42787
Post by: THE_GODLYNESS
1
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
Facebook also said that anyone who's name starts with B automatically wins their game. Prove me wrong. Facebook is not the rules. The rules don't support what they are saying. Make an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ, then fine. Until then, what "facebook" claims is both irrelevant and wrong.
56924
Post by: Captyn_Bob
Bit more from fb community team
"Well Anthony, 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."
116670
Post by: Ordana
There are 3 or more threads about this already.
50012
Post by: Crimson
BaconCatBug wrote:Facebook also said that anyone who's name starts with B automatically wins their game. Prove me wrong.
Facebook is not the rules. The rules don't support what they are saying. Make an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ, then fine. Until then, what "facebook" claims is both irrelevant and wrong.
Bye, Felicia.
118083
Post by: Wibe
Why isn't Alpha Legion Khorne Berzerkers with "Forward Operatives" on that list?
1231
Post by: Cadian16th
Wibe wrote:Why isn't Alpha Legion Khorne Berzerkers with "Forward Operatives" on that list?
Because the Big FAQ already covered that: "This does not apply to a Genestealer Cults unit 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)."
118083
Post by: Wibe
Cadian16th wrote: Wibe wrote:Why isn't Alpha Legion Khorne Berzerkers with "Forward Operatives" on that list?
Because the Big FAQ already covered that: "This does not apply to a Genestealer Cults unit 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)."
ohh, I read that part to fast..Of course it affects them as well.t Well, I won't complain about not getting Berzerkers in my face turn one
56924
Post by: Captyn_Bob
.. bezerkers will still be in your face. Read it again lol
119722
Post by: Lion of Caliban
Wibe wrote: Cadian16th wrote: Wibe wrote:Why isn't Alpha Legion Khorne Berzerkers with "Forward Operatives" on that list?
Because the Big FAQ already covered that: "This does not apply to a Genestealer Cults unit 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)."
ohh, I read that part to fast..Of course it affects them as well.t Well, I won't complain about not getting Berzerkers in my face turn one 
Yeah sorry, it looks like it's still valid. Besides even if it did affect them, these are beta rules.
99971
Post by: Audustum
There's already a thread on the first page about this.
They also contradicted it in the comments to that VERY post. RAI seems clear, RAW still broke. See other thread.
117801
Post by: An Actual Englishman
Audustum wrote:
There's already a thread on the first page about this.
They also contradicted it in the comments to that VERY post. RAI seems clear, RAW still broke. See other thread.
Both are incredibly clear to everyone.
Read the graphic again.
99971
Post by: Audustum
An Actual Englishman wrote:Audustum wrote:
There's already a thread on the first page about this.
They also contradicted it in the comments to that VERY post. RAI seems clear, RAW still broke. See other thread.
Both are incredibly clear to everyone.
Read the graphic again.
Read the comment they made in the comment chain following the graphic. They literally contradict the graphic.
And there seem to be just as many on both sides so I wouldn't say 'everyone'.
117801
Post by: An Actual Englishman
Audustum wrote: An Actual Englishman wrote:Audustum wrote:
There's already a thread on the first page about this.
They also contradicted it in the comments to that VERY post. RAI seems clear, RAW still broke. See other thread.
Both are incredibly clear to everyone.
Read the graphic again.
Read the comment they made in the comment chain following the graphic. They literally contradict the graphic.
And there seem to be just as many on both sides so I wouldn't say 'everyone'.
K. GW couldn't be more clear on this. Give up. It doesn't matter what you believe to be correct. GW have straight up told you. Da Jump outside of deployment zone turn 1 is legal. Same with any other ability that moves an already placed unit.
I don't need to read any more comments or look at the minutae, the ruling here as far as GW are concerned is clear. End of story.
99971
Post by: Audustum
An Actual Englishman wrote:Audustum wrote: An Actual Englishman wrote:Audustum wrote:
There's already a thread on the first page about this.
They also contradicted it in the comments to that VERY post. RAI seems clear, RAW still broke. See other thread.
Both are incredibly clear to everyone.
Read the graphic again.
Read the comment they made in the comment chain following the graphic. They literally contradict the graphic.
And there seem to be just as many on both sides so I wouldn't say 'everyone'.
K. GW couldn't be more clear on this. Give up. It doesn't matter what you believe to be correct. GW have straight up told you. Da Jump outside of deployment zone turn 1 is legal. Same with any other ability that moves an already placed unit.
I don't need to read any more comments or look at the minutae, the ruling here as far as GW are concerned is clear. End of story.
"When GW says something I like that's the end of the argument. When they say something I don't like, ignore it, we don't need to read it"
^Your argument^
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
Audustum wrote: An Actual Englishman wrote:Audustum wrote:
There's already a thread on the first page about this.
They also contradicted it in the comments to that VERY post. RAI seems clear, RAW still broke. See other thread.
Both are incredibly clear to everyone.
Read the graphic again.
Read the comment they made in the comment chain following the graphic. They literally contradict the graphic.
And there seem to be just as many on both sides so I wouldn't say 'everyone'.
Care to post it so everyone doesn’t have to load FB and filter through things to see if you have a point?
Ive been through a lot of the 736 comments there now are and can’t see any literal direct contradictions. Can you share what you think is?
117801
Post by: An Actual Englishman
Audustum wrote:
"When GW says something I like that's the end of the argument. When they say something I don't like, ignore it, we don't need to read it"
^Your argument^
Are you serious? You just described exactly what you are doing. This couldn't be a better representation of your own argument if you tried. The irony here is strong.
I'm not ignoring anything, here's the facts on this matter -
1. GW release FAQ and confusion around a previous FAQ response to something completely different makes some people believe (wrongly) that you can't use psychic powers/stratagems to move a unit outside of the deployment zone turn 1.
2. There's a lot of focus on this issue and people from both sides of the discussion become heated. GW have their attention drawn to it.
3. GW state that units can use these abilities to move around the board turn 1 in a Facebook comment in response to a question.
4. Because the response 'isn't official enough' some people still don't believe it to be correct RAI. This is brought to the attention of GW.
5. GW release a graphic, through official channels, explaining exactly why some psychic powers and stratagems can indeed be used to move units around the board. In the graphic they provide examples and give specific reasons as to why this is the case RAW.
6. A few people still disagree with this because.... reasons? And try to dress it up that 'they understand the rules better' or ' GW can't write a good rule set/are incompetent' etc
7. People move on with their lives, hopefully forgetting that this embarrassing spectacle was ever part of the hobby.
The game is supposed to be fun people. Fun. If you find it fun to argue the minutae about rules and their meaning I suggest you join a debate club or political party or something. Its really sad, if I were interested in the hobby for the first time and ever stumbled across this forum it would put me off big time. This place should encourage new people to join the hobby, not be an opportunity to fight over who can interpret the English language best (hint - An Actual Englishman will always win jk). I'm 99% convinced that many of you would be a lot less aggressive and argumentative IRL. Be like that on here.
JohnnyHell wrote:
Care to post it so everyone doesn’t have to load FB and filter through things to see if you have a point?
Ive been through a lot of the 736 comments there now are and can’t see any literal direct contradictions. Can you share what you think is?
+1 would be useful if we knew the specifics of what he's on about.
99971
Post by: Audustum
An Actual Englishman wrote:Audustum wrote:
"When GW says something I like that's the end of the argument. When they say something I don't like, ignore it, we don't need to read it"
^Your argument^
Are you serious? You just described exactly what you are doing. This couldn't be a better representation of your own argument if you tried. The irony here is strong.
I'm not ignoring anything, here's the facts on this matter -
1. GW release FAQ and confusion around a previous FAQ response to something completely different makes some people believe (wrongly) that you can't use psychic powers/stratagems to move a unit outside of the deployment zone turn 1.
2. There's a lot of focus on this issue and people from both sides of the discussion become heated. GW have their attention drawn to it.
3. GW state that units can use these abilities to move around the board turn 1 in a Facebook comment in response to a question.
4. Because the response 'isn't official enough' some people still don't believe it to be correct RAI. This is brought to the attention of GW.
5. GW release a graphic, through official channels, explaining exactly why some psychic powers and stratagems can indeed be used to move units around the board. In the graphic they provide examples and give specific reasons as to why this is the case RAW.
6. A few people still disagree with this because.... reasons? And try to dress it up that 'they understand the rules better' or ' GW can't write a good rule set/are incompetent' etc
7. People move on with their lives, hopefully forgetting that this embarrassing spectacle was ever part of the hobby.
The game is supposed to be fun people. Fun. If you find it fun to argue the minutae about rules and their meaning I suggest you join a debate club or political party or something. Its really sad, if I were interested in the hobby for the first time and ever stumbled across this forum it would put me off big time. This place should encourage new people to join the hobby, not be an opportunity to fight over who can interpret the English language best (hint - An Actual Englishman will always win jk). I'm 99% convinced that many of you would be a lot less aggressive and argumentative IRL. Be like that on here.
JohnnyHell wrote:
Care to post it so everyone doesn’t have to load FB and filter through things to see if you have a point?
Ive been through a lot of the 736 comments there now are and can’t see any literal direct contradictions. Can you share what you think is?
+1 would be useful if we knew the specifics of what he's on about.
Your summary is cometely off. Most of the people arguing now recognize what the RAI is but are pointing out the RAW is still wrong and/or that GW shouldn't be posting updates through Facebook for an assortment of reasons. Perhaps you wouldn't be so upset about it all if you took the time to actually recognize the other side's stance?
Your request is a good example as well as to why Facebook shouldn't be used for rules updates, yes?
But no, you press on and my summary of your position is as accurate as ever. You yourself said you don't need to delve into minutiae, it wasn't important. By contrast, I was saying you should be willing to read everything.
I'm in the car now but I'll quote it later. The quote I'm referring to IS in my post history, however, because I posted it in General or Tactics. If you really can't wait you can always pull it out from there. Shouldn't be earlier than yesterday so small amount of posts to search. Automatically Appended Next Post: JohnnyHell wrote:Audustum wrote: An Actual Englishman wrote:Audustum wrote:
There's already a thread on the first page about this.
They also contradicted it in the comments to that VERY post. RAI seems clear, RAW still broke. See other thread.
Both are incredibly clear to everyone.
Read the graphic again.
Read the comment they made in the comment chain following the graphic. They literally contradict the graphic.
And there seem to be just as many on both sides so I wouldn't say 'everyone'.
Care to post it so everyone doesn’t have to load FB and filter through things to see if you have a point?
Ive been through a lot of the 736 comments there now are and can’t see any literal direct contradictions. Can you share what you think is?
When I get back to a PC yeah, otherwise you can find it in my post history for yesterday.
The gist of it is that they say these units are still arriving.
The rule causing our problems was always Reinforcements, NOT Tactical Reserves, which is why that matters. As I've said in numerous threads, their RAI seems clear but they still haven't actually fixed the RAW problem. We shouldn't expect players to look for FAQ and Errata on Facebook so they need to fix the RAW problem.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
Would just be helpful to have the info here for everyone, I don’t fancy searching a post history any more than I do a FB post, tbh. Post up and we can discuss.
56924
Post by: Captyn_Bob
This bit?
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
Here is a thought, why not write rules properly, instead of using "shorthand" that is never defined anywhere?
117801
Post by: An Actual Englishman
So far I've seen nothing to indicate that these rules are not RAW nor have I seen anything to suggest that GW have contradicted themselves.
What I have seen is a load of people blowing smoke and overreacting to a rules change.
As has been said by many on here and now GW themselves, a FAQ response regarding one thing does not confer information about another. You should use a FAQ response about moving and firing heavy weapons as exactly that and not try to use it for a dubious argument against something that's clear.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Or maybe don't take an answer out of context?
That would also fix a lot of people's issues. Context matters people.
112298
Post by: DominayTrix
Here lemme speed things up a bit. Person who thinks RAI and RAW will keep saying that it matches GW's intent and is obvious so only malicious intent can let people misinterpret it. RAW not matching RAI person will then cite the rule and any remotely associated FAQs. Random people will come in and chime to both sides with the most common theme being "its just a beta rule." As the arguments go on longer and longer both sides insinuate more and more things about the other person. RAI won't compromise any fixes because they think the rule is clear to them and for some reason thinks clarifying it is unacceptable. RAW won't compromise since it either matches or it does not with no real in between possible and for some reason is ignoring the fact that GW has stated that they only want data on rules as intended here. Bonus points if the RAI guy will keep stating that the intention is clear and even though the RAW guy does not care if their interpretation matches GWs. Same goes for the other way where the RAW guy will keep citing the rules despite the RAI guy not caring beyond what GW has said in their most recent clarification.The bigger problem is that large tournaments, have already adopted these rules on day 1. GW's RAI would be more than acceptable if it wasn't for that fact.
114586
Post by: UncleJetMints
Audustum wrote:Your summary is cometely off. Most of the people arguing now recognize what the RAI is but are pointing out the RAW is still wrong and/or that GW shouldn't be posting updates through Facebook for an assortment of reasons. Perhaps you wouldn't be so upset about it all if you took the time to actually recognize the other side's stance?
BaconCatBug wrote:Facebook also said that anyone who's name starts with B automatically wins their game. Prove me wrong.
Facebook is not the rules. The rules don't support what they are saying. Make an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ, then fine. Until then, what "facebook" claims is both irrelevant and wrong.
The thing is that we now live in a age where companies can use facebook to answer our questions and since GW clearly wants to do that then they have full rights to do it and, as fans, there is really nothing you can do about it. While I wish they would do it slightly better( an official subreddit or forum), This is just the long and short of it.
BaconCatBug wrote:Here is a thought, why not write rules properly, instead of using "shorthand" that is never defined anywhere?
This is something I actually fully agree with, it would take no time at all to make a glossary of the various terms they use in their FAQS and rules and it would solve a huge percentage of the problems they are having. I honestly get the feeling that when they put out these rules they expect their player base to use common sense and just understand the rules, but if they are going to attach certain definitions to words and use slightly similar words in other FAQS , then a glossary is needed.
DominayTrix wrote:The bigger problem is that large tournaments, have already adopted these rules on day 1. GW's RAI would be more than acceptable if it wasn't for that fact.
This is also something I have issue with, coming from being an MTG player, Wizards had a lot of control over the tournament scene, and GW seems to have almost 0, hell even in their "fix" for the unit spam they label it as a suggestion and say you don't actually have to use it. A major tournament should not be using an untested beta rule end of story. I also find it odd that everyone is so focused on these beta rules, when I saw very little discussion about the smite rule when it was in beta.
112298
Post by: DominayTrix
Further adding to this I really don't understand what the end goal of the RAI arguments is trying to accomplish. Let's say the RAW guy is correct that it does not match, what happens? GW adds in a line or two of clarification to the rule. What happens if the RAI guy is correct? The rule stays the same without clarification. Now lets look at it if the person who gets their desired outcome was actually wrong. If the RAW guy is wrong but we clarify the rule anyway, we have an extra line or two of unnecessary clarification. If the RAI guy is wrong, we have a rule that does not match the way it is meant to be played on release. What is so bad about having an extra clarification?
50012
Post by: Crimson
Sure. Whatever one thinks about the rule and it's clarity, the amount of discussion makes it obvious, that not everyone interpreted it in the same way, and thus it makes sense to make the wording clearer. But GW has this system and schedule for FAQ's now, so this will not happen until it is time for the next big FAQ or CA. (Assuming that the rule even stays in it's current state. That is not given, the Smite rule was altered from its beta state.)
So I really don't understand what else there is to discuss. We now know how it works, and I'm sure GW knows that the rule lacked some clarity and will update it accordingly in due time. The End.
99971
Post by: Audustum
This is a VERY similar one, but the one I saw said "reinforcements" not "reserves" and was addressed to a different person. I don't think either of those make a difference so thanks Bob! I can't even get screenshots like that.
So the reason this is contradictory is because in this comment the Community Team says you should "treat these units as having arrived from reinforcements/reserves". RAW, that makes them reinforcements regardless of which word you use. Reinforcements are setup on the battlefield sometimes at any part of a turn.
Our new beta rule says that anything which sets up during the first turn can't leave the deployment zone. The beta reserve rule says any unit even though it's under the heading tactical reserves.
Since our Da Jump'ers are removed and setup on the first turn, they are reinforcements which means they can't leave the deployment zone. Thus, the comment contradicts the graphic.
Like I've said, RAI seems pretty clear how they want it to work, but because GW doesn't seem to understand WHERE they're running afoul of their RAW they keep failing to actually fix it. The problem is reinforcements.
15582
Post by: blaktoof
Audustum wrote:
This is a VERY similar one, but the one I saw said "reinforcements" not "reserves" and was addressed to a different person. I don't think either of those make a difference so thanks Bob! I can't even get screenshots like that.
So the reason this is contradictory is because in this comment the Community Team says you should "treat these units as having arrived from reinforcements/reserves". RAW, that makes them reinforcements regardless of which word you use. Reinforcements are setup on the battlefield sometimes at any part of a turn.
Our new beta rule says that anything which sets up during the first turn can't leave the deployment zone. The beta reserve rule says any unit even though it's under the heading tactical reserves.
Since our Da Jump'ers are removed and setup on the first turn, they are reinforcements which means they can't leave the deployment zone. Thus, the comment contradicts the graphic.
Like I've said, RAI seems pretty clear how they want it to work, but because GW doesn't seem to understand WHERE they're running afoul of their RAW they keep failing to actually fix it. The problem is reinforcements.
The problem is some people took the:
"treat them as arriving from reserves/reinforcements for the purpose of shooting weapons" to mean "these units are arriving from reinforcements"
[url]
https://m.facebook.com/comment/replies/?ctoken=2013246815662614_2013329708987658&p=9&ft_ent_identifier=2013246815662614&gfid=AQAsEpiuVff-jvcN&refid=13&ref=104&__tn__=R[/url]
Warhammer 40,000
Axel Johnson as we've said above, they are only counted as reinforcements in terms of movement, which the FAQ itself asks. They count as having moved, they cannot be targetted by abilities like Warptime and they will suffer a -1 to Hit penalty with Heavy weapons. It does not preclude them from using abilities like 'Da Jump'. If it did, we would not have included it in the post above.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
blaktoof wrote:The problem is some people took the: "treat them as arriving from reserves/reinforcements for the purpose of shooting weapons" to mean "these units are arriving from reinforcements" Warhammer 40,000 Axel Johnson as we've said above, they are only counted as reinforcements in terms of movement, which the FAQ itself asks. They count as having moved, they cannot be targetted by abilities like Warptime and they will suffer a -1 to Hit penalty with Heavy weapons. It does not preclude them from using abilities like 'Da Jump'. If it did, we would not have included it in the post above.
Well since it says "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." they answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes. then go on to say "Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements." "Such units"? Which units? well "a unit [that] 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" Any unit that uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again is subject to the restriction. not just " for the purpose of shooting weapons" as you said, because it says "a unit that" which = any unit that...
71704
Post by: skchsan
Well turn 1 charges arent even that scary anymore with the FAQ regarding charging.
You can't pull the fight thrice shenanigans anymore since now you have to actually succesfully charge (as in get within 1" of enemy unit) to have the model considered to have charge the said unit...
56924
Post by: Captyn_Bob
skchsan wrote:Well turn 1 charges arent even that scary anymore with the FAQ regarding charging.
You can't pull the fight thrice shenanigans anymore since now you have to actually succesfully charge (as in get within 1" of enemy unit) to have the model considered to have charge the said unit...
.. That's not really a change? I'm not quite following.
71704
Post by: skchsan
This is in reference to multi charge where you used to use the fight again ability/stratagems to slingshot youself into the second rank. If the charge wasnt successful, you cant fight them as you are no longer considered to have charged a unit by simply declaring the charge.
Edit. I see that the FAQ I'm referencing is pretty poorly written. As per FAQ, if you succesfully charged at leazt once, then you are considered to successfully charged ALL of you targets while also saying if you failed a charge, you havent charged.
So if you declared a charge against unit thats 3" anx one thats 12" away, if you make a charge on the unit 3" away, you charged both of them, but if you failed a charge on one of them, you fail both - which is to say in this particular case, a charge roll of 3" is a successful charge against unit that is 12" away...
15582
Post by: blaktoof
DeathReaper wrote:blaktoof wrote:The problem is some people took the:
"treat them as arriving from reserves/reinforcements for the purpose of shooting weapons" to mean "these units are arriving from reinforcements"
Warhammer 40,000
Axel Johnson as we've said above, they are only counted as reinforcements in terms of movement, which the FAQ itself asks. They count as having moved, they cannot be targetted by abilities like Warptime and they will suffer a -1 to Hit penalty with Heavy weapons. It does not preclude them from using abilities like 'Da Jump'. If it did, we would not have included it in the post above.
Well since it says "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."
they answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes. then go on to say "Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements."
"Such units"? Which units? well "a unit [that] 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"
Any unit that uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again is subject to the restriction. not just " for the purpose of shooting weapons" as you said, because it says "a unit that" which = any unit that...
The question is about if they count as moving for shooting. This is a prime example of people taking an answer, ignoring the question then applying the result to everything.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
blaktoof wrote:The question is about if they count as moving for shooting. This is a prime example of people taking an answer, ignoring the question then applying the result to everything.
No, the answer EXPLICITLY says to "treat them as reinforcements." Not "treat them as reinforcements for the purposes of whether they have moved or not", but a blanket "treat them as reinforcements." That means you treat them as reinforcements (a defined rules phrase) in all regards.
29847
Post by: kadeton
blaktoof wrote:The question is about if they count as moving for shooting. This is a prime example of people taking an answer, ignoring the question then applying the result to everything.
Sure. Except that:
Warhammer 40,000
Axel Johnson as we've said above, they are only counted as reinforcements in terms of movement, which the FAQ itself asks. They count as having moved, they cannot be targetted by abilities like Warptime and they will suffer a -1 to Hit penalty with Heavy weapons. It does not preclude them from using abilities like 'Da Jump'. If it did, we would not have included it in the post above.
We're told to apply all the same restrictions as reinforcements, except for being limited to the deployment zone. If it was just a question about shooting Heavy weapons, why would the unit not be targetable by Warptime? That's got nothing to do with moving and shooting.
So the FAQ suggests we should follow all the restrictions. Their follow-up confirms that we should, but then also says "Oh but we didn't mean the deployment zone bit, just ignore that one." We're left scratching our heads about how the heck we were supposed to know the intention was to follow all the restrictions except one, which was never called out. We also wonder how we're supposed to convince a TO of that, if they haven't seen a specific random Facebook comment, since it hasn't been fixed in the official FAQ.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
blaktoof wrote: DeathReaper wrote:blaktoof wrote:The problem is some people took the: "treat them as arriving from reserves/reinforcements for the purpose of shooting weapons" to mean "these units are arriving from reinforcements" Warhammer 40,000 Axel Johnson as we've said above, they are only counted as reinforcements in terms of movement, which the FAQ itself asks. They count as having moved, they cannot be targetted by abilities like Warptime and they will suffer a -1 to Hit penalty with Heavy weapons. It does not preclude them from using abilities like 'Da Jump'. If it did, we would not have included it in the post above.
Well since it says "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." they answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes. then go on to say "Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements." "Such units"? Which units? well "a unit [that] 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" Any unit that uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again is subject to the restriction. not just " for the purpose of shooting weapons" as you said, because it says "a unit that" which = any unit that... The question is about if they count as moving for shooting. This is a prime example of people taking an answer, ignoring the question then applying the result to everything. I did not ignore the question. Re-read my post I did not ignore the question. They answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes. Then, after the question is answered they go on to clarify how you treat units that use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again. Which is to Treat units that use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
skchsan wrote:This is in reference to multi charge where you used to use the fight again ability/stratagems to slingshot youself into the second rank. If the charge wasnt successful, you cant fight them as you are no longer considered to have charged a unit by simply declaring the charge.
Edit. I see that the FAQ I'm referencing is pretty poorly written. As per FAQ, if you succesfully charged at leazt once, then you are considered to successfully charged ALL of you targets while also saying if you failed a charge, you havent charged.
So if you declared a charge against unit thats 3" anx one thats 12" away, if you make a charge on the unit 3" away, you charged both of them, but if you failed a charge on one of them, you fail both - which is to say in this particular case, a charge roll of 3" is a successful charge against unit that is 12" away...
Having made a charge wasn't the pre req for being able to attack a unit, however. It's unambiguously related to having declared a charge against a unit.
15582
Post by: blaktoof
DeathReaper wrote:blaktoof wrote: DeathReaper wrote:blaktoof wrote:The problem is some people took the:
"treat them as arriving from reserves/reinforcements for the purpose of shooting weapons" to mean "these units are arriving from reinforcements"
Warhammer 40,000
Axel Johnson as we've said above, they are only counted as reinforcements in terms of movement, which the FAQ itself asks. They count as having moved, they cannot be targetted by abilities like Warptime and they will suffer a -1 to Hit penalty with Heavy weapons. It does not preclude them from using abilities like 'Da Jump'. If it did, we would not have included it in the post above.
Well since it says "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."
they answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes. then go on to say "Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements."
"Such units"? Which units? well "a unit [that] 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"
Any unit that uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again is subject to the restriction. not just " for the purpose of shooting weapons" as you said, because it says "a unit that" which = any unit that...
The question is about if they count as moving for shooting. This is a prime example of people taking an answer, ignoring the question then applying the result to everything.
I did not ignore the question.
Re-read my post I did not ignore the question. They answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes.
Then, after the question is answered they go on to clarify how you treat units that use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again. Which is to Treat units hat use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements
It doesn't say that.
It's treating units that are firing after using such an ability as reinforcements. Again, you are inferring additional meaning in the answer beyond the scope of the question. You are taking the first complete sentence of the answer and applying it to all purposes when the question is only about shooting. RAI it might apply to every situation but it certainly doesn't say it does. Turns out it doesn't.
117900
Post by: Dandelion
DeathReaper wrote:
I did not ignore the question.
Re-read my post I did not ignore the question. They answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes.
Then, after the question is answered they go on to clarify how you treat units that use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again. Which is to Treat units hat use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements
You treat them as such for determining if they count as moving. It's a specific answer to a specific question. Besides, the facebook guys have confirmed the intent of the rule after discussing it with the rules team.
On top of that, this particular FAQ was written before the new deepstrike rules were developed so "arriving from reinforcements" had no such limitations at all. They just forgot to update it.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
blaktoof wrote: DeathReaper wrote: I did not ignore the question. Re-read my post I did not ignore the question. They answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes. Then, after the question is answered they go on to clarify how you treat units that use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again. Which is to Treat units hat use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements
It doesn't say that. It's treating units that are firing after using such an ability as reinforcements. Again, you are inferring additional meaning in the answer beyond the scope of the question. You are taking the first complete sentence of the answer and applying it to all purposes when the question is only about shooting. RAI it might apply to every situation but it certainly doesn't say it does. Turns out it doesn't.
It really does say that, as my post has shown. Why do you think the second sentence is restricted to firing after using such an ability? It says nothing of the sort. It just says that we 'Treat units that use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements' Incorrect, the answer says no such thing. It's a specific answer to a specific question.
The first sentence answers the specific question with a yes. The second is a blanket clarification to any unit that "uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again" Besides, the facebook guys have confirmed the intent of the rule after discussing it with the rules team.
Facebook is not Rules. it is not Errata, it is not FAQ. On top of that, this particular FAQ was written before the new deepstrike rules were developed so "arriving from reinforcements" had no such limitations at all. They just forgot to update it.
and until they do, if they ever do, the rules now restrict any unit "as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements."
108023
Post by: Marmatag
This disjointed ruleset is unacceptable. Am i supposed to monitor the facebook community page to know how to play this game now?
Sorry no, if it's not posted in an official source I am not going to be held accountable for it.
Just because McFloggenbadgerspoon in Sussexwitchhamburg writes a reply to a customer in a sad attempt to clarify a very poorly written rule, doesn't mean it's something i'm going to follow. Not an official channel? Not an official rule.
117900
Post by: Dandelion
I still disagree with your assessment. Before even knowing the RAI, I took that particular answer to only apply to movement. You are adding meaning to the answer that I would not. So who's wrong? Well, we asked GW, and GW has clarified it on facebook. Should they update the FAQ? Yes. But thanks to people who complained about FAQs and errata being too quick we now have to wait until september to get an official ruling.
But even ignoring all that, the beta rule is just that, a beta. It is not actually a part of the rules yet and as such it is not beholden to be rest of the FAQs for consistency... yet. You play how it is intended and then say "Hey, btw, your FAQ contradicts the beta rule" to which GW says "Oh, right. Let's get on that. We wouldn't want the actual finalized rule to be inconsistent."
Facebook is the best you're going to get for beta rules. Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's why it's called a beta. It's not an official rule yet.
29847
Post by: kadeton
Dandelion wrote:Before even knowing the RAI, I took that particular answer to only apply to movement.
Before the Facebook comment, would you have taken that answer to mean that a unit using a relocation ability could not be targeted by Warp Time? If so, could you explain why?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
you can disagree, but the RaW is how I have explained.
Before even knowing the RAI, I took that particular answer to only apply to movement.
you should not have, because it literally applies to any unit.
You are adding meaning to the answer that I would not.
I am not adding anything, you are restricting any unit to 'only units that fire weapons' Don't add anything.
So who's wrong?
Your argument is clearly wrong as you are adding a restriction that is not there.
Well, we asked GW, and GW has clarified it on facebook. FB is not an official rules source.
Should they update the FAQ? Yes. But thanks to people who complained about FAQs and errata being too quick we now have to wait until september to get an official ruling.
If they meant for it do be different, then they should update the FAQ. but for now it says what it says.
But even ignoring all that, the beta rule is just that, a beta. It is not actually a part of the rules yet and as such it is not beholden to be rest of the FAQs for consistency... yet. You play how it is intended and then say "Hey, btw, your FAQ contradicts the beta rule" to which GW says "Oh, right. Let's get on that. We wouldn't want the actual finalized rule to be inconsistent."
Facebook is the best you're going to get for beta rules.
Beta rules or not many people will play with them.
And as Marmatag said "This disjointed ruleset is unacceptable. Am i supposed to monitor the facebook community page to know how to play this game now?
Sorry no, if it's not posted in an official source I am not going to be held accountable for it."
15582
Post by: blaktoof
DeathReaper wrote:blaktoof wrote: DeathReaper wrote:
I did not ignore the question.
Re-read my post I did not ignore the question. They answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes.
Then, after the question is answered they go on to clarify how you treat units that use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again. Which is to Treat units hat use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements
It doesn't say that.
It's treating units that are firing after using such an ability as reinforcements. Again, you are inferring additional meaning in the answer beyond the scope of the question. You are taking the first complete sentence of the answer and applying it to all purposes when the question is only about shooting. RAI it might apply to every situation but it certainly doesn't say it does. Turns out it doesn't.
It really does say that, as my post has shown.
Why do you think the second sentence is restricted to firing after using such an ability?
It says nothing of the sort.
It just says that we 'Treat units that use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements'
Incorrect, the answer says no such thing.
It's a specific answer to a specific question.
The first sentence answers the specific question with a yes. The second is a blanket clarification to any unit that "uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again"
Besides, the facebook guys have confirmed the intent of the rule after discussing it with the rules team.
Facebook is not Rules. it is not Errata, it is not FAQ.
On top of that, this particular FAQ was written before the new deepstrike rules were developed so "arriving from reinforcements" had no such limitations at all. They just forgot to update it.
and until they do, if they ever do, the rules now restrict any unit "as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements."
It's your interpretation that the second sentence is a blanket statement and not tied to the question at all.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
blaktoof wrote:It's your interpretation that the second sentence is a blanket statement and not tied to the question at all. No, that is literally how that second sentence is written. It does not give any restrictions on what it applies to, as the question asked has already been answered by the first sentence. Therefore it applies to "such units" and "such units" refers to "a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again" without any restrictions.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
No, it's ignoring the context of the question
Removing sentences out of where they're written is a particularly bad way to parse a ruleset.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it's ignoring the context of the question
Removing sentences out of where they're written is a particularly bad way to parse a ruleset.
Who is? blaktoof? yea it seems so.
112298
Post by: DominayTrix
nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it's ignoring the context of the question
Removing sentences out of where they're written is a particularly bad way to parse a ruleset.
Instead of using references to the rule here is the rule in its text. If you are going to talk about rules as written you need to do so verbatim. Here's the sentence in question at the bottom. There are two huge immediate problems. 1. It restricts any units that deploy during a players first turn. (minus infiltrators etc) 2. Units that deep strike do not use the word deploy. No wiggling around this one boys. If someone can find a codex that actually uses the word deploy for its deep strike rules I will happily edit this, but I have checked all the codexes I have a copy to check and still none. They all SET UP OVER 9 INCHES AWAY. Which is the exact same language that all of the "psyker" strikes use. So the only hard separation is whether or not the unit started on the board this turn and has to be removed from the board first. Go back to that second paragraph and find me any exception in the actual clarification portion that limits it to units that did not start on the board. Before the same tired arguments get brought up again, no this does not change the way the rule will be actually played because we have intent clarified. Yes I understand it is a beta rule and should be flexible. No that does not change that we should fix how it is written so it matches intent. Think of it this way, you ask for a Coke, but in your mind you wanted a Root Beer. Your friend gives you a Root Beer because you clarified by pointing at the root beer. (this is our facebook picture) Is it clear what you want? Yes. Did you get your desired outcome after clarifying? Yes. Did your intention match the outcome? Yes. This does not change the fact that you asked for a coke and should change your order in the future to root beer. (this is updating the RAW in our case)
Edit: Grammar
1
100848
Post by: tneva82
UncleJetMints wrote:
The thing is that we now live in a age where companies can use facebook to answer our questions and since GW clearly wants to do that then they have full rights to do it and, as fans, there is really nothing you can do about it. While I wish they would do it slightly better( an official subreddit or forum), This is just the long and short of it.
.
But any PROFESSIONAL company knows to put official stuff in one easily found place.
Now seems GW has decided to abandon any pretense of actually being professional game developers so we are in situation where you need to have with you to play game:
a) rulebook
b) faq for rulebook
c) index
d) faq for index
e) codex
f) faq for index
g) chapter approved. After this year maybe multiples
h) maybe faq for chapter approved
i) direct link n+1 posts and comments on FB. When lots(maybe even majority) players don't even follow them.
Just to play game you thus need 7+ documents or books and n+ direct links in your phone.
Many players will never even know those comments and questions.
Professional company would use FB for getting questions, forwarding them to developers and once they put in answer they would be put where all stuff is(which for GW is funnily enough logically the faqs&erratas section). Not so that you have some stuff here, some stuff there and some stuff in yet another place.
105443
Post by: doctortom
tneva82 wrote: UncleJetMints wrote:
The thing is that we now live in a age where companies can use facebook to answer our questions and since GW clearly wants to do that then they have full rights to do it and, as fans, there is really nothing you can do about it. While I wish they would do it slightly better( an official subreddit or forum), This is just the long and short of it.
.
But any PROFESSIONAL company knows to put official stuff in one easily found place.
Now seems GW has decided to abandon any pretense of actually being professional game developers so we are in situation where you need to have with you to play game:
a) rulebook
b) faq for rulebook
c) index
d) faq for index
e) codex
f) faq for index
g) chapter approved. After this year maybe multiples
h) maybe faq for chapter approved
i) direct link n+1 posts and comments on FB. When lots(maybe even majority) players don't even follow them.
Just to play game you thus need 7+ documents or books and n+ direct links in your phone.
Many players will never even know those comments and questions.
Professional company would use FB for getting questions, forwarding them to developers and once they put in answer they would be put where all stuff is(which for GW is funnily enough logically the faqs&erratas section). Not so that you have some stuff here, some stuff there and some stuff in yet another place.
I'll have you know that GW relied on their highly trianed professionals to get this information out.
"Whoop whoop whoop whoop! Moe! Larry! We need to get this correction of the correction out to the people?"
"Then why did you do it on Facebook instead of in the Community Newsletter, numbskull? "
"It seemed a good idea at the time, Moe. Nyuk nyuk nyuk"
*sound of Curly getting a face slap*
"Look at the grouse!"
It really should be put out on the community website. Given that picture, it already looks like a document they could drop in the FAQ section and also make note of with an article.
60145
Post by: Lungpickle
BaconCatBug wrote:blaktoof wrote:The question is about if they count as moving for shooting. This is a prime example of people taking an answer, ignoring the question then applying the result to everything.
No, the answer EXPLICITLY says to "treat them as reinforcements."
Not "treat them as reinforcements for the purposes of whether they have moved or not", but a blanket "treat them as reinforcements."
That means you treat them as reinforcements (a defined rules phrase) in all regards.[/quote
As if ....
The question was about shooting. Basically do they count as moving. Yes treat them as IF, not just AS. Automatically Appended Next Post: Quite honestly in my honest opinion it didn’t need to be clarified.
Especially the question about are they counted as moving
When a player uses a power that picks them up and places them somewhere else on the board. REALLY. ??? Did you have to move them to place them elsewhere? Yes?
Also to clarify the question when answered only needed a yes no answer. No other explanation needed. Plus when readers skim read and leave off words/ word combos like the combo of AS IF. Then the interpretation is muttled.
as if (or as though)
phrase of as
1.
as would be the case if.
"she behaved as if he weren't there"
71704
Post by: skchsan
Having read through the entire post, I still can't seem to find the nutshell of the argument... What are the camps at play here in this argument?
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
skchsan wrote:Having read through the entire post, I still can't seem to find the nutshell of the argument... What are the camps at play here in this argument?
One camp thinks Facebook posts overrule the rules. The other camp thinks the rules (along with special snowflake FAQs) are the correct way to play.
118410
Post by: ikeulhu
One camp wants to play the way GW has told us they intended it to play, and the other camp wants to be rule lawyers.
Admittedly, using a Facebook post on your official Facebook page to clarify intent of a Beta rule is not the best way to handle things, but this is GW we are talking about after all. Does anyone really expect them to change the wording of a BETA rule until they decide to make it official? I do not like it, but expecting GW to do so is just wishful thinking. We all know GW has a problem writing rules properly, so I choose to play how they want us to play instead of how their sloppily written rules would actually play out if followed to the technical letter.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
ikeulhu wrote:One camp wants to play the way GW has told us they intended it to play, and the other camp wants to be rule lawyers.
If GW intended for it to be, they would errata it.
118410
Post by: ikeulhu
BaconCatBug wrote: ikeulhu wrote:One camp wants to play the way GW has told us they intended it to play, and the other camp wants to be rule lawyers.
If GW intended for it to be, they would errata it.
They will likely errata it just as soon as they errata most of the problems listed in your signature.
For the record, I think you often make a lot of good points BCB, but expecting GW to errata every little thing, especially considering a rule that is in beta, is quite unrealistic. It would be great if they did, but we all know better!
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
The whole point of a beta rule is to take feedback and change it. If enough people comment about it, they will change the rule to allow Da Jump etc turn 1.
118410
Post by: ikeulhu
Yeah, I expect if and when GW gets around to moving the rule past Beta they will reword it properly to avoid the current issues. It is some what aggravating when you consider that just adding one line saying "This rule does not apply to units that have already been deployed onto the battlefield," would have prevented the current conflict with its interpretation. My concern is that we now have two groups playing it two different ways so the feedback GW gets will be different depending on which group is submitting the feedback, but I guess that is just something GW has to deal with when they decide to introduce a sloppily written beta rule.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
BaconCatBug wrote:The whole point of a beta rule is to take feedback and change it. If enough people comment about it, they will change the rule to allow Da Jump etc turn 1.
The rule already allows it
A poorly taken out of context faq answer doesn't imp8nge on it
And thy clearly did intend it. They literally told you they intended it. They also wrote it. Your opinion otherwise, however strongly you say it, doesn't actually matter one jot.
71704
Post by: skchsan
So the argument is in fact, whether Facebook snowflake should be considered a rule/FAQ/errata or not?
What's the actual rule/interaction that's being argued about? Is there any?
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
nosferatu1001 wrote: BaconCatBug wrote:The whole point of a beta rule is to take feedback and change it. If enough people comment about it, they will change the rule to allow Da Jump etc turn 1.
The rule already allows it
A poorly taken out of context faq answer doesn't imp8nge on it
And thy clearly did intend it. They literally told you they intended it. They also wrote it. Your opinion otherwise, however strongly you say it, doesn't actually matter one jot.
Except my "opinion" is the actual rule. That's the great thing about being a RaW purist, you can never be wrong. The RaW is correct by virtue of being RaW, if they errata it you were right, and if they Special Snowflake FAQ it you were also right.
70567
Post by: deviantduck
To me, an image put out by GWs facebook account is a lot more official than the opinion of someone on dakka.
117900
Post by: Dandelion
BaconCatBug wrote: ikeulhu wrote:One camp wants to play the way GW has told us they intended it to play, and the other camp wants to be rule lawyers.
If GW intended for it to be, they would errata it.
They will errata it... once they make it an actual rule. Right now it's a beta which means you should play it how they intended in order to give them meaningful feedback. If you just stop at current rules contradictions and go no further then you are not helping shape the beta other than informing them of needing a clarification to the rule. It's not really productive TBH.
58558
Post by: Octopoid
Dandelion wrote: BaconCatBug wrote: ikeulhu wrote:One camp wants to play the way GW has told us they intended it to play, and the other camp wants to be rule lawyers.
If GW intended for it to be, they would errata it.
They will errata it... once they make it an actual rule. Right now it's a beta which means you should play it how they intended in order to give them meaningful feedback. If you just stop at current rules contradictions and go no further then you are not helping shape the beta other than informing them of needing a clarification to the rule. It's not really productive TBH.
I'm not a psychic (sad as that makes me). I can't tell how they intended it. I can tell how they wrote it. And I can use that as a guideline for figuring out maybe how they intended it. But I can't KNOW how they intended it, and neither can you, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
If the rules contradict themselves, I know how I can play the game. But I don't know what they intended, and neither does anyone else, except (maybe) them. So I'll report this as a rules contradiction, on their Beta rule, and if they don't fix it, that won't stop me from playing games, but it will mean they didn't clarify what they intended.
If that's not helpful, then I guess I'm not helpful.
118410
Post by: ikeulhu
Octopoid wrote:
If the rules contradict themselves, I know how I can play the game. But I don't know what they intended, and neither does anyone else, except (maybe) them. So I'll report this as a rules contradiction, on their Beta rule, and if they don't fix it, that won't stop me from playing games, but it will mean they didn't clarify what they intended.
.
Except that they did give us clarification on the intent. The Facebook post on their official page was written in collaboration with the developers to let us know the intent. Granted, they should have released that post on the community page as well, but to say that no one knows what they intended is just untrue at this point.
58558
Post by: Octopoid
ikeulhu wrote: Octopoid wrote:
If the rules contradict themselves, I know how I can play the game. But I don't know what they intended, and neither does anyone else, except (maybe) them. So I'll report this as a rules contradiction, on their Beta rule, and if they don't fix it, that won't stop me from playing games, but it will mean they didn't clarify what they intended.
.
Except that they did give us clarification on the intent. The Facebook post on their official page was written in collaboration with the developers to let us know the intent. Granted, they should have released that post on the community page as well, but to say that no one knows what they intended is just untrue at this point.
So the Facebook post says. I can make a Facebook post that says I wrote it in collaboration with the developers that says, for example, that Death Guard units fielded by Octopoid always pass their Disgustingly Resilient rolls. When it's on the community page in an official capacity, then it's official. Until then, it's hearsay.
EDIT: See TENETS OF YMDC, point 2.
118410
Post by: ikeulhu
Octopoid wrote:
So the Facebook post says. I can make a Facebook post that says I wrote it in collaboration with the developers that says, for example, that Death Guard units fielded by Octopoid always pass their Disgustingly Resilient rolls. When it's on the community page in an official capacity, then it's official. Until then, it's hearsay.
You posting on Facebook is not the same as a post from an official Facebook page by posters that are officially endorsed by GW. If you want to willfully ignore such clarification, feel free, but you really need a better argument to justify doing so.
58558
Post by: Octopoid
ikeulhu wrote:but you really need a better argument to justify doing so.
Sure don't.
105443
Post by: doctortom
ikeulhu wrote: Octopoid wrote:
So the Facebook post says. I can make a Facebook post that says I wrote it in collaboration with the developers that says, for example, that Death Guard units fielded by Octopoid always pass their Disgustingly Resilient rolls. When it's on the community page in an official capacity, then it's official. Until then, it's hearsay.
You posting on Facebook is not the same as a post from an official Facebook page by posters that are officially endorsed by GW. If you want to willfully ignore such clarification, feel free, but you really need a better argument to justify doing so.
There have been answers on Facebook that have been overturned before, either by a retraction on FB later or by being different when the FAQ finally rolled around.
Still, it's a reasonable indication of intent and worth discussing with an opponent as to how to play it. We shouldn't expect to have to search Facebook for answers like this, but we shouldn't completely ignore it if we know it's out there. By the same token, we don't get to assume that the FB post automatically overrides the published FAQ without a discussion with your opponent first (as he shouldn't be expected to be following their facebook forum).
117900
Post by: Dandelion
If you fail to convince someone of something, then you need a better argument.
Willfully ignoring a facebook clarification for an unfinished rule is unnecessarily pedantic and impedes providing actual feedback to the devs. Even so, that clarification is unneeded unless you somehow treat "setting up" a unit to be anything from reserves to transports. Which honestly breaks the game.
The rule specifies units set up in reserves during deployment as being Tactical Reserves. Then, under the same rule, adds that any units set up in the first turn must be set up in your deployment zone. I personally read that as only affecting units in Tactical Reserves. The Warhammer Facebook account only adds merit to my interpretation.
Feel free to continue under your interpretation until you are convinced otherwise, but you really aren't helping to test out the rules. Remember, it's a beta, GW WANTS you to find problems with the rule and then report them back.
You have found 1 problem. Report it.
Now if you really want to be helpful, go ahead and try the rule according to the facebook post's clarification. If not, don't bother with the beta anymore because any feedback you have will be unrepresentative of the rule as it is intended.
15582
Post by: blaktoof
It's not just a random Facebook statement. It is an image with related rules discussion put together by there actual rules development team alongside the community team, and then put out as an official communication.
It's not just the Warhammer Facebook person posting txt in response to a question.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
blaktoof wrote:It's not just a random Facebook statement. It is an image with related rules discussion put together by there actual rules development team alongside the community team, and then put out as an official communication.
It's not just the Warhammer Facebook person posting txt in response to a question.
Yet still not actually rules at this point.
It shows intent, but does not change anything as the Errata and FAQ's are the things that change and update rules. Facebook does not.
118410
Post by: ikeulhu
doctortom wrote:
There have been answers on Facebook that have been overturned before, either by a retraction on FB later or by being different when the FAQ finally rolled around.
Still, it's a reasonable indication of intent and worth discussing with an opponent as to how to play it. We shouldn't expect to have to search Facebook for answers like this, but we shouldn't completely ignore it if we know it's out there. By the same token, we don't get to assume that the FB post automatically overrides the published FAQ without a discussion with your opponent first (as he shouldn't be expected to be following their facebook forum).
I can completely agree with this viewpoint. I honestly think the way the clarification was done is pretty awful on GW's part, but choosing to ignore it just because of that is not helping GW make the game they are attempting to make. The developers HAVE informed the public how they think the rule is supposed to work, and it is irritating that people still want to insist they have not. Just because anyone disagrees with how they did so does not change this fact. Any expectation for GW to release an errata just for a beta rule instead of waiting to fix it when/if it moves past beta is unfortunately unrealistic given past GW behavior.
Also, I think that almost any use of a beta rule should be discussed with an opponent before play, especially when it has the potential for significantly different interpretations as in this case. When it comes down to it, I am just trying to have a fun experience, and if someone really wants to insist on playing it RAW instead of what is now clearly RAI I would rather just play strictly RAW if that is what will make it the most fun for everyone involved. However, if someone really wants to help GW improve the game they should at least consider both interpretations when it comes to play testing for feedback purposes.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
DeathReaper wrote:blaktoof wrote:It's not just a random Facebook statement. It is an image with related rules discussion put together by there actual rules development team alongside the community team, and then put out as an official communication.
It's not just the Warhammer Facebook person posting txt in response to a question.
Yet still not actually rules at this point.
It shows intent, but does not change anything as the Errata and FAQ's are the things that change and update rules. Facebook does not.
In your opinion
GW doesnt agree with you
I'm pretty sure I know who I trust more.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
nosferatu1001 wrote:In your opinion
GW doesnt agree with you
I'm pretty sure I know who I trust more.
Funny, I was under the assumption GW wrote the rules, thus the people following the rules are the ones GW agree with?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
BaconCatBug wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:In your opinion
GW doesnt agree with you
I'm pretty sure I know who I trust more.
Funny, I was under the assumption GW wrote the rules, thus the people following the rules are the ones GW agree with?
GW has decided your interpretation of the rules ( actually, a wilful misinterpretation, by taking a faq out of context) isn't correct.
I'm pretty sure you're gwar junior at this point.
118410
Post by: ikeulhu
Dandelion wrote:
If you fail to convince someone of something, then you need a better argument.
Willfully ignoring a facebook clarification for an unfinished rule is unnecessarily pedantic and impedes providing actual feedback to the devs. Even so, that clarification is unneeded unless you somehow treat "setting up" a unit to be anything from reserves to transports. Which honestly breaks the game.
The rule specifies units set up in reserves during deployment as being Tactical Reserves. Then, under the same rule, adds that any units set up in the first turn must be set up in your deployment zone. I personally read that as only affecting units in Tactical Reserves. The Warhammer Facebook account only adds merit to my interpretation.
Feel free to continue under your interpretation until you are convinced otherwise, but you really aren't helping to test out the rules. Remember, it's a beta, GW WANTS you to find problems with the rule and then report them back.
You have found 1 problem. Report it.
Now if you really want to be helpful, go ahead and try the rule according to the facebook post's clarification. If not, don't bother with the beta anymore because any feedback you have will be unrepresentative of the rule as it is intended.
Thank you Dandelion, you hit the hammer on the head and put it better than I likely would have!
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
nosferatu1001 wrote: BaconCatBug wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:In your opinion GW doesnt agree with you I'm pretty sure I know who I trust more.
Funny, I was under the assumption GW wrote the rules, thus the people following the rules are the ones GW agree with? GW has decided your interpretation of the rules ( actually, a wilful misinterpretation, by taking a faq out of context) isn't correct. I'm pretty sure you're gwar junior at this point.
Who? I'm not misinterpreting anything. If anything I would much prefer to Da Jump turn one with my Boyz but as it stands, if I use the Beta rule I can't. I can only pray to Gork and Mork that GW does fix it in the final rule. Edit: 4444 get.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
nosferatu1001 wrote: DeathReaper wrote:blaktoof wrote:It's not just a random Facebook statement. It is an image with related rules discussion put together by there actual rules development team alongside the community team, and then put out as an official communication. It's not just the Warhammer Facebook person posting txt in response to a question.
Yet still not actually rules at this point. It shows intent, but does not change anything as the Errata and FAQ's are the things that change and update rules. Facebook does not.
In your opinion GW doesnt agree with you I'm pretty sure I know who I trust more.
Not in my opinion, as per RaW. GW does agree with me on the RaW. The second paragraph does not hinge on the first one at all. The RaW agrees with how I have explained. the RaI may be different, but currently the RaW applies to any unit. .
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
The second sentence is related to the first. Context, don't ignore it.
BCB - GW have publicly disagreed with you. Wilful ignorance doesn't help your argument.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
All I can say is I now really hope GW do take this from beta rule to a full rule without changing the wording as everyone understood what they ment, so they didn't need to change the wording as everyones feedback said it worked fine.
It's not the first, second heck I've lost track of the number of times, GW's answer to what they heck does that rule mean, is well it's obvious.
People wouldn't be asking if it was obvious.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
I am not ignoring the context.
here is the breakdown again.
It says " 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."
They answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes, and then go on to say "Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements."
"Such units"? Which units? Well "a unit [that] 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"
Any unit that uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again is subject to the restriction. Not just " for the purpose of shooting weapons" because it says "a unit that" which = any unit that uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield etc...
You are restricting "a unit that" to 'a unit that fires heavy weapons' Which is not correct, since you are adding restrictions that are not there.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
nosferatu1001 wrote:The second sentence is related to the first. Context, don't ignore it.
BCB - GW have publicly disagreed with you. Wilful ignorance doesn't help your argument. GW have done no such thing. If they had, there would be errata.
105443
Post by: doctortom
nosferatu1001 wrote:The second sentence is related to the first. Context, don't ignore it.
BCB - GW have publicly disagreed with you. Wilful ignorance doesn't help your argument.
They haven't publicly disagreed with him from a RAW standpoint. They have made their intention clear. BCB is arguing from a RAW standpoint, however, and GW has not issued a FAQ to change the rules from what they just put out in their big FAQ. A facebook post is not a FAQ.
This is why it needs to be discussed with opponents beforehand. They explained their intention with the facebook post, but some people might not have heard of it or do not want to play the game (for whatever reason) without something having been officially changed in a FAQ first. You can't blame somebody from wanting to follow the published rules even if the company making the rules makes their intentions clear that they don't want the rules working the way they wrote them. You might think it's boneheaded of the person, but that's a play style he can choose to make. You can decide whether or not to play that person, but you aren't entitled to automatically play the game in a manner not established in the rules themselves.
This seems to be one of the problems here, most things breaking down to a RAI vs RAW argument.
116801
Post by: bananathug
Since you guys/gals seem to have a pretty good handle on the rule if I deepstrike a grey knight nemesis dread into my own detachment zone can I then use gate of infinity to re-deploy that unit outside of my deployment zone?
Also, I can't find the wording that restricts the use of warptime etc on a unit that arrived from deepstrike (not in the "BIG FAQ" or the grey knight codex as best as I can tell) but I know that it is floating out there somewhere and maybe what restricts the deepstrike then GOI that I want in order to keep my GKNDK from getting blown off the board turn 1...
56924
Post by: Captyn_Bob
bananathug wrote:
Also, I can't find the wording that restricts the use of warptime etc on a unit that arrived from deepstrike (not in the "BIG FAQ" or the grey knight codex as best as I can tell) but I know that it is floating out there somewhere and maybe what restricts the deepstrike then GOI that I want in order to keep my GKNDK from getting blown off the board turn 1...
It's in the main rulebook faq and also in the chaos marine faq specific to warptime. Automatically Appended Next Post: bananathug wrote:Since you guys/gals seem to have a pretty good handle on the rule if I deepstrike a grey knight nemesis dread into my own detachment zone can I then use gate of infinity to re-deploy that unit outside of my deployment zone?
.
We have been given guidance that the beta rules doesn't apply to units already deployed, so gate of inifitny is not effected
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
bananathug wrote:Since you guys/gals seem to have a pretty good handle on the rule if I deepstrike a grey knight nemesis dread into my own detachment zone can I then use gate of infinity to re-deploy that unit outside of my deployment zone? Also, I can't find the wording that restricts the use of warptime etc on a unit that arrived from deepstrike (not in the "BIG FAQ" or the grey knight codex as best as I can tell) but I know that it is floating out there somewhere and maybe what restricts the deepstrike then GOI that I want in order to keep my GKNDK from getting blown off the board turn 1...
1) You can't because GoI is locked to your deployment zone turn 1, assuming you're using the Beta rule. 2) It's in the Rulebook FAQ and prohibits all "move" (but not charging) after arriving as reinforcements, though it does call out Warptime by name. WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.2 wrote:Q: Can such a unit move or Advance for any other reason e.g. because of an ability such as The Swarmlord’s Hive Commander ability, or because of a psychic power such as Warptime from the Dark Hereticus discipline, or because of a Stratagem like Metabolic Overdrive from Codex: Tyranids, etc.? A: No.
116801
Post by: bananathug
So point 1 depends on the resolution of the facebook/faq's faq for GOI/da jump etc? That's fun.
Point 2 seems more nuanced because technically GOI is not technically a move so could be argued that it can be used on units that have deepstruck right?
Thanks BCB
112298
Post by: DominayTrix
doctortom wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:The second sentence is related to the first. Context, don't ignore it.
BCB - GW have publicly disagreed with you. Wilful ignorance doesn't help your argument.
They haven't publicly disagreed with him from a RAW standpoint. They have made their intention clear. BCB is arguing from a RAW standpoint, however, and GW has not issued a FAQ to change the rules from what they just put out in their big FAQ. A facebook post is not a FAQ.
This is why it needs to be discussed with opponents beforehand. They explained their intention with the facebook post, but some people might not have heard of it or do not want to play the game (for whatever reason) without something having been officially changed in a FAQ first. You can't blame somebody from wanting to follow the published rules even if the company making the rules makes their intentions clear that they don't want the rules working the way they wrote them. You might think it's boneheaded of the person, but that's a play style he can choose to make. You can decide whether or not to play that person, but you aren't entitled to automatically play the game in a manner not established in the rules themselves.
This seems to be one of the problems here, most things breaking down to a RAI vs RAW argument.
Pretty much, I have no intention of playing the rule RAW. I understand how it is meant to be played. I just want the rules to match since there was a miscommunication. Changing the text to match intent will not change how the rule is going to be tested, but it does safeguard against any further misinterpretations. Its the same exact thing as when someone misspeaks, but you know what they meant. They will restate it with a simple "Oops sorry I meant ____________" and you can move on since things were made clear. In our case they wrote down the wrong thing so now they go back real quick and fix it. We know what GW means we aren't ignoring them. I just find "oh you know what I meant Im not going to fix it" unacceptable for things like rules especially if beta rules are going to become a defacto standard. It just makes things go so much smoother if RAW matches RAI. I promise you that adding a line or two of clarification will not change how the rule is being played unless GW messes it up again which would really just set us back to the same cycle until it does finally match their intentions.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
Nothing is stopping you using GoI, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying if you use GoI you're limited to your deployment zone.
112298
Post by: DominayTrix
bananathug wrote:So point 1 depends on the resolution of the facebook/ faq's faq for GOI/da jump etc? That's fun.
Point 2 seems more nuanced because technically GOI is not technically a move so could be argued that it can be used on units that have deepstruck right?
Thanks BCB
If you start your unit on the table then you can use GOI into their deployment if you are following the intended test parameters. It is pretty clear though no movement if you deepstrike even in your own deployment. The RAW vs RAI debate doesn't really apply to you since you just want to know functionally if you can.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
You cannot GoI or Da Jump to be set up outside your deployment zone Turn 1.
56924
Post by: Captyn_Bob
But remember you can use GOI and Da Jump to leave your deployment zone turn 1.
105443
Post by: doctortom
BCB's playing by RAW so isn't using the FB answer yet, despite your answer being how GW intends for it to work.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
doctortom wrote:BCB's playing by RAW so isn't using the FB answer yet, despite your answer being how GW intends for it to work.
so what you're saying I am playing by the rules?
97607
Post by: topaxygouroun i
To be honest we have had FB answers and email responses in the past that were not only mistaken, but completely nonsensical.
They made the intent clear, yes. Now add consistency to your newfound enthusiasm, GW, and update your FAQ with an additional question.
116801
Post by: bananathug
Wait, I'm still confused. Anyone have the text from the facebook post (as a rule I don't go on that site)?
My understanding is the facebook post opens the possibility to GoI out of my deployment zone and the "cannot move" after deepstrike does not prevent deepstrike after deepstrike (I'm not familiar enough with warptime/da jump ability text to really know).
58558
Post by: Octopoid
bananathug wrote:Wait, I'm still confused. Anyone have the text from the facebook post (as a rule I don't go on that site)?
My understanding is the facebook post opens the possibility to GoI out of my deployment zone and the "cannot move" after deepstrike does not prevent deepstrike after deepstrike (I'm not familiar enough with warptime/da jump ability text to really know).
The problem is, Facebook posts are not official. See The Tenets of YMDC, point 2. Therefore, it is not an official rule or errata, and does not officially affect anything.
56924
Post by: Captyn_Bob
bananathug wrote:Wait, I'm still confused. Anyone have the text from the facebook post (as a rule I don't go on that site)?
My understanding is the facebook post opens the possibility to GoI out of my deployment zone and the "cannot move" after deepstrike does not prevent deepstrike after deepstrike (I'm not familiar enough with warptime/da jump ability text to really know).
It's all on the first page of this thread.
The game designers clarified the intent of the beta rules.
Ignoring the game designers advice is wilful ignorance at this point.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
Captyn_Bob wrote:bananathug wrote:Wait, I'm still confused. Anyone have the text from the facebook post (as a rule I don't go on that site)?
My understanding is the facebook post opens the possibility to GoI out of my deployment zone and the "cannot move" after deepstrike does not prevent deepstrike after deepstrike (I'm not familiar enough with warptime/da jump ability text to really know).
It's all on the first page of this thread.
The game designers clarified the intent of the beta rules.
Ignoring the game designers advice is wilful ignorance at this point.
Facebook is not the game designers. If they want the rule to work, they need to change the rule
56924
Post by: Captyn_Bob
With respect, the tenets are meaningless compared to the advice of the game designers. I predict (With zero information so may be wrong) that every big TO will go with the game designers clarification.
I hate Facebook rules clarifications.. perhaps if everyone moans about it they'll learn.. But ignoring it doesn't help. And if they keep doing It, we may have to adapt.
50012
Post by: Crimson
Octopoid wrote:
The problem is, Facebook posts are not official. See The Tenets of YMDC, point 2. Therefore, it is not an official rule or errata, and does not officially affect anything.
The said tenets are outdated and stupid. GW does not five a feth about some Dakka tenets, and frankly, neither do I.
Can we have two separate forum sections:
One for people who actually want help with the rules in order to play the game;
Second for people who want to do these inane rules lawyer battles.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
Crimson wrote: Octopoid wrote:
The problem is, Facebook posts are not official. See The Tenets of YMDC, point 2. Therefore, it is not an official rule or errata, and does not officially affect anything.
The said tenets are outdated and stupid. GW does not five a feth about some Dakka tenets, and frankly, neither do I.
Can we have two separate forum sections:
One for people who actually want help with the rules in order to play the game;
Second for people who want to do these inane rules lawyer battles.
So you're saying you don't play the game by the rules? Isn't that kind of pointless? The whole point of a game is to use a framework of rules to win the game.
97607
Post by: topaxygouroun i
Crimson wrote: Octopoid wrote:
The problem is, Facebook posts are not official. See The Tenets of YMDC, point 2. Therefore, it is not an official rule or errata, and does not officially affect anything.
The said tenets are outdated and stupid. GW does not five a feth about some Dakka tenets, and frankly, neither do I.
Can we have two separate forum sections:
One for people who actually want help with the rules in order to play the game;
Second for people who want to do these inane rules lawyer battles.
I believe you are becoming a little aggressive. BaconCat does not fight against said ruling, he just wants to see it in the actual FAQ, and not in a facebook post. This is a very good idea. Because it might just happen that I don't use facebook, or that I am not subscribed in warhammer's facebook page, and then I have to take your word for it that you are allowed to jump your orkz out of deployment. Since they took the effort to actually go and ask the FAQ team, as they so boast in their facebook post reply, do the fething extra step and make an amendment in your rulepack. Then everyone is happy and we don't have to do this.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
topaxygouroun i wrote:I believe you are becoming a little aggressive. BaconCat does not fight against said ruling, he just wants to see it in the actual FAQ, and not in a facebook post. This is a very good idea. Because it might just happen that I don't use facebook, or that I am not subscribed in warhammer's facebook page, and then I have to take your word for it that you are allowed to jump your orkz out of deployment. Since they took the effort to actually go and ask the FAQ team, as they so boast in their facebook post reply, do the fething extra step and make an amendment in your rulepack. Then everyone is happy and we don't have to do this.
Thank you. You're the first person to actually understand this.
I would love for Da Jump to work turn 1, it's the only thing orks have going for them. The sad truth is the current beta rule doesn't work that way.
116801
Post by: bananathug
I hate this.
GW really needs to put out a glossary of terms and keep to those definitions.
If Da Jump is good GoI should be good as well, right? They have pretty much the same text. GoI units are not arriving from reserves, they are not "moving" although they are moving...
Arrive from reserves - yes so deployed in own deployment zone
Psychic power on deepstriking unit - can't "move or advance" GoI (or even interceptor shunts) not "moving" but moving
So technically it looks like I can deepstrike my interceptors and dread knight, shunt the interceptors >9" away from enemy GoI DK >9" enemy all on the 1st turn.
Deepstrike into own deployment zone - good
Not "moving" with a psychic power/strat/ability - good (most questionable part)
GoI and Interceptor moves exempted from 1st round in your own deployment area restrictions - good
Flaws?
97607
Post by: topaxygouroun i
bananathug wrote:I hate this.
GW really needs to put out a glossary of terms and keep to those definitions.
If Da Jump is good GoI should be good as well, right? They have pretty much the same text. GoI units are not arriving from reserves, they are not "moving" although they are moving...
Arrive from reserves - yes so deployed in own deployment zone
Psychic power on deepstriking unit - can't "move or advance" GoI (or even interceptor shunts) not "moving" but moving
So technically it looks like I can deepstrike my interceptors and dread knight, shunt the interceptors >9" away from enemy GoI DK >9" enemy all on the 1st turn.
Deepstrike into own deployment zone - good
Not "moving" with a psychic power/strat/ability - good (most questionable part)
GoI and Interceptor moves exempted from 1st round in your own deployment area restrictions - good
Flaws?
Thousand Sons have the same, with Dark Matter Crystal. In the end what this will accomplish is to create endless nightmares for TO to organize and decide upon. Imagine a 300 strong tournament. TO needs to make a rulepack clear before people start sending their lists. Currently there are so many open points to decide upon that TO will feel like writing a whole new book every time they try to do it.
56924
Post by: Captyn_Bob
bananathug wrote:I hate this.
GW really needs to put out a glossary of terms and keep to those definitions.
If Da Jump is good GoI should be good as well, right? They have pretty much the same text. GoI units are not arriving from reserves, they are not "moving" although they are moving...
Arrive from reserves - yes so deployed in own deployment zone
Psychic power on deepstriking unit - can't "move or advance" GoI (or even interceptor shunts) not "moving" but moving
So technically it looks like I can deepstrike my interceptors and dread knight, shunt the interceptors >9" away from enemy GoI DK >9" enemy all on the 1st turn.
Deepstrike into own deployment zone - good
Not "moving" with a psychic power/strat/ability - good (most questionable part)
GoI and Interceptor moves exempted from 1st round in your own deployment area restrictions - good
Flaws?
Bonus move after arriving from reinforcement restrictions are in place. I do not believe you can deepstrike interceptors and use thier personal teleporters. You could of course just deploy them
50012
Post by: Crimson
topaxygouroun i wrote:
I believe you are becoming a little aggressive. BaconCat does not fight against said ruling, he just wants to see it in the actual FAQ, and not in a facebook post. This is a very good idea. Because it might just happen that I don't use facebook, or that I am not subscribed in warhammer's facebook page, and then I have to take your word for it that you are allowed to jump your orkz out of deployment. Since they took the effort to actually go and ask the FAQ team, as they so boast in their facebook post reply, do the fething extra step and make an amendment in your rulepack. Then everyone is happy and we don't have to do this.
They will do that when it's time for next batch of FAQs or the rule becomes official in the next CA. They have a schedule for these things, and you have instructions on how to play it meanwhile. Do you understand what beta means? Beta releases may contain unusually high amount of bugs. If you don't like how they handle this, then don't use the beta rules until they become official.
97607
Post by: topaxygouroun i
Crimson wrote:topaxygouroun i wrote:
I believe you are becoming a little aggressive. BaconCat does not fight against said ruling, he just wants to see it in the actual FAQ, and not in a facebook post. This is a very good idea. Because it might just happen that I don't use facebook, or that I am not subscribed in warhammer's facebook page, and then I have to take your word for it that you are allowed to jump your orkz out of deployment. Since they took the effort to actually go and ask the FAQ team, as they so boast in their facebook post reply, do the fething extra step and make an amendment in your rulepack. Then everyone is happy and we don't have to do this.
They will do that when it's time for next batch of FAQs or the rule becomes official in the next CA. They have a schedule for these things, and you have instructions on how to play it meanwhile. Do you understand what beta means? Beta releases may contain unusually high amount of bugs. If you don't like how they handle this, then don't use the beta rules until they become official.
You misunderstand. I'm all about beta rules and feedback. But don't suggest beta rules, and then release a contradicting facebook post two days later, and then end all your communication about the matter. Stick to your beta rules, get your feedback, and adjust accordingly.
50012
Post by: Crimson
topaxygouroun i wrote:
You misunderstand. I'm all about beta rules and feedback. But don't suggest beta rules, and then release a contradicting facebook post two days later, and then end all your communication about the matter. Stick to your beta rules, get your feedback, and adjust accordingly.
What more is there to communicate? They made their intent crystal clear. It is not really GW's problem that there are some neurotic people who cannot accept that this is how it should be played even if Jervis Johnson showed up on their doorstep in person and told them so. Or would you have preferrd if they had not clarified it at all, and let the confusion reign for several months?
105443
Post by: doctortom
BaconCatBug wrote: doctortom wrote:BCB's playing by RAW so isn't using the FB answer yet, despite your answer being how GW intends for it to work.
so what you're saying I am playing by the rules?
As written.
Not accounting for rules as intended even when they announce what their intention is.
So, really just a fractional subset of the rules. :
Personally I think you should get to do things like fire pistols when within 1" of an enemy unit, or get to fire assault weapons even when advancing. thumbsup:
But. the game has fundamental problems by RAW. Since they don't tell you that the six sided dice you use Should not be dice with all 6's, by RAW you have no reason to object to an opponent using those dice.
EDIT: I do have a question, BCB. Do you play with the Beta rules as counting as RAW to follow, or do you wait until they aren't Beta rules any more?
116801
Post by: bananathug
Captyn_Bob wrote:
Bonus move after arriving from reinforcement restrictions are in place. I do not believe you can deepstrike interceptors and use thier personal teleporters. You could of course just deploy them
This is exactly my question. Is there a difference between "moving" (using the rules for moving/advancing like in the abilities called out in the actual faq) vs the general idea of moving a model (changing the location in space of an object). These are the types of interactions where a defined meaning of a word is really important and why actual rules lawyers should be at least consulted because throwing around terms which have both a general meaning, to move a model vs specific meanings to "move" a model only creates confusion.
Warptime - move a unit as if it were the movement phase (so "moving") that's out
Swarmlord - move as if it were the movement phase ("moving) that's out
Metabolic overdrive - move again in the movement phase ("moving")
Seems like all of their examples are "moving" and not moving.
GoI doesn't have anything about moving, remove and then place which falls outside of the "moving" but clearly within the general definition of move...
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
Crimson wrote:topaxygouroun i wrote:
You misunderstand. I'm all about beta rules and feedback. But don't suggest beta rules, and then release a contradicting facebook post two days later, and then end all your communication about the matter. Stick to your beta rules, get your feedback, and adjust accordingly.
What more is there to communicate? They made their intent crystal clear. It is not really GW's problem that there are some neurotic people who cannot accept that this is how it should be played even if Jervis Johnson showed up on their doorstep in person and told them so. Or would you have preferrd if they had not clarified it at all, and let the confusion reign for several months?
The GW facebook said that if your name begins with B you automatically win. Prove me wrong.
117900
Post by: Dandelion
topaxygouroun i wrote: Crimson wrote:topaxygouroun i wrote:
I believe you are becoming a little aggressive. BaconCat does not fight against said ruling, he just wants to see it in the actual FAQ, and not in a facebook post. This is a very good idea. Because it might just happen that I don't use facebook, or that I am not subscribed in warhammer's facebook page, and then I have to take your word for it that you are allowed to jump your orkz out of deployment. Since they took the effort to actually go and ask the FAQ team, as they so boast in their facebook post reply, do the fething extra step and make an amendment in your rulepack. Then everyone is happy and we don't have to do this.
They will do that when it's time for next batch of FAQs or the rule becomes official in the next CA. They have a schedule for these things, and you have instructions on how to play it meanwhile. Do you understand what beta means? Beta releases may contain unusually high amount of bugs. If you don't like how they handle this, then don't use the beta rules until they become official.
You misunderstand. I'm all about beta rules and feedback. But don't suggest beta rules, and then release a contradicting facebook post two days later, and then end all your communication about the matter. Stick to your beta rules, get your feedback, and adjust accordingly.
You're assuming GW knows that the facebook post and the FAQ contradict each other. As far as they know, they don't need to change the FAQ at all to show their intent. If you look at the rule, GW specifically calls out units set up during deployment as being in Tactical Reserves, then under the very same rule says any units that arrive on the 1st turn must be set up in the deployment zone.
People who take the second paragraph to be independent of the first are likely misinterpreting the rule as far as GW is concerned.
58558
Post by: Octopoid
Crimson wrote: Octopoid wrote:
The problem is, Facebook posts are not official. See The Tenets of YMDC, point 2. Therefore, it is not an official rule or errata, and does not officially affect anything.
The said tenets are outdated and stupid.
Then perhaps you would be best served on a different forum. For the most part, people here are requested, expected, and (generally, with some exceptions) willing to follow the Tenets of YMDC. If you feel they are stupid, perhaps you should contact a moderator to see about having them taken down.
97607
Post by: topaxygouroun i
Crimson wrote:topaxygouroun i wrote:
You misunderstand. I'm all about beta rules and feedback. But don't suggest beta rules, and then release a contradicting facebook post two days later, and then end all your communication about the matter. Stick to your beta rules, get your feedback, and adjust accordingly.
What more is there to communicate? They made their intent crystal clear. It is not really GW's problem that there are some neurotic people who cannot accept that this is how it should be played even if Jervis Johnson showed up on their doorstep in person and told them so. Or would you have preferrd if they had not clarified it at all, and let the confusion reign for several months?
I would prefer if you didn't attach demeaning adjectives next to the word "people" to begin with. After that I would argue that no, these are not my only two options (either suck it and accept it or ignore it). There can be more solutions, you know. What me and bacon say makes perfect sense. Just take the 10-ish minutes it takes and add the nice screenshot with the "TOP 5 SECRET TRIXX" in the faq. That's literally all it takes. Don't even change the format, just paste the facebook post onto the FAQ page. And we will disagree on the "confusion". The confusion was created because they added the facebook thing. Without the second input the rule was crystal clear. Maybe not crystal, but clear for sure. Automatically Appended Next Post: Dandelion wrote:topaxygouroun i wrote: Crimson wrote:topaxygouroun i wrote:
I believe you are becoming a little aggressive. BaconCat does not fight against said ruling, he just wants to see it in the actual FAQ, and not in a facebook post. This is a very good idea. Because it might just happen that I don't use facebook, or that I am not subscribed in warhammer's facebook page, and then I have to take your word for it that you are allowed to jump your orkz out of deployment. Since they took the effort to actually go and ask the FAQ team, as they so boast in their facebook post reply, do the fething extra step and make an amendment in your rulepack. Then everyone is happy and we don't have to do this.
They will do that when it's time for next batch of FAQs or the rule becomes official in the next CA. They have a schedule for these things, and you have instructions on how to play it meanwhile. Do you understand what beta means? Beta releases may contain unusually high amount of bugs. If you don't like how they handle this, then don't use the beta rules until they become official.
You misunderstand. I'm all about beta rules and feedback. But don't suggest beta rules, and then release a contradicting facebook post two days later, and then end all your communication about the matter. Stick to your beta rules, get your feedback, and adjust accordingly.
You're assuming GW knows that the facebook post and the FAQ contradict each other. As far as they know, they don't need to change the FAQ at all to show their intent. If you look at the rule, GW specifically calls out units set up during deployment as being in Tactical Reserves, then under the very same rule says any units that arrive on the 1st turn must be set up in the deployment zone.
People who take the second paragraph to be independent of the first are likely misinterpreting the rule as far as GW is concerned.
"Later on you can explain to me how that's a comfort"
~ Jayne Cobb, Firefly.
50012
Post by: Crimson
BaconCatBug wrote:The GW facebook said that if your name begins with B you automatically win. Prove me wrong.
Provide a link to said post and we can talk.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Octopoid wrote:
Then perhaps you would be best served on a different forum.
The thought has certainly occurred to me.
If you feel they are stupid, perhaps you should contact a moderator to see about having them taken down.
Good idea. I shall do that.
119843
Post by: radhatter
BaconCatBug wrote: Crimson wrote: Octopoid wrote:
The problem is, Facebook posts are not official. See The Tenets of YMDC, point 2. Therefore, it is not an official rule or errata, and does not officially affect anything.
The said tenets are outdated and stupid. GW does not five a feth about some Dakka tenets, and frankly, neither do I.
Can we have two separate forum sections:
One for people who actually want help with the rules in order to play the game;
Second for people who want to do these inane rules lawyer battles.
So you're saying you don't play the game by the rules? Isn't that kind of pointless? The whole point of a game is to use a framework of rules to win the game.
or the point could be to have fun?
my gaming group has decided the best way to do that is use rules as intended. seems rather silly for us to follow rules as written to the letter when we know some aren't intended and cause weird situations.
and yes, i get it, as someone who doesn't even have a facebook account it's an awful place to post rules (exclusively too?) but that doesn't mean i'm going to ignore it now that i have seen it as long as everyone i'm playing with is aware as well.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
I derive fun from playing a game by the rules. Why am I suddenly the bad guy? If we play Chess, and then I decide that my Queen can't be captured, who is in the wrong?
70567
Post by: deviantduck
BaconCatBug wrote: Crimson wrote:topaxygouroun i wrote:
You misunderstand. I'm all about beta rules and feedback. But don't suggest beta rules, and then release a contradicting facebook post two days later, and then end all your communication about the matter. Stick to your beta rules, get your feedback, and adjust accordingly.
What more is there to communicate? They made their intent crystal clear. It is not really GW's problem that there are some neurotic people who cannot accept that this is how it should be played even if Jervis Johnson showed up on their doorstep in person and told them so. Or would you have preferrd if they had not clarified it at all, and let the confusion reign for several months?
The GW facebook said that if your name begins with B you automatically win. Prove me wrong.
The burden of proof falls on you. Where's your special snowflake link to the rule about the first name?
119843
Post by: radhatter
BaconCatBug wrote:I derive fun from playing a game by the rules. Why am I suddenly the bad guy? If we play Chess, and then I decide that my Queen can't be captured, who is in the wrong?
I never said you were the bad guy, people should be allowed to play how they want and i fully respect you wanting to play as written. i was just trying to explain why some people use rules as intended in order to help you understand instead of implying there was no point like you did in the post i was responding to.
also, your chess example is in nowhere close to equivalent and to me shows you have a warped view of how this works from my experiences. rules as intended (at least how our gaming group plays it) isn't the wild west where you can do whatever you want, its still a set of rules that no individual in the group can just change because they feel like it. there's really not much different to begin with and if anyone tried to pull something like your chess example without any basis for the rule they would be laughed out of the room. additionally, chess's rules leave no doubt about the rules of the game, unfortunately i cannot say that about the 40k ruleset which is why we do this rather than suffer through poorly worded rules because GW is taking to long to fix it in print.
105443
Post by: doctortom
BaconCatBug wrote:I derive fun from playing a game by the rules. Why am I suddenly the bad guy? If we play Chess, and then I decide that my Queen can't be captured, who is in the wrong?
It depends - did you talk with your opponent beforehand and both agree that Queens couldn't be captured? If so, there's not an "in the wrong" there.
88978
Post by: JimOnMars
The entire point of this debate is not really about the preferred source of rules, it's about what to do if your opponent is a donkey cave. I have no problem with GW publishes rules in many forms, but then there is THAT GUY that will not accept a rule in your favor if it is not printed Just So.
What to do in that case? Forfeit? Why should I have to forfeit just because GW can't be consistent in their rule publishing?
If you suggest "just get another opponent," I'd like to see any tournament that allows you to switch a matchup if your opponent is a jerk. Never seen one, never will. If it's a friendly game, frequently there IS no other opponent within driving distance. So it's either accept an invalid ruleset that favors the other guy or don't play.
How is that a good thing?
58558
Post by: Octopoid
JimOnMars wrote:The entire point of this debate is not really about the preferred source of rules, it's about what to do if your opponent is a donkey cave. I have no problem with GW publishes rules in many forms, but then there is THAT GUY that will not accept a rule in your favor if it is not printed Just So.
What to do in that case? Forfeit? Why should I have to forfeit just because GW can't be consistent in their rule publishing?
If you suggest "just get another opponent," I'd like to see any tournament that allows you to switch a matchup if your opponent is a jerk. Never seen one, never will. If it's a friendly game, frequently there IS no other opponent within driving distance. So it's either accept an invalid ruleset that favors the other guy or don't play.
How is that a good thing?
This seems like a problem that could be easily solved if GW would just post their "official" answers on their official site.
50012
Post by: Crimson
JimOnMars wrote:The entire point of this debate is not really about the preferred source of rules, it's about what to do if your opponent is a donkey cave. I have no problem with GW publishes rules in many forms, but then there is THAT GUY that will not accept a rule in your favor if it is not printed Just So.
What to do in that case? Forfeit? Why should I have to forfeit just because GW can't be consistent in their rule publishing?
If you suggest "just get another opponent," I'd like to see any tournament that allows you to switch a matchup if your opponent is a jerk. Never seen one, never will. If it's a friendly game, frequently there IS no other opponent within driving distance. So it's either accept an invalid ruleset that favors the other guy or don't play.
How is that a good thing?
In a casual game the answer is indeed "just get another opponent." In a tournament it is TO's call how the rules should be played, and if the tournament decided to use beta rules, then it is their responsibility to make sure that everyone is on the same page.
105443
Post by: doctortom
JimOnMars wrote:The entire point of this debate is not really about the preferred source of rules, it's about what to do if your opponent is a donkey cave. I have no problem with GW publishes rules in many forms, but then there is THAT GUY that will not accept a rule in your favor if it is not printed Just So.
What to do in that case? Forfeit? Why should I have to forfeit just because GW can't be consistent in their rule publishing?
If you suggest "just get another opponent," I'd like to see any tournament that allows you to switch a matchup if your opponent is a jerk. Never seen one, never will. If it's a friendly game, frequently there IS no other opponent within driving distance. So it's either accept an invalid ruleset that favors the other guy or don't play.
How is that a good thing?
Presumably a tournament has already established a rule dealing with the issue so you shouldn't be hitting the point where "your opponent is a jerk".
On the friendly game side, I'd suggest get a better argument that the opponent might accept. In this case, you don't have to use the beta rule in the first place, which is what is causing the problem requiring the facebook post. If he doesn't want to go by the FB post, then maybe the two of you can agree to not use the beta rule at all until GW fixes it with a FAQ. Automatically Appended Next Post: Octopoid wrote:
This seems like a problem that could be easily solved if GW would just post their "official" answers on their official site.
Yes, the easiest and best solution to be sure.
88978
Post by: JimOnMars
doctortom wrote: JimOnMars wrote:The entire point of this debate is not really about the preferred source of rules, it's about what to do if your opponent is a donkey cave. I have no problem with GW publishes rules in many forms, but then there is THAT GUY that will not accept a rule in your favor if it is not printed Just So.
What to do in that case? Forfeit? Why should I have to forfeit just because GW can't be consistent in their rule publishing?
If you suggest "just get another opponent," I'd like to see any tournament that allows you to switch a matchup if your opponent is a jerk. Never seen one, never will. If it's a friendly game, frequently there IS no other opponent within driving distance. So it's either accept an invalid ruleset that favors the other guy or don't play.
How is that a good thing?
Presumably a tournament has already established a rule dealing with the issue so you shouldn't be hitting the point where "your opponent is a jerk".
This brings up the added problem (mostly in small tournaments) when the said Donkey Cave has sway over the TO, either because the TO does not want conflict and will appease the loudest player at all costs, or the TO is the Cave's buddy , or the TO IS the Cave.
50012
Post by: Crimson
JimOnMars wrote:
This brings up the added problem (mostly in small tournaments) when the said Donkey Cave has sway over the TO, either because the TO does not want conflict and will appease the loudest player at all costs, or the TO is the Cave's buddy , or the TO IS the Cave.
This is problem of completely different magnitude and would manifest in one way or another regardless.
105443
Post by: doctortom
JimOnMars wrote: doctortom wrote: JimOnMars wrote:The entire point of this debate is not really about the preferred source of rules, it's about what to do if your opponent is a donkey cave. I have no problem with GW publishes rules in many forms, but then there is THAT GUY that will not accept a rule in your favor if it is not printed Just So.
What to do in that case? Forfeit? Why should I have to forfeit just because GW can't be consistent in their rule publishing?
If you suggest "just get another opponent," I'd like to see any tournament that allows you to switch a matchup if your opponent is a jerk. Never seen one, never will. If it's a friendly game, frequently there IS no other opponent within driving distance. So it's either accept an invalid ruleset that favors the other guy or don't play.
How is that a good thing?
Presumably a tournament has already established a rule dealing with the issue so you shouldn't be hitting the point where "your opponent is a jerk".
This brings up the added problem (mostly in small tournaments) when the said Donkey Cave has sway over the TO, either because the TO does not want conflict and will appease the loudest player at all costs, or the TO is the Cave's buddy , or the TO IS the Cave.
It's not a problem if how to play it is established with people before the tournament. Always best to ask the TO about what rules apply first, especially if you have an inkling that there might be a Donkey Cave involved. It would be just as important to know if the beta rules are going to be followed in the first place, or if they are how they are treating the facebook post.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
I like that some posters have decided that their definition of,official is somehow universal and the only true definition
It's fairly staggering arrogance
GW have stated how the rule functions. Feel free to ignore that, but that is not playing by the rules.
58558
Post by: Octopoid
nosferatu1001 wrote:I like that some posters have decided that their definition of,official is somehow universal and the only true definition
It's fairly staggering arrogance
GW have stated how the rule functions. Feel free to ignore that, but that is not playing by the rules.
Read the Tenets of YMDC. It's a sticky post at the top of the page. It's not arrogance, it's following the rules of this forum.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
nosferatu1001 wrote:I like that some posters have decided that their definition of,official is somehow universal and the only true definition
It's fairly staggering arrogance
GW have stated how the rule functions. Feel free to ignore that, but that is not playing by the rules. GW have done no such thing. Some Rando on facebook has.
50012
Post by: Crimson
Octopoid wrote:
Read the Tenets of YMDC. It's a sticky post at the top of the page. It's not arrogance, it's following the rules of this forum.
Right. For purposes of YMDC rules-lawyering, the Facebook post doesn't count. For purposes of actually playing the game, it, for most people, will. So you can rage here all you want, most people who will be using the beta rule will be playing according to the Facebook clarification.
58558
Post by: Octopoid
Crimson wrote: Octopoid wrote:
Read the Tenets of YMDC. It's a sticky post at the top of the page. It's not arrogance, it's following the rules of this forum.
Right. For purposes of YMDC rules-lawyering, the Facebook post doesn't count. For purposes of actually playing the game, it, for most people, will. So you can rage here all you want, most people who will be using the beta rule will be playing according to the Facebook clarification.
I'm not raging. I'm planning on playing according to the Facebook clarification. But according to the RULES of this forum, which is about discussing official rules as written, that Facebook post doesn't count.
Don't confuse logical argumentation on RAW with HIWPI. They're often different. (I'm not BCB.)
50012
Post by: Crimson
Octopoid wrote:
I'm not raging. I'm planning on playing according to the Facebook clarification. But according to the RULES of this forum, which is about discussing official rules as written, that Facebook post doesn't count.
Don't confuse logical argumentation on RAW with HIWPI. They're often different. (I'm not BCB.)
Sure. It doesn't count official according to the rules of this forum. So? What does it actually matter?
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
I for one will be playing by the actual rules.
58558
Post by: Octopoid
Crimson wrote: Octopoid wrote:
I'm not raging. I'm planning on playing according to the Facebook clarification. But according to the RULES of this forum, which is about discussing official rules as written, that Facebook post doesn't count.
Don't confuse logical argumentation on RAW with HIWPI. They're often different. (I'm not BCB.)
Sure. It doesn't count official according to the rules of this forum. So? What does it actually matter?
So it matters because this is the forum where we're discussing them. If you want to discuss them elsewhere, feel free to make up your own rules on your own forum, and I'll follow them there like I follow these here.
50012
Post by: Crimson
Octopoid wrote:
So it matters because this is the forum where we're discussing them. If you want to discuss them elsewhere, feel free to make up your own rules on your own forum, and I'll follow them there like I follow these here.
It is not disallowed to discuss RAI here.
The truth is of the situation is that the RAW in this instance is nebulous*, and RAI is crystal clear.
* Newsflash, language is not math. In many situations RAW doesn't really exist. Language can be ambigious, as it is here.
58558
Post by: Octopoid
Crimson wrote: Octopoid wrote:
So it matters because this is the forum where we're discussing them. If you want to discuss them elsewhere, feel free to make up your own rules on your own forum, and I'll follow them there like I follow these here.
It is not disallowed to discuss RAI here.
The truth is of the situation is that the RAW in this instance is nebulous*, and RAI is crystal clear.
* Newsflash, language is not math. In many situations RAW doesn't really exist. Language can be ambigious, as it is here.
Did I say it couldn't be discussed as RAI?
50012
Post by: Crimson
I repeat this, as I think is something you really need to understand:
Newsflash, language is not math. In many situations RAW doesn't really exist. Language can be ambiguous, as it is here.
58558
Post by: Octopoid
Crimson wrote:
I repeat this, as I think is something you really need to understand:
Newsflash, language is not math. In many situations RAW doesn't really exist. Language can be ambiguous, as it is here.
And this forum is for discussing those ambiguities within the RAW. Which we are doing. We are simply also following the rules of the forum for doing so.
Not sure why you're getting so heated about it, to be honest.
50012
Post by: Crimson
So what purpose you think further RAW discussion about this topic serves?
58558
Post by: Octopoid
Crimson wrote:
So what purpose you think further RAW discussion about this topic serves?
To nail down exactly what the RAW says. To try to eliminate the ambiguities you've stated exist.
Honestly, at this point the thread is mostly bickering about what is or is not RAW rather than what the RAW says at all. So... meh?
50012
Post by: Crimson
Octopoid wrote:
To nail down exactly what the RAW says. To try to eliminate the ambiguities you've stated exist.
What does it matter? Sometimes there just is no right answer, as the wording just is too unclear. And considering that GW issued a clarification, they definitely are aware that not everyone understood it how they intended, so they certainly will adjust the wording when and if the rule becomes official.
58558
Post by: Octopoid
Crimson wrote: Octopoid wrote:
To nail down exactly what the RAW says. To try to eliminate the ambiguities you've stated exist.
What does it matter? Sometimes there just is no right answer, as the wording just is too unclear. And considering that GW issued a clarification, they definitely are aware that not everyone understood it how they intended, so they certainly will adjust the wording when and if the rule becomes official.
What does this forum matter, then? Its entire point is to discuss RAW and eliminate ambiguities. If you think this forum is as pointless as you're coming across, maybe the problem isn't with the forum. I know a lot of posters here want to keep discussing RAW conflicts and potential ambiguities.
There's always a "right" answer, where "right" means "according to the rules as they are currently written." That may not be how we play it, but it may be how we play it. That's an individual choice. The purpose of this post, this thread, and this forum are to give us the information we need to make that personal choice.
You've made your choice. That's fine, and I won't say it's right or wrong. But don't shut down the whole discussion just because you have what you need from it. Let the rest of us keep talking.
50012
Post by: Crimson
Octopoid wrote:
What does this forum matter, then? Its entire point is to discuss RAW and eliminate ambiguities.
It is not the sole purpose of the forum.. It's purpose is to resolve rules issues, in which RAW is obviously important, but not the only tool. Everyone except BCB plays according to their understanding of RAI anyway.
If you think this forum is as pointless as you're coming across, maybe the problem isn't with the forum. I know a lot of posters here want to keep discussing RAW conflicts and potential ambiguities.
There's always a "right" answer, where "right" means "according to the rules as they are currently written."
Yeah, that's where you're wrong. There literally isn't always the right answer. That's not how a natural language works. That is not even how law works.
"Look at the dog with one eye," either means: 'look at the dog that only has one eye,' or it can mean 'look at the dog using only one of your eyes.'
Silly example, but that's how language works, and sometimes the rules are like that.
That may not be how we play it, but it may be how we play it. That's an individual choice. The purpose of this post, this thread, and this forum are to give us the information we need to make that personal choice.
You've made your choice. That's fine, and I won't say it's right or wrong. But don't shut down the whole discussion just because you have what you need from it. Let the rest of us keep talking.
You're completely free to discuss the RAW, though I really don't see anyone here interested in doing so besides BCB, and you guys seem to agree. My stance on the RAW on this matter is that is inconclusive, but as GW has kindly provided us with their RAI, in practice this does not matter.
105443
Post by: doctortom
Crimson wrote: Octopoid wrote:
I'm not raging. I'm planning on playing according to the Facebook clarification. But according to the RULES of this forum, which is about discussing official rules as written, that Facebook post doesn't count.
Don't confuse logical argumentation on RAW with HIWPI. They're often different. (I'm not BCB.)
Sure. It doesn't count official according to the rules of this forum. So? What does it actually matter?
It matters in that since it isn't RAW right now, you have to talk with your opponent beforehand if you want to use it. You can't make a blanket assumption that everybody is going to play by a facebook post, even if most people end up playing using it (and a good portion of those not using it not using the beta rule either, making it a moot point).
50012
Post by: Crimson
Right. As you say, you have to talk anyway, as you cannot make a blanket assumption that everyone is using the beta rules in the first place.
58558
Post by: Octopoid
Crimson wrote: Octopoid wrote:
There's always a "right" answer, where "right" means "according to the rules as they are currently written."
Yeah, that's where you're wrong. There literally isn't always the right answer.
Well, agree to disagree, I guess. I doubt I'm convincing you of much anyway.
117801
Post by: An Actual Englishman
How is this discussion still ongoing? We can see from the opening post the marketing team from GW put out that if the units are already deployed they can be moved by GOI or Da Jump or any other similar abilities. It literally says it.
I'm sure the rules will be clarified when they are "official" and there'll be no confusion around the wording. Until then use the facebook thing as clarification. Simple.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
An Actual Englishman wrote:How is this discussion still ongoing? We can see from the opening post the marketing team from GW put out that if the units are already deployed they can be moved by GOI or Da Jump or any other similar abilities. It literally says it.
I'm sure the rules will be clarified when they are "official" and there'll be no confusion around the wording. Until then use the facebook thing as clarification. Simple.
The FB page is not the rules.
860
Post by: frightnight
I am very sorry for all of you that the method that GW has chosen to communicate with players, including occasional rules clarifications, does not fit your personal level of "official" nor the rules of YMDC.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
The problem is simple an event organiser or event goer wants to make sure they have all the rules they need as up to do for the event.
The have all the books and go to the FAQ and errata page of the GW website and download all the FAQ's. They now have the offical current rules.
How are they supposed to find a reply to a comment on facebook, let alone know that they have to try and find it?
Heck if it wasn't brought up on this forum I wouldn't have known or for that matter thought to look at facebook, let alone know that the answer is somewhere in a respone to a comment on a 900 plus commented post on a profile that is primarily a PR channel.
99971
Post by: Audustum
Ice_can wrote:The problem is simple an event organiser or event goer wants to make sure they have all the rules they need as up to do for the event.
The have all the books and go to the FAQ and errata page of the GW website and download all the FAQ's. They now have the offical current rules.
How are they supposed to find a reply to a comment on facebook, let alone know that they have to try and find it?
Heck if it wasn't brought up on this forum I wouldn't have known or for that matter thought to look at facebook, let alone know that the answer is somewhere in a respone to a comment on a 900 plus commented post on a profile that is primarily a PR channel.
Can vouch. Just had a tournament player get surprised by this whole "go look at Facebook" thing mid match.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Audustum wrote:Ice_can wrote:The problem is simple an event organiser or event goer wants to make sure they have all the rules they need as up to do for the event.
The have all the books and go to the FAQ and errata page of the GW website and download all the FAQ's. They now have the offical current rules.
How are they supposed to find a reply to a comment on facebook, let alone know that they have to try and find it?
Heck if it wasn't brought up on this forum I wouldn't have known or for that matter thought to look at facebook, let alone know that the answer is somewhere in a respone to a comment on a 900 plus commented post on a profile that is primarily a PR channel.
Can vouch. Just had a tournament player get surprised by this whole "go look at Facebook" thing mid match.
Thats just not acceptable for me, hence why I would say it either needs to be in the tournament pack or its played raw from the faq.
Facebook is not acceptable as a rules communication method.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
To make it worse, as GW itself has said, FB is not an official source for rules disputes. So if GW says it's not official I don't see how anyone else can gainsay them.
15582
Post by: blaktoof
The real question is does the second sentence a few answer exist in a raw vacuum outside of the context of the question, or does it exist with the context of that question ?
Neither answer is or isn't RAW, as they are both the rules as written.
GW may not make an official clarification because RAW that may have always been the case, i.e. the second sentence about treeating the unit as if it were reinforcements only applies for counting as moving as per the question it is part of an answer to.
In which case they may not see the need to further clarify the answer they think is already there.
|
|