


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:35:52


Post by: Audustum


Sunny Side Up wrote:
 DominayTrix wrote:


This is how poorly written rules stick around. I understand what they intended. I get it I really really do. I have no shadow of a doubt what their intentions are after this image. What I am saying is where the gak in the FAQ rules text does that support their claim. Oh it doesn't? Sounds like something needs to get changed. The rules team can intend for a unit to move 10 inches all they want, but if they wrote 8 inches that is what it is. They can release a big pretty picture that says how they want it to move 10 inches, and how great 10 inches is going to be. It does not change that the rule that is written down is 8 inches.



No it's not. The Beta Rules specify that the Tactical Rules Matched Play Beta Rules applies to units set up in reserves during the deployment. This facebook pic clarifies it for people who doubted that this restriction applied to all aspects of that particular beta rule.

And RAW, any possible rule ambiguity in 40K (such as you doubting that beta tactical reserve rules only apply to units set up in reserve during deployment, arguing instead they partly apply to all reserves, including those set up on the battlefield) needs to be resolved by intent (which is clarified by the Facebook pic) or a D6.

Textualism in rules reading is illegal in 40K and always has been, explicitly being banned by "The most important rule" / "The Golden Rule".


Uh, the beta rule DOESN'T say what you think it does, RAW, that's the problem.

Rules ambiguity are supposed to be talked over with opponents first, D6 second. Nothing is said about "intent" that I remember. That said, the point of RAW is to make clear rules so you DON'T have to do that and we all start on the same page.

Nothing outlaws textualism in 40k. That's just you fishing for points.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:44:48


Post by: Trunkello


"we spoke to the studio about that FAQ and they told us that 'treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'."

So as the Deceiver is using an ability like this and is treated as having arrived from reserves. Then it doesnt fall under the first turn deepstrike category. But! If they cannot move for any reason does that mean they are just outside of rapidfire range? As the grand illusion rule states they must be set up more than 12".


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:47:00


Post by: Gojiratoho


Trunkello wrote:
"we spoke to the studio about that FAQ and they told us that 'treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'."

So as the Deceiver is using an ability like this and is treated as having arrived from reserves. Then it doesnt fall under the first turn deepstrike category. But! If they cannot move for any reason does that mean they are just outside of rapidfire range? As the grand illusion rule states they must be set up more than 12".


Grand Illusion isn't being set up from reserves, it's redeploying units already set up on the board. Also, the GI rule states that models cannot charge their first turn. You are free to move and shoot normally though.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:47:37


Post by: Dai


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Because they said it counts as reinforcements and reinforcements literally prevents that movement?


I agree, and also fail to see the problem.

They count as reinforcements, but can leave their DZ turn 1, since they were deployed. This is because the new BETA tactical reserves rule is distinct from the FAQ answer/errata disallowing units to e.g. warptime.


That's not the logic. The beta tactical reserve rule says: "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player's first turn...". Reinforcements begins by saying units that are reinforcements are set up on the battlefield mid-turn. Since they count as reinforcements, they arrived mid-turn and are locked. That's the RAW.

Warptime is an entirely different can of worms because it doesn't remove you from the board and make you arrive mid-turn.


That was RAW, but is no longer, obviously. (Good job FB team getting with the rules writers!)

No, but Warptime is prevented for units that arrived mid-turn, which these units count as, except for the ability to arrive outside of their own DZ, as outlined by the team today.

Are you honestly struggling to understand? Is this really an intellectual challenge for you? Or are you just being willfully ignorant or disingenuous?


Be nice, this hobby and forum clearly attract a lot of folk pretty far along the spectrum (not being a dick i'm somewhat on it myself).


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:52:50


Post by: Ordana


Trunkello wrote:
"we spoke to the studio about that FAQ and they told us that 'treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'."

So as the Deceiver is using an ability like this and is treated as having arrived from reserves. Then it doesnt fall under the first turn deepstrike category. But! If they cannot move for any reason does that mean they are just outside of rapidfire range? As the grand illusion rule states they must be set up more than 12".
Deceiver is before the first turn begins, They can act normally in your first turn, except for charging.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:56:09


Post by: DominayTrix


Sunny Side Up wrote:
 DominayTrix wrote:


This is how poorly written rules stick around. I understand what they intended. I get it I really really do. I have no shadow of a doubt what their intentions are after this image. What I am saying is where the gak in the FAQ rules text does that support their claim. Oh it doesn't? Sounds like something needs to get changed. The rules team can intend for a unit to move 10 inches all they want, but if they wrote 8 inches that is what it is. They can release a big pretty picture that says how they want it to move 10 inches, and how great 10 inches is going to be. It does not change that the rule that is written down is 8 inches.



No it's not. The Beta Rules specify that the Tactical Rules Matched Play Beta Rules applies to units set up in reserves during the deployment. This facebook pic clarifies it for people who doubted that this restriction applied to all aspects of that particular beta rule.

And RAW, any possible rule ambiguity in 40K (such as you doubting that beta tactical reserve rules only apply to units set up in reserve during deployment, arguing instead they partly apply to all reserves, including those set up on the battlefield) needs to be resolved by intent (which is clarified by the Facebook pic) or a D6.

Textualism in rules reading is illegal in 40K and always has been, explicitly being banned by "The most important rule" / "The Golden Rule".


Here is where your problem is. See where it says any unit. It is not a question of ambiguity. It is clearly 2 different things. Use "any unit that has not been previously deployed" or even "these units" would work better than a word that quite literally broadens the scope to every single unit. The only caveats are at the bottom. Sure the first paragraph talks about units in reserve, but the second paragraph starts by talking about "any units."

[Thumb - raw ds rules.png]


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 17:57:16


Post by: Trunkello


 Gojiratoho wrote:
Trunkello wrote:
"we spoke to the studio about that FAQ and they told us that 'treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'."

So as the Deceiver is using an ability like this and is treated as having arrived from reserves. Then it doesnt fall under the first turn deepstrike category. But! If they cannot move for any reason does that mean they are just outside of rapidfire range? As the grand illusion rule states they must be set up more than 12".


Grand Illusion isn't being set up from reserves, it's redeploying units already set up on the board. Also, the GI rule states that models cannot charge their first turn. You are free to move and shoot normally though.


They gave this answer because of an earlier FAQ:
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and
then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having
moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the
battlefield as reinforcements.
And after that they clarified it more to: 'treat these units ( these as units using a rule to redeploy) as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'."

According to this, for me it looks like units redeployed with the Grand illusion cannot move so they will have to stay more than 12" away from enemy units.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:00:33


Post by: Formosa


Sunny Side Up wrote:
 DominayTrix wrote:


This is how poorly written rules stick around. I understand what they intended. I get it I really really do. I have no shadow of a doubt what their intentions are after this image. What I am saying is where the gak in the FAQ rules text does that support their claim. Oh it doesn't? Sounds like something needs to get changed. The rules team can intend for a unit to move 10 inches all they want, but if they wrote 8 inches that is what it is. They can release a big pretty picture that says how they want it to move 10 inches, and how great 10 inches is going to be. It does not change that the rule that is written down is 8 inches.



No it's not. The Beta Rules specify that the Tactical Rules Matched Play Beta Rules applies to units set up in reserves during the deployment. This facebook pic clarifies it for people who doubted that this restriction applied to all aspects of that particular beta rule.

And RAW, any possible rule ambiguity in 40K (such as you doubting that beta tactical reserve rules only apply to units set up in reserve during deployment, arguing instead they partly apply to all reserves, including those set up on the battlefield) needs to be resolved by intent (which is clarified by the Facebook pic) or a D6.

Textualism in rules reading is illegal in 40K and always has been, explicitly being banned by "The most important rule" / "The Golden Rule".



Got to disagree with you on the texualism thing, for me it’s pretty much the only fair way to work an out issue with the rules, I find other people far too emotional and irrational on the whole to come up with unbiased interpretations in rules disputes.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:10:32


Post by: Ordana


Trunkello wrote:
 Gojiratoho wrote:
Trunkello wrote:
"we spoke to the studio about that FAQ and they told us that 'treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'."

So as the Deceiver is using an ability like this and is treated as having arrived from reserves. Then it doesnt fall under the first turn deepstrike category. But! If they cannot move for any reason does that mean they are just outside of rapidfire range? As the grand illusion rule states they must be set up more than 12".


Grand Illusion isn't being set up from reserves, it's redeploying units already set up on the board. Also, the GI rule states that models cannot charge their first turn. You are free to move and shoot normally though.


They gave this answer because of an earlier FAQ:
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and
then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having
moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the
battlefield as reinforcements.
And after that they clarified it more to: 'treat these units ( these as units using a rule to redeploy) as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'."

According to this, for me it looks like units redeployed with the Grand illusion cannot move so they will have to stay more than 12" away from enemy units.
Again, Grand Illusion is after deployment but before the first turn. The question you mention has no bearing on it since it is talking about re-deployment DURING the turn.
A unit redeployed with Grand Illusion acts normally in every single way and would not even count as moving if they don't move in the movement phase. They are only limited to not being allowed to charge.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:10:38


Post by: Gojiratoho


Trunkello wrote:
 Gojiratoho wrote:
Trunkello wrote:
"we spoke to the studio about that FAQ and they told us that 'treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'."

So as the Deceiver is using an ability like this and is treated as having arrived from reserves. Then it doesnt fall under the first turn deepstrike category. But! If they cannot move for any reason does that mean they are just outside of rapidfire range? As the grand illusion rule states they must be set up more than 12".


Grand Illusion isn't being set up from reserves, it's redeploying units already set up on the board. Also, the GI rule states that models cannot charge their first turn. You are free to move and shoot normally though.


They gave this answer because of an earlier FAQ:
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and
then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having
moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the
battlefield as reinforcements.
And after that they clarified it more to: 'treat these units ( these as units using a rule to redeploy) as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'."

According to this, for me it looks like units redeployed with the Grand illusion cannot move so they will have to stay more than 12" away from enemy units.


Those are for abilities that happen at the end of movement phase or outside a movement phase, and the FAQ was to clarify that they count has having moved for purposes of firing Heavy Weapons or getting to move again. This doesn't affect the GI redeploy ability.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:18:18


Post by: Daedalus81


Audustum wrote:


Uh, the beta rule DOESN'T say what you think it does, RAW, that's the problem.

Rules ambiguity are supposed to be talked over with opponents first, D6 second. Nothing is said about "intent" that I remember. That said, the point of RAW is to make clear rules so you DON'T have to do that and we all start on the same page.

Nothing outlaws textualism in 40k. That's just you fishing for points.


Debatable. The text opens up as such. The second and third paragraphs are conjoined by this statement into a singular rule.



GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:21:21


Post by: Ordana


They are not actually conjoined like that because of the ANY UNIT that follows which is a completely separate identifier.

They would have had to use "These units".

Furthermore, I like apples.
Therefor applies are now linked to conjoined rule discussions.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:21:32


Post by: Dionysodorus


"Furthermore" is frequently used to signpost that you're now going to talk about something that's actually fairly independent of the first thing. It's pretty baffling to me that someone could read that and actually think the RAW there isn't restricting all units that arrive on the battlefield rather than just those which were set up elsewhere during deployment.

Furthermore, this is a silly thing to be arguing about still given that we've had the intent clarified (see how that works?).


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:26:47


Post by: lolman1c


Okay, not going to lie... I never actually saw that image and read the rules on the website so I basically missed that. As an academic I can't deny that grammar is perfect. For anyone who doesn't know how 'furthermore' is used, it's a conjunction (like dead mentions). So basically it's in reference to the last paragraph and can't exist without taking it into account while also adding additional information.

Furthermore, the 'instead of being set up on the battlefield feild" sentence must be taken into account when read the whole rule. The grammer solved the problem before the GW devs did.

Futhermore, in an academic or professional sense, if you started talking about something differently from the previous paragraph then you are technically committing super mega grammar heresy. You have gone off topic and ruined the flow of the subject. However, if they used the word 'however' then they can talk about what ever they like.

Gw actually got this correct.
However, I like apples.

However, even this in my mind is grammar heresy. Futhermore, everything with a conjunction should always relate to the topic. The ultimate best way to separate the two, so you don't have any reference to the previous paragraph, is to just start the sentence off with no conjunction or with a line/stars in between the two paragraphs.

In conclusion, you're all insane and I don't even like apples!


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:31:41


Post by: Trunkello


 Ordana wrote:
Trunkello wrote:
 Gojiratoho wrote:
Trunkello wrote:
"we spoke to the studio about that FAQ and they told us that 'treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'."

So as the Deceiver is using an ability like this and is treated as having arrived from reserves. Then it doesnt fall under the first turn deepstrike category. But! If they cannot move for any reason does that mean they are just outside of rapidfire range? As the grand illusion rule states they must be set up more than 12".


Grand Illusion isn't being set up from reserves, it's redeploying units already set up on the board. Also, the GI rule states that models cannot charge their first turn. You are free to move and shoot normally though.


They gave this answer because of an earlier FAQ:
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and
then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having
moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the
battlefield as reinforcements.
And after that they clarified it more to: 'treat these units ( these as units using a rule to redeploy) as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'."

According to this, for me it looks like units redeployed with the Grand illusion cannot move so they will have to stay more than 12" away from enemy units.
Again, Grand Illusion is after deployment but before the first turn. The question you mention has no bearing on it since it is talking about re-deployment DURING the turn.
A unit redeployed with Grand Illusion acts normally in every single way and would not even count as moving if they don't move in the movement phase. They are only limited to not being allowed to charge.


The original question doesnt mention any restriction on the described action. Doesnt matter if its during the turn or before the turn or during movement or outside movement. It says that an ability that removes them from the battlefield and sets them up again on the battlefield. And Grand illusion does just that:
Grand Illusion: At the beginning of the first battle
round, but before the first turn begins, you can remove
the C’tan Shard of the Deceiver and/or up to D3 other
friendly NECRONS units from the battlefield, then set
them up again more than 12" from any enemy models.
[u]
If you do so, these units cannot charge in your first turn.

The examples in the question may be during the turn but the question itself is not specific to them nor is the answer. RAI vs RAW. I dont want to argue over it and im gonna play it withouth the restriction on movement but as it stands, according to these FAQs they could not move.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:33:03


Post by: Ragnar Blackmane


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
"Could you clarify if abilities and stratagems used after the initial deploymen on the 1st turn t that remove a unit of the table and allow us to place again such as Gate of Infinity are usable according to the new tactical reserves rule?"

"You can indeed Gonçalo - those units have started the game deployed on the battlefield and can benefit from psychic powers such as Gate of Infinity and Da Jump.".

That came right from GWs Warhammer 40k account.


GW's COMMUNITY team clarified this; they've said many times before that they're not the rules writers and their word doesn't mean anything. Nothing can be drawn from the community team giving a certain answer.


Absolutely depends, sometimes they actually directly ask the rules team and post their response on FB page, as in this case. And in any case, a ruling provided by them is still more official than some random internet rule lawyers and can be used as an interim-ruling until an official one (or a comment by the rules team) is available.

I mean if there is ever a rules dispute at a tourney, why should the judge use your interpretation when there is one provided on an official GW channel? Because the community team is not the rules team, even though neither are you?


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:41:05


Post by: Earth127


The job of the GW community team is communication between us and them PR is more than simply marketing.

So their communication is in a sense the developpers.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:41:21


Post by: Ordana


Trunkello wrote:
The original question doesnt mention any restriction on the described action. Doesnt matter if its during the turn or before the turn or during movement or outside movement. It says that an ability that removes them from the battlefield and sets them up again on the battlefield. And Grand illusion does just that:
Grand Illusion: At the beginning of the first battle
round, but before the first turn begins, you can remove
the C’tan Shard of the Deceiver and/or up to D3 other
friendly NECRONS units from the battlefield, then set
them up again more than 12" from any enemy models.
[u]
If you do so, these units cannot charge in your first turn.

The examples in the question may be during the turn but the question itself is not specific to them nor is the answer. RAI vs RAW. I dont want to argue over it and im gonna play it withouth the restriction on movement but as it stands, according to these FAQs they could not move.
So, a redeployed unit cannot move for the rest of the game and will count as moving for the rest of the game. Because the answer in question does not limit it to only the current turn...

No your being incredibly silly.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:45:17


Post by: Trunkello


 Ordana wrote:
Trunkello wrote:
The original question doesnt mention any restriction on the described action. Doesnt matter if its during the turn or before the turn or during movement or outside movement. It says that an ability that removes them from the battlefield and sets them up again on the battlefield. And Grand illusion does just that:
Grand Illusion: At the beginning of the first battle
round, but before the first turn begins, you can remove
the C’tan Shard of the Deceiver and/or up to D3 other
friendly NECRONS units from the battlefield, then set
them up again more than 12" from any enemy models.
[u]
If you do so, these units cannot charge in your first turn.

The examples in the question may be during the turn but the question itself is not specific to them nor is the answer. RAI vs RAW. I dont want to argue over it and im gonna play it withouth the restriction on movement but as it stands, according to these FAQs they could not move.
So, a redeployed unit cannot move for the rest of the game and will count as moving for the rest of the game. Because the answer in question does not limit it to only the current turn...

No your being incredibly silly.

It says to treat them just as they arrived from reserve. So they can move again next turn.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:51:39


Post by: Xenomancers


Reminds me of the advertisement they made for the blood angels dreadnought formation in 7th. The advertisement literally stated the the dreads would be able to use their shoot twice ability out of a drop pod - but then they made an FAQ that they could not use their shoot twice ability out of the drop pod.

That was significant as it basically made the formation unusable. However - this clarification is meaningless for the GK. They were preactically unplayabler when half their army could deep strike. So only being able to DS 1 unit is worthless. 100% worthless - like the GK army in genreal - is worthless.



GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:51:41


Post by: Ordana


Trunkello wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
Trunkello wrote:
The original question doesnt mention any restriction on the described action. Doesnt matter if its during the turn or before the turn or during movement or outside movement. It says that an ability that removes them from the battlefield and sets them up again on the battlefield. And Grand illusion does just that:
Grand Illusion: At the beginning of the first battle
round, but before the first turn begins, you can remove
the C’tan Shard of the Deceiver and/or up to D3 other
friendly NECRONS units from the battlefield, then set
them up again more than 12" from any enemy models.
[u]
If you do so, these units cannot charge in your first turn.

The examples in the question may be during the turn but the question itself is not specific to them nor is the answer. RAI vs RAW. I dont want to argue over it and im gonna play it withouth the restriction on movement but as it stands, according to these FAQs they could not move.
So, a redeployed unit cannot move for the rest of the game and will count as moving for the rest of the game. Because the answer in question does not limit it to only the current turn...

No your being incredibly silly.

It says to treat them just as they arrived from reserve. So they can move again next turn.
Next turn being... your first turn since it happens before the first turn.
Same way RG with Strike from the Shadows or Alpha Legion Cultists get to act normally in their first turn.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:51:54


Post by: lolman1c


Are people so crazy that they can't admit they're wrong they have to go straight out and say an official post with official approval is not official. Be an adult and admit when you are wrong... this thread is just pure insanity. I don't even have words for it anymore.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:54:00


Post by: Trunkello


 Ordana wrote:
Trunkello wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
Trunkello wrote:
The original question doesnt mention any restriction on the described action. Doesnt matter if its during the turn or before the turn or during movement or outside movement. It says that an ability that removes them from the battlefield and sets them up again on the battlefield. And Grand illusion does just that:
Grand Illusion: At the beginning of the first battle
round, but before the first turn begins, you can remove
the C’tan Shard of the Deceiver and/or up to D3 other
friendly NECRONS units from the battlefield, then set
them up again more than 12" from any enemy models.
[u]
If you do so, these units cannot charge in your first turn.

The examples in the question may be during the turn but the question itself is not specific to them nor is the answer. RAI vs RAW. I dont want to argue over it and im gonna play it withouth the restriction on movement but as it stands, according to these FAQs they could not move.
So, a redeployed unit cannot move for the rest of the game and will count as moving for the rest of the game. Because the answer in question does not limit it to only the current turn...

No your being incredibly silly.

It says to treat them just as they arrived from reserve. So they can move again next turn.
Next turn being... your first turn since it happens before the first turn.
Same way RG with Strike from the Shadows or Alpha Legion Cultists get to act normally in their first turn.


Okay you convinced me with that. See i am not completly stubborn just act like a bad robotprogram that freezes when an action is missing in the process


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 18:56:26


Post by: Burnage


 lolman1c wrote:
Are people so crazy that they can't admit they're wrong they have to go straight out and say an official post with official approval is not official. Be an adult and admit when you are wrong... this thread is just pure insanity. I don't even have words for it anymore.


Yep, I don't see what else there is to discuss here. I originally interpreted the rule one way, GW have come out and said it's actually meant another way, so my original interpretation was wrong and I'm now totally happy playing it the intended way. I'd still like to see an expanded clarification in the official FAQs but it's very obvious what the rule is now.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:12:37


Post by: DominayTrix


 Burnage wrote:
 lolman1c wrote:
Are people so crazy that they can't admit they're wrong they have to go straight out and say an official post with official approval is not official. Be an adult and admit when you are wrong... this thread is just pure insanity. I don't even have words for it anymore.


Yep, I don't see what else there is to discuss here. I originally interpreted the rule one way, GW have come out and said it's actually meant another way, so my original interpretation was wrong and I'm now totally happy playing it the intended way. I'd still like to see an expanded clarification in the official FAQs but it's very obvious what the rule is now.

The discussion is about how the rules text has a different meaning than the FAQ. I know how the rule is meant to be played and the clarification solved that. That has never been a problem for me. Now the problem is that the literal meaning does not match the intention. Use the movement example for why this is important. Take any unit and give it say 5 inches of movement in its Codex. GW releases a hype article that says it can move 10, but does not release any errata or changes to the movement listed. People go "sweet that clarifies how they can move 10 inches now." People then complain "wait you said in the codex it was 5 inches. If its supposed to be 10 can you change it to 10? People then go "ugh this is stupid why would you fix what is says when its clearly intended to move 10 inches. I don't understand how you can think 5 inches is the movement when they clearly said they intended 10.Until they change the actual codex the movement is still 5. In our case, any unit is still any unit. It needs some description to what limitations "any" has if you want it to mean something besides all units.
Edit: derp typed 10 in a place where it should be 5


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:22:20


Post by: Sim-Life


 lolman1c wrote:
Are people so crazy that they can't admit they're wrong they have to go straight out and say an official post with official approval is not official. Be an adult and admit when you are wrong... this thread is just pure insanity. I don't even have words for it anymore.


SOME people are being willfully stubborn so that they can complain about GW some more.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:23:20


Post by: Crimson


Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:26:38


Post by: Audustum


 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:29:06


Post by: Crimson


It's a beta rule. They have plenty of time to reword it for the next CA.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:31:09


Post by: Lemondish


I love how there's so much rule lawyering going on for beta rules. It's the best way to acquire the feedback needed for these rules. I would caution you all to try and pretend you're talking to another human being when you send your feedback in, though. This constant GW SUCKS AT EVERYTHING nonsense that pervades this place day and night probably won't do any good if you want your feedback actually heard.

Avoid words like 'broken' as well. It pretty much means nothing.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:31:15


Post by: Daedalus81


Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Thats a very fair point, but its something that is handled socially. Many people won't even know faqs exist and they'll discover them through interaction. That's the reality of living rules.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:32:52


Post by: lolman1c


 Crimson wrote:
It's a beta rule. They have plenty of time to reword it for the next CA.


AND THIS IS WHY I SAID BETA RULES SHOULD STICK TO PLAY TESTING! If a tournament uses a beta rule then they're the one at fault not the new player or gw.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:35:15


Post by: Sim-Life


Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


If hes that new why is he at a tournament? Why does he not know if the tournament is using beta rules beforehand?
Is it time do start making up outlandish situations to justify stupid arguments now? Cause I love it when Dakka does that.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:36:37


Post by: Crimson


 lolman1c wrote:

AND THIS IS WHY I SAID BETA RULES SHOULD STICK TO PLAY TESTING! If a tournament uses a beta rule then they're the one at fault not the new player or gw.

Yep.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:39:12


Post by: Audustum


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Thats a very fair point, but its something that is handled socially. Many people won't even know faqs exist and they'll discover them through interaction. That's the reality of living rules.


I mean, I think it's a pretty fair inference that they'd know about FAQ's. Just about all board games have them, even Monopoly.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:40:08


Post by: Xenomancers


 Crimson wrote:
 lolman1c wrote:

AND THIS IS WHY I SAID BETA RULES SHOULD STICK TO PLAY TESTING! If a tournament uses a beta rule then they're the one at fault not the new player or gw.

Yep.

Nah if you really think about it. The idea of a beta rule is to use it. It is basically GW admitting though that - they don't do any play testing and we are paying them money to test their game so they don't have to spend money to do it themselves.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:40:57


Post by: Audustum


 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


If hes that new why is he at a tournament? Why does he not know if the tournament is using beta rules beforehand?
Is it time do start making up outlandish situations to justify stupid arguments now? Cause I love it when Dakka does that.


What? What's outlandish about a newbie at a tournament? I went to a tournament within, like, my first handful of months after STARTING 40k. I barely finished painting. I went to NOVA shortly after.

A tournament rules packet can say "using beta rules" and the poor newbie would, reasonably in my opinion, conclude that means the beta rules in the FAQ are what is meant, rather than "go comb Facebook for even more".


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:41:33


Post by: djones520


Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:46:40


Post by: Audustum


 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:50:41


Post by: Sim-Life


Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wpuldn't know the game well enough to question these things.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 19:53:41


Post by: Audustum


 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wpuldn't know the game well enough to question these things.


See the post immediately above you (that you even quoted). Newbies don't know to go dig through Facebook for additional FAQ and errata.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:01:01


Post by: Sim-Life


Audustum wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wpuldn't know the game well enough to question these things.


See the post immediately above you (that you even quoted). Newbies don't know to go dig through Facebook for additional FAQ and errata.


What I meant was that he would assume that the beta rules would mean units could still teleport out of the DZ turn 1 since these rules make no reference to either deep striking or reserves. No one would think otherwise unless you set out to deliberatly find discrepancies like these. I've been playing for over 20 years and have friends who've played for even longer and I usually learn about them from arguments on here.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:03:44


Post by: Audustum


 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wpuldn't know the game well enough to question these things.


See the post immediately above you (that you even quoted). Newbies don't know to go dig through Facebook for additional FAQ and errata.


What I meant was that he would assume that the beta rules would mean units could still teleport out of the DZ turn 1 since these rules make no reference to either deep striking or reserves. No one would think otherwise unless you set out to deliberatly find discrepancies like these. I've been playing for over 20 years and have friends who've played for even longer and I usually learn about them from arguments on here.


That's just evidence you live in a bubble, unfortunately. This is very much a grey area and I'm fortunate to have a wide net, beyond just this forum, of veteran gaming opinions to draw on. It's not only some mythical 'forum populace' where these discussions happen.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:09:02


Post by: Asmodios


The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:09:02


Post by: niv-mizzet


As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:09:42


Post by: DominayTrix


 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:10:10


Post by: Audustum


 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


Perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:15:32


Post by: Asmodios


Audustum wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


Perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.

No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:18:37


Post by: Audustum


Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


Perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.

No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.


I'm just gonna quote DominayTrix.


A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:22:25


Post by: Asmodios


Audustum wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


Perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.

No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.


I'm just gonna quote DominayTrix.


A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.

Yeah, I don't have to quote some random dakka posters "interpretation" of the rule. The rule clearly reads the way GW just had to reclarify because you are trying so hard to make it something its not. You are now literally arguing that GW doesn't have the final say on how their rule was written or intended.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:25:52


Post by: Audustum


Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


Perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.

No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.


I'm just gonna quote DominayTrix.


A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.

Yeah, I don't have to quote some random dakka posters "interpretation" of the rule. The rule clearly reads the way GW just had to reclarify because you are trying so hard to make it something its not. You are now literally arguing that GW doesn't have the final say on how their rule was written or intended.


I'm quoting him because I'm getting tired of writing it and I'm certainly not saying GW doesn't have final authority. You're obviously reading too fast/distracted and comprehension is suffering as a result. Slow down and do it again.

I'll leave you with one final rule: just because something is how you or even your friends view something doesn't mean that's how everyone interprets it. This was a grey area. Reasonable minds came to different conclusions.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:29:58


Post by: Sim-Life


This is a stupid argument because you can say whatever you want about Hypothetical Newbie to suit your argument.

From my own experience NO ONE in the two seperate groups I participate in 40k chats with interpreted the rule as meaning teleportation abilities meant you had to set up in your DZ on turn 1. No one even considered that it was a problem until I mentioned that the Salt Merchants on Dakka were arguing about it and as I mentioned the people in these chat groups include veterans with 20+ years of playing wargames.

This reminds.me of the launch of 8th where people were trying to argue that you could give a regiment of Imperial Guard the Blood Angels keyword to benefit from their rules.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:31:53


Post by: Asmodios


Audustum wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


Perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.

No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.


I'm just gonna quote DominayTrix.


A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.

Yeah, I don't have to quote some random dakka posters "interpretation" of the rule. The rule clearly reads the way GW just had to reclarify because you are trying so hard to make it something its not. You are now literally arguing that GW doesn't have the final say on how their rule was written or intended.


I'm quoting him because I'm getting tired of writing it and I'm certainly not saying GW doesn't have final authority. You're obviously reading too fast/distracted and comprehension is suffering as a result. Slow down and do it again.

I'll leave you with one final rule: just because something is how you or even your friends view something doesn't mean that's how everyone interprets it. This was a grey area. Reasonable minds came to different conclusions.

>someone could read a rule wrong
>that somehow invalidates that the rule is actually super clear and worded correctly
Yeah, you guys are having to resort to using circular logic quoting each other because your arguments are so insanely poor.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:32:37


Post by: Crimson


Jesus, people. Do not make half-page-tall quote pyramids!

It is a beta rule. I am sure that in due time the essential part of this Facebook clarification will be included in the future FAQ or CA.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:34:39


Post by: Asmodios


 Sim-Life wrote:
This is a stupid argument because you can say whatever you want about Hypothetical Newbie to suit your argument.

From my own experience NO ONE in the two seperate groups I participate in 40k chats with interpreted the rule as meaning teleportation abilities meant you had to set up in your DZ on turn 1. No one even considered that it was a problem until I mentioned that the Salt Merchants on Dakka were arguing about it and as I mentioned the people in these chat groups include veterans with 20+ years of playing wargames.

Exactly, I should be more used to this on Dakka by now. They create some hypothetical (that cant be disproved because its a hypothetical) then use it as the justification of why x,y or z has to interpreted in some crazy way.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:36:23


Post by: DominayTrix


Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


Perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.

No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.

Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:38:16


Post by: Asmodios


 Crimson wrote:
Jesus, people. Do not make half-page-tall quote pyramids!

It is a beta rule. I am sure that in due time the essential part of this Facebook clarification will be included in the future FAQ or CA.

If they decided to use the rule they don't need the FB explanation. The RAW is actually 100% clear, they are ignoring the word "furthermore" in the second paragraph referring to units clearly not set up on the battlefield during deployment. To make their argument they are taking the second paragraph out of context of the first. That's why this argument is so ridiculous.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:41:38


Post by: Asmodios


Spoiler:
 DominayTrix wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


Perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.

No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.

Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.

Read my previous post. The RAW on this rule is very clear and yes it is your fault if you ignore the word "furthermore" and ignore the entire first paragraph of the rule.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:45:34


Post by: Crimson


Asmodios wrote:
 Crimson wrote:

It is a beta rule. I am sure that in due time the essential part of this Facebook clarification will be included in the future FAQ or CA.

If they decided to use the rule they don't need the FB explanation. The RAW is actually 100% clear, they are ignoring the word "furthermore" in the second paragraph referring to units clearly not set up on the battlefield during deployment. To make their argument they are taking the second paragraph out of context of the first. That's why this argument is so ridiculous.

Sure, but it would not be the first time they clarify perfectly clear rules in a FAQ to shut up the rules lawyers.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:51:01


Post by: Asmodios


 Crimson wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
 Crimson wrote:

It is a beta rule. I am sure that in due time the essential part of this Facebook clarification will be included in the future FAQ or CA.

If they decided to use the rule they don't need the FB explanation. The RAW is actually 100% clear, they are ignoring the word "furthermore" in the second paragraph referring to units clearly not set up on the battlefield during deployment. To make their argument they are taking the second paragraph out of context of the first. That's why this argument is so ridiculous.

Sure, but it would not be the first time they clarify perfectly clear rules in a FAQ to shut up the rules lawyers.

Yes, I understand why they have to release clarifications when people do these ridiculous rules lawyering. But honestly, when they are arguing against the official GW page telling them exactly how to read it I sometimes wonder if they are just wasting their time when dealing with these people that will intentionally "read it wrong" no matter what they do.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:55:27


Post by: Daedalus81


 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


There's a very clear distinction between what they did here and what they've done in the past. No law binds you to not accepting rules that are not in an FAQ


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 20:59:26


Post by: DominayTrix


Asmodios wrote:
Spoiler:
 DominayTrix wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


Perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.

No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.

Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.

Read my previous post. The RAW on this rule is very clear and yes it is your fault if you ignore the word "furthermore" and ignore the entire first paragraph of the rule.

Ugh I hate definition debates.Ignoring the fact that there are countless different colloquial ways to use words and even more subtle differences between definitions. Furthermore does not limit the scope of the noun, it simply suggests that the two statements are linked in some way. In this case the train of logic goes "Some units can deep strike anywhere on the map by going into reserves you can only put 50% of your power level into reserves. While we are talking about units that can deploy anywhere, any unit that can be setup anywhere cannot be setup in the opponents deployment zone on their first turn." This uses furthermore properly. This uses any units as a noun that means any units. All at face value.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:06:58


Post by: Darsath


I feel like a lot of people here are completely missing the point of all the debate. Under the FAQ, it clearly states that any unit that arrives on the battlefield during the player's first turn must be deployed within that player's deployment zone.

The wording for rules like Da Jump and Veil of Darkness remove the unit from the battlefield, and then deploy that unit again in a different location. This unit follows the rules for reinforcements like they always have.

These 2 rules would mean that the unit you redeploy using Da Jump or Veil of Darkness would still follow the normal deployment rules for reinforcements. Now, I agree that this is silly, and the FB post clears this up, but it is clear that this response is contradictory to the original written rule. Those who act as though there isn't anything wrong here is acting mostly out of ignorance. Nowhere in the original ruling did it make a distinction between units that were in reinforcements, and units that had already been deployed, as units that had already been deployed, and were removed from the board for rules like Da Jump enter into reinforcements, and then immediately deployed using the rules specified.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:10:01


Post by: Sim-Life


Darsath wrote:
I feel like a lot of people here are completely missing the point of all the debate. Under the FAQ, it clearly states that any unit that arrives on the battlefield during the player's first turn must be deployed within that player's deployment zone.

The wording for rules like Da Jump and Veil of Darkness remove the unit from the battlefield, and then deploy that unit again in a different location. This unit follows the rules for reinforcements like they always have.

These 2 rules would mean that the unit you redeploy using Da Jump or Veil of Darkness would still follow the normal deployment rules for reinforcements. Now, I agree that this is silly, and the FB post clears this up, but it is clear that this response is contradictory to the original written rule. Those who act as though there isn't anything wrong here is acting mostly out of ignorance. Nowhere in the original ruling did it make a distinction between units that were in reinforcements, and units that had already been deployed, as units that had already been deployed, and were removed from the board for rules like Da Jump enter into reinforcements, and then immediately deployed using the rules specified.


The rules for these powers states "set up" not deploy.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:12:13


Post by: DominayTrix


 Sim-Life wrote:
Darsath wrote:
I feel like a lot of people here are completely missing the point of all the debate. Under the FAQ, it clearly states that any unit that arrives on the battlefield during the player's first turn must be deployed within that player's deployment zone.

The wording for rules like Da Jump and Veil of Darkness remove the unit from the battlefield, and then deploy that unit again in a different location. This unit follows the rules for reinforcements like they always have.

These 2 rules would mean that the unit you redeploy using Da Jump or Veil of Darkness would still follow the normal deployment rules for reinforcements. Now, I agree that this is silly, and the FB post clears this up, but it is clear that this response is contradictory to the original written rule. Those who act as though there isn't anything wrong here is acting mostly out of ignorance. Nowhere in the original ruling did it make a distinction between units that were in reinforcements, and units that had already been deployed, as units that had already been deployed, and were removed from the board for rules like Da Jump enter into reinforcements, and then immediately deployed using the rules specified.


The rules for these powers states "set up" not deploy.

Deep striking also says set up not deploy.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:15:22


Post by: Asmodios


 DominayTrix wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Spoiler:
 DominayTrix wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


Perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.

No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.

Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.

Read my previous post. The RAW on this rule is very clear and yes it is your fault if you ignore the word "furthermore" and ignore the entire first paragraph of the rule.

Ugh I hate definition debates.Ignoring the fact that there are countless different colloquial ways to use words and even more subtle differences between definitions. Furthermore does not limit the scope of the noun, it simply suggests that the two statements are linked in some way. In this case the train of logic goes "Some units can deep strike anywhere on the map by going into reserves you can only put 50% of your power level into reserves. While we are talking about units that can deploy anywhere, any unit that can be setup anywhere cannot be setup in the opponents deployment zone on their first turn." This uses furthermore properly. This uses any units as a noun that means any units. All at face value.

Yes there are almost infinate was to use a word. The word was used in a very obvious way in this rule with one correct way to read it. GW has clarified what the correct way to read this was for people reading it wrong. Yet, people are still arguing that there now blatantly obviously wrong way of reading this (blatantly because GW has spelled out exactly how to read it) is still somehow correct.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:19:08


Post by: Darsath


 Sim-Life wrote:
Darsath wrote:
I feel like a lot of people here are completely missing the point of all the debate. Under the FAQ, it clearly states that any unit that arrives on the battlefield during the player's first turn must be deployed within that player's deployment zone.

The wording for rules like Da Jump and Veil of Darkness remove the unit from the battlefield, and then deploy that unit again in a different location. This unit follows the rules for reinforcements like they always have.

These 2 rules would mean that the unit you redeploy using Da Jump or Veil of Darkness would still follow the normal deployment rules for reinforcements. Now, I agree that this is silly, and the FB post clears this up, but it is clear that this response is contradictory to the original written rule. Those who act as though there isn't anything wrong here is acting mostly out of ignorance. Nowhere in the original ruling did it make a distinction between units that were in reinforcements, and units that had already been deployed, as units that had already been deployed, and were removed from the board for rules like Da Jump enter into reinforcements, and then immediately deployed using the rules specified.


The rules for these powers states "set up" not deploy.


This is the same wording for units that are impacted by the "deploy in your deployment zone" thing such as deep strikers. It has also been FAQ'd to clarify that these units do count as coming from reinforcements.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:24:14


Post by: Audustum


 Sim-Life wrote:
This is a stupid argument because you can say whatever you want about Hypothetical Newbie to suit your argument.

From my own experience NO ONE in the two seperate groups I participate in 40k chats with interpreted the rule as meaning teleportation abilities meant you had to set up in your DZ on turn 1. No one even considered that it was a problem until I mentioned that the Salt Merchants on Dakka were arguing about it and as I mentioned the people in these chat groups include veterans with 20+ years of playing wargames.

This reminds.me of the launch of 8th where people were trying to argue that you could give a regiment of Imperial Guard the Blood Angels keyword to benefit from their rules.


And what part of "your subjective experience isn't everyones' objective reality" does not cover this? Here I go: My group is the opposite with a mix of opinions and has more years of gaming experience under their belt than yours including, I'd wager, over a wider spectrum of mediums. That doesn't mean everyone who DIDN'T see the grey is a complete and total dunce, it just means reasonable minds can differ.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:25:32


Post by: Audustum


Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


Perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.

No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.


I'm just gonna quote DominayTrix.


A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.

Yeah, I don't have to quote some random dakka posters "interpretation" of the rule. The rule clearly reads the way GW just had to reclarify because you are trying so hard to make it something its not. You are now literally arguing that GW doesn't have the final say on how their rule was written or intended.


I'm quoting him because I'm getting tired of writing it and I'm certainly not saying GW doesn't have final authority. You're obviously reading too fast/distracted and comprehension is suffering as a result. Slow down and do it again.

I'll leave you with one final rule: just because something is how you or even your friends view something doesn't mean that's how everyone interprets it. This was a grey area. Reasonable minds came to different conclusions.

>someone could read a rule wrong
>that somehow invalidates that the rule is actually super clear and worded correctly
Yeah, you guys are having to resort to using circular logic quoting each other because your arguments are so insanely poor.


As I said, I quoted him because I'm starting to get tired of typing that point over and over, not because he was my source.

You find the rule super clear, that does not mean everyone did. In fact, GW seems to disagree with you as well otherwise they wouldn't have tried, twice now, to clarify it.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:26:18


Post by: Audustum


Asmodios wrote:
Spoiler:
 DominayTrix wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


Perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.

No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.

Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.

Read my previous post. The RAW on this rule is very clear and yes it is your fault if you ignore the word "furthermore" and ignore the entire first paragraph of the rule.


No offense, but your entire argument goes off-kilter because you're using a limited and non-exclusive definition of furthermore. That's your problem.

EDIT: Somehow, on my screen at least, my posts aren't being automatically appended. I'll stop here to avoid a flood.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:35:49


Post by: Formosa


 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


I find this interesting as a judge and TO myself, what I see here is a poorly written or interpreted rule, that has had GW attempt to clarify it twice, with consistency but in different mediums, that shows me clear intent and as such I would add it to the tourney pack for clairity, whilst I respect your method on deciding what you consider “official rules FAQ/errata” i disagree with your ruling on this particular one.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:38:01


Post by: DominayTrix


Asmodios wrote:
 DominayTrix wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Spoiler:
 DominayTrix wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


Perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.

No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.

Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.

Read my previous post. The RAW on this rule is very clear and yes it is your fault if you ignore the word "furthermore" and ignore the entire first paragraph of the rule.

Ugh I hate definition debates.Ignoring the fact that there are countless different colloquial ways to use words and even more subtle differences between definitions. Furthermore does not limit the scope of the noun, it simply suggests that the two statements are linked in some way. In this case the train of logic goes "Some units can deep strike anywhere on the map by going into reserves you can only put 50% of your power level into reserves. While we are talking about units that can deploy anywhere, any unit that can be setup anywhere cannot be setup in the opponents deployment zone on their first turn." This uses furthermore properly. This uses any units as a noun that means any units. All at face value.

Yes there are almost infinate was to use a word. The word was used in a very obvious way in this rule with one correct way to read it. GW has clarified what the correct way to read this was for people reading it wrong. Yet, people are still arguing that there now blatantly obviously wrong way of reading this (blatantly because GW has spelled out exactly how to read it) is still somehow correct.

Do you have anything tangible besides "YOU ARE READING IT WRONG CAUSE GW SAID SO?" The argument has been, and still is that what GW says it is does not clearly match what the rule states. You keep ignoring that different people come from different backgrounds, with different dialects, different levels of experience, and different levels of exposure to GW rules content. What is obvious to you is not obvious to others. This is the wrong interpretation for GW's intent, no doubt about that. This does not mean it is the correct literal interpretation of what it says. Yet another example, every time you take an insulting jab at "people who read it wrong" you are probably thinking directly about people in this thread. You could intend for it to be aimed at someone in here, but the literal interpretation deals with everyone who you think "reads it wrong."


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:38:44


Post by: Asmodios


Audustum wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Spoiler:
 DominayTrix wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


Perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.

No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.

Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.

Read my previous post. The RAW on this rule is very clear and yes it is your fault if you ignore the word "furthermore" and ignore the entire first paragraph of the rule.


No offense, but your entire argument goes off-kilter because you're using a limited and non-exclusive definition of furthermore. That's your problem.

EDIT: Somehow, on my screen at least, my posts aren't being automatically appended. I'll stop here to avoid a flood.

No my entire argument is correct as GW themselves have said i had the correct interpretation of the rule and thuse read it correctly.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:42:07


Post by: Sim-Life


I hope someone locks this thread soon. It's not really going anywhere.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:43:16


Post by: Asmodios


 DominayTrix wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
 DominayTrix wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Spoiler:
 DominayTrix wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


Perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.

No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.

Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.

Read my previous post. The RAW on this rule is very clear and yes it is your fault if you ignore the word "furthermore" and ignore the entire first paragraph of the rule.

Ugh I hate definition debates.Ignoring the fact that there are countless different colloquial ways to use words and even more subtle differences between definitions. Furthermore does not limit the scope of the noun, it simply suggests that the two statements are linked in some way. In this case the train of logic goes "Some units can deep strike anywhere on the map by going into reserves you can only put 50% of your power level into reserves. While we are talking about units that can deploy anywhere, any unit that can be setup anywhere cannot be setup in the opponents deployment zone on their first turn." This uses furthermore properly. This uses any units as a noun that means any units. All at face value.

Yes there are almost infinate was to use a word. The word was used in a very obvious way in this rule with one correct way to read it. GW has clarified what the correct way to read this was for people reading it wrong. Yet, people are still arguing that there now blatantly obviously wrong way of reading this (blatantly because GW has spelled out exactly how to read it) is still somehow correct.

Do you have anything tangible besides "YOU ARE READING IT WRONG CAUSE GW SAID SO?" The argument has been, and still is that what GW says it is does not clearly match what the rule states. You keep ignoring that different people come from different backgrounds, with different dialects, different levels of experience, and different levels of exposure to GW rules content. What is obvious to you is not obvious to others. This is the wrong interpretation for GW's intent, no doubt about that. This does not mean it is the correct literal interpretation of what it says. Yet another example, every time you take an insulting jab at "people who read it wrong" you are probably thinking directly about people in this thread. You could intend for it to be aimed at someone in here, but the literal interpretation deals with everyone who you think "reads it wrong."

Nothing insulting about what im saying or incorrect. Anyone that is arguing that things like "Da Jump" wont work turn one read the rule wrong. It's not an insult you simply read it wrong. It doesn't mean you're dumb it simply means that you were wrong. The reason why i keep bringing up what GW said is that it proves me and everone else that said you read the rule wrong correct. There really isnt anything to argue anymore because GW has come out and just said that you were wrong and i was right.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:46:10


Post by: Lion of Caliban


Da Jump absolutely can be used turn 1. But can only be done once per turn. So got to be careful to support that jumping unit. But it can indeed be used. The community page was pretty clear.

[Thumb - beta.jpg]


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:50:06


Post by: Wolf_in_Human_Shape


I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:52:40


Post by: Audustum


Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Spoiler:
 DominayTrix wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.


And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.


Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.


You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.


Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.


Perfect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.

But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.

People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.


So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.

No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.

Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.

Read my previous post. The RAW on this rule is very clear and yes it is your fault if you ignore the word "furthermore" and ignore the entire first paragraph of the rule.


No offense, but your entire argument goes off-kilter because you're using a limited and non-exclusive definition of furthermore. That's your problem.

EDIT: Somehow, on my screen at least, my posts aren't being automatically appended. I'll stop here to avoid a flood.

No my entire argument is correct as GW themselves have said i had the correct interpretation of the rule and thuse read it correctly.


Noooot quite. GW said "this is what we meant" they never said "this is what we wrote" or "we didn't make a mistake in the original wording".


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:53:50


Post by: necrontyrOG


 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.


You mean like this?


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:54:23


Post by: Galas


 Formosa wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


I find this interesting as a judge and TO myself, what I see here is a poorly written or interpreted rule, that has had GW attempt to clarify it twice, with consistency but in different mediums, that shows me clear intent and as such I would add it to the tourney pack for clairity, whilst I respect your method on deciding what you consider “official rules FAQ/errata” i disagree with your ruling on this particular one.


This Facebook post is as official as we can get until another FAQ. This is just like people arguing that the "Developer's Commentary" wasnt an official FAQ because it wasnt labeled as such, and that it as just something made for the Warhammer-Community people, with 0 rules relevance.

Its just bollocks.

Spoiler:
 necrontyrOG wrote:
 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.


You mean like this?

As much as certain users like to think Dakkadakka as superior to 4chan, to the rest of the warhammer globosphere, Dakkadakka is just the same. Facebook, Reddit, Blogs, even local communities laugh at how hyperbolic is dakkadakka about everything


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 21:58:52


Post by: Audustum


 Galas wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
 niv-mizzet wrote:
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...

-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.

-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.

-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."

-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.


I find this interesting as a judge and TO myself, what I see here is a poorly written or interpreted rule, that has had GW attempt to clarify it twice, with consistency but in different mediums, that shows me clear intent and as such I would add it to the tourney pack for clairity, whilst I respect your method on deciding what you consider “official rules FAQ/errata” i disagree with your ruling on this particular one.


This Facebook post is as official as we can get until another FAQ. This is just like people arguing that the "Developer's Commentary" wasnt an official FAQ because it wasnt labeled as such, and that it as just something made for the Warhammer-Community people, with 0 rules relevance.

Its just bollocks.

Spoiler:
 necrontyrOG wrote:
 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.


You mean like this?

As much as certain users like to think Dakkadakka as superior to 4chan, to the rest of the warhammer globosphere, Dakkadakka is just the same. Facebook, Reddit, Blogs, even local communities laugh at how hyperbolic is dakkadakka about everything


And non-40k communities laugh at how ridiculous we are both in terms of how much money we pay and how stupid our rules are. I'm not sure what the point of this tangent is (even Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation has made fun of us on at least 2 occasions).


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 22:00:06


Post by: Lion of Caliban


 necrontyrOG wrote:
 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.


You mean like this?



Well that's just mean spirited.



GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 22:05:10


Post by: Galmakh the moonkiller


you're just mean spirited..


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 22:05:48


Post by: Daedalus81


 necrontyrOG wrote:
 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.


You mean like this?
Spoiler:


I shouldn't have laughed. But I did. Now I need to wear the cone of shame


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 22:14:45


Post by: Sim-Life


 necrontyrOG wrote:
 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.


You mean like this?


This image sums up why I keep posting here.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 22:16:47


Post by: Asmodios


 necrontyrOG wrote:
 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.


You mean like this?

exhaulted


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 22:21:32


Post by: DominayTrix


 necrontyrOG wrote:
 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.


You mean like this?

They aren't wrong...


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 22:29:38


Post by: Lion of Caliban


Huh that one's just lazy mate.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 22:34:43


Post by: necrontyrOG


We're running out of jokes here. Someone please close this thread...


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 22:38:51


Post by: Lion of Caliban


 necrontyrOG wrote:
We're running out of jokes here. Someone please close this thread...


Yeah, tapped of all sense.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 22:54:45


Post by: davou


 DominayTrix wrote:


You mean like this?

They aren't wrong...


Best ever


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 23:03:17


Post by: hollow one


 Sim-Life wrote:
I hope someone locks this thread soon. It's not really going anywhere.
No! If it locks then I won't be able to update my banlist any further (the hidden buff that this FAQ provided, btw).


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 23:05:09


Post by: DominayTrix


 necrontyrOG wrote:
We're running out of jokes here. Someone please close this thread...

Gw made it pretty clear on their facebook discussions that the rules phrasing won’t be adjusted while it is in beta so threads pointless now imo. They are well aware of the confusion and ways to fix it so that is good enough for me.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 23:05:33


Post by: dosiere


To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/20 23:09:39


Post by: Lion of Caliban


dosiere wrote:
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.


Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 04:57:08


Post by: lolman1c


Now I have to hire a lawyer to play 40k? This hobby is getting to expensive!


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 05:07:50


Post by: Galas


 lolman1c wrote:
Now I have to hire a lawyer to play 40k? This hobby is getting to expensive!


That could be a new format for tournaments.

Each player brings his own lawyer, and the two lawyers arguee for two and a half hours about the interpretations of the rules. The best ruler-lawyer wins the game.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 05:15:39


Post by: Captyn_Bob


 necrontyrOG wrote:
 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.


You mean like this?



Thanks for this


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 05:53:25


Post by: DominayTrix


dosiere wrote:
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.

Yeah I’m not really sure why GW has such a hardline stance against adding any clarification to the rule itself. People are basically offering to proof read the text to make sure it works as intended in addition to testing balance. I get that its a beta rule and will probably not be the final version, but why not make sure it works on two fronts?


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 06:37:49


Post by: Sunny Side Up


 Lion of Caliban wrote:
dosiere wrote:
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.


Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.


A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 07:29:47


Post by: Lion of Caliban


Sunny Side Up wrote:
 Lion of Caliban wrote:
dosiere wrote:
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.


Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.


A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge.


Unless you're in the U.K. where the court can decide the context and intent.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 07:39:52


Post by: Thepatriarch


So does this mean you can deepstrike deepstriking units in turn 1 with alien cunning (tyranid warlord trait) and phantasm (eldar strategy) by deploying them non deepstriked first?


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 07:50:40


Post by: Red__Thirst


*Finishes reading thread.*

*Adds certain people in thread who can't understand that beta rules don't effect units that were deployed normally prior to the first turn starting to his 'If given the opportunity, never play these people' list.*

*Goes on about his day.*

Take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 07:58:43


Post by: Sim-Life


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, the Errata is the official way of changing the rules, not facebook.



The errata doesn't conflict with this interpretation - at least for many people.
There is only one interpretation that is correct though, and that's the one that follows the rules. You can Da Jump and GoI turn 1 just fine, but you're still limited to your deployment zone Turn 1 if you do.

If/When GW change that rule, I'll be all on board for it, until then if you want to use the Beta rules, use them properly.


When did the universe give you final say on how to interpret the English language?


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 08:23:16


Post by: Captyn_Bob


I'll take official guidance from the game designers over internet anons any day.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 09:32:37


Post by: lolman1c


The joke is, none of this effects me. I rarely bring my weirdboy anymore and I tend to use mostly 1 trukk with bunras and 1 wagon with 20 shoota boyz. XD


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 11:09:08


Post by: DominayTrix


 Sim-Life wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, the Errata is the official way of changing the rules, not facebook.



The errata doesn't conflict with this interpretation - at least for many people.
There is only one interpretation that is correct though, and that's the one that follows the rules. You can Da Jump and GoI turn 1 just fine, but you're still limited to your deployment zone Turn 1 if you do.

If/When GW change that rule, I'll be all on board for it, until then if you want to use the Beta rules, use them properly.


When did the universe give you final say on how to interpret the English language?

Yeaaaah, I have to agree with you here. Its clear how its going to be tested and played with the picture. Which for a rule is gak, but fine for playtesting because GW pretty much took the stance "the phrasing doesn't matter just play for our intent." It can cause a lot of problems if they lazily copy+paste it without clarifying things once it becomes official. Just like 5 weapon coldstars. Silly and not even remotely likely to be designers intent, but until the FAQ was 100% legal. Although the reason why its important to have people proof read things before they become official is now you have another problem with the coldstar. It is impossible to take the HOBC without a missile pod due to more broken language. It took 3 tries to get savior protocols to work as intended. However, I do not think anyone who has seen the picture can reasonably say they do not know how to play the rule as per GW's wishes.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 11:39:29


Post by: Formosa


 Lion of Caliban wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
 Lion of Caliban wrote:
dosiere wrote:
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.


Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.


A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge.


Unless you're in the U.K. where the court can decide the context and intent.



Pretty much yep ok, so long as a “higher” court hasn’t set a precedence of course, same level leaves plenty of wiggle room though!


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 14:37:47


Post by: Audustum


 Formosa wrote:
 Lion of Caliban wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
 Lion of Caliban wrote:
dosiere wrote:
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.


Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.


A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge.


Unless you're in the U.K. where the court can decide the context and intent.



Pretty much yep ok, so long as a “higher” court hasn’t set a precedence of course, same level leaves plenty of wiggle room though!


Alright, I was leaving this thread alone after it went way off the rails but this is no. It's wrong. I know a fair amount about stateside legal profession.

Arguing about the "spirit" and intent of the law is only permitted when the law is ambiguous. When the law is unambiguous, the plain meaning of the statute controls.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ncsl.org/documents/lsss/2013pds/rehnquist_court_canons_citations.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwikg-7kx8vaAhWSm-AKHUmsBoAQFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2_xPsYfwGgoF1-Jbs7VJlm

Textualism, originalism and the rest only kick in when you run I to an ambiguous bit of language. Otherwise you're supposed to be bound by plain meaning. Textualism says even in ambiguity you keep the focus there on the words.

No judge would laugh out a textualist argument. In fact, judicial opinions are frequently overturned for ignoring statutory directives (it's the most common reason).

Famous examples of judges who are textualists are Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia and Hugo Black.

Originalists would have Scalia (again, he didn't consider them contradictory) and Clarence Thomas.

Intentionists on the other end of the spectrum would be Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

All forms of argument are commonly accepted legal principles. No one would be laughed out of court for advancing either of them. You guys/gals have no idea what you're talking about here.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 14:41:44


Post by: Formosa


Audustum wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
 Lion of Caliban wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
 Lion of Caliban wrote:
dosiere wrote:
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.


Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.


A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge.


Unless you're in the U.K. where the court can decide the context and intent.



Pretty much yep ok, so long as a “higher” court hasn’t set a precedence of course, same level leaves plenty of wiggle room though!


Alright, I was leaving this thread alone after it went way off the rails but this is no. It's wrong. I know a fair amount about stateside legal profession.

Arguing about the "spirit" and intent of the law is only permitted when the law is ambiguous. When the law is unambiguous, the plain meaning of the statute controls.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ncsl.org/documents/lsss/2013pds/rehnquist_court_canons_citations.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwikg-7kx8vaAhWSm-AKHUmsBoAQFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2_xPsYfwGgoF1-Jbs7VJlm

Textualism, originalism and the rest only kick in when you run I to an ambiguous bit of language. Otherwise you're supposed to be bound by plain meaning. Textualism says even in ambiguity you keep the focus there on the words.

No judge would laugh out a textualist argument. In fact, judicial opinions are frequently overturned for ignoring statutory directives (it's the most common reason).

Famous examples of judges who are textualists are Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia and Hugo Black.

Originalists would have Scalia (again, he didn't consider them contradictory) and Clarence Thomas.

Intentionists on the other end of the spectrum would be Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

All forms of argument are commonly accepted legal principles. No one would be laughed out of court for advancing either of them. You guys/gals have no idea what you're talking about here.


I have a masters degree in law, just because I don’t go into great depth with my replies does not mean I don’t know what I’m talking about.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 14:48:10


Post by: Audustum


 Formosa wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
 Lion of Caliban wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
 Lion of Caliban wrote:
dosiere wrote:
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.


Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.


A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge.


Unless you're in the U.K. where the court can decide the context and intent.



Pretty much yep ok, so long as a “higher” court hasn’t set a precedence of course, same level leaves plenty of wiggle room though!


Alright, I was leaving this thread alone after it went way off the rails but this is no. It's wrong. I know a fair amount about stateside legal profession.

Arguing about the "spirit" and intent of the law is only permitted when the law is ambiguous. When the law is unambiguous, the plain meaning of the statute controls.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ncsl.org/documents/lsss/2013pds/rehnquist_court_canons_citations.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwikg-7kx8vaAhWSm-AKHUmsBoAQFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2_xPsYfwGgoF1-Jbs7VJlm

Textualism, originalism and the rest only kick in when you run I to an ambiguous bit of language. Otherwise you're supposed to be bound by plain meaning. Textualism says even in ambiguity you keep the focus there on the words.

No judge would laugh out a textualist argument. In fact, judicial opinions are frequently overturned for ignoring statutory directives (it's the most common reason).

Famous examples of judges who are textualists are Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia and Hugo Black.

Originalists would have Scalia (again, he didn't consider them contradictory) and Clarence Thomas.

Intentionists on the other end of the spectrum would be Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

All forms of argument are commonly accepted legal principles. No one would be laughed out of court for advancing either of them. You guys/gals have no idea what you're talking about here.


I have a masters degree in law, just because I don’t go into great depth with my replies does not mean I don’t know what I’m talking about.


You must not be American then so maybe we view this differently because of that, but if that's your opinion than you DON'T know what you're talking about on this end. I'm an actual certified and admitted lawyer.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 14:48:23


Post by: Captyn_Bob


Ok I guess to play 40k we now need two lawyers.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 14:50:49


Post by: DominayTrix


Captyn_Bob wrote:
Ok I guess to play 40k we now need two lawyers.

No we don't. They are already here.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 15:10:11


Post by: Formosa


Audustum wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
 Lion of Caliban wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
 Lion of Caliban wrote:
dosiere wrote:
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.


Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.


A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge.


Unless you're in the U.K. where the court can decide the context and intent.



Pretty much yep ok, so long as a “higher” court hasn’t set a precedence of course, same level leaves plenty of wiggle room though!


Alright, I was leaving this thread alone after it went way off the rails but this is no. It's wrong. I know a fair amount about stateside legal profession.

Arguing about the "spirit" and intent of the law is only permitted when the law is ambiguous. When the law is unambiguous, the plain meaning of the statute controls.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ncsl.org/documents/lsss/2013pds/rehnquist_court_canons_citations.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwikg-7kx8vaAhWSm-AKHUmsBoAQFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2_xPsYfwGgoF1-Jbs7VJlm

Textualism, originalism and the rest only kick in when you run I to an ambiguous bit of language. Otherwise you're supposed to be bound by plain meaning. Textualism says even in ambiguity you keep the focus there on the words.

No judge would laugh out a textualist argument. In fact, judicial opinions are frequently overturned for ignoring statutory directives (it's the most common reason).

Famous examples of judges who are textualists are Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia and Hugo Black.

Originalists would have Scalia (again, he didn't consider them contradictory) and Clarence Thomas.

Intentionists on the other end of the spectrum would be Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

All forms of argument are commonly accepted legal principles. No one would be laughed out of court for advancing either of them. You guys/gals have no idea what you're talking about here.


I have a masters degree in law, just because I don’t go into great depth with my replies does not mean I don’t know what I’m talking about.


You must not be American then so maybe we view this differently because of that, but if that's your opinion than you DON'T know what you're talking about on this end. I'm an actual certified and admitted lawyer.



Di you know how British legal precedent works?? If crown court sets a legal precedent then each court lower in the hierarchy (simplistic term) must abide by it, however ANOTHER crown court case would just take it under advisement, so while it sets precedent, crown court is not bound by another crown courts judgement.

So my previous reply was simplistic, but completely correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
Captyn_Bob wrote:
Ok I guess to play 40k we now need two lawyers.

No we don't. They are already here.


Nah not a lawyer just trained as a solicitor, I have another job that keeps me very busy


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 15:38:18


Post by: Unusual Suspect




Di you know how British legal precedent works?? If crown court sets a legal precedent then each court lower in the hierarchy (simplistic term) must abide by it, however ANOTHER crown court case would just take it under advisement, so while it sets precedent, crown court is not bound by another crown courts judgement.

So my previous reply was simplistic, but completely correct.


He wasn't referring to your interpretation of precedent, he was referring to your "pretty much, yeah" response to "unless you're in the UK..."

Unless in that instance referenced the statement "A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge." As you're no doubt aware, unless in this context means "This is true, except [circumstances]".

Thus, your response was "unless you're in the UK and there's precedent issues, a lawyer would be laughed out of the courtroom for bringing a textualist argument" as a result of sentence construction and the lineage of the conversation.

Audustum has done a good job of laying out why, at least for American jurisprudence, your response was not "completely correct" insofar as a textualist argument would NOT be laughed out of the courtroom.

It's possible that UK jurisprudence doesn't have the same requirement for ambiguity, but you never addressed that (or the entire thrust of Audustum's post, really), and you've instead focused on the aspect of your response that wasn't contested.

If you're going to argue with a lawyer, you'll want to be more careful in reading comprehension and the language you employ.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 16:00:20


Post by: Formosa


 Unusual Suspect wrote:


Di you know how British legal precedent works?? If crown court sets a legal precedent then each court lower in the hierarchy (simplistic term) must abide by it, however ANOTHER crown court case would just take it under advisement, so while it sets precedent, crown court is not bound by another crown courts judgement.

So my previous reply was simplistic, but completely correct.


He wasn't referring to your interpretation of precedent, he was referring to your "pretty much, yeah" response to "unless you're in the UK..."

Unless in that instance referenced the statement "A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge." As you're no doubt aware, unless in this context means "This is true, except [circumstances]".

Thus, your response was "unless you're in the UK and there's precedent issues, a lawyer would be laughed out of the courtroom for bringing a textualist argument" as a result of sentence construction and the lineage of the conversation.

Audustum has done a good job of laying out why, at least for American jurisprudence, your response was not "completely correct" insofar as a textualist argument would NOT be laughed out of the courtroom.

It's possible that UK jurisprudence doesn't have the same requirement for ambiguity, but you never addressed that (or the entire thrust of Audustum's post, really), and you've instead focused on the aspect of your response that wasn't contested.

If you're going to argue with a lawyer, you'll want to be more careful in reading comprehension and the language you employ.



Wrroooooonnngggg

I was replying to a Brit in britland talking about British law, so context was clear, couldn’t care less about American law let alone to try to comment on it.

Also it seems both you and he had the comprehension failure, but nice try.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 16:12:19


Post by: Unusual Suspect


Don't worry, it's OK to miss the fact that you've incorporated previous comments in the chain by reference. It isn't a crime, or even a civil infraction!

But y'know, perhaps we're like two ships passing unaware in the night, our points proudly shielding each other from mutual understanding.

The important thing is that we both feel superor to each other, for having had our points missed, right?




Edit:

Actually on topic this time:

The main undisputed fact here is that GW's intent is crystal clear. If playing a casual game, I'd hope the vast majority of us will play it as GW intended, given these are "Beta rules" that everyone would want consistent feedback on (because we don't want GW acting on feedback that incorporates rule interpretations GW didn't intend to incorporate). GW could contribute to that by changing the actual wording of the playtest rule, but they seem to believe the Warhammer Community picture is enough.

For the vast majority, it will be.

While it would be incredibly confusing to a hypothetical new player trying to work things out on their own, I'd imagine that most new players aren't actually alone and without guidance from other members of the WH40k community (which might include the friend that introduced them to drugs... er, tabletop gaming, a game-shop owner, the local gaming community, and more. The confusion, if there were any, would be pretty quickly dispelled without too much trouble.

On general principle, I'm disappointed with GW that they aren't keeping to their own policy of "Rules come from the Rules Writers". I don't want to have to comb through the entirety of the Warhammer Community page, let alone their facebook page, and try to find Ninja FAQs. I don't like the precedent set by the Community page providing errata/FAQs when there is already a perfectly viable forum for that: The FAQs themselves!

The reality is that for pick-up games, the obvious intent will generally be played (while those who insist on interpreting against the intent won't get too many games), and for Tournaments, the rules will need to be clarified anyway, if they're included at all. On the level of "problematic business practices" this barely rates as an annoyance.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 16:41:38


Post by: Formosa


 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Don't worry, it's OK to miss the fact that you've incorporated previous comments in the chain by reference. It isn't a crime, or even a civil infraction!

But y'know, perhaps we're like two ships passing unaware in the night, our points proudly shielding each other from mutual understanding.

The important thing is that we both feel superor to each other, for having had our points missed, right?




Edit:

Actually on topic this time:

The main undisputed fact here is that GW's intent is crystal clear. If playing a casual game, I'd hope the vast majority of us will play it as GW intended, given these are "Beta rules" that everyone would want consistent feedback on (because we don't want GW acting on feedback that incorporates rule interpretations GW didn't intend to incorporate). GW could contribute to that by changing the actual wording of the playtest rule, but they seem to believe the Warhammer Community picture is enough.

For the vast majority, it will be.

While it would be incredibly confusing to a hypothetical new player trying to work things out on their own, I'd imagine that most new players aren't actually alone and without guidance from other members of the WH40k community (which might include the friend that introduced them to drugs... er, tabletop gaming, a game-shop owner, the local gaming community, and more. The confusion, if there were any, would be pretty quickly dispelled without too much trouble.

On general principle, I'm disappointed with GW that they aren't keeping to their own policy of "Rules come from the Rules Writers". I don't want to have to comb through the entirety of the Warhammer Community page, let alone their facebook page, and try to find Ninja FAQs. I don't like the precedent set by the Community page providing errata/FAQs when there is already a perfectly viable forum for that: The FAQs themselves!

The reality is that for pick-up games, the obvious intent will generally be played (while those who insist on interpreting against the intent won't get too many games), and for Tournaments, the rules will need to be clarified anyway, if they're included at all. On the level of "problematic business practices" this barely rates as an annoyance.


Yeah sure why not, sounds like a spiffing compromise


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I agree with you by the way, just to be clear, yeah it’s a shame gw have basically released a rule FAQ in such a manner as it only adds to confusion, but the intent IS clear now, so that’s how I and I am sure, others, will play it.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 18:10:14


Post by: Sim-Life


In fairness I would question the motives of anyone who would use beta rules with a new player. Games can be confusing enough to get the hang of without veterans asking newbies to learn rules that might not work the same way in a few months.

Likewise I don't see why they would need to FAQ a rule that isn't 100% set in place. If people are confused they write to GW to tell them its confusing and GW will clarify it when the rule is finalised. You could argue this doesn't help with tournaments but tournaments enforcing beta rules is the dumbest gak I've ever heard. Warmahordes doesn't use CID rules in tournaments because they know this and it's essentially the same situation.
If GW released a beta rule saying "Space Marine armies may play with an additional 1000pts, always get the first turn and an additional 10cp." would THAT be enforced at tourmaments as well?


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 18:33:15


Post by: dosiere


Hmmm I don’t know about not introducing a new player to the beta rules, or at least informing them that they exist. These rules make fairly large changes to the way lists function, therefore may have a large impact on purchases. I’d say if your local group is generally using them, I’d introduce them. If not, I’d just throw it out there as a possible future change at least so they’re aware. Especially since these changes in theory damp down some of the more punishing to newbie tactics anyway, I’d be inclined to intergrate them into my games.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 18:36:23


Post by: Crimson


 Sim-Life wrote:

If GW released a beta rule saying "Space Marine armies may play with an additional 1000pts, always get the first turn and an additional 10cp." would THAT be enforced at tourmaments as well?

I don't know, but that might give the Marines a fighting chance against an IG gunline or the Eldar.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 19:34:59


Post by: Dysartes


So, after seven pages, would this seem a reasonable conclusion?

"Play the game in line with the intent of the rule (as per the Facebook image), but provide feedback that the wording of the rule as it stands is not clear enough to avoid confusion. Tournaments running events using these beta rules should make sure players are aware of how it is meant to work, possibly by including the image in their rules pack."


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/21 19:36:39


Post by: Formosa


 Dysartes wrote:
So, after seven pages, would this seem a reasonable conclusion?

"Play the game in line with the intent of the rule (as per the Facebook image), but provide feedback that the wording of the rule as it stands is not clear enough to avoid confusion. Tournaments running events using these beta rules should make sure players are aware of how it is meant to work, possibly by including the image in their rules pack."


Yeah that’s exactly how I feel about it, I was on the other side but since the FB and pic clarifications I’m not, simples.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/23 14:49:31


Post by: EnTyme


Audustum wrote:

You must not be American then so maybe we view this differently because of that, but if that's your opinion than you DON'T know what you're talking about on this end. I'm an actual certified and admitted lawyer.


One would think that an "actual certified and admitted lawyer" would be able to discern that based on the United Kingdom flag by his user name. Apparently Devry is handing out law degrees now?


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/23 15:24:58


Post by: Unit1126PLL


That picture two (one?) page(s) ago was hilarious.

And so, so so true.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/23 16:09:16


Post by: Audustum


 EnTyme wrote:
Audustum wrote:

You must not be American then so maybe we view this differently because of that, but if that's your opinion than you DON'T know what you're talking about on this end. I'm an actual certified and admitted lawyer.


One would think that an "actual certified and admitted lawyer" would be able to discern that based on the United Kingdom flag by his user name. Apparently Devry is handing out law degrees now?


You'd think people wouldn't pseudo-necro a thread just to make stupid comments, but here we are.

By way of further answer, when you're on some phones, the flags appear microscopic to non-existent. Thanks for playing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Formosa wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
 Lion of Caliban wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
 Lion of Caliban wrote:
dosiere wrote:
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.

Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.


Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.


A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge.


Unless you're in the U.K. where the court can decide the context and intent.



Pretty much yep ok, so long as a “higher” court hasn’t set a precedence of course, same level leaves plenty of wiggle room though!


Alright, I was leaving this thread alone after it went way off the rails but this is no. It's wrong. I know a fair amount about stateside legal profession.

Arguing about the "spirit" and intent of the law is only permitted when the law is ambiguous. When the law is unambiguous, the plain meaning of the statute controls.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ncsl.org/documents/lsss/2013pds/rehnquist_court_canons_citations.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwikg-7kx8vaAhWSm-AKHUmsBoAQFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2_xPsYfwGgoF1-Jbs7VJlm

Textualism, originalism and the rest only kick in when you run I to an ambiguous bit of language. Otherwise you're supposed to be bound by plain meaning. Textualism says even in ambiguity you keep the focus there on the words.

No judge would laugh out a textualist argument. In fact, judicial opinions are frequently overturned for ignoring statutory directives (it's the most common reason).

Famous examples of judges who are textualists are Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia and Hugo Black.

Originalists would have Scalia (again, he didn't consider them contradictory) and Clarence Thomas.

Intentionists on the other end of the spectrum would be Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

All forms of argument are commonly accepted legal principles. No one would be laughed out of court for advancing either of them. You guys/gals have no idea what you're talking about here.


I have a masters degree in law, just because I don’t go into great depth with my replies does not mean I don’t know what I’m talking about.


You must not be American then so maybe we view this differently because of that, but if that's your opinion than you DON'T know what you're talking about on this end. I'm an actual certified and admitted lawyer.



Di you know how British legal precedent works?? If crown court sets a legal precedent then each court lower in the hierarchy (simplistic term) must abide by it, however ANOTHER crown court case would just take it under advisement, so while it sets precedent, crown court is not bound by another crown courts judgement.

So my previous reply was simplistic, but completely correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DominayTrix wrote:
Captyn_Bob wrote:
Ok I guess to play 40k we now need two lawyers.

No we don't. They are already here.


Nah not a lawyer just trained as a solicitor, I have another job that keeps me very busy


Unusual Suspect said most of what I would in response, but I have to say, where on Earth did you get a Master's that WOULDN'T have mentioned, at least incidentally, that American law is based on British law so duh precedent works the same on both? I mean, seriously.

That said, even in Britain your courts cannot directly defy a law without an established exception (like some common law rights). Speaking overly simplistically, of course, since this isn't ablaw forum.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/23 16:22:20


Post by: techsoldaten


The Law of Persuasive Jurisprudence: All claims made in a discussion on an online forum become baseless and without merit once a participant in the discussion justifies their argument by citing their professional or academic background in law. Exceptions include forums that are topically focused on legal subjects.

The scope of this law applies to all content posted by the participant citing their background, and may apply to other participants in the event they continue engaging in debate with the participant making the claims.

In the event all discussion is deemed baseless and without merit, all participants shall cease conversation on the topic or continue on at peril of being deemed dweebs and nincompoops in the context of the forum.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/23 16:26:00


Post by: Backspacehacker


 techsoldaten wrote:
The Law of Persuasive Jurisprudence: All claims made in a discussion on an online forum become baseless and without merit once a participant in the discussion justifies their argument by citing their professional or academic background in law. Exceptions include forums that are topically focused on legal subjects.

The scope of this law applies to all content posted by the participant citing their background, and may apply to other participants in the event they continue engaging in debate with the participant making the claims.

In the event all discussion is deemed baseless and without merit, all participants shall cease conversation on the topic or continue on at peril of being deemed dweebs and nincompoops in the context of the forum.


Huh....kinda similar to godwins law


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/23 18:18:48


Post by: Lion of Caliban


It's amazing how much havoc a simple joke about a current court case launched off... Sorry about that.


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/23 18:24:34


Post by: Backspacehacker


 Lion of Caliban wrote:
It's amazing how much havoc a simple joke about a current court case launched off... Sorry about that.


Well at least it serves as a living example of one of the 3 topics never to bring up in conversation. Politics


GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.  @ 2018/04/23 18:25:39


Post by: Bharring


Don't worry, Lion. The Dark Angels have taught us all we need to know about forgiveness for such offenses.