I think that 'upon wings of fire' could be used on a BA jump pack captain to deep strike him outside my deployment zone turn 1 if needed? I've seen a bunch of threads on the new beta rules, but nothing addressing this example in particular. Did GW ever address it specifically? If it is possible then I'll be very happy to throw captain smashy and his thunder hammer to his death turn 1 as usual

For matched play, The Big FAQ I has the Tactical Reserves beta rule which prevents you from deep striking outside your deployment zone in turn 1.

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf

Offical rules no a bunch of unofficial, offical GW facebook posts shed some light, on RAI but they haven't appeared to be interested in actually explaining or correct the rules to mean what/play how they want.

 DoomMouse wrote:
I think that 'upon wings of fire' could be used on a BA jump pack captain to deep strike him outside my deployment zone turn 1 if needed? I've seen a bunch of threads on the new beta rules, but nothing addressing this example in particular. Did GW ever address it specifically? If it is possible then I'll be very happy to throw captain smashy and his thunder hammer to his death turn 1 as usual

The game designers have clarified via thier social media outlet that units that start on the board can still be redeployed using abilities that allow it.

But sure would be nice having that on some bloody official place. As it is what of those(quite likely lot) people who don't follow FB.- Especially COMMENTS of posts. I can pretty much quarantee there are tons of players who have only read beta rules but never read that 2nd hand info from unofficial source and thus have no idea game developers have said anythign so as far they know they have only what's on community site. Which is deadlock on idea so basically game where somebody tries that will fall into infinite loop unless the players in question house rule one way or another as rule as written doesn't say either way conclusively.

That's why you keep all the official rule commentary/errata's in one place. Any professional company and even semi-professional ones know it. Too bad GW works with amateur company attitude.

tneva82 wrote:
But sure would be nice having that on some bloody official place. As it is what of those(quite likely lot) people who don't follow FB.- Especially COMMENTS of posts. I can pretty much quarantee there are tons of players who have only read beta rules but never read that 2nd hand info from unofficial source and thus have no idea game developers have said anythign so as far they know they have only what's on community site. Which is deadlock on idea so basically game where somebody tries that will fall into infinite loop unless the players in question house rule one way or another as rule as written doesn't say either way conclusively.

That's why you keep all the official rule commentary/errata's in one place. Any professional company and even semi-professional ones know it. Too bad GW works with amateur company attitude.

The "official" Beta rule already confirms this though. The FB responses are merely there for convenience for people who are (somehow?) confused still.
If the units starts on the board to begin with, the beta rule does not apply in any way. It only applies to Tactical Reserves

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2013246645662631/?type=3&theater

The relevant facebook post that explains that Upon Wings of Fire and similar abilities allow you to leave your DZ on turn 1.

 Ordana wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2013246645662631/?type=3&theater

The relevant facebook post that explains that Upon Wings of Fire and similar abilities allow you to leave your DZ on turn 1.

Facebook is not a rulebook. The rules are clear.

I for one play the games by the rules. If only there was a word for someone who intentionally breaks the rules for an advantage...

Thanks guys, looks like it's a no for now then. (Or at least until they FAQ the FAQ). Guess I can always throw a captain up the board with forlorn fury even if it costs more CP!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I for one play the games by the rules.

Including not firing pistols while within 1" of an enemy or assault weapons after advancing?

 Happyjew wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I for one play the games by the rules.

Including not firing pistols while within 1" of an enemy or assault weapons after advancing?

Correct. I don't understand why everyone tries to "gotcha" me with this. I've only ever had 1 person be annoyed about me wanting to play by the rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I for one play the games by the rules.

Including not firing pistols while within 1" of an enemy or assault weapons after advancing?

Correct. I don't understand why everyone tries to "gotcha" me with this. I've only ever had 1 person be annoyed about me wanting to play by the rules.

How many people have you played like that then? 1?

I'd be rather annoyed if you insisted that pistols and assault weapons are basically useless weapon types.

nekooni wrote:
How many people have you played like that then? 1?

I'd be rather annoyed if you insisted that pistols and assault weapons are basically useless weapon types.

And I am annoyed Modifiers happen after Re-rolls. Do I demand the rules be changed to accommodate my whims?

Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.

I insist GW issue errata the proper way. Some random person on Facebook is not the rulebook or errata. If some random person on Facebook said "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+", would you play it that way? Of course not, because it's blatantly wrong.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.

I insist GW issue errata the proper way. Some random person on Facebook is not the rulebook or errata. If some random person on Facebook said "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+", would you play it that way? Of course not, because it's blatantly wrong.

I wouldn't play it like that if a random person wrote it. But if GW said so while also saying that in this instance they'd talked to the rules guys, I would.

I'd also expect them to add it to the errata, but I can use that information until they do.

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.

I insist GW issue errata the proper way. Some random person on Facebook is not the rulebook or errata. If some random person on Facebook said "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+", would you play it that way? Of course not, because it's blatantly wrong.

I wouldn't play it like that if a random person wrote it. But if GW said so while also saying that in this instance they'd talked to the rules guys, I would.

I'd also expect them to add it to the errata, but I can use that information until they do.

Agreed. It’s not “some random person” and in an exception from their normal posts GW expressly states it’s the rules writers’ intent to play it X way. This makes it valid to use as guidance, even if you don’t believe it carries the full weight of a regular rules publication.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.

I insist GW issue errata the proper way. Some random person on Facebook is not the rulebook or errata. If some random person on Facebook said "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+", would you play it that way? Of course not, because it's blatantly wrong.

And the proper way is your way, and you have the authority to decide on proper x how?
Again. Arrogance astounds

They f course are also not some "random guy" but the official GW page that has significantly more authority than you do to decide what is rules
Your viewpoint is appreciated but it is merely your opinion and, clearly,a minority one at that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.

I insist GW issue errata the proper way. Some random person on Facebook is not the rulebook or errata. If some random person on Facebook said "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+", would you play it that way? Of course not, because it's blatantly wrong.

And the proper way is your way, and you have the authority to decide on proper x how?
Again. Arrogance astounds

They f course are also not some "random guy" but the official GW page that has significantly more authority than you do to decide what is rules
Your viewpoint is appreciated but it is merely your opinion and, clearly,a minority one at that.

Answer the question, if a Facebook post says "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+" would you argue that it is true the same way you're arguing this? Yes or No, one word answer please.

I am not the one making the rules, the Rulebooks and Errata do.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.

I insist GW issue errata the proper way. Some random person on Facebook is not the rulebook or errata. If some random person on Facebook said "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+", would you play it that way? Of course not, because it's blatantly wrong.

And the proper way is your way, and you have the authority to decide on proper x how?
Again. Arrogance astounds

They f course are also not some "random guy" but the official GW page that has significantly more authority than you do to decide what is rules
Your viewpoint is appreciated but it is merely your opinion and, clearly,a minority one at that.

Answer the question, if a Facebook post says "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+" would you argue that it is true the same way you're arguing this? Yes or No, one word answer please.

I am not the one making the rules, the Rulebooks and Errata do.

If “a Facebook post” said it, no.
If “a Facebook post on an official GW channel by GW employees that specifically states the rules writers endorse it and it represents their views”, then yes.

The latter is what we have. It’s not random internet noise from someone making up rules... it’s from The Rule Writers.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.

I insist GW issue errata the proper way. Some random person on Facebook is not the rulebook or errata. If some random person on Facebook said "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+", would you play it that way? Of course not, because it's blatantly wrong.

And the proper way is your way, and you have the authority to decide on proper x how?
Again. Arrogance astounds

They f course are also not some "random guy" but the official GW page that has significantly more authority than you do to decide what is rules
Your viewpoint is appreciated but it is merely your opinion and, clearly,a minority one at that.

Answer the question, if a Facebook post says "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+" would you argue that it is true the same way you're arguing this? Yes or No, one word answer please.

I am not the one making the rules, the Rulebooks and Errata do.

If “a Facebook post” said it, no.
If “a Facebook post on an official GW channel by GW employees that specifically states the rules writers endorse it and it represents their views”, then yes.

The latter is what we have. It’s not random internet noise from someone making up rules... it’s from The Rule Writers.

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

From the about part on the 40k FB page. That is also official from GW channel GW employee etc, so thats rather conflicting isnt it?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.

I insist GW issue errata the proper way. Some random person on Facebook is not the rulebook or errata. If some random person on Facebook said "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+", would you play it that way? Of course not, because it's blatantly wrong.

And the proper way is your way, and you have the authority to decide on proper x how?
Again. Arrogance astounds

They f course are also not some "random guy" but the official GW page that has significantly more authority than you do to decide what is rules
Your viewpoint is appreciated but it is merely your opinion and, clearly,a minority one at that.

Answer the question, if a Facebook post says "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+" would you argue that it is true the same way you're arguing this? Yes or No, one word answer please.

I am not the one making the rules, the Rulebooks and Errata do.

Frame the question in a way that relates to the actual subject at hand, and isn't a boring, crass attempt at changing the topic of discussion which you're failing on, to something else. Slippery slope when you've actually created your own independent slope just for yourself is hilariously funny

"A" Facebook post? Of course not. But then you knew that when you framed the question so poorly
"A" Facebook post, from GW, stating this is from the rules writers? Yes, of course.

YOU are the one deciding the only source fir rules are rules and errata. Well , the games designers think otherwise, and guess what? They win out. Not you. Oh and not your interpretation of the faq that leads to this argument in the first place. The one that ignores context in favour of controversy.

You've reached the bottom. Try working up again, with some grace this time.

MarkyMark wrote:

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

From the about part on the 40k FB page. That is also official from GW channel GW employee etc, so thats rather conflicting isnt it?

They clarify in the comments and in response to being asked about this that whilst it’s true THEY can’t make rules clarifications this a message from the writers that they’re merely relaying.
They saw there was some confusion and have tried to clarify things: This is everything we’ve ever wanted from the GW rules team. We should thank them for finally doing something sensible rather than remaining silent.

It is good, but still not very official - I hope they ammend the FAQ to include the changes that facebook was talking about. I just think I'd feel a bit stupid trying to reference a random GW facebook quote when my opponent asked me to justify how I could use the rule

 DoomMouse wrote:
It is good, but still not very official - I hope they ammend the FAQ to include the changes that facebook was talking about. I just think I'd feel a bit stupid trying to reference a random GW facebook quote when my opponent asked me to justify how I could use the rule

This is what bugs me.about it, they clearly didn't have anyone outside the rules team that drafted the FAQ check that it conveyed what they ment it to, and when it became clear that the community didn't get the rules teams intention from the FAQ they should have updated the FAQ. Trying to make sure that all the casual players are upto date and aware of the FAQ updates and Beta rules and facebook FAQ to the FAQ and the interactions and what that means for their army has been a flippin nightmare.
Also each one of them has asked when I have explained it to them "Have they updated the FAQ?" Why GW think its fine as to post on facebook and call that job done is beyond me. It would take half a day tops to update the FAQ and link it out.

It's a fairly stupid line in the sand to draw on GW's part its OK to slip the FAQ's a month but not proofread them and refuse to update them when noone else understood what you ment from what you wrote.

MarkyMark wrote:

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

From the about part on the 40k FB page. That is also official from GW channel GW employee etc, so thats rather conflicting isnt it?

But you can't take that as truth because it's just off of a random FB account, isn't it?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gendif wrote:
They clarify in the comments and in response to being asked about this that whilst it’s true THEY can’t make rules clarifications this a message from the writers that they’re merely relaying.
They saw there was some confusion and have tried to clarify things: This is everything we’ve ever wanted from the GW rules team. We should thank them for finally doing something sensible rather than remaining silent.

As much as I will take their FB comment as valid commentary on the FAQ/rules, it's not "everything" we're asking for. They should update the FAQ documents with that, that's the proper way to change the rules. It doesn't mean the FB commentary is irrelevant as some claim, but it's certainly not the best way of dealing with it.

 DoomMouse wrote:
Thanks guys, looks like it's a no for now then. (Or at least until they FAQ the FAQ). Guess I can always throw a captain up the board with forlorn fury even if it costs more CP!

Best to talk about it with your opponent beforehand, first to determine if you're going to use the beta rules at all, and if so if you're going to use the FB post. Being a beta rule, if it's not a tournament (which will let you know what their rules are) you aren't forced to use it. They'd like for you to use it. and given the circumstance if you're going to use it you can just as easily accommodate using what they said in Facebook since at this time you're establishing what house rules you're going to play under.

What a time to be alive.

We've got some people refusing to acknowledge rules clarifications because those clarifications weren't published with "The Internet Rules Lawyer's Seal of Approval (Scratch-N-Sniff Edition)" Then other people arguing that even though a post was made specifying that it was a message from the rules team to clarify their intent, that since the page's description (written long before this clarification post in question) mentions the Facebook team isn't the rules team (which again, this post in question specifies that this came from the rules team THIS TIME), that it still is invalid.

THOSE folks can have fun playing their way (if they can find people willing to swallow their bizarre interpretation), and the rest of us will carry on?

For what it's worth, obviously they need to get this fix into the FAQ proper. Some folks can't be assed to check Facebook comments for clarifications - hell it's only through places like this and Reddit that I even found out about it.

GW have only had 30 years to get it right, give them a break they are a new fledgling company! -rolleyes-

I think you'll find the vast majority of people play the game by the rules and don't use a random person on Facebook for their rules, they instead use the actual rulebooks.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW have only had 30 years to get it right, give them a break they are a new fledgling company! -rolleyes-

I don't disagree with this, but...

I think you'll find the vast majority of people play the game by the rules and don't use a random person on Facebook for their rules, they instead use the actual rulebooks.

...Jesus Christ this is cringeworthy.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW have only had 30 years to get it right, give them a break they are a new fledgling company! -rolleyes-

I think you'll find the vast majority of people play the game by the rules and don't use a random person on Facebook for their rules, they instead use the actual rulebooks.

Everyone keeps saying GW should do it the proper way and update the FAQ, but we're defending GW?

And again with the random person on Facebook?

All you're doing here is flushing the last bits of credibility you had down the toilet.

 Larks wrote:
What a time to be alive.

We've got some people refusing to acknowledge rules clarifications because those clarifications weren't published with "The Internet Rules Lawyer's Seal of Approval (Scratch-N-Sniff Edition)" Then other people arguing that even though a post was made specifying that it was a message from the rules team to clarify their intent, that since the page's description (written long before this clarification post in question) mentions the Facebook team isn't the rules team (which again, this post in question specifies that this came from the rules team THIS TIME), that it still is invalid.

THOSE folks can have fun playing their way (if they can find people willing to swallow their bizarre interpretation), and the rest of us will carry on?

For what it's worth, obviously they need to get this fix into the FAQ proper. Some folks can't be assed to check Facebook comments for clarifications - hell it's only through places like this and Reddit that I even found out about it.

This post sums it up well in regards to how credible the FB errata is. The botd can be givdn to people who reject the said errata - anyone with basic knowledge of photoshop can whip that image out in a jiffy. The same can be said of the screenshot of the chat someone had with an admin.

What GW needed to do was actually make this official by releasing a errata to their beta rules, or at least a subclause/beta-beta rule.

If one can only access the changes to the rule via internet forum or through a facebook post or messenger, I wouldn't buy it.

 Larks wrote:
What a time to be alive.

We've got some people refusing to acknowledge rules clarifications because those clarifications weren't published with "The Internet Rules Lawyer's Seal of Approval (Scratch-N-Sniff Edition)" Then other people arguing that even though a post was made specifying that it was a message from the rules team to clarify their intent, that since the page's description (written long before this clarification post in question) mentions the Facebook team isn't the rules team (which again, this post in question specifies that this came from the rules team THIS TIME), that it still is invalid.

THOSE folks can have fun playing their way (if they can find people willing to swallow their bizarre interpretation), and the rest of us will carry on?

For what it's worth, obviously they need to get this fix into the FAQ proper. Some folks can't be assed to check Facebook comments for clarifications - hell it's only through places like this and Reddit that I even found out about it.

To be fair, people shouldn't be expected to have to check GW's facebook posts and replies to posts there in order to get the rules, especially when they could have as easily had it posted at the Warhammer Community Page where people expect to find FAQs and rules clarifications. This is especially true given they've said they'll put their clarifications and such in the FAQ section on the site, and yet there's still no sign of it being posted there. Saying "some folks can't be assed to check Facebook for clarifications" seems as arrogant an attitude as what you are accusing "The Internet Rules Lawyers" of.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW have only had 30 years to get it right, give them a break they are a new fledgling company! -rolleyes-

I think you'll find the vast majority of people play the game by the rules and don't use a random person on Facebook for their rules, they instead use the actual rulebooks.

Again

Not a random guy

Stop with the logical fallacies. It's tiresome.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW have only had 30 years to get it right, give them a break they are a new fledgling company! -rolleyes-

I think you'll find the vast majority of people play the game by the rules and don't use a random person on Facebook for their rules, they instead use the actual rulebooks.

Again

Not a random guy

Stop with the logical fallacies. It's tiresome.

Yes, it is a random GW staffer, who's own Facebook page, say it with me, EXPLICITLY SAYS IT IS NOT A RULES SOURCE. It quite LITERALLY says it isn't a rule source.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW have only had 30 years to get it right, give them a break they are a new fledgling company! -rolleyes-

I think you'll find the vast majority of people play the game by the rules and don't use a random person on Facebook for their rules, they instead use the actual rulebooks.

Again

Not a random guy

Stop with the logical fallacies. It's tiresome.

Yes, it is a random GW staffer, who's own Facebook page, say it with me, EXPLICITLY SAYS IT IS NOT A RULES SOURCE. It quite LITERALLY says it isn't a rule source.

And the same page says that in this instance, it is a rules source. No amount of capslock will change that.

--

Again: noone disagrees with the notion that GW should update the FAQ documents.
But we have a credible source as to what we are to do in the meantime.

When this Stratagem is used the models are removed from the table and return as if they are coming in from reserves. They arrive in the same manner as reserves or deepstriking would be.

I would strongly recommend this is not a viable tactic and if used in turn one then they can only come back in within the friendly deployment zone.

The benefits are identical to deepstrike and arrival form reserves but also have all the same restrictions. And they arrive in the same manner as reserves to to myself it is just most logical that they would also be restricted by turn one deepstrike restrictions.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW have only had 30 years to get it right, give them a break they are a new fledgling company! -rolleyes-

I think you'll find the vast majority of people play the game by the rules and don't use a random person on Facebook for their rules, they instead use the actual rulebooks.

Again

Not a random guy

Stop with the logical fallacies. It's tiresome.

Yes, it is a random GW staffer, who's own Facebook page, say it with me, EXPLICITLY SAYS IT IS NOT A RULES SOURCE. It quite LITERALLY says it isn't a rule source.

So,,not a random guy. But a random GW guy. Or actually guys. So you're wrong in two ways already, versus your earlier claim.

It states THEY are not a rules source. Given your penchant for needless pedanticism with word choice, your refusal to do so here yet again dents your credibility. Error the third

lastly, you failed, yet again, to recall that they state IN THIS INSTANCE they have spoken to the rules people and THIS is rules. Which isn't a contradiction - they still are not a rules source, but s conduit in this case

Stop. Just stop. You are wrong in four ways, repeating the same fallacies over and over, and cannot admit your error in this case. It is a feature of debates to admit a mistake and move on. It's a sign of maturity.

Yes, I would prefer they updated the beta rule directly. But it's a beta rule. Prone to error.

I am not wrong because the rulebook plus errata agree with me. Unless you have something in the rulebook plus errata to the contrary...

Wilful ignorance of the rules isn't a winning argument

Arrogance that only you can decide what counts as"rules" is also a fairly large failure.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wilful ignorance of the rules isn't a winning argument

Arrogance that only you can decide what counts as"rules" is also a fairly large failure.

You are talking Rules as Intended, he is talking Rules as Written.

Over at the GW Community Site where you click to get to the FAQs it states:

"FAQs

Find all your rules updates, errata and answers to your frequently asked questions right here."

when you click on FAQs you get to the page which includes the statement

"Looking for the latest updates to your codex or battletome? Got a question about how something in your army works? Each of these FAQs contains all of the most up-to-date errata and answers you’ll need to make sure that your games run as smoothly as possible, incorporating feedback from you guys and gals out there in the Warhammer community, the playtesters and of course, our studio design team."


So, going by that it's not an official rules update if they don't have it in their FAQ section. We know what they intend because of the Facebook post, but it's not RAW because they haven't put it in their FAQ section and they say that all rules updates, errata and answers will be in that section.


Since you have to talk to your opponent anyway about whether you're going to use the beta rules, you might as well include talking about the Facebook post as that indicates what they had intended. Still, you're not required to use the posting from Facebook; in fact you're not required to use the beta rule itself. It all boils down to how your group (or your tournament organizer, if it's a tournament) wants to house rule using one or both of these rules.

EDIT: Given the Facebook post isn't official RAW yet, we have a demonstration here of a case where RAW is obviously not RAI as RAI was reported on Facebook.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wilful ignorance of the rules isn't a winning argument

Arrogance that only you can decide what counts as"rules" is also a fairly large failure.

I am not the one deciding rules, I am not arrogant like the ones claiming that Facebook is magically rules.

The games rules consists of the Rulebooks.

BRB Page 175 wrote:WARHAMMER 40,000 CODEXES
So now you know what a datasheet is and how it works – in conjunction with the core rules that follow (plus your Citadel Miniatures, battlefield, dice and tape measure, of course!), you’ve got everything you need to start playing games of Warhammer 40,000 and dive into epic battle.

But where do you find datasheets? Well, when you buy a box of Citadel Miniatures they’ll be in the box with them, and they are also present in codexes. A codex is the ultimate resource for your chosen army (or armies!), containing datasheets for all the miniatures that are part of a particular Faction. But that’s not all – in codexesyou’ll also find army-specific special rules that reflect the character of the army, exciting Warlord Traits, Stratagems, wargear, and even unique relics. Each codex is also filled with a wealth of inspirational background material, organisational information, stunning art and miniatures photography, colour guides and heraldry, all of which provide context for how a Faction works in the Warhammer 40,000 universe. Head over to games-workshop.com to find out more.

BRB Page 176 wrote:Warhammer 40,000 puts you in command of a force of mighty warriors and war
machines. The core rules on these pages contain everything you need to know in
order to use your Citadel Miniatures collection to wage glorious battle across the
war-torn galaxy.

The official Errata webpage, found here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/?orderby=title&order=asc#items-warhammer-40000

Looking for the latest updates to your codex or battletome? Got a question about how something in your army works? Each of these FAQs contains all of the most up-to-date errata and answers you’ll need to make sure that your games run as smoothly as possible, incorporating feedback from you guys and gals out there in the Warhammer community, the playtesters and of course, our studio design team.

The eagle-eyed among you will realise that this isn’t the swish FAQ page we demoed back in March of 2017. Our Tech-Priests and Enginseers are still hard at work on that, and we hope to bring you a much more interactive FAQ service, where you’ll be able to submit questions and help contribute to the answers, early next year. For now though, you’ll find everything you need here.

So no, I am not so arrogant as to claim what the rules are, GW and their Rulebooks do. By claiming that some random post on Facebook are rules, it is you who are the arrogant one, arrogant enough that you would disregard the literal rules of the game.

As I have stated multiple times, you're free to make up rules, make house rules and ignore the rules all you want. The vast majority of people (I believe) play by the rules however and this forum is dedicated to discussing the rules. Proposed Rules exists for House Rules to be discussed.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
When this Stratagem is used the models are removed from the table and return as if they are coming in from reserves. They arrive in the same manner as reserves or deepstriking would be.

I would strongly recommend this is not a viable tactic and if used in turn one then they can only come back in within the friendly deployment zone.

The benefits are identical to deepstrike and arrival form reserves but also have all the same restrictions. And they arrive in the same manner as reserves to to myself it is just most logical that they would also be restricted by turn one deepstrike restrictions.

Yes it is similar to going into reserves, but at no time do they actually enter reserves. Reserves is a pregame condition that to my knowledge is not a state you can enter after the game begins.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
When this Stratagem is used the models are removed from the table and return as if they are coming in from reserves. They arrive in the same manner as reserves or deepstriking would be.

I would strongly recommend this is not a viable tactic and if used in turn one then they can only come back in within the friendly deployment zone.

The benefits are identical to deepstrike and arrival form reserves but also have all the same restrictions. And they arrive in the same manner as reserves to to myself it is just most logical that they would also be restricted by turn one deepstrike restrictions.

Yes it is similar to going into reserves, but at no time do they actually enter reserves. Reserves is a pregame condition that to my knowledge is not a state you can enter after the game begins.

The game does not care whether you go into reserves or not. If you remove the unit from the table, the set it up again, it is arriving. It wasn't on the battlefield, now it is. If that's not arriving then I don't know what is.

Where in on the card does it say the unit "arrives"?

It doesn't. The card tells you how to resolve itself.

TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve,
etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at
least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the
battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within
Tr ansports
that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your
army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the
controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a
Genestealer 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).
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.

So by your logic any unit set up with their ability ignores the new beta rule, because none of them say arrive, they all say "set up".

And people say I "abuse" RaW, you're saying the new beta rule literally does nothing.

Compare the wording of that stratagem to something like Teleport Strike. They are identical. If it applies to one, it applies to the other.

You can't even argue "It started on the battlefield" because it literally tells you to remove the unit before setting them up, so both rules have the unit being set up from off the battlefield.

Tactical Reserves defines what it covers. You're inferring more than RAW. The stratagem as written is not covered by the Tactical Reserves rule.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Tactical Reserves defines what it covers. You're inferring more than RAW. The stratagem as written is not covered by the Tactical Reserves rule.

It says it affects units that arrive "mid-game as reinforcements". That applies to GoI/Da Jump type effects.

Then it says "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere)." GoI/Da Jump type effects do this (else you argue the rule does nothing).

I am not inferring anything, the rule is explicitly clear.

The unit never enters reserves and thus can't be "mid-game as reinforcements". Nor does it "arrive"

 Crimson Devil wrote:


Where in on the card does it say the unit "arrives"?

It doesn't. The card tells you how to resolve itself.

TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve,
etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at
least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the
battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within
Tr ansports
that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your
army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the
controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a
Genestealer 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).
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.

It says it in the Reinforcements rule. Refinforcements are not necessarily Reserves.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Tactical Reserves defines what it covers. You're inferring more than RAW. The stratagem as written is not covered by the Tactical Reserves rule.

It says it affects units that arrive "mid-game as reinforcements". That applies to GoI/Da Jump type effects.

Then it says "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere)." GoI/Da Jump type effects do this (else you argue the rule does nothing).

I am not inferring anything, the rule is explicitly clear.

This is the beta tactical rule verbatim
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.

Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer 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).

Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.

You're cherry picking the rules to support your argument. If you read them as one whole rule, RAW supports the fact that these only apply to units being set up in reserve to then be brought onto the board on a later turn.

The first paragraph details that some units can be set up in reserve instead of on the battlefield. If you do this, at least half of your units and Power Level must be set up on the battlefield during deployment, which includes units embarked on Transports that are set up on the battlefield, even if your entire army has rules to set them up in reserve.

The second paragraph details that any unit set up off the board can only arrive on the board T1 wholly deployed in the controlling player's deployment zone, regardless of the wording of their reserves deployment rules for setting up. It calls out specific caveats to this ruling (Genestealer Cults being able to set up units in Reserve and then arrive on the table at the end of a player's movement phase, and any ability that allows units to be set up from reserves before the first turn actually starts).

The third paragraph deals with any unit that was set up in Reserves needs to arrive on the board by the end of the 3rd battle round or it is destroyed.

To paraphrase that all down:

You can set up some units in reserves (not on the battlefield). If you do this, at least half of your army (both # of units and PL) need to be set up on the board and not in reserves.
Any units you set up in reserves can only arrive wholly in your deployment zone on any player's first turn.
Any units you set up in reserves will be destroyed if they aren't brought in from reserves by the end of the 3rd battle round.

 Gojiratoho wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Tactical Reserves defines what it covers. You're inferring more than RAW. The stratagem as written is not covered by the Tactical Reserves rule.

It says it affects units that arrive "mid-game as reinforcements". That applies to GoI/Da Jump type effects.

Then it says "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere)." GoI/Da Jump type effects do this (else you argue the rule does nothing).

I am not inferring anything, the rule is explicitly clear.

This is the beta tactical rule verbatim
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.

Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer 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).

Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.

You're cherry picking the rules to support your argument. If you read them as one whole rule, RAW supports the fact that these only apply to units being set up in reserve to then be brought onto the board on a later turn.

The first paragraph details that some units can be set up in reserve instead of on the battlefield. If you do this, at least half of your units and Power Level must be set up on the battlefield during deployment, which includes units embarked on Transports that are set up on the battlefield, even if your entire army has rules to set them up in reserve.

The second paragraph details that any unit set up off the board can only arrive on the board T1 wholly deployed in the controlling player's deployment zone, regardless of the wording of their reserves deployment rules for setting up. It calls out specific caveats to this ruling (Genestealer Cults being able to set up units in Reserve and then arrive on the table at the end of a player's movement phase, and any ability that allows units to be set up from reserves before the first turn actually starts).

The third paragraph deals with any unit that was set up in Reserves needs to arrive on the board by the end of the 3rd battle round or it is destroyed.

To paraphrase that all down:

You can set up some units in reserves (not on the battlefield). If you do this, at least half of your army (both # of units and PL) need to be set up on the board and not in reserves.
Any units you set up in reserves can only arrive wholly in your deployment zone on any player's first turn.
Any units you set up in reserves will be destroyed if they aren't brought in from reserves by the end of the 3rd battle round.

Actually it's not cherry picking to reference the Reinforcements rule since they talk about reinforcements.

?Many units have tghe agbility to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn, sometimes by using teleporters, grav chutes or other, more exotic means. Typically, this happens at the end of the Movement phase, but it can also happen during other phases. Units that are set up this mannere cannot move or advance further in the turn they arrive. (snip) Units that arrive as Reinforcements count as having Moved...(snip)"


Some stratagems and abilities work by telling you to take them off the board then set them up in a different area. From what is said in the Reinforcements section, these units would count as reinforcements. Note they have that phrase Units that arrive as reinforcements? It does match up with what's in the Tactical Reserves rule that says "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn". This is why they stuck the Facebook post out in the first place, because they realized they had screwed things these other abilities. If it didn't work that way, they wouldn't have needed the facebook post in the first place to exempt things that were already on the board then removed from the board then arrived on the board (again) - without the FB post if they leave and arrive they were caught by the Tactical Reserves rule to be only in their deployment zone, because they count as reinforcements arriving on the board in turn 1.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I think you'll find the vast majority of people play the game by the rules and don't use a random person on Facebook for their rules, they instead use the actual rulebooks.

Really? Then why does this forum even exist? Why should anyone take any stock in anything you say, random guy on the internet?

 alextroy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I think you'll find the vast majority of people play the game by the rules and don't use a random person on Facebook for their rules, they instead use the actual rulebooks.

Really? Then why does this forum even exist? Why should anyone take any stock in anything you say, random guy on the internet?

Because I provide citations from the actual rulebooks to back up my postings, not ramblings from a random facebook account that literally says it isn't rules.

They’re not “ramblings” or from “a random Facebook account”.

Stop trying to diminish facts that don’t fit your world view, please. This posting may not hold the weight of rules for certain purposes due to method of delivery (I’d not expect every tournament to use it, for instance), but you cannot pretend it is useful RAI info that enables us to play the game how the writers intended. Because that’s literally what it is. (Also, you can chalk it up as more “RAW does not always equal RAI” proof. :O )

How are people still arguing about this?!

Yes you can use wings of fire to move a unit outside of their deployment zone turn 1. The GW informational thing on Facebook made it clear.

It's also worth noting that the GW informational thing is not a new rule. So they aren't acting as a source for new rules. The Facebook thing is a clarification for those of the community (a large proportion no doubt) who misunderstood the beta reserve rules and how they impacted on units already deployed. To me this was clear but since so many people were complaining GW obviously felt the need to address it.

If the beta reserve rule isn't clear as is the time to change it is when it becomes an actual rule. There is no need to rewrite a beta rule, it's a waste of their time.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How are people still arguing about this?!

Yes you can use wings of fire to move a unit outside of their deployment zone turn 1. The GW informational thing on Facebook made it clear.

It's also worth noting that the GW informational thing is not a new rule. So they aren't acting as a source for new rules. The Facebook thing is a clarification for those of the community (a large proportion no doubt) who misunderstood the beta reserve rules and how they impacted on units already deployed. To me this was clear but since so many people were complaining GW obviously felt the need to address it.

If the beta reserve rule isn't clear as is the time to change it is when it becomes an actual rule. There is no need to rewrite a beta rule, it's a waste of their time.

People are "arguing" because there is a hardcore contingent of people who insist that breaking the rules of the game is somehow "intended".

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How are people still arguing about this?!

Yes you can use wings of fire to move a unit outside of their deployment zone turn 1. The GW informational thing on Facebook made it clear.

It's also worth noting that the GW informational thing is not a new rule. So they aren't acting as a source for new rules. The Facebook thing is a clarification for those of the community (a large proportion no doubt) who misunderstood the beta reserve rules and how they impacted on units already deployed. To me this was clear but since so many people were complaining GW obviously felt the need to address it.

If the beta reserve rule isn't clear as is the time to change it is when it becomes an actual rule. There is no need to rewrite a beta rule, it's a waste of their time.

People are "arguing" because there is a hardcore contingent of people who insist that breaking the rules of the game is somehow "intended".

Nice strawman.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How are people still arguing about this?!

Yes you can use wings of fire to move a unit outside of their deployment zone turn 1. The GW informational thing on Facebook made it clear.

It's also worth noting that the GW informational thing is not a new rule. So they aren't acting as a source for new rules. The Facebook thing is a clarification for those of the community (a large proportion no doubt) who misunderstood the beta reserve rules and how they impacted on units already deployed. To me this was clear but since so many people were complaining GW obviously felt the need to address it.

If the beta reserve rule isn't clear as is the time to change it is when it becomes an actual rule. There is no need to rewrite a beta rule, it's a waste of their time.

The problem was when you combine the beta rule with the rule book FAQ answer (below) it was clear to a significant proportion of the community that the opposite was the RAW and RAI.

Hence why they needed to post the facebook clarification as it was as if GW forgot to check how the beta rule would interact with existing FAQ and errata. They knew what they ment and the playerbase was supposed to just be psykers? Thats poor writing

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.

But right now just be civil and make sure you have discussed the beta rules, FAQ and Facebook fail with your opponents before you start playing. Aslong as you are both playing the same interpretation no-one should feel gotcha'd.
My main annoyance is with GW's refusal to clarify the beta rule, another 5 months of having to make 100% sure me and my opponents have the same understanding of a poorly worded rule, because they won't put in a hours worth of work.

Ice_can wrote:
My main annoyance is with GW's refusal to clarify the beta rule, another 5 months of having to make 100% sure me and my opponents have the same understanding of a poorly worded rule, because they won't put in a hours worth of work.

They did clarify it, though. On Facebook, which isn't great, but they did. They SHOULD update the FAQ docs, too, but maybe they're thinking "well, these are Beta rules, people are supposed to TEST them, not treat them as gospel" or something similar - an update would still be the proper way though.

nekooni wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
My main annoyance is with GW's refusal to clarify the beta rule, another 5 months of having to make 100% sure me and my opponents have the same understanding of a poorly worded rule, because they won't put in a hours worth of work.

They did clarify it, though. On Facebook, which isn't great, but they did. They SHOULD update the FAQ docs, too, but maybe they're thinking "well, these are Beta rules, people are supposed to TEST them, not treat them as gospel" or something similar - an update would still be the proper way though.

I would stick to the official FAQ print that goes through checkers and is approved via a process.

I get that someone form GW confirmed it on facebook. But this is just one employee who voiced his opinion or maybe asked the collegue next to them. You cnanot take FB rule posts as gospel unless they have come in an official post format, which again would go through the approval process. But a reply to a comment or message cannot be taken at gospel.

In this case I would continue using the FAq print thats states "Any units arriving in this manner...". As it stands using this stratagem falls under this FAq answer. As such they are restricted by the current BETA rules. If it changes going forward so be it. But until there is an official post or an update to FAQ I would strongly advise my opponents to follow the current printed FAQ too.

nekooni wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
My main annoyance is with GW's refusal to clarify the beta rule, another 5 months of having to make 100% sure me and my opponents have the same understanding of a poorly worded rule, because they won't put in a hours worth of work.

They did clarify it, though. On Facebook, which isn't great, but they did. They SHOULD update the FAQ docs, too, but maybe they're thinking "well, these are Beta rules, people are supposed to TEST them, not treat them as gospel" or something similar - an update would still be the proper way though.

So what about all the people who give feedback to the rule as it actually is written? What about all the people who give incorrect feedback because they aren't following the rule as written? If GW want clear feedback they NEED to update the beta rule. The majority of people who give feedback aren't going to be aware of some random Facebook post.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW have only had 30 years to get it right, give them a break they are a new fledgling company! -rolleyes-

I think you'll find the vast majority of people play the game by the rules and don't use a random person on Facebook for their rules, they instead use the actual rulebooks.

Except it's not a "random person on Facebook", and pretending otherwise is just being ignorant.

 Larks wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW have only had 30 years to get it right, give them a break they are a new fledgling company! -rolleyes-

I think you'll find the vast majority of people play the game by the rules and don't use a random person on Facebook for their rules, they instead use the actual rulebooks.

Except it's not a "random person on Facebook", and pretending otherwise is just being ignorant.

It literally is.

If the facebook account also said "Ultramarines automatically hit and wound with all their weapons." would you play it that way? No, you wouldn't because it's blatantly false and doesn't follow the rules. Same situation with the beta rule.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
My main annoyance is with GW's refusal to clarify the beta rule, another 5 months of having to make 100% sure me and my opponents have the same understanding of a poorly worded rule, because they won't put in a hours worth of work.

They did clarify it, though. On Facebook, which isn't great, but they did. They SHOULD update the FAQ docs, too, but maybe they're thinking "well, these are Beta rules, people are supposed to TEST them, not treat them as gospel" or something similar - an update would still be the proper way though.

So what about all the people who give feedback to the rule as it actually is written? What about all the people who give incorrect feedback because they aren't following the rule as written? If GW want clear feedback they NEED to update the beta rule. The majority of people who give feedback aren't going to be aware of some random Facebook post.

Why are you asking me to defend GW on that? I already said multiple times that they should update the FAQs, didn't I?

BaconCatBug wrote:
If the facebook account also said "Ultramarines automatically hit and wound with all their weapons." would you play it that way? No, you wouldn't because it's blatantly false and doesn't follow the rules. Same situation with the beta rule.

You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Larks wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW have only had 30 years to get it right, give them a break they are a new fledgling company! -rolleyes-

I think you'll find the vast majority of people play the game by the rules and don't use a random person on Facebook for their rules, they instead use the actual rulebooks.

Except it's not a "random person on Facebook", and pretending otherwise is just being ignorant.

It literally is.

If the facebook account also said "Ultramarines automatically hit and wound with all their weapons." would you play it that way? No, you wouldn't because it's blatantly false and doesn't follow the rules. Same situation with the beta rule.

What a ridiculous counter-example. That you even feel that's equatable is not worth addressing.

Are you serious? Is this really how you play the game, or is it just some shtick for you and your buddies to get some laughs over how obnoxious you can make this "BCB" persona?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

I've answered it before. If you can't be bothered to read that or respond to it or to at least stop repeating the same idiotic question over and over again, that's really not my fault.

example: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9962780
so did Johnny: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/user/profile/10953.page
so did nosferatu when you asked him right after two people had already answered it: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9963926

Did you respond to any of these counter-arguments?

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

I've answered it before. If you can't be bothered to read that or respond to it or to at least stop repeating the same idiotic question over and over again, that's really not my fault.

example: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9962780

So you would play that Ultramarines basically always win if the GW Facebook post says it? And you wonder why people ignore the facebook post?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

I've answered it before. If you can't be bothered to read that or respond to it or to at least stop repeating the same idiotic question over and over again, that's really not my fault.

example: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9962780

So you would play that Ultramarines basically always win if the GW Facebook post says it? And you wonder why people ignore the facebook post?

If (and that's a very, very large if) they actually did something like that, I'd have to think about it. But a change that isn't obviously constructed to be utter bs? That's fine with me, yes.

"It's a change posted on FB" or "it's a change posted on GWs site" is the only difference you see between your ridiculous example and the issue at hand, isn't it?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

I've answered it before. If you can't be bothered to read that or respond to it or to at least stop repeating the same idiotic question over and over again, that's really not my fault.

example: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9962780

So you would play that Ultramarines basically always win if the GW Facebook post says it? And you wonder why people ignore the facebook post?

How about we discuss reality? That hypothetical post does not exist and will never exist.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

I've answered it before. If you can't be bothered to read that or respond to it or to at least stop repeating the same idiotic question over and over again, that's really not my fault.

example: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9962780

So you would play that Ultramarines basically always win if the GW Facebook post says it? And you wonder why people ignore the facebook post?

If it was in an official FAQ/Errata document would you play by those rules?

Slipspace wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

I've answered it before. If you can't be bothered to read that or respond to it or to at least stop repeating the same idiotic question over and over again, that's really not my fault.

example: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9962780

So you would play that Ultramarines basically always win if the GW Facebook post says it? And you wonder why people ignore the facebook post?

If it was in an official FAQ/Errata document would you play by those rules?

Excuse, Mr Hyperbolic Example, but I have a real example for you to use. In the latest errata they put this in:

Q: Is a Razorback firing a twin plasma gun destroyed if you roll a 1 to hit?
A: Yes.

So since they didn’t talk about supercharging roes my entire vehicle blows up on a 1 when I fire it normally? I only asked because we’ve got a clear question with a clear answer here in the errata that I’m very sure is wrong and no one would ever enforce.

My point here is that not even the errata is foolproof and I personally would like to see more communication from GW to clarify this sort of thing between errata.

Remember: You’re demanding they answer your hypothetical so it’s only fair you address my actual published example.

Gendif wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

I've answered it before. If you can't be bothered to read that or respond to it or to at least stop repeating the same idiotic question over and over again, that's really not my fault.

example: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9962780

So you would play that Ultramarines basically always win if the GW Facebook post says it? And you wonder why people ignore the facebook post?

If it was in an official FAQ/Errata document would you play by those rules?

Excuse, Mr Hyperbolic Example, but I have a real example for you to use. In the latest errata they put this in:

Q: Is a Razorback firing a twin plasma gun destroyed if you roll a 1 to hit?
A: Yes.

So since they didn’t talk about supercharging roes my entire vehicle blows up on a 1 when I fire it normally? I only asked because we’ve got a clear question with a clear answer here in the errata that I’m very sure is wrong and no one would ever enforce.

My point here is that not even the errata is foolproof and I personally would like to see more communication from GW to clarify this sort of thing between errata.

Remember: You’re demanding they answer your hypothetical so it’s only fair you address my actual published example.

Shouldn't you direct that question at BCB though?

I’m reading orange on black on a phone screen. I’ve got no idea who I’m talking to most of the time. But yes, him, he should answer.

Gendif wrote:
I’m reading orange on black on a phone screen. I’ve got no idea who I’m talking to most of the time. But yes, him, he should answer.

No point. This thread is pointless now. It's got the point where some people (myself) thinking the answer is you can;t as per the FAQ and that you shouldn't listen to FB posts that aren't official postings.

vs

People that listen to any posts from GW.

Neither side is going to win. Talk it through with your opponent, that's the answer.

Let this thread just die.

BCB - except it isn't "literally" a random guy on Facebook. It's not even figuratively. Or did you not mean "literally"? Ah, but we KNOW that you must have intended to write it, after all, that's your stance on GW written comma...

It's exactly an official GW communications channel that in this one specific instance has stated that the actual people who make the rules of the game have clarified the beta rule to state what we all knew it stated all along.

Also, stating they cannot update their own method of rules delivery is delusional, and inconsistent with your allowance of errata. After all the GW rule book does not state that the faqs are rules, on,y the faqs them selves do. They modify the "this is where all rules are" position to include the faqs

This modifies the "rulebiok plus faq" are where rules are stance into this one specific answer also being a rules source. And it does so in the exact same way you have stated is acceptable: a self referential allowance.

So, your position is and remains untenable. Accept your failings, stop with the fallacies that are so utterly tiresome to read, and graduate from mini-gwar to a better level of debate.

Gendif wrote:
Excuse, Mr Hyperbolic Example, but I have a real example for you to use. In the latest errata they put this in:

Q: Is a Razorback firing a twin plasma gun destroyed if you roll a 1 to hit?
A: Yes.

So since they didn’t talk about supercharging roes my entire vehicle blows up on a 1 when I fire it normally? I only asked because we’ve got a clear question with a clear answer here in the errata that I’m very sure is wrong and no one would ever enforce.

My point here is that not even the errata is foolproof and I personally would like to see more communication from GW to clarify this sort of thing between errata.

Remember: You’re demanding they answer your hypothetical so it’s only fair you address my actual published example.

Yes, I would play it that way because it's in the official errata and FAQs. Am I annoyed they use Special Snowflake FAQs? Yes, but I accept that is how it is.

The difference is the actual rules update is telling you this, not a random GW staffer on Facebook.

Gendif wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

I've answered it before. If you can't be bothered to read that or respond to it or to at least stop repeating the same idiotic question over and over again, that's really not my fault.

example: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9962780

So you would play that Ultramarines basically always win if the GW Facebook post says it? And you wonder why people ignore the facebook post?

If it was in an official FAQ/Errata document would you play by those rules?

Excuse, Mr Hyperbolic Example, but I have a real example for you to use. In the latest errata they put this in:

Q: Is a Razorback firing a twin plasma gun destroyed if you roll a 1 to hit?
A: Yes.

So since they didn’t talk about supercharging roes my entire vehicle blows up on a 1 when I fire it normally? I only asked because we’ve got a clear question with a clear answer here in the errata that I’m very sure is wrong and no one would ever enforce.

My point here is that not even the errata is foolproof and I personally would like to see more communication from GW to clarify this sort of thing between errata.

Remember: You’re demanding they answer your hypothetical so it’s only fair you address my actual published example.

Why yes, it blows up when you fire it normally. This is the problem that the Imperium had when they went to the lowest bid independent contractors to build the Razorbacks. And, since this is what they wrote as RAW, someone will say this is what they intended too.

Seriously, though, good counter example. It's something that should be pointed out to GW so that they can insert the word they forgot to have there to indicate it's only for supercharging the plasmas.

Gendif wrote:
I’m reading orange on black on a phone screen. I’ve got no idea who I’m talking to most of the time. But yes, him, he should answer.

If the colours are an issue you can switch to a different theme. Although I wouldn't recommend "Classic". I think I just got some form of eye cancer from trying that one. Worksafe is pretty OK.

The facts are pretty simple peeps. RAW supports the RAI intention made clear in the facebook post.

You don't use a FAQ response about something entirely different to pass judgement on another thing unrelated. That's not how you read or interpret rules.

The entire premise of this argument is completely flawed and feels like attention seeking if I'm honest. 'Treating a unit like' reinforcements is clearly not the same as 'they are considered for all rules purposes' reinforcements. This argument was weak to begin with and the facebook post is the final nail in the coffin for all those rules lawyers and people trying to seek unfair advantage.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The facts are pretty simple peeps. RAW supports the RAI intention made clear in the facebook post.

You don't use a FAQ response about something entirely different to pass judgement on another thing unrelated. That's not how you read or interpret rules.

The entire premise of this argument is completely flawed and feels like attention seeking if I'm honest. 'Treating a unit like' reinforcements is clearly not the same as 'they are considered for all rules purposes' reinforcements. This argument was weak to begin with and the facebook post is the final nail in the coffin for all those rules lawyers and people trying to seek unfair advantage.

Obviously enough people disagreed with your assessment of the RAW for it to be an issue where they had to put out the facebook post in the first place. You shouldn't be acting high and mighty about it.

 doctortom wrote:


Obviously enough people disagreed with your assessment of the RAW for it to be an issue where they had to put out the facebook post in the first place. You shouldn't be acting high and mighty about it.

Not sure how you came to the conclusion I'm acting high and mighty. I stated facts. Facts that all those who disagreed with my assessment chose to ignore.

GW have to do these type of clarifications all the time because those guys exist. And here they are. Still arguing something that GW couldn't make clearer.

 doctortom wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The facts are pretty simple peeps. RAW supports the RAI intention made clear in the facebook post.

You don't use a FAQ response about something entirely different to pass judgement on another thing unrelated. That's not how you read or interpret rules.

The entire premise of this argument is completely flawed and feels like attention seeking if I'm honest. 'Treating a unit like' reinforcements is clearly not the same as 'they are considered for all rules purposes' reinforcements. This argument was weak to begin with and the facebook post is the final nail in the coffin for all those rules lawyers and people trying to seek unfair advantage.

Obviously enough people disagreed with your assessment of the RAW for it to be an issue where they had to put out the facebook post in the first place. You shouldn't be acting high and mighty about it.

Disagreement doesn't mean it's unclear, it means people don't want to accept the rule because they dislike it.

I dislike re-rolls happening after modifiers, do I throw a hissy fit and DEMAND that people play it the way I want despite it being not what the rule says? Of course I don't, because I am an adult who plays with their toy soldiers by the rules in the rulebook.

This thread isn't really about the stratagem or FAQs. This is about the authority of sources, And a few rules dogmatists who are trying to usurp a place into the rules hierarchy for their own aggrandizement.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
This thread isn't really about the stratagem or FAQs. This is about the authority of sources, And a few rules dogmatists who are trying to usurp a place into the rules hierarchy for their own aggrandizement.

YeoApparently GW aren't allowed to decide the sources for the rules that they write
It's an absurd position to hold.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
This thread isn't really about the stratagem or FAQs. This is about the authority of sources, And a few rules dogmatists who are trying to usurp a place into the rules hierarchy for their own aggrandizement.

YeoApparently GW aren't allowed to decide the sources for the rules that they write
It's an absurd position to hold.

Actually it looks like he's trying to hold GW to their word of what sources they say are official.

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
This thread isn't really about the stratagem or FAQs. This is about the authority of sources, And a few rules dogmatists who are trying to usurp a place into the rules hierarchy for their own aggrandizement.

YeoApparently GW aren't allowed to decide the sources for the rules that they write
It's an absurd position to hold.

Actually it looks like he's trying to hold GW to their word of what sources they say are official.

They're (GW) saying that the fb community team isn't a valid source on their own because they are not the rules team. In this instance they went to said rules team, got a proper answer and are relaying that answer.

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
This thread isn't really about the stratagem or FAQs. This is about the authority of sources, And a few rules dogmatists who are trying to usurp a place into the rules hierarchy for their own aggrandizement.

YeoApparently GW aren't allowed to decide the sources for the rules that they write
It's an absurd position to hold.

Actually it looks like he's trying to hold GW to their word of what sources they say are official.

Again, two issues with that
1) GW changed their word when they released the first faq, because the rulebook doesn't day this is where rules can be found. So inconsistent argument
2) as pointed out umpteen times, the community team have said the community team are not rules people. This set of rules was *communicated* by the comm7nity team, but *attributed* to the rules team. As such this isn't inconstant.

The "this isn't rules" side are arguing an untenable position.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
This thread isn't really about the stratagem or FAQs. This is about the authority of sources, And a few rules dogmatists who are trying to usurp a place into the rules hierarchy for their own aggrandizement.

YeoApparently GW aren't allowed to decide the sources for the rules that they write
It's an absurd position to hold.

Actually it looks like he's trying to hold GW to their word of what sources they say are official.

Again, two issues with that
1) GW changed their word when they released the first faq, because the rulebook doesn't day this is where rules can be found. So inconsistent argument
2) as pointed out umpteen times, the community team have said the community team are not rules people. This set of rules was *communicated* by the comm7nity team, but *attributed* to the rules team. As such this isn't inconstant.

The "this isn't rules" side are arguing an untenable position.

Agreed on all accounts, just wanted to add another point that feeds into this:

3) The community team aren't relaying new rules. They are providing clarification on existing rules because some people misunderstood how they worked with other, vaguely related FAQ responses. So they still holding true to their word in terms of what sources are official. Again this isn't a new rule or source, merely a clarification.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
This thread isn't really about the stratagem or FAQs. This is about the authority of sources, And a few rules dogmatists who are trying to usurp a place into the rules hierarchy for their own aggrandizement.

YeoApparently GW aren't allowed to decide the sources for the rules that they write
It's an absurd position to hold.

Actually it looks like he's trying to hold GW to their word of what sources they say are official.

Again, two issues with that
1) GW changed their word when they released the first faq, because the rulebook doesn't day this is where rules can be found. So inconsistent argument
2) as pointed out umpteen times, the community team have said the community team are not rules people. This set of rules was *communicated* by the comm7nity team, but *attributed* to the rules team. As such this isn't inconstant.

The "this isn't rules" side are arguing an untenable position.

Agreed on all accounts, just wanted to add another point that feeds into this:

3) The community team aren't relaying new rules. They are providing clarification on existing rules because some people misunderstood how they worked with other, vaguely related FAQ responses. So they still holding true to their word in terms of what sources are official. Again this isn't a new rule or source, merely a clarification.

Yet, in addition to them saying the Facebook page isn't official, they still say on their FAQ page at Warhammer community:

"Looking for the latest updates to your codex or battletome? Got a question about how something in your army works? Each of these FAQs contains all of the most up-to-date errata and answers you’ll need to make sure that your games run as smoothly as possible, incorporating feedback from you guys and gals out there in the Warhammer community, the playtesters and of course, our studio design team."

So, trying to say it's a clarification doesn't absolve them from not posting it over on the Warhammer community page. Even as a clarification, it would be a question on how the army works, and according to GW all the most up-to-date answers should be provided there.


As I said before numerous times, I think it's fine for saying what is intended, and would discuss it with an opponent, but by GW's own admission it's not RAW until they post it over in their FAQ section.

AGAIN they do NOT say the fab PAGE isn't official
they state "they" are not a rules source
They're not claiming to be the rules source. Just the communications medium

Nothing more

Again, you missed my point 1. The rulebook doesn't say the faq is a rules source, so it isn't
Oh wait. GW have said it is. You are willing to accept GW stating that, yet you do not accept GW saying that about THIS specific clarification?
Inconsistent rules argument. You lose.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
AGAIN they do NOT say the fab PAGE isn't official
they state "they" are not a rules source
They're not claiming to be the rules source. Just the communications medium

Nothing more

Again, you missed my point 1. The rulebook doesn't say the faq is a rules source, so it isn't
Oh wait. GW have said it is. You are willing to accept GW stating that, yet you do not accept GW saying that about THIS specific clarification?
Inconsistent rules argument. You lose.

I didn't miss your point. You miss the point that GW says that the most up to date rules updates and answers will be put in their FAQ section. Is this an answer to questions that have come in? Yes. Is this in the FAQ section? No. So, while it's fine for RAI (and therefore for a large number of people), it's not RAW yet by GW's own standatds that they set up, and won't be RAW until they post it on the FAQ page or change what it says on the FAQ page for being where to find all atghe most up to date rules updates and answers.

Again, not true

The rulebook doesn't say anyo5er source counts as rules. So why do you accept the faq page? Because GW says so

Here, GW have said THESE ARE RULES. EIther you play without any faqs, or you play with this beta rule and the faq for the beta rule. You have no other *consistent* answer open to you. None.

I have what they say on the Warhammer community page, which is fine for RAW. And, is it reasonable to expect people to have to get a facebook account and check for rules there when GW themselves have said the most up to date rules will be in their FAQ section on the community website? Rules as intended, not an issue. Rules as written? Not what they've said at the Warhammer Community site, which has not changed since putting the post out.

 doctortom wrote:
I have what they say on the Warhammer community page, which is fine for RAW. And, is it reasonable to expect people to have to get a facebook account and check for rules there when GW themselves have said the most up to date rules will be in their FAQ section on the community website? Rules as intended, not an issue. Rules as written? Not what they've said at the Warhammer Community site, which has not changed since putting the post out.

We're talking beta rules here, right? Just a reminder.

nekooni wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
I have what they say on the Warhammer community page, which is fine for RAW. And, is it reasonable to expect people to have to get a facebook account and check for rules there when GW themselves have said the most up to date rules will be in their FAQ section on the community website? Rules as intended, not an issue. Rules as written? Not what they've said at the Warhammer Community site, which has not changed since putting the post out.

We're talking beta rules here, right? Just a reminder.

Yup, which means you should be talking to your opponent in the first place about whether to use the beta rule, then you can determine if you want to apply the facebook post.

 doctortom wrote:
I have what they say on the Warhammer community page, which is fine for RAW. And, is it reasonable to expect people to have to get a facebook account and check for rules there when GW themselves have said the most up to date rules will be in their FAQ section on the community website? Rules as intended, not an issue. Rules as written? Not what they've said at the Warhammer Community site, which has not changed since putting the post out.

So GW cannot change how they deliver rules? Simple yes or no. Of you say no, you are inconsistent. If you say yes, you agree with me that these are rules. Not that I need your agreement - these ARE the rules, regardless of your opinion.
And you allow the community site to be a source of rules over the rulebook , because of a statement on the community site. Yet a statement on the Facebook page that these are rules is not sufficient. Explain, citing rules sources, your inconsistency.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
I have what they say on the Warhammer community page, which is fine for RAW. And, is it reasonable to expect people to have to get a facebook account and check for rules there when GW themselves have said the most up to date rules will be in their FAQ section on the community website? Rules as intended, not an issue. Rules as written? Not what they've said at the Warhammer Community site, which has not changed since putting the post out.

So GW cannot change how they deliver rules? Simple yes or no. Of you say no, you are inconsistent. If you say yes, you agree with me that these are rules. Not that I need your agreement - these ARE the rules, regardless of your opinion.
And you allow the community site to be a source of rules over the rulebook , because of a statement on the community site. Yet a statement on the Facebook page that these are rules is not sufficient. Explain, citing rules sources, your inconsistency.

I get what people are debating it's still a GW official channel and all that, but what about the hobbyists out there that don't use Facebook or have an account? How are they to see these rule changes unless through the official community site where the FAQ's are posted?

Is it fair to hobbyists to place updates on social media that a lot of people don't have or actively avoid or have no interest in?

I'm not debating fair

Is it fair that you need internet access? Define the limits of "fair" here.

The actual rule works just fine - they only needed to clarify it - but regardless, this clarification is rules, and cannot be ignored.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm not debating fair

Is it fair that you need internet access? Define the limits of "fair" here.

The actual rule works just fine - they only needed to clarify it - but regardless, this clarification is rules, and cannot be ignored.

I'm not debating clarification of rules, have that debate with the other guy. I'm talking about business practise. Is it good business practice to place updates for rules on a media outlet that is on a random post that a lot of their player base potentially won't see or find easy to access?

Or is best business practise to have one single location for all official rule updates so that every player has the equal opportunity to view and access?

I'll do what you did to guy above, is it good business practise yes or no?

Again i am not debating it's not a clarification of rules, I'm talking about best business practise, which is the best method?

That isn't a debate for YMDC
Which is about rules

These are rules. Their delivery method, and the relative methodsof such,,aren't a topic that needs debating here

It's also irrelevant. They've chosen, deliberately, to embrace Facebook.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That isn't a debate for YMDC
Which is about rules

These are rules. Their delivery method, and the relative methodsof such,,aren't a topic that needs debating here

It's also irrelevant. They've chosen, deliberately, to embrace Facebook.

So rather than answering, you are changing topic and now trying to divert. See the hyprocrasy?

Going back to the original query I will answer like I did on page one.

Due to the posts I have seen and have been available to myself, because I went to the warhammer 40k page and couldn't find this confirmation people are talking about.

When units are removed from the board under any means, phychic powers or stratagems, when they come bakc in they are "set up", being set up off the board is coming in as reinforcements. So if used in turn one you still cannot leave deployment.

If my opponent disagree's I am not going to argue it's simple. We and get on with playing toy soldiers and have a laugh and a beer.

Please read the tenets of the forum
Feel free to tsk your question elsewhere.

I also didn't change topic. I pointed out your position was irrelevant, and your question not suitable for here

Personally I see no issue with them using Facebook. Whether it is good business pr@ctice, if you claim it isn't you would need some support for that. I'm not qualified to answer it myself - I have an opinion, but that's not important.

No hypocrisy. You should maybe understand the meaning of the word.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That isn't a debate for YMDC
Which is about rules

These are rules. Their delivery method, and the relative methodsof such,,aren't a topic that needs debating here

It's also irrelevant. They've chosen, deliberately, to embrace Facebook.

So rather than answering, you are changing topic and now trying to divert. See the hyprocrasy?

Going back to the original query I will answer like I did on page one.

Due to the posts I have seen and have been available to myself, because I went to the warhammer 40k page and couldn't find this confirmation people are talking about

the link to the fb post in question is on page one of this thread.
GW differentiates between units that were set up in reserves, then come in; and units that were set up on the table, then for some reason are removed and come in again.
*edit* just to clarify: That is what GW explains in the FB post and how GW says the beta rule affects units. I'm just repeating their argument.

The "business practice" was criticized multiple times here, that's not really something "open to debate", so to speak - noone's saying that's having a proper update in the FAQ documents wouldn't be better than posting a picture to their Facebook wall.

And how are people w/o a FB post being left out? You can still access the post without a FB account. It's probably been posted to all the community sites/40k news sites, and so on. If someone is interested in that, it's not that hard to find the information even if you don't have a FB account subscribed to the 40k page (or at all).
And from GWs PoV it appears to not be an "update" but a "clarification", and it's "just a beta rule" - maybe that's their reasoning, I don't know. Ask THEM why they think it's the proper way to do this, I don't think anyone in here thinks that way. What people in here disagree is whether or not that post has any relevance on how to read the beta rules and whether or not their "clarification" should be considered at all.

nekooni wrote:
the link to the fb post in question is on page one of this thread.
GW differentiates between units that were set up in reserves, then come in; and units that were set up on the table, then for some reason are removed and come in again.

If that is actually accurate and not photoshopped.

Tenets of YMDC wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop can be easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

2a. Rulings via GW's social media accounts, twitch streams, etc., even though often provided by the actual games designers, are still not considered official rulings by GW until they are actually published in a errata/FAQ. As such, while it is fine to bring up rulings provided this way in YMDC, it must always be couched with the understanding that these are not official, binding rulings until they actually make their way into a errata/FAQ. If you are mentioning such a ruling, please take the time to post a link to where it can be found so that others can verify for themselves what you're referring to.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
the link to the fb post in question is on page one of this thread.
GW differentiates between units that were set up in reserves, then come in; and units that were set up on the table, then for some reason are removed and come in again.

If that is actually accurate and not photoshopped.

Tenets of YMDC wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop can be easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

2a. Rulings via GW's social media accounts, twitch streams, etc., even though often provided by the actual games designers, are still not considered official rulings by GW until they are actually published in a errata/FAQ. As such, while it is fine to bring up rulings provided this way in YMDC, it must always be couched with the understanding that these are not official, binding rulings until they actually make their way into a errata/FAQ. If you are mentioning such a ruling, please take the time to post a link to where it can be found so that others can verify for themselves what you're referring to.

What? It's literally a link to facebook. To the 40k page. The official one. Which posted that image.

I guess they did use photoshop or something similar to make that image, yes. What is your issue with that?

If you are mentioning such a ruling, please take the time to post a link to where it can be found so that others can verify for themselves what you're referring to.

So what is your point? That link was provided.

Yes, the photo comes from the official Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page.

I dont have facebook, so I can not check the validity of the photo.

It's an open group, so you should be able to use my link without being signed up for Facebook.

 Ghaz wrote:
It's an open group, so you should be able to use my link without being signed up for Facebook.

Work blocks facebook it seems.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
It's an open group, so you should be able to use my link without being signed up for Facebook.

Work blocks facebook it seems.

That must be it. Because the post is accessible without being logged in at all.

But sure, let's discuss good practices. Like checking a source out before commenting on it. Can I assume the same quality work in the other thread circling around a GW FB post where you contributed interesting PoVs?

And btw it seems like in the other thread you've been to the same facebook page, to find quotes to use in your argumentation. odd.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
the link to the fb post in question is on page one of this thread.
GW differentiates between units that were set up in reserves, then come in; and units that were set up on the table, then for some reason are removed and come in again.

If that is actually accurate and not photoshopped.

Tenets of YMDC wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop can be easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

2a. Rulings via GW's social media accounts, twitch streams, etc., even though often provided by the actual games designers, are still not considered official rulings by GW until they are actually published in a errata/FAQ. As such, while it is fine to bring up rulings provided this way in YMDC, it must always be couched with the understanding that these are not official, binding rulings until they actually make their way into a errata/FAQ. If you are mentioning such a ruling, please take the time to post a link to where it can be found so that others can verify for themselves what you're referring to.

To be fair, the ruling in question is not even an official rule. It's a beta rule.

 mokoshkana wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
the link to the fb post in question is on page one of this thread.
GW differentiates between units that were set up in reserves, then come in; and units that were set up on the table, then for some reason are removed and come in again.

If that is actually accurate and not photoshopped.

Tenets of YMDC wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop can be easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

2a. Rulings via GW's social media accounts, twitch streams, etc., even though often provided by the actual games designers, are still not considered official rulings by GW until they are actually published in a errata/FAQ. As such, while it is fine to bring up rulings provided this way in YMDC, it must always be couched with the understanding that these are not official, binding rulings until they actually make their way into a errata/FAQ. If you are mentioning such a ruling, please take the time to post a link to where it can be found so that others can verify for themselves what you're referring to.

To be fair, the ruling in question is not even an official rule. It's a beta rule.

True, but their plan is to only update the big FAQs only once every 6 months - if they know about this issue now they should really post their clarification in their community website FAQ section, or at the very least make an article about it there so that the same place you're picking up the beta rule you get the clarification as to how they wanted you playing it. As it stands it won't be as clear as to how many people are playing it by the Facebook post and how many are just playing the Beta Rule straight from the FAQ until it's time for the new FAQ, so a lot of the feedback could be suspect.

There's "should", and I don't think anyone disagrees on that

It does stop a) the beta rule working raw and rai and b) the clarification being entirely official and "raw".

 doctortom wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
the link to the fb post in question is on page one of this thread.
GW differentiates between units that were set up in reserves, then come in; and units that were set up on the table, then for some reason are removed and come in again.

If that is actually accurate and not photoshopped.

Tenets of YMDC wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop can be easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

2a. Rulings via GW's social media accounts, twitch streams, etc., even though often provided by the actual games designers, are still not considered official rulings by GW until they are actually published in a errata/FAQ. As such, while it is fine to bring up rulings provided this way in YMDC, it must always be couched with the understanding that these are not official, binding rulings until they actually make their way into a errata/FAQ. If you are mentioning such a ruling, please take the time to post a link to where it can be found so that others can verify for themselves what you're referring to.

To be fair, the ruling in question is not even an official rule. It's a beta rule.

True, but their plan is to only update the big FAQs only once every 6 months - if they know about this issue now they should really post their clarification in their community website FAQ section, or at the very least make an article about it there so that the same place you're picking up the beta rule you get the clarification as to how they wanted you playing it. As it stands it won't be as clear as to how many people are playing it by the Facebook post and how many are just playing the Beta Rule straight from the FAQ until it's time for the new FAQ, so a lot of the feedback could be suspect.

Which is why the vast majority of those who accept the Facebook post are also calling for the faq to be updated.

 doctortom wrote:
As I said before numerous times, I think it's fine for saying what is intended, and would discuss it with an opponent, but by GW's own admission it's not RAW until they post it over in their FAQ section.

Sorry, what? When have GW admitted that it isn't RAW and what makes you think it isn't? GW have provided clarification for people who aren't reading RAW properly, nothing more. RAW = RAI = clarification from GW. It can hardly be GW's fault that people take a FAQ response about something different and try to apply it to another thing that doesn't work.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
As I said before numerous times, I think it's fine for saying what is intended, and would discuss it with an opponent, but by GW's own admission it's not RAW until they post it over in their FAQ section.

Sorry, what? When have GW admitted that it isn't RAW and what makes you think it isn't? GW have provided clarification for people who aren't reading RAW properly, nothing more. RAW = RAI = clarification from GW. It can hardly be GW's fault that people take a FAQ response about something different and try to apply it to another thing that doesn't work.

You do realise that the RaW in this case can't be read in multiple ways, right? It is unambiguous and clear. Not liking a rule doesn't make it unclear.

Yes, it's only read in one way. Correctly at least

Your reading is flawed, and is directly contradicted by GW themselves. It's hilarious really.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, it's only read in one way. Correctly at least

Your reading is flawed, and is directly contradicted by GW themselves. It's hilarious really.

Except it literally isn't flawed. If GW want to change the way the rule works they need to change it.

Just because a random GW staffer on Facebook is wrong doesn't change what the rule says.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Just because a random GW staffer on Facebook is wrong doesn't change what the rule says.

You're getting close to what's actually going on - good job! There's still a bit to go until you reach reality, but you're making progress!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You do realise that the RaW in this case can't be read in multiple ways, right? It is unambiguous and clear. Not liking a rule doesn't make it unclear.

Yea the raw is clear but for some reason you keep getting it wrong. As I said - RAW = RAI in this case.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, it's only read in one way. Correctly at least

Your reading is flawed, and is directly contradicted by GW themselves. It's hilarious really.

Except it literally isn't flawed. If GW want to change the way the rule works they need to change it.

Just because a random GW staffer on Facebook is wrong doesn't change what the rule says.

I entirely trust the the official GW Facebook page, stating that the rules designers have said the way they wrote the rule is indeed how they intended to write the rule, and here are so,e examples of exactly how that rule works in practice

Your qualifications as a rules authority in the other hand are enitrely less... credible.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, it's only read in one way. Correctly at least

Your reading is flawed, and is directly contradicted by GW themselves. It's hilarious really.

Except it literally isn't flawed. If GW want to change the way the rule works they need to change it.

Just because a random GW staffer on Facebook is wrong doesn't change what the rule says.

I entirely trust the the official GW Facebook page, stating that the rules designers have said the way they wrote the rule is indeed how they intended to write the rule, and here are so,e examples of exactly how that rule works in practice

Your qualifications as a rules authority in the other hand are enitrely less... credible.

Seconded.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, it's only read in one way. Correctly at least

Your reading is flawed, and is directly contradicted by GW themselves. It's hilarious really.

Except it literally isn't flawed. If GW want to change the way the rule works they need to change it.

Just because a random GW staffer on Facebook is wrong doesn't change what the rule says.

I entirely trust the the official GW Facebook page, stating that the rules designers have said the way they wrote the rule is indeed how they intended to write the rule, and here are so,e examples of exactly how that rule works in practice

Your qualifications as a rules authority in the other hand are enitrely less... credible.

My "qualifications" are the rules in the rulebooks and their associated errata. I don't care if even Rick Priestley or Andy Chambers themselves said something on Facebook, unless it's in the rulebook or associated errata it simply is not part of the game. Period. To say otherwise causes the entire premise of the game to break down and collapse, which we can both agree is the less desirable result. You claim the rules team "intend" for the rule to work a certain way. If that's the case why have they not changed what the rule says?

So you are claiming the rules don't say what they say, and further what the rules designers say doesn't matter to you, because you have decided the in,y way they can communicate the rules is in the way you dictate?

Arrogance AND hilarity in one package. Zero credibility as well.

GW gets to decide how they deliver rules. Not you, they've also stated that the way the wrote these rules conveys their intention of the rules, as proven by, well, GW saying so

GW vs random guy from the internet who has a poor parsing of rules? Yeah I know who has any credibility.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
GW gets to decide how they deliver rules. Not you, they've also stated that the way the wrote these rules conveys their intention of the rules, as proven by, well, GW saying so

Indeed. And how they have decided to deliver the rules is via the Rulebooks and Errata, as I have proven multiple times before and cannot be bothered to do again.

Neither of those are Facebook. I'll keep on playing the game by the rules, and you can keep playing the game with house rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
GW vs random guy from the internet who has a poor parsing of rules? Yeah I know who has any credibility.

Literal rules citations is a poor parsing? That's rather rude of you.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
GW gets to decide how they deliver rules. Not you, they've also stated that the way the wrote these rules conveys their intention of the rules, as proven by, well, GW saying so

Indeed. And how they have decided to deliver the rules is via the Rulebooks and Errata, as I have proven multiple times before and cannot be bothered to do again.

Neither of those are Facebook. I'll keep on playing the game by the rules, and you can keep playing the game with house rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
GW vs random guy from the internet who has a poor parsing of rules? Yeah I know who has any credibility.

Literal rules citations is a poor parsing? That's rather rude of you.

To be fair, Tactical Reserves does say before the shaded box. "....during the first battle round, such units can only be set up within their own deplyement zone. This means that to be most efficient, such units may want to wait until the second battle round. Note that we have not applied this restriction to Genestealer Cults or [b]abilities and Stratagems employed by armies such as Raven Guard - the opportunity to deploy units en mass after deployment is a central part of the desgin of these armies." Granted, how you go and define an army "such as" Raven Guard, or saying what "the opportunity to deploy units en mass after deployment" is hazy on the face of it and does need a clarification (which should be done in the FAQ section itself). Still, the hazy writing here does accommodate the interpretation that was given out in the Facebook post, so that posting is one interpretation of RAW even if you discount the Facebook post (which, given that the designers supposedly issued it, and as that has not been retracted yet we should be able to take that as a true statement). As it's already a viable interpretation of RAW, you should be talking to your opponent about how you wish to play the rule given that there can be multiple interpretations if not using the FB post. I could see you insisting that only Raven Guard and successor chapters could use it since RG was the only thing cited and you weren't given criteria to say what other armies' abilities and stratagems are enough like RG or are an army that deployed units en masse after deployement, but you would have a hard time denying a Raven Guard army what was described in the FB post since they are specifically given as an army that has exemptions to the Tactical Reserves rule. You should already be talking to your opponent anyway about whether you two will be using the Tactical Reserves Beta Rule in the first place.

Except in this case, where GW have decided that this rules clarification has been delivered by Facebook

Continue pretending you're right in this. You have zero credibility

No the interpretation you have placed on the rule is wrong, and proven as such by GW saying how they wrote the rule works i the way they intended, hence the GW rules team sourced clarification

You can keep ignoring the rules all you like but don't pretend you're some raw at all times "purist"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except in this case, where GW have decided that this rules clarification has been delivered by Facebook

Please show me in the rulebook or FAQ page where it says facebook is part of the rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except in this case, where GW have decided that this rules clarification has been delivered by Facebook

Please show me in the rulebook or FAQ page where it says facebook is part of the rules.

Please show me in the rulebook where it says the FAQs are part of the rules.

 Happyjew wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except in this case, where GW have decided that this rules clarification has been delivered by Facebook

Please show me in the rulebook or FAQ page where it says facebook is part of the rules.

Please show me in the rulebook where it says the FAQs are part of the rules.

From Here https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/?orderby=title&order=asc#items-warhammer-40000

Looking for the latest updates to your codex or battletome? Got a question about how something in your army works? Each of these FAQs contains all of the most up-to-date errata and answers you’ll need to make sure that your games run as smoothly as possible, incorporating feedback from you guys and gals out there in the Warhammer community, the playtesters and of course, our studio design team.

Of course if you want to go down that route, where does it define that a dice must be numbered 1-6? Where does it define what a roll is?

Or from the Rulebook FAQ

Although we strive to ensure that our rules are perfect, sometimes mistakes do creep in, or the intent of a rule isn’t as clear as it might be. These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions. As they’re updated regularly, each has a version number; when changes are made, the version number will be updated, and any changes from the previous version will be highlighted in magenta. Where a version number has a letter, e.g. 1.1a, this means it has had a local update, only in that language, to clarify a translation issue or other minor correction.

The facebook page LITERALLY SAYS IT IS NOT RULES.

There are several unwritten axioms that the game relies on to function, as do most games not written in Lojban. "Things a random person says on Facebook are rules" is not one of them.

That quote you used also proves that RAW does not always equal RAI, nice one. You can stop banging that particular drum now, eh?

So you cannot prove your claim. Thus you are inconsistent and proven, for the tenth time on this, simply wrong.

The Facebook team says THEY are not rules. That's fine. THEY have said THE RULES TEAM have said these are rules. Thus they are rules.

For someone normally so hung up on precision, the fact you are being deliberately misleading here - despite being corrected on this multiple times - is either deliberate or is incompetence.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except in this case, where GW have decided that this rules clarification has been delivered by Facebook

Please show me in the rulebook or FAQ page where it says facebook is part of the rules.

Please show me in the rulebook where it says the FAQs are part of the rules.

From Here https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/?orderby=title&order=asc#items-warhammer-40000

Looking for the latest updates to your codex or battletome? Got a question about how something in your army works? Each of these FAQs contains all of the most up-to-date errata and answers you’ll need to make sure that your games run as smoothly as possible, incorporating feedback from you guys and gals out there in the Warhammer community, the playtesters and of course, our studio design team.

Of course if you want to go down that route, where does it define that a dice must be numbered 1-6? Where does it define what a roll is?

Or from the Rulebook FAQ

Although we strive to ensure that our rules are perfect, sometimes mistakes do creep in, or the intent of a rule isn’t as clear as it might be. These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions. As they’re updated regularly, each has a version number; when changes are made, the version number will be updated, and any changes from the previous version will be highlighted in magenta. Where a version number has a letter, e.g. 1.1a, this means it has had a local update, only in that language, to clarify a translation issue or other minor correction.

The facebook page LITERALLY SAYS IT IS NOT RULES.

There are several unwritten axioms that the game relies on to function, as do most games not written in Lojban. "Things a random person says on Facebook are rules" is not one of them.

I'm not seeing that in the rulebook. I asked where in the rulebook the FAQs are rules. Not some random site.

Also note that the clear delineation between "rules" and frequently asked questions.

These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions.

Rules and "responses". What are responses?

Fragile wrote:
Also note that the clear delineation between "rules" and frequently asked questions.

These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions.

Rules and "responses". What are responses?

Perhaps in this context "rules" are things like the Character targeting rules, the Smite change and the Tactical Reserves rules. They add a rule or change a rule. Perhaps "responses" are simply the company answering questions about rules. The answer might look like a new rule, but are merely the company clarifying how the rule looks. Examples of "responses" would be Grinding Advance and Speed of the Raven.

For a "rule" I want to see it in a book or a somewhat official-looking FAQ. For a "response" I am comfortable with less rigorous sources. Those less rigorous sources can even be other players at the FLGS or tourney. I play in the world of HIWPI, since that is what wargaming is. Having said that, an "official" FAQ carries more weight than a Facebook post from the GW team with respect to "responses." The GW Facebook post also carries more weight than a fellow player at the FLGS.

Fragile wrote:
Also note that the clear delineation between "rules" and frequently asked questions.

These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions.

Rules and "responses". What are responses?

Are you seriously asking this?

"amendments to the rules" = Errata

"our responses to players’ frequently asked questions" = Answers to the FaQ's.

Deathreaper, as usual, you completely miss the point.

Fragile wrote:
Deathreaper, as usual, you completely miss the point.

There's actually a point to all of that?

Good lordy, what a read.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that GW (probably*) put on the FB page (although I don't want it to, as I despise the stupid name "Slamguinius" and the stupid memes that accompany it. So anything keeping it from my games is a good thing, but I digress...).

*I say probably, as I (like many other people) do not have a Privacyinvasionbook account, nor do I want one, nor even want to go near their site; so I only have to go on what was presented in this thread, and as such is a fething stupid place to put rules. I wonder how many of these "you activated my trap card" rulings I've missed out on due to not wanting to go anywhere near that place.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Good lordy, what a read.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that GW (probably*) put on the FB page (although I don't want it to, as I despise the stupid name "Slamguinius" and the stupid memes that accompany it. So anything keeping it from my games is a good thing, but I digress...).

*I say probably, as I (like many other people) do not have a Privacyinvasionbook account, nor do I want one, nor even want to go near their site; so I only have to go on what was presented in this thread, and as such is a fething stupid place to put rules. I wonder how many of these "you activated my trap card" rulings I've missed out on due to not wanting to go anywhere near that place.

You don't need an account to follow the links provided. Do it in incognito mode if you're concerned about privacy. But don't use it as a backhanded way of discrediting an argument based on that source.

nekooni wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Good lordy, what a read.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that GW (probably*) put on the FB page (although I don't want it to, as I despise the stupid name "Slamguinius" and the stupid memes that accompany it. So anything keeping it from my games is a good thing, but I digress...).

*I say probably, as I (like many other people) do not have a Privacyinvasionbook account, nor do I want one, nor even want to go near their site; so I only have to go on what was presented in this thread, and as such is a fething stupid place to put rules. I wonder how many of these "you activated my trap card" rulings I've missed out on due to not wanting to go anywhere near that place.

You don't need an account to follow the links provided. Do it in incognito mode if you're concerned about privacy. But don't use it as a backhanded way of discrediting an argument based on that source.

No.

It is a stupid place to put rules. I refuse to even go near the site and won't give Zuckerberg the satisfaction with his smug reptilian grin of trying to access it by some other means. GW have an official place to put rules, which is one their own site. Putting official rulings on FB is akin to someone going "A ha! You activated my trap card" as if we're playing Yu-Gi-Oh or something.

 Grimtuff wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Good lordy, what a read.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that GW (probably*) put on the FB page (although I don't want it to, as I despise the stupid name "Slamguinius" and the stupid memes that accompany it. So anything keeping it from my games is a good thing, but I digress...).

*I say probably, as I (like many other people) do not have a Privacyinvasionbook account, nor do I want one, nor even want to go near their site; so I only have to go on what was presented in this thread, and as such is a fething stupid place to put rules. I wonder how many of these "you activated my trap card" rulings I've missed out on due to not wanting to go anywhere near that place.

You don't need an account to follow the links provided. Do it in incognito mode if you're concerned about privacy. But don't use it as a backhanded way of discrediting an argument based on that source.

No.

It is a stupid place to put rules. I refuse to even go near the site and won't give Fuckerberg the satisfaction with his smug reptilian grin of trying to access it by some other means. GW have an official place to put rules, which is one their own site. Putting official rulings on FB is akin to someone going "A ha! You activated my trap card" as if we're playing Yu-Gi-Oh or something.

I agree it's a stupid place to put rules, however, that is where they decided to clarify this issue. And while the people who run the page may not be the rules team, when they go "Hey rules team, people are asking about this." and the rules team replies "Tell 'em that this is the answer.", then that is the official answer.

 Happyjew wrote:
I agree it's a stupid place to put rules, however, that is where they decided to clarify this issue. And while the people who run the page may not be the rules team, when they go "Hey rules team, people are asking about this." and the rules team replies "Tell 'em that this is the answer.", then that is the official answer.

They haven't clarified anything, because it's not in an FAQ document.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I agree it's a stupid place to put rules, however, that is where they decided to clarify this issue. And while the people who run the page may not be the rules team, when they go "Hey rules team, people are asking about this." and the rules team replies "Tell 'em that this is the answer.", then that is the official answer.

They haven't clarified anything, because it's not in an FAQ document.

They have. Just not in the proper place.

nekooni wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Deathreaper, as usual, you completely miss the point.

There's actually a point to all of that?

Not that I saw.

It’s a beta rule suggestion they asked people to test. They could recover feedback and answer questions on Facebook for all they want.
It’s officially from the rules team and clarified then who cares except asshats crying about suggested beta rules not being clarified in official faq format, while the rule itself isn’t even officially part of the rules yet.

gungo wrote:
It’s a beta rule suggestion they asked people to test. They could recover feedback and answer questions on Facebook for all they want.
It’s officially from the rules team and clarified then who cares except asshats crying about suggested beta rules not being clarified in official faq format, while the rule itself isn’t even officially part of the rules yet.

Problem is that when it's only on FB post which is probably rather buried now there's TONS of players(probably over 50% of all 40k players) who haven't HEARD of it. End result: You can come up in tournament against players who haven't heard of it and that can results in long argument.

Today this EXACT ISSUE came up for me in real tournament. Opponent wasn't aware of the clarification, we couldn't find it from fb quickly, tournament organizers were even confused about it. End result long annoying rule arqument which took longer than it would take for GW to put it on official location and which dampened the mood right away.

There's no excuse for GW to NOT put it in same place as FAQ is. It's GW deliberately making sure this issue comes up inevitably and players have to spend time arguing can you da jump out of DZ on turn 1 or not.

It’s a beta. Why would they issue a beta rule FAQ before the end of the beta? Just feed it back. That’s what a beta is.

If a tournament incorporates it but doesn’t have their own ruling then that’s on them.

As of now it’s not part of the rules unless by mutual agreement. If you can’t agree a solution amicably don’t play it, or feed the disagreement back to GW.

Honestly, Facebook is a more appropriate channel than the official FAQ page for a rule that is not even rules yet, as only rulings on the actual rules we all play by should go there. All this ‘no excuse blah blah’ stuff is a little OTT. Just send GW your feedback - they’ve asked for it. If they get enough they might issue an updated beta rule before end of the beta, but I wouldn’t hold your breath. Because it’s a beta.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I agree it's a stupid place to put rules, however, that is where they decided to clarify this issue. And while the people who run the page may not be the rules team, when they go "Hey rules team, people are asking about this." and the rules team replies "Tell 'em that this is the answer.", then that is the official answer.

They haven't clarified anything, because it's not in an FAQ document.

So you've decided you have the sole authority to decide how GW can clarify rules?
You, mr random internet guy?
Cute. Will you answer, with rules cites from the BRB, why the community site is a valid source if rules this time? Or will you duck it again?
Page and graph please. Back up your assertions or accept your failings.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s a beta. Why would they issue a beta rule FAQ before the end of the beta? Just feed it back. That’s what a beta is.

To clarify the rule that they're trying to get feedback on. If the rule is being played incorrectly (either through bad wording or players misinterpreting the rule) then that lessens the value of the feedback.

 Ghaz wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s a beta. Why would they issue a beta rule FAQ before the end of the beta? Just feed it back. That’s what a beta is.

To clarify the rule that they're trying to get feedback on. If the rule is being played incorrectly (either through bad wording or players misinterpreting the rule) then that lessens the value of the feedback.

Just saying there’s no obligation to use the This Is The Rules channel. Sure, that would be ideal but there are also reasons why that might not be used. Whatever your mileage, constantly decrying guidance from the writers (that has been shared far beyond Facebook) as akin to a random post is patently just like sticking your fingers in your ears and crying “la la la la”. And the guy who said he couldn’t find details at a tourney could somehow post in this thread... that has hyperlinks to said post.

So here's a question I have on all this:

Does the facebook post matter at all?

Let's say I'm a competitively minded necron player, angling for a bit of favorable rules interpretation.

The wording on how my units arrive on the battlefield from Night Scythes and Monoliths looks, if you squint, similar to the rule for Disembarking from a transport. The distinction in the Rules as Written, of course, is that neither of those vehicles have the Transport keyword, and therefore when my units get put down on the board, they can't be made to move again for any reason.

So lets say I go down to facebook and ask GW: "Hey guys, if I have a unit of necrons and they beam down from a Night Scythe, can I move with them afterwards since it's the beginning of the movement phase?"

And GW answers: "No, sorry."

Does that change ANYTHING at all? Does it matter at all? Has the rule document shifted one way or another based on a person reading the rules in a way that's provably incorrect and being corrected?

the_scotsman wrote:
So here's a question I have on all this:

Does the facebook post matter at all?

Let's say I'm a competitively minded necron player, angling for a bit of favorable rules interpretation.

The wording on how my units arrive on the battlefield from Night Scythes and Monoliths looks, if you squint, similar to the rule for Disembarking from a transport. The distinction in the Rules as Written, of course, is that neither of those vehicles have the Transport keyword, and therefore when my units get put down on the board, they can't be made to move again for any reason.

So lets say I go down to facebook and ask GW: "Hey guys, if I have a unit of necrons and they beam down from a Night Scythe, can I move with them afterwards since it's the beginning of the movement phase?"

And GW answers: "No, sorry."

Does that change ANYTHING at all? Does it matter at all? Has the rule document shifted one way or another based on a person reading the rules in a way that's provably incorrect and being corrected?

If you're a competitive player, then the final rule stands with the TO's decision.

If you're playing a one-off game, then it comes down to if you believe GW Facebook has legal authority to introduce new rulings/faqs in their posts. At that point, it's between all the players involved; I'd say go with the option that least favors you, so you'll never come out unfavorably should a TO ruling not go your way - but, GW cares more about RAI then RAW, and they keep showing it; over and over again.

Play how you want.

RAW: The errata and FAQ do not allow units, arriving from reinforcements (which "Da Jump" is), to deploy outside the deployment zone - period.
RAI: You ARE allowed to deploy outside the deployment zone T1, as long as you were previously on the board already.

It is not reasonable to expect every player to have access to knowledge of every Facebook post ever made by GW. The facebook GW team also clearly states that they cannot provide official answers - except "this one time because we asked the rules team and it's actually official"; "here's a nice pretty picture".

RAW: Facebook GW cannot provide official answers.
RAI: Facebook GW CAN provide official answers, because "they talked to the rules team".

RAW: da jump works
RAI: da jump works

RAW: GW gets to decide how they deliver rules updates because it's their fething game
End of
You literally cannot argue against this position, in any logical or sense based manner. It's entirely GWs choice and mandate. No one else's.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
RAW: da jump works
RAI: da jump works

RAW: GW gets to decide how they deliver rules updates because it's their fething game
End of
You literally cannot argue against this position, in any logical or sense based manner. It's entirely GWs choice and mandate. No one else's.

RaW Da Jump doesn't work. You made a mistake in your post.

And GW did decide how to deliver their rules, it's via rules and official FAQs & Errata.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
RAW: da jump works
RAI: da jump works

RAW: GW gets to decide how they deliver rules updates because it's their fething game
End of
You literally cannot argue against this position, in any logical or sense based manner. It's entirely GWs choice and mandate. No one else's.

RaW Da Jump doesn't work. You made a mistake in your post.

And GW did decide how to deliver their rules, it's via rules and official FAQs & Errata.

Incorrect and we've been over how enough. Your position is wrong and based on a poor parsing of the rules.

And GW decided to modify that, for this case

As is their right

You're literally telling the games designers they're not allowed to decide how they deliver rules. And you expect anyone , ever, to treat your opinion srirously? As not being entirely comical?
You've yet to actually answer the required question - which is why you treat the errata as rules but not this, and ONLY using the BRB to do so. Because, and you know this, YOU CANNOT DO SO.
You dissemble and argue dishonestly, hoping people won't notice you repeatedly ducking this

Instead, it's just further proof of your logically flawed position.

I am holding GW to their own rules. Nothing more. You're free to house rule as you wish, I don't know why you're so upset.

No, you're making up a standard that you don't apply consistently

Aka making stuff up

Why do you treat the errata as rules? Prove it, citing page and graph, quoting directly from the brb

For a rules guy, this should be simple. Care to take up the challenge, or will you dissemble and avoid again?
At least the fifth time of asking.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you're making up a standard that you don't apply consistently

Aka making stuff up

Why do you treat the errata as rules? Prove it, citing page and graph, quoting directly from the brb

For a rules guy, this should be simple. Care to take up the challenge, or will you dissemble and avoid again?
At least the fifth time of asking.

This is pretty obviously standard "arguing from an untenable position."

GW uses visual boxes in several places in the rules to group rules that all apply to a particular subset of situations (See the "Transports" sidebar in the main rules for the most obvious example of this).

This lets them use paragraph spacing to make rules more easily understandable, but it means that everything within the box applies to the general situation of Transports (As defined as units with the Transport keyword in the first sentence of the rules box) and should not be taken out of that context to apply to the rest of the game.

They very clearly did an identical thing with the new Tactical Reserves rule, and all three rules outlined in the box apply to the specific situation of units that use abilities that set them aside during deployment to arrive as reinforcements. You'd be mighty confused if you took a random paragraph from the Transports rule box and tried to make it work with every unit in the game.

Because it's pretty much untenable to argue otherwise, BCB and co have switched over to different topics than the one actually being discussed, in order to avoid having to actually address the main point. The gw FAQ team's response on Facebook carries exactly as much weight as BCB's rants on Dakka: Absolutely nothing. Nothing has changed about the rule, because it has not been demonstrated that it can ever apply to anything besides the subgroup of units outlined by the two requirements of the first sentence.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you're making up a standard that you don't apply consistently

Aka making stuff up

Why do you treat the errata as rules? Prove it, citing page and graph, quoting directly from the brb

For a rules guy, this should be simple. Care to take up the challenge, or will you dissemble and avoid again?
At least the fifth time of asking.

Just because it isn't in the rulebook doesn't make it not rules. The FAQ page explicitly states it is rules, and is owned by GW, thus official. The codexes are rules. The GW Facebook Page literally tells you it's not rules.

It's clear you have some sort of personal issue against me, thus I shall decline to reply to you in the future.

I'm inclined to agree with BCB, more or less.

Official rules changes and clarifications are published via the FAQs and Erratas page of Warhammer Community. Anything else, while interesting and potentially useful, isn't official... even if the poster says "Guys, this is totally official." When playing with friends, or when talking to a TO, a social media post might inform the local ruling. However, I (and many other players) only look to the FAQs and Erratas page for official, set in stone rulings. You just can't operate a rule set and have your rulings/faqs/erratas scattered over a variety of sources.

Facebook is a particularly terrible place to publish anything "official", because the posts get lost in the shuffle almost immediately and not only does a large portion of the player base never see the post, but they probably also wouldn't be able to find it even if they knew about it.

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with BCB, more or less.

Official rules changes and clarifications are published via the FAQs and Erratas page of Warhammer Community. Anything else, while interesting and potentially useful, isn't official... even if the poster says "Guys, this is totally official." When playing with friends, or when talking to a TO, a social media post might inform the local ruling. However, I (and many other players) only look to the FAQs and Erratas page for official, set in stone rulings. You just can't operate a rule set and have your rulings/faqs/erratas scattered over a variety of sources.

Facebook is a particularly terrible place to publish anything "official", because the posts get lost in the shuffle almost immediately and not only does a large portion of the player base never see the post, but they probably also wouldn't be able to find it even if they knew about it.

To be clear, I agree with BCB on his smokescreen point - facebook should not (and to this point, is not) used to publish official rules changes.

Where I fundamentally disagree with them is on whether this ruling on facebook changes anything at all, because he has yet to demonstrate why all the rules statements contained in the box labeled "Tactical Reserves" are entirely separate statements that apply to completely separate units, while they are grouped and formatted in exactly the same way as several other rules within the main rulebook.

We establish a unit criteria - units which use abilities during deployment to arrive later on the battlefield as reinforcements - and then we have one rule applying to that subset of units.

Then (BCB version) we STOP. Throw out that subset. and apply two more rules that apply to ALL UNITS IN THE GAME AT ALL TIMES that are removed and replaced onto the battlefield.

If we applied this kind of logic to nearly any other section of the rules, the game would completely fall apart, because with each new sentence, GW would need to re-establish which units the sentence applies to.

 Ghaz wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It’s a beta. Why would they issue a beta rule FAQ before the end of the beta? Just feed it back. That’s what a beta is.

To clarify the rule that they're trying to get feedback on. If the rule is being played incorrectly (either through bad wording or players misinterpreting the rule) then that lessens the value of the feedback.

Here’s the deal Gw rules team already clarified it.
Furthermore as a beta rule suggestion the tournament you played is under no obligation to play with that rule. If they chose to play with beta rules then They should both be willing and able to clarify the inevitable questions that come up with that beta rule. Judges should know the rules and not just the FAQs but all the common you make the call scenarios that are not always defined in the rules.
Once the rule gets rewritten and made official I’m sure Gw rulesteam will answer any clarifications. But right now this rule will likely change before becoming official for match play.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with BCB, more or less.

Official rules changes and clarifications are published via the FAQs and Erratas page of Warhammer Community. Anything else, while interesting and potentially useful, isn't official... even if the poster says "Guys, this is totally official." When playing with friends, or when talking to a TO, a social media post might inform the local ruling. However, I (and many other players) only look to the FAQs and Erratas page for official, set in stone rulings. You just can't operate a rule set and have your rulings/faqs/erratas scattered over a variety of sources.

Facebook is a particularly terrible place to publish anything "official", because the posts get lost in the shuffle almost immediately and not only does a large portion of the player base never see the post, but they probably also wouldn't be able to find it even if they knew about it.

To be clear, I agree with BCB on his smokescreen point - facebook should not (and to this point, is not) used to publish official rules changes.

Where I fundamentally disagree with them is on whether this ruling on facebook changes anything at all, because he has yet to demonstrate why all the rules statements contained in the box labeled "Tactical Reserves" are entirely separate statements that apply to completely separate units, while they are grouped and formatted in exactly the same way as several other rules within the main rulebook.

We establish a unit criteria - units which use abilities during deployment to arrive later on the battlefield as reinforcements - and then we have one rule applying to that subset of units.

Then (BCB version) we STOP. Throw out that subset. and apply two more rules that apply to ALL UNITS IN THE GAME AT ALL TIMES that are removed and replaced onto the battlefield.

If we applied this kind of logic to nearly any other section of the rules, the game would completely fall apart, because with each new sentence, GW would need to re-establish which units the sentence applies to.

Ok, let's review the exact wording:

TACTICAL RESERVES
-Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game AS REINFORCEMENTS [Emphasis added; OK, so we're talking about REINFORCEMENTS.]. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere. [Ok, this is updating the Tactical Reserves rules already present in the book.]
-Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer 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). [Ok, this is clarifying the units that arrive before the game starts - outside of a turn.]
-Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed. [No change here.]

The first part references which units can be put into reserve, and how many.
The second part details general game rules, and does not specifically include, or more importantly, EXCLUDE, other units (ie: ones that enter the battlefield other ways "Da Jump"). It's very important to include the fact that they're talking about AS REINFORCEMENTS; during which we will reference those rules (which say units entering the battlefield and being "set-up", can't be outside of the deployment zone T1).
The third part is standard clarification, if they aren't there by the end of the third turn, they're gone.

Your other argument is that this ONLY applies to units being Tatically Reserved, and no other sections, since it's a "closed' box. Well - are you saying that every section MUST include all reference components (what is a die, what is a hit, wound, armor save, etc)?

Or can we agree that just because a part references a rule that's not specifically in it's section, other/second sections can be referenced/affected by the parts in the first?

Ergo... Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). applies to all units entering the battlefield via their own means - and since GSC/Infiltrate stratagems are given the clear; if you enter the field via a method other than those two ("Da Jump", transports), you're limited to your deployment zone T1.

Youre excluding the second requirement with your emphasis: instead of being set up DURING DEPLOYMENT. Omitting this second filter is exactly what causes the silly rules interactions with transports, but it's actually there in the rule whether you willfully ignore it or not.

You set up two criteria for a unit to be affected by any of the three different rules set up by Tactical Reserves: 1, not set up during deployment, and 2, arriving on the board as reinforcements.

A unit disembarking from a transport is not set up on the board, but does not set up as reinforcements.

A unit removed by a psychic power is set up as reinforcements, but not deployed off the board.

There's no difference between this clarification on Facebook or any other clarification because gw did not change the rule in any way. You're just choosing to interpret that because the second statement only references one of the two criteria that it only applies to one of the two criteria.

This is "Designer's commentary are not official rules because it was posted in Warhammer-community" all over again.

 Galas wrote:
This is "Designer's commentary are not official rules because it was posted in Warhammer-community" all over again.

Haha I’d forgotten that little gem. Apt comparison.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you're making up a standard that you don't apply consistently

Aka making stuff up

Why do you treat the errata as rules? Prove it, citing page and graph, quoting directly from the brb

For a rules guy, this should be simple. Care to take up the challenge, or will you dissemble and avoid again?
At least the fifth time of asking.

Just because it isn't in the rulebook doesn't make it not rules. The FAQ page explicitly states it is rules, and is owned by GW, thus official. The codexes are rules. The GW Facebook Page literally tells you it's not rules.

It's clear you have some sort of personal issue against me, thus I shall decline to reply to you in the future.

Wrong, again. The Facebook page says they are not a rules source. This rules clarification on a perfectly operable rule is from the rules team, and is this official regardless of your opinion
Stop falsely representing what is said. Given you have been corrected on this this is now clearly deliberate, and thus dishonest.

Your inability to back up your position, or accept gracefully that you are wrong, is telling.

Here we go again... “it’s clear you have some sort of personal issue with me” is deflection and distraction, an attempt to derail, discredit and rile up. If people feel you keep arguing wrongly then they may bring you up on it. It’s not a “gotcha” and it’s not personal... this forum is about correctly interpreting the rules. If you’re not doing that people might want to discuss that and offer guidance to help you understand where you’ve gone wrong.

Saying “I’m not talking to you anymore” isn’t very useful or productive, and seems like an attempt to tar other posters as unreasonable - this doesn’t actually make you appear more credible, btw. Stick to discussing the rule, politely and calmly, and either engage constructively or just block others.

You really need to demonstrate some backup for your position other than “you feel it isn’t official” when they’ve literally said it’s from the Rules writers. You needle others to do so often enough, so it cuts both ways. You disliking this ruling or it’s source doesn’t change the fact that it is official guidance.

For a beta rule.

That isn’t even rules rules yet.

Maybe accept consensus and care a little less? Send feedback on function of the rule or methods of delivery to the FAQ hotline email.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you're making up a standard that you don't apply consistently

Aka making stuff up

Why do you treat the errata as rules? Prove it, citing page and graph, quoting directly from the brb

For a rules guy, this should be simple. Care to take up the challenge, or will you dissemble and avoid again?
At least the fifth time of asking.

Just because it isn't in the rulebook doesn't make it not rules. The FAQ page explicitly states it is rules, and is owned by GW, thus official. The codexes are rules. The GW Facebook Page literally tells you it's not rules.

It's clear you have some sort of personal issue against me, thus I shall decline to reply to you in the future.

Wrong, again. The Facebook page says they are not a rules source. This rules clarification on a perfectly operable rule is from the rules team, and is this official regardless of your opinion
Stop falsely representing what is said. Given you have been corrected on this this is now clearly deliberate, and thus dishonest.

Your inability to back up your position, or accept gracefully that you are wrong, is telling.

Given that they say they are not a rules source, if you go by that it would seem that rules clarifications would fall under the purview of "rules source" - clarifying a rule would pertain to the rules as much as posting a new rule. I can see where that would invalidate your argument from BCB/s standpoint. That said, they did check with the rules team, so I wouldn't discount what they posted as not worth considering; it is them relaying how the rules team intended for it to work. It should also have been put in the FAQ section so we wouldn't have needed all this debate in the first place.

As I've said before, though, given they consulted with the rules guys on this, what they posted is certainly BRAI (since we're dealing with a beta rule) and people knowing about it would most likely want to play it that way, since there is the leeway for interpretation of what can and can't ignore the Tactical Reserves rule from the text in the last few sentences before the shaded box. But, since you should be talking to your opponent anyway, decide first if you're using the Tactical Reserves rule in the first place, then decide if you're going to use the exceptions from the Facebook post. Personally I'd play with the post but I wouldn't fault people who didn't because they don't frequent facebook and didn't read it or even if's a case of general principle for someone who wants GW to live up to what they claim about all rules updates and questions being included in the FAQ area in the Warhammer community. I wouldn't assume automatically that the Facebook post is going to automatically be applied during the game; converserly I wouldn't expect it to automatically be ignored during the game either. It's something to talk about. If BCB wants to call that a house rule, that's fine. I'd bet most people would "house rule" it in line with the Facebook post (if they're using the beta rule in the first place - if not, then the FB post is a moot point).

What the Facebook page actually says in regards to rules:

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

So they can't give official answers to rules questions, but they can post rules clarifications from the Games Designers.

 Ghaz wrote:
What the Facebook page actually says in regards to rules:

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

So they can't give official answers to rules questions, but they can post rules clarifications from the Games Designers.

Honey BCBadger don't care.

 Ghaz wrote:
What the Facebook page actually says in regards to rules:

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

So they can't give official answers to rules questions, but they can post rules clarifications from the Games Designers.

I think the issue is that while we all know these are official statements from the rules people, they're not being posted in a place where the average player will see them or where they're easily viewed a week, a month, 6 months from now. GW has a mechanism for putting out rules updates. If they choose NOT to use that mechanism and instead post something to FB... a lot of people will simply not see the ruling OR consider it interesting but not binding until it makes it's way into an official FAQ/Errata stored in the official FAQ/Errata location. GW should really be saying things like "this is how we want the rule to work... expect to see a clarification in an upcoming faq/errata" on social media, but are instead saying simply "this is how we want the rule to work... consider this to be the faq/errata on the subject".

I don't use Facebook and I don't religiously follow Warhammer-Community's daily articles. If I'm looking for rules for my army, I check my Codex and the FAQ/Errata section of Warhammer-Community ONLY. I don't read through every FB post ever written or sift through hundreds of articles.

Oh, I definitely agree that they should have been posted with the beta rule.

Ive repeatedly said it's not the best place, but that doesn't mean is less official.
That's what BCB is deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting.

Official as RAW or official as RAI, though? The GW Facebook guys say they checked with the rules guys, but did the rules guys make the document? Or, was it the Facebook people who whipped it up based on what they are told. Since it hasn't been posted to the FAQ, it might be the latter. So, BCB can argue that it's not RAW (at the same time, disproving his own statement that RAW always = RAI). Most people will play by the intention of what was posted if they know of it.

In this case though, both RAW and RAI align. This has been confirmed not only through a ton of discussion on here but also through GW themselves with their clarification.

The rules designers and community team should not be held accountable because people have misinterpreted rules.

Official as RAW, well raw clarification given the rules already said what they clarified
Saying GW cannot vary how they deliver rules is what lacks any support, fails to be consistent given BCB accepts the community site, and is overall such a bizarre statement from a complete internet nobody that it's actually laughable. Claiming you have authority over the actual games company and can dictate how and where they publish rules is lacking in all credibility it cannot be taken seriously

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Official as RAW, well raw clarification given the rules already said what they clarified
Saying GW cannot vary how they deliver rules is what lacks any support, fails to be consistent given BCB accepts the community site, and is overall such a bizarre statement from a complete internet nobody that it's actually laughable. Claiming you have authority over the actual games company and can dictate how and where they publish rules is lacking in all credibility it cannot be taken seriously

Except it's not official as in anything, because the facebook page LITERALLY says it isn't rules.

 doctortom wrote:
Official as RAW or official as RAI, though? The GW Facebook guys say they checked with the rules guys, but did the rules guys make the document? Or, was it the Facebook people who whipped it up based on what they are told. Since it hasn't been posted to the FAQ, it might be the latter. So, BCB can argue that it's not RAW (at the same time, disproving his own statement that RAW always = RAI). Most people will play by the intention of what was posted if they know of it.

Just the 40K Facebook page has had thirty images posted since the start of the month, with a wide variety of images...



GW has Facebook pages for 40K, Age of Sigmar, Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Shadespire, Forge World, White Dwarf, Black Library, Warhammer World, Warhammer TV and some I'm proably forgetting with daily posts on each. Their presence on Facebook is to well set up for these posts to be the work of some random IT guy posting his opinions.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Official as RAW, well raw clarification given the rules already said what they clarified
Saying GW cannot vary how they deliver rules is what lacks any support, fails to be consistent given BCB accepts the community site, and is overall such a bizarre statement from a complete internet nobody that it's actually laughable. Claiming you have authority over the actual games company and can dictate how and where they publish rules is lacking in all credibility it cannot be taken seriously

Except it's not official as in anything, because the facebook page LITERALLY says it isn't rules.

It would help if when you said "literally" you used the correct terminstead , which in this case would be "it doesn't actually say that, just something close to it that I will deliberately misrepresent despite being corrected at least five times, and even had it quoted earlier in the thread by Ghaz"

Here, I'll remind you: "we can’t give you official answers."
Not "it" isn't rules, but "we"
"We" didn't give the official answer, the rules guys did. Through them, but using this thing called "attribution" meaning it wasn't actually the fb team saying it.

It therefore doesn't contradict that statement you so love to pretend says something it doesn't

Please, give up here. You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

You claim to be a very much "raw" guy, yet have consistently lied about what the Facebook page says to try to "win" an argument online. This is not rude, this is a fact.

Sorry, my work filters aren't letting any of those images through, so I can't see what they are.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Official as RAW, well raw clarification given the rules already said what they clarified
Saying GW cannot vary how they deliver rules is what lacks any support, fails to be consistent given BCB accepts the community site, and is overall such a bizarre statement from a complete internet nobody that it's actually laughable. Claiming you have authority over the actual games company and can dictate how and where they publish rules is lacking in all credibility it cannot be taken seriously

Except it's not official as in anything, because the facebook page LITERALLY says it isn't rules.

Again...

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

They (the Facebook team) can't give you an official answer. Never do they say they can't post an official answer from the Game Designers.

 Ghaz wrote:
They (the Facebook team) can't give you an official answer. Never do they say they can't post an official answer from the Game Designers.

"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
They (the Facebook team) can't give you an official answer. Never do they say they can't post an official answer from the Game Designers.

"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

Not in rules, but you’re arguing about real life, so it is a valid argument.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
They (the Facebook team) can't give you an official answer. Never do they say they can't post an official answer from the Game Designers.

"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

So you can't show where GW has said that the Game Designers can only use the FAQs for rules clarifications.

 Ghaz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
They (the Facebook team) can't give you an official answer. Never do they say they can't post an official answer from the Game Designers.

"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

So you can't show where GW has said that the Game Designers can only use the FAQs for rules clarifications.

Show me where it says I can't write on a post-it note "BaconCatBug automatically wins all games" and have it be rules. That is how silly your argument is.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
They (the Facebook team) can't give you an official answer. Never do they say they can't post an official answer from the Game Designers.

"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

So you can't show where GW has said that the Game Designers can only use the FAQs for rules clarifications.

Show me where it says I can't write on a post-it note "BaconCatBug automatically wins all games" and have it be rules. That is how silly your argument is.

A fallacy is not a cogent argument.

What the games designers decide IS rules. What you decide is not.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
They (the Facebook team) can't give you an official answer. Never do they say they can't post an official answer from the Game Designers.

"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

So you can't show where GW has said that the Game Designers can only use the FAQs for rules clarifications.

Show me where it says I can't write on a post-it note "BaconCatBug automatically wins all games" and have it be rules. That is how silly your argument is.

So again, you avoid the question. Where have the Game Designers said that they can only provide rules clarifications via the FAQs. Stop making up meaningless hypothetical 'game rules' that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. The game rules don't cover where and how GW can provide rules clarifications.

 Ghaz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
They (the Facebook team) can't give you an official answer. Never do they say they can't post an official answer from the Game Designers.

"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

So you can't show where GW has said that the Game Designers can only use the FAQs for rules clarifications.

Show me where it says I can't write on a post-it note "BaconCatBug automatically wins all games" and have it be rules. That is how silly your argument is.

So again, you avoid the question. Where have the Game Designers said that they can only provide rules clarifications via the FAQs. Stop making up meaningless hypothetical 'game rules' that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. The game rules don't cover where and how GW can provide rules clarifications.

Well, to be fair, GW does say on the FAQ page of Warhammer Community:

"Looking for the latest updates to your codex or battletome? Got a question about how something in your army works? Each of these FAQs contains all of the most up-to-date errata and answers you’ll need to make sure that your games run as smoothly as possible, incorporating feedback from you guys and gals out there in the Warhammer community, the playtesters and of course, our studio design team."

The clarification is an answer to questions people had, so it would be reasonable to expect it to be in the FAQ section. Obviously they chose to provide it through another channel this time, but the page wouldn't read as good if they said "each of these FAQs contain someof the most up-to-date errata and answers."

But, GW is allowed to change their mind at any point on how they distribute their rules. (I would say doing it only on Facebook is ill advised, however, as us being up to 9 pages would attest to). We know at the very least what the rules designers' intent was, and reasonable people can adjust their play accordingly. Really, 9 pages on something that's trying to clarify a beta rule, which isn't mandatory in the first place since it's beta. Any tournament that will use the beta rule will also tell you whether they are using the clarification. Friendly tournaments should already be discussing whether we're using the beta rule. People have acknowledged that it should really be posted in the FAQ section; maybe someone should write to GW who's hot and bothered enough about this to get them to post it in the FAQ section instead of waiting about 6 months for it to be incorporated.

And, I hope this is a more reasonable way to actually try to argue BCB's point than to get up on a and make absurd strawman comparisons.

 doctortom wrote:
Well, to be fair, GW does say on the FAQ page of Warhammer Community:

"Looking for the latest updates to your codex or battletome? Got a question about how something in your army works? Each of these FAQs contains all of the most up-to-date errata and answers you’ll need to make sure that your games run as smoothly as possible, incorporating feedback from you guys and gals out there in the Warhammer community, the playtesters and of course, our studio design team."

The clarification is an answer to questions people had, so it would be reasonable to expect it to be in the FAQ section. Obviously they chose to provide it through another channel this time, but the page wouldn't read as good if they said "each of these FAQs contain someof the most up-to-date errata and answers."

But, GW is allowed to change their mind at any point on how they distribute their rules. (I would say doing it only on Facebook is ill advised, however, as us being up to 9 pages would attest to). We know at the very least what the rules designers' intent was, and reasonable people can adjust their play accordingly. Really, 9 pages on something that's trying to clarify a beta rule, which isn't mandatory in the first place since it's beta. Any tournament that will use the beta rule will also tell you whether they are using the clarification. Friendly tournaments should already be discussing whether we're using the beta rule. People have acknowledged that it should really be posted in the FAQ section; maybe someone should write to GW who's hot and bothered enough about this to get them to post it in the FAQ section instead of waiting about 6 months for it to be incorporated.

And, I hope this is a more reasonable way to actually try to argue BCB's point than to get up on a and make absurd strawman comparisons.

It's not a straw man to say that BCB has made some of the most over the top, ridiculous and frankly stupid arguments to back up his position. I'm starting to find your constant defending of him pretty grating to be honest. Sometimes, someone is just wrong. Sometimes they make an argument so profoundly ridiculous they lose credibility. I would suggest you try not to do the same; regardless of how fun it might be to play devil's advocate.

Raw = Rai = clarification by gw. There's nothing wrong with gw clarifying something on Facebook or any other media they decide. It's better than the alternative which is people shouting dubious arguments while misinterpreting rules for their own benefit.

Indeed. BCB has passed through hilarious into just fallacious. They're not even attempting to argue honestly.

 doctortom wrote:
And, I hope this is a more reasonable way to actually try to argue BCB's point than to get up on a and make absurd strawman comparisons.

OK, show me a reasonable argument that BCB has made that wasn't argued by the other side. I'll leave the definition of reasonable up to you.

The key question is what exactly does GW mean when it says "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn"?

Does it literally mean any unit that is "setup on the battlefield"? I'm not talking just Reinforcements and in-game teleporters here. That would apply to units deploying from transports also.

Or does it just apply to those in Tactical Reserves?

I guess the only official guidance we have the the paragraph of explanatory text GW gave us just before the actual rule:

The beta version of Tactical Reserves updates an existing matched play rule presented in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. The ability to arrive on the battlefield mid-game has always been powerful, enabling units that can do so to arrive where they will be most effective whilst granting them immunity from attacks until they are on the battlefield. The original wording restricts the number of units that can do so to half your army, but the intent was ‘half of your army’s strength’, so we have further clarified this to be half the power of your army. Even so, armies that use a heavy proportion of ‘reinforcement units’ are dominating many gaming tables, often decimating their foes on the first turn before their opponent has had a chance to move any of their own models. We therefore felt it necessary to reign in the power of these abilities, and so during the first battle round, such units can only be set up within their own deployment zone. This means that to be most efficient, such units may want to wait until the second battle round. Note that we have not applied this restriction to Genestealer Cults or abilities and Stratagems employed by armies such as Raven Guard – the opportunity to deploy units en masse after deployment is a central part of the design of these armies.

Wait a minute! GW provided a clarification at the same time as the rule

Yep, who'd have thought you can't just take a sentence out of a rule and apply it without context

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, who'd have thought you can't just take a sentence out of a rule and apply it without context

The blurb before the rule doesn't change what the rule does, no matter how much you whine about it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, who'd have thought you can't just take a sentence out of a rule and apply it without context

The blurb before the rule doesn't change what the rule does, no matter how much you whine about it.

You have yet to provide any reasonable explanation as to why the rule doesn't act in exactly the way the designers intend though?

You need to explain, unless I am misreading things, exactly why units that are moved via powers are considered to have gone into tactical reserves. You also need to explain why this interaction needs to follow the same rules for units that 'arrive' on to the battlefield when units that have had a power cast on them must have, by virtue of the casting rules, already arrived on the battlefield.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, who'd have thought you can't just take a sentence out of a rule and apply it without context

The blurb before the rule doesn't change what the rule does, no matter how much you whine about it.

You have yet to provide any reasonable explanation as to why the rule doesn't act in exactly the way the designers intend though?

You need to explain, unless I am misreading things, exactly why units that are moved via powers are considered to have gone into tactical reserves. You also need to explain why this interaction needs to follow the same rules for units that 'arrive' on to the battlefield when units that have had a power cast on them must have, by virtue of the casting rules, already arrived on the battlefield.

Well, the first problem is that you think units can "go into tactical reserves". That'sNotHowThatWorksThat'sNotHowAnyOfThisWorks.voxcast < For the No-Fun-Brigade: This is called tongue-in-cheek humour.

There is no such thing as "going into Tactical Reserves". The rule says "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone". The rule doesn't care HOW it arrives, just that it arrives. Da Jump (and other similar powers) says "Remove this unit from the battlefield". If they have been removed from the battlefield, when they are set up they must have arrived on the battlefield. In addition the rules for Reinforcements in the BRB states "Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn, sometimes by using teleporters, grav chutes or other, more esoteric means. Typically, this happens at the end of the Movement phase, but it can also happen during other phases." Da Jump "sets up" the unit mid phase, thus units using Da Jump arrive as reinforcements. The final line of the Reinforcements rule says "Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes[...]"

Therefore, units that are affected by Da Jump arrive as reinforcements, and thus cannot be set up outside their deployment zone Turn 1 as per the Tactical Reserves beta rule. Q.E.D.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

There is no such thing as "going into Tactical Reserves". The rule says "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone". The rule doesn't care HOW it arrives, just that it arrives. Da Jump (and other similar powers) says "Remove this unit from the battlefield". If they have been removed from the battlefield, when they are set up they must have arrived on the battlefield.

You see, this is where you're wrong. Arriving is a one time thing. Once I have arrived somewhere I cannot arrive again. That would be called returning to the battlefield or the party or whatever other example you'd like to pick.

Nowhere does the BRB or beta rules define that units that are 'set up' mid turn have 'arrived' and this is the language used in the beta rule. If the beta rule said 'any units set up on the battlefield must be placed in the controlling player's deployment zone' I'd be agreeing with you. It doesn't say that though so your argument falls down. Particularly if it relies on an incorrect interpretation of 'arrived'.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

There is no such thing as "going into Tactical Reserves". The rule says "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone". The rule doesn't care HOW it arrives, just that it arrives. Da Jump (and other similar powers) says "Remove this unit from the battlefield". If they have been removed from the battlefield, when they are set up they must have arrived on the battlefield.

You see, this is where you're wrong. Arriving is a one time thing. Once I have arrived somewhere I cannot arrive again. That would be called returning to the battlefield or the party or whatever other example you'd like to pick.

Nowhere does the BRB or beta rules define that units that are 'set up' mid turn have 'arrived' and this is the language used in the beta rule. If the beta rule said 'any units set up on the battlefield must be placed in the controlling player's deployment zone' I'd be agreeing with you. It doesn't say that though so your argument falls down. Particularly if it relies on an incorrect interpretation of 'arrived'.

To be fair I can arrive somewhere, then leave and arrive again, at a later time...

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

There is no such thing as "going into Tactical Reserves". The rule says "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone". The rule doesn't care HOW it arrives, just that it arrives. Da Jump (and other similar powers) says "Remove this unit from the battlefield". If they have been removed from the battlefield, when they are set up they must have arrived on the battlefield.

You see, this is where you're wrong. Arriving is a one time thing. Once I have arrived somewhere I cannot arrive again. That would be called returning to the battlefield or the party or whatever other example you'd like to pick.

Nowhere does the BRB or beta rules define that units that are 'set up' mid turn have 'arrived' and this is the language used in the beta rule. If the beta rule said 'any units set up on the battlefield must be placed in the controlling player's deployment zone' I'd be agreeing with you. It doesn't say that though so your argument falls down. Particularly if it relies on an incorrect interpretation of 'arrived'.

If I arrive at the train station, go back home because I forgot my ticket, then go back to the train station, am I not arriving at the train station when I go back?

I already showed you that the Reinforcement rules treats being set up mid phase as arriving, and that's not even including the fact you LITERALLY remove the unit from the battlefield. Once it's removed, it's not on the battlefield anymore, and when you set it up again it must, by definition, be arriving on the battlefield. It was not on the battlefield, now it is. How can you not say that is arriving?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If I arrive at the train station, go back home because I forgot my ticket, then go back to the train station, am I not arriving at the train station when I go back?

No, I'd say you were returning.

baconcatbug wrote:I already showed you that the Reinforcement rules treats being set up mid phase as arriving, and that's not even including the fact you LITERALLY remove the unit from the battlefield. Once it's removed, it's not on the battlefield anymore, and when you set it up again it must, by definition, be arriving on the battlefield. It was not on the battlefield, now it is. How can you not say that is arriving?

No, you didn't show me that the reinforcement rules treat units set up as arriving. Nowhere have you shown this. This is your issue - you believe you've shown something that you haven't. Again you are wrong - there isn't a definition of 'arriving' in the brb. So you are yet again making assumptions which, for someone supposedly so obsessed with raw is telling. As I said above, I'd call a unit that was removed from the battlefield and replaced on the battlefield immediately "returning" not arriving. If you forget your wallet you return to the train station, you don't arrive.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If I arrive at the train station, go back home because I forgot my ticket, then go back to the train station, am I not arriving at the train station when I go back?

No, I'd say you were returning.

baconcatbug wrote:I already showed you that the Reinforcement rules treats being set up mid phase as arriving, and that's not even including the fact you LITERALLY remove the unit from the battlefield. Once it's removed, it's not on the battlefield anymore, and when you set it up again it must, by definition, be arriving on the battlefield. It was not on the battlefield, now it is. How can you not say that is arriving?

No, you didn't show me that the reinforcement rules treat units set up as arriving. Nowhere have you shown this. This is your issue - you believe you've shown something that you haven't. Again you are wrong - there isn't a definition of 'arriving' in the brb. So you are yet again making assumptions which, for someone supposedly so obsessed with raw is telling. As I said above, I'd call a unit that was removed from the battlefield and replaced on the battlefield immediately "returning" not arriving. If you forget your wallet you return to the train station, you don't arrive.

Did you not see the final line of the reinforcement rule which I literally quoted? The one that says units that are set up as reinforcements are arriving?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If I arrive at the train station, go back home because I forgot my ticket, then go back to the train station, am I not arriving at the train station when I go back?

No, I'd say you were returning.

baconcatbug wrote:I already showed you that the Reinforcement rules treats being set up mid phase as arriving, and that's not even including the fact you LITERALLY remove the unit from the battlefield. Once it's removed, it's not on the battlefield anymore, and when you set it up again it must, by definition, be arriving on the battlefield. It was not on the battlefield, now it is. How can you not say that is arriving?

No, you didn't show me that the reinforcement rules treat units set up as arriving. Nowhere have you shown this. This is your issue - you believe you've shown something that you haven't. Again you are wrong - there isn't a definition of 'arriving' in the brb. So you are yet again making assumptions which, for someone supposedly so obsessed with raw is telling. As I said above, I'd call a unit that was removed from the battlefield and replaced on the battlefield immediately "returning" not arriving. If you forget your wallet you return to the train station, you don't arrive.

Did you not see the final line of the reinforcement rule which I literally quoted? The one that says units that are set up as reinforcements are arriving?

That's not what it says though is it? It says 'units arriving as reinforcements' which is a completely different thing to 'reinforcements are considered to have arrived for all rules purposes'. In fact it insenuates that units can be set up as reinforcements but not be considered to be arriving on the battlefield, as I believe and GW have clarified.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, who'd have thought you can't just take a sentence out of a rule and apply it without context

The blurb before the rule doesn't change what the rule does, no matter how much you whine about it.

1) no whining, you seem to be confused again
2) nope, no it diesnt. Context again.
3) found your proof in the brb that allows you to use the errata yet? Or found where you can ignore the rules clarification provided by GW rule team?
I note you haven't commented on you literally being wrong about what GW actually said. No concession, to maybe show some good grace?

I'll concede when I am wrong when I am actually wrong. So far I have been 100% in the right, because I follow the rules.

You won't concede that when you stated GW "literally" said something, that they in fact didn't, that you were therefore wrong?
Really? Despite the quotes proving you repeatedly misrepresented what GW said, in a lame attempt to make your position less flawed?

That position being, of course, that GW isn't allowed to choose how they deliver rules and rules clarifications, only you can decide this?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You won't concede that when you stated GW "literally" said something, that they in fact didn't, that you were therefore wrong?
Really? Despite the quotes proving you repeatedly misrepresented what GW said, in a lame attempt to make your position less flawed?

That position being, of course, that GW isn't allowed to choose how they deliver rules and rules clarifications, only you can decide this?

GW is allowed to choose how they deliver rules and rules clarifications. And the way they have chosen is through the official FAQ and Errata documents. The GW Facebook page says they aren't official rules, so they aren't. It's that simple and no amount of pleading to authority is going to change that.