Generally not. Check the FAQs for the individual abilities. I know for a fact that Warptime cannot be used on units that arrived on the battlefield the same turn though.
You cannot move a unit that is set up as reinforcements for any reason.
Rulebook update 1.3 :
The rules for reinforcements say that when a unit is set up on
the battlefield as reinforcements, it cannot move or Advance
further that turn, but can otherwise act normally (shoot,
charge, etc.).
Q: Can such a unit make a charge move? Can it pile in
and consolidate?
A: Yes to both questions – the unit can declare a charge
and make a charge move, and if it is chosen to fight, it
can pile in and consolidate.
Q: Can such a unit move or Advance for any other reason
e.g. because of an ability such as The Swarmlord’s Hive
Commander ability, or because of a psychic power such as
Warptime from the Dark Hereticus discipline, or because
of a Stratagem like Metabolic Overdrive from Codex:
Tyranids, etc.?
A: No.
p5freak wrote: You cannot move a unit that is set up as reinforcements for any reason.
Rulebook update 1.3 :
The rules for reinforcements say that when a unit is set up on
the battlefield as reinforcements, it cannot move or Advance
further that turn, but can otherwise act normally (shoot,
charge, etc.).
Q: Can such a unit make a charge move? Can it pile in
and consolidate?
A: Yes to both questions – the unit can declare a charge
and make a charge move, and if it is chosen to fight, it
can pile in and consolidate.
Q: Can such a unit move or Advance for any other reason
e.g. because of an ability such as The Swarmlord’s Hive
Commander ability, or because of a psychic power such as
Warptime from the Dark Hereticus discipline, or because
of a Stratagem like Metabolic Overdrive from Codex:
Tyranids, etc.?
A: No.
Thing is this is FAQ entry recarding tactical reserves. Da jump etc are NOT tactical reserves so this FAQ does not apply to them. Albeit no ability exists to move da jumped but maybe does for dark matter or veil of darkness.
You are confusing tactical reserves with reinforcements, they are different rules. Da jump, dark matter crystal and veil of darkness remove unit(s) from the battlefield and sets them up again as reinforcements. You can da jump units already on the battlefield in the first battle round (you cant do that with units that werent deployed on the battlefield, the tactical reserves rules prevents this). If you do they are set up as reinforcements, and they cant move again. The FAQ applies to them.
p5freak wrote: You are confusing tactical reserves with reinforcements, they are different rules. Da jump, dark matter crystal and veil of darkness remove unit(s) from the battlefield and sets them up again as reinforcements. You can da jump units already on the battlefield in the first battle round (you cant do that with units that werent deployed on the battlefield, the tactical reserves rules prevents this). If you do they are set up as reinforcements, and they cant move again. The FAQ applies to them.
Nice try. Note however Da Jump rules make zero reference to word "reinforcements". Nowhere in the spell it says they set up again as reinforcements.
Albeit I don't know the other 2 but for da jump that faq entry does not apply in whatsoever way.
Yeah, p5freak is getting confused with the old errata that claimed such units were treated as reinforcements, but that has been removed. See top left of page 7 in the Core Rulebook FAQ. Such units count as having moved, but do not count as reinforcements.
ikeulhu wrote: Yeah, p5freak is getting confused with the old errata that claimed such units were treated as reinforcements, but that has been removed. See top left of page 7 in the Core Rulebook FAQ. Such units count as having moved, but do not count as reinforcements.
This change was pretty tricky to spot.
I am assuming that this means that combos like Dark Matter Crystal + warptime are valid and legal.
Agreed. It was a bit of a stealthy change, and I do not blame anyone for not noticing it. The magenta text in the FAQs is useful for finding new additions, but unfortunately there is not an easy way to notice anything that has been recently removed...
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.
This doesnt change what reinforcements are. If GW wanted to change the reinforcement rule they would have done it on pg.3 of the core rules. All this does is telling us that units that were set up again count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons. They are still reinforcements, core rules pg.3 reinforcements is unchanged.
doctortom wrote: Rules citation please for them not being reinforcements.
Careful there, you're verging on being impolite!
p5freak is correct, any unit that arrives onto the battlefield mid-phase is reinforcements, because the definition of what reinforcements means in 40k says that they are.
Units that use either Da Jump, Dark Matter Crystal or Veil of Darkness.
Can these units be chosen to move again with an ability in the shooting phase or physic phase. ??
Easiest example is Thousand Sons using Dark Matter Crystal and Warptime.
Is this allowed
Yes DMC followed by warptime is legal since they removed the FAQ defining units that relocate by such means as reinforcements.
The main rulebook text is referring to units that have been designated as Tactical Reserves and not yet set up on the table at all, which are therefore classed as reinforcements on arrival. You have to remember this text was written prior to such relics, FAQs and amendments to FAQs.
The main rulebook text is referring to units that have been designated as Tactical Reserves and not yet set up on the table at all, which are therefore classed as reinforcements on arrival. You have to remember this text was written prior to such relics, FAQs and amendments to FAQs.
The main rulebook text is referring to units that have been designated as Tactical Reserves and not yet set up on the table at all, which are therefore classed as reinforcements on arrival. You have to remember this text was written prior to such relics, FAQs and amendments to FAQs.
No, nothing has changed what reinforcements are.
Previous FAQ and their subsequent amendments prove you wrong.
You cannot move a unit that is set up as reinforcements for any reason.
Rulebook update 1.3 :
The rules for reinforcements say that when a unit is set up on
the battlefield as reinforcements, it cannot move or Advance
further that turn, but can otherwise act normally (shoot,
charge, etc.).
Q: Can such a unit make a charge move? Can it pile in
and consolidate?
A: Yes to both questions – the unit can declare a charge
and make a charge move, and if it is chosen to fight, it
can pile in and consolidate.
Q: Can such a unit move or Advance for any other reason
e.g. because of an ability such as The Swarmlord’s Hive
Commander ability, or because of a psychic power such as
Warptime from the Dark Hereticus discipline, or because
of a Stratagem like Metabolic Overdrive from Codex:
Tyranids, etc.?
A: No.
Thing is this is FAQ entry recarding tactical reserves. Da jump etc are NOT tactical reserves so this FAQ does not apply to them. Albeit no ability exists to move da jumped but maybe does for dark matter or veil of darkness.
Sorry if I'm missing something tneva, but how are you coming to the conclusion that "this is FAQ entry recarding tactical reserves?" From what I can tell, this FAQ appears beneath the heading, Reinforcements, on page 5 of Rulebook update v 1.3.
It also begins with the phrase, "The rules for reinforcements say..."
Previous FAQ and their subsequent amendments prove you wrong.
Nothing has changed what reinforcements are. Pg. 3 core rules reinforcements is unchanged. Any unit that is set up mid-turn is reinforcements.
Except the rules don't actually say that. If they have already been set up earlier they aren't arriving as reinforcements. Confirmed by the changes to the FAQ.
Except the rules don't actually say that. If they have already been set up earlier they aren't arriving as reinforcements. Confirmed by the changes to the FAQ.
Except the rules don't actually say that. If they have already been set up earlier they aren't arriving as reinforcements. Confirmed by the changes to the FAQ.
Citation please.
Games Workshop, WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.3, p7, paragraph 1
Now, can you back up your claim that ANY unit that is set up mid turn is reinforcements?
Now, can you back up your claim that ANY unit that is set up mid turn is reinforcements?
I already did that in this thread, multiple times. I wont bother to repeat myself again.
No, you didn't, because it doesn't say what you think it does, but thanks for your opinion nonetheless. At this point, however, we are just going around in circles so I'll just wish you the best of luck arguing your case in any games you might play.
Now, can you back up your claim that ANY unit that is set up mid turn is reinforcements?
I already did that in this thread, multiple times. I wont bother to repeat myself again.
No, you didn't, because it doesn't say what you think it does, but thanks for your opinion nonetheless. At this point, however, we are just going around in circles so I'll just wish you the best of luck arguing your case in any games you might play.
So the things cited saying "set up" doesn't mean they're set up?
Except the rules don't actually say that. If they have already been set up earlier they aren't arriving as reinforcements. Confirmed by the changes to the FAQ.
Citation please.
Games Workshop, WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.3, p7, paragraph 1
Now, can you back up your claim that ANY unit that is set up mid turn is reinforcements?
p.7 paragraph 1 of the Rulebook FAQ is discussing whether a unit counts as having moved for purposes of moving and firing Heavy Weapons. That FAQ question and answer makes no mention of reinforcements one way or another. Sorry, your rules citation is incorrect. If you think it applies, please quote the relevant portion of what you referenced.
Now, can you back up your claim that ANY unit that is set up mid turn is reinforcements?
I already did that in this thread, multiple times. I wont bother to repeat myself again.
No, you didn't, because it doesn't say what you think it does, but thanks for your opinion nonetheless. At this point, however, we are just going around in circles so I'll just wish you the best of luck arguing your case in any games you might play.
So the things cited saying "set up" doesn't mean they're set up?
"Set up" certainly means they are set up. What it doesn't mean is that they are always set up as reinforcements.
Except the rules don't actually say that. If they have already been set up earlier they aren't arriving as reinforcements. Confirmed by the changes to the FAQ.
Citation please.
Games Workshop, WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.3, p7, paragraph 1
Now, can you back up your claim that ANY unit that is set up mid turn is reinforcements?
p.7 paragraph 1 of the Rulebook FAQ is discussing whether a unit counts as having moved for purposes of moving and firing Heavy Weapons. That FAQ question and answer makes no mention of reinforcements one way or another. Sorry, your rules citation is incorrect. If you think it applies, please quote the relevant portion of what you referenced.
It is discussing units using a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again. There is no mention of reinforcements one way or another because they are not being set up as reinforcements.
Games Workshop, WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.2, p6, column 2, paragraph 1. Please compare that with the updated FAQ and consider the implications of GW deliberately removing the 2nd sentence in the answer.
Now, can you back up your claim that ANY unit that is set up mid turn is reinforcements?
I already did that in this thread, multiple times. I wont bother to repeat myself again.
No, you didn't, because it doesn't say what you think it does, but thanks for your opinion nonetheless. At this point, however, we are just going around in circles so I'll just wish you the best of luck arguing your case in any games you might play.
So the things cited saying "set up" doesn't mean they're set up?
"Set up" certainly means they are set up. What it doesn't mean is that they are always set up as reinforcements.
The reinforcements sidebar treats units that are set up during a phase in a turn after deployment as refinforcements. Again, please provide a rules quotation that explicitly states that they aren't reinforcements.
Except the rules don't actually say that. If they have already been set up earlier they aren't arriving as reinforcements. Confirmed by the changes to the FAQ.
Citation please.
Games Workshop, WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.3, p7, paragraph 1
Now, can you back up your claim that ANY unit that is set up mid turn is reinforcements?
p.7 paragraph 1 of the Rulebook FAQ is discussing whether a unit counts as having moved for purposes of moving and firing Heavy Weapons. That FAQ question and answer makes no mention of reinforcements one way or another. Sorry, your rules citation is incorrect. If you think it applies, please quote the relevant portion of what you referenced.
It is discussing units using a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again. There is no mention of reinforcements one way or another because they are not being set up as reinforcements.
Lack of mention one way or another does not mean they don not count as that when there is a rule elsewhere that establishes that they are (the reinforcements sidebar).
Tonberry7 wrote: Games Workshop, WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.2, p6, column 2, paragraph 1. Please compare that with the updated FAQ and consider the implications of GW deliberately removing the 2nd sentence in the answer.
Please provide the actual quotation you are referring to. We have no earlier version of the FAQ to refer back to to make such comparisons on their site. Please make everybody's life easier on people by providing actual quotations as opposed to references to things not available on the GW website now.
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.
Previous:
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.
That change to the FAQ doesn't change what the rules say. Unless the FAQ is changed to say "They are not treated as reinforcements.", the rules say they do.
Tonberry7 wrote: Games Workshop, WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.2, p6, column 2, paragraph 1. Please compare that with the updated FAQ and consider the implications of GW deliberately removing the 2nd sentence in the answer.
Please provide the actual quotation you are referring to. We have no earlier version of the FAQ to refer back to to make such comparisons on their site. Please make everybody's life easier on people by providing actual quotations as opposed to references to things not available on the GW website now.
You asked for a citation not a quotation. Please make your mind up. If you don't have the earlier version then your opinions throughout have been poorly informed and therefore of little merit.
BaconCatBug wrote: That change to the FAQ doesn't change what the rules say. Unless the FAQ is changed to say "They are not treated as reinforcements.", the rules say they do.
Changes to FAQs are definitely changing what the rules say. Prior to 1.3 these units were treated as reinforcements as explicitly stated. Removal of this statement in 1.3 demonstrates that they are henceforth not to be treated as reinforcements and nowhere else in the rules say that they are. It really is that simple.
Tonberry7 wrote: Changes to FAQs are definitely changing what the rules say. Prior to 1.3 these units were treated as reinforcements as explicitly stated. Removal of this statement in 1.3 demonstrates that they are henceforth not to be treated as reinforcements and nowhere else in the rules say that they are. It really is that simple.
That logic is totally backward. The FAQ now doesn't say one way or the other whether they are reinforcements or not, thus we default to the rules in the rulebook, which say they are.
Tonberry7 wrote: Changes to FAQs are definitely changing what the rules say. Prior to 1.3 these units were treated as reinforcements as explicitly stated. Removal of this statement in 1.3 demonstrates that they are henceforth not to be treated as reinforcements and nowhere else in the rules say that they are. It really is that simple.
That logic is totally backward. The FAQ now doesn't say one way or the other whether they are reinforcements or not, thus we default to the rules in the rulebook, which say they are.
Therefore, they are.
No, the logic is sound. If removing an FAQ statement that defines them as reinforcements is of no relevance or consequence, why deliberately do it? It's a shaky argument, however, to stick your head in the sand and pretend that ruling never existed rather it than having been demonstrably rescinded. In any event, as it stands, the rules now don't say anywhere that they are treated as reinforcements.
Tonberry7 wrote: Changes to FAQs are definitely changing what the rules say. Prior to 1.3 these units were treated as reinforcements as explicitly stated. Removal of this statement in 1.3 demonstrates that they are henceforth not to be treated as reinforcements and nowhere else in the rules say that they are. It really is that simple.
That logic is totally backward. The FAQ now doesn't say one way or the other whether they are reinforcements or not, thus we default to the rules in the rulebook, which say they are.
Therefore, they are.
No, the logic is sound. If removing an FAQ statement that defines them as reinforcements is of no relevance or consequence, why deliberately do it? It's a shaky argument, however, to stick your head in the sand and pretend that ruling never existed rather it than having been demonstrably rescinded. In any event, as it stands, the rules now don't say anywhere that they are treated as reinforcements.
Therefore, they aren't.
The rules LITERALLY say units that are set up mid phase are reinforcements. It is, again, literally explicitly stated. It could not be more clear without GW making an FAQ saying "Are units that are set up mid phase reinforcements? Yes"
Here is the entire sidebar from the core rules, yellow for emphasis.
BRB Page 177 wrote:REINFORCEMENTS 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. Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive – their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield – but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.) for the rest of their turn. Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons (pg 180). Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed.
Every single teleport effect in 8th instructs you to set up the unit. You are setting up the unit mid phase. That is what Reinforcements are.
Now, do we have a problem where FAQs contradict the rules of what Reinforcements can do later that turn? Yes and it's well known how I feel about those FAQs. But this particular FAQ does not change anything.
You are asserting that all units set up are reinforcements. This is not a correct RAW reading.
Per your quote, all reinforcements are set up mid turn. This does not mean all units set up mid turn are reinforcements. It is a very simple affirming the consequent fallacy.
Units that have already been set up on the board and then re-setup are not reinforcements. It fails the english language test, it fails the FAQ context test as outlined above, it fails the further clarification from GW test.
Sorry Halfpast_Yellow, but your argument isn't logical. No unit entry or rule refers to setting up a unit as reinforcements. They just tell you to setup the unit. So either every unit set up mid-turn are reinforcements or none of them are.
I'm no rules lawyer, and I don't really have any bone in this fight, but it seems to me that this thread is starting to go on a bit, and is becoming a little bit uncivil at times, and it seems to me that we are no closer to actually giving khsofsos an answer to his question. So I'd like, if I may, to try to summarize a few of the main arguments in this thread, and to try to expand upon/counter/question some of them further. Please don't take offense if I don't quote one of your points in this post; I'm just trying to grasp the important ones as I see them. Also please don't take any personal offense if I make an argument against yours. I know its sometimes easy to come across as condescending when communicating using only text, but I assure you that I have nothing but respect for the arguments I am quoting here.
khsofsos wrote:
Spoiler:
Hi everyone. Quick question.
Units that use either Da Jump, Dark Matter Crystal or Veil of Darkness.
Can these units be chosen to move again with an ability in the shooting phase or physic phase. ??
Easiest example is Thousand Sons using Dark Matter Crystal and Warptime.
Is this allowed
Now I personally don't have access to any of the special rules that you mentioned, so I am immediately at a disadvantage and already have to make several (dangerous) assumptions from the get go. That said, a quick google image search, tells me that Da Jump is an Ork psychic ability that allows a unit to be "removed from the battlefield" and then "set up" again, and that this unit counts as "having moved for the purposes of any rules."
It seems to me, that the crux of answering this question lies in whether or not units removed and set up in this way count as reinforcements or not. This seems to be the sticking point that most in this thread are arguing most passionately about. My feeling is that if we could reach some conclusion about this point together, then the answer to your question would be quite trivial. That is, that if the unit counts as reinforcements, then it cannot be moved again for any other reason. However, if said unit does not count as reinforcements, then nothing prohibits them from being moved again.
p5freak wrote:Read the core rule pg.3 reinforcements. Any unit(s) set up mid turn are reinforcements.
The actual wording is, "Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn..." and later, "Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive..."
It does not say specifically that, "Any unit(s) set up mid turn are reinforcements," but I can certainly see how it could be interpreted that way. Personally, I think the language used here is ambiguous, and I have sympathy for both interpretations.
In support of them being reinforcements:
The phrase "set up on the battlefield mid turn" is used and it is in used the context of a rule titled reinforcements
In support of them not being reinforcements:
There is no explicit statement saying that all units set up mid turn are reinforcements
The usual understanding of the word reinforcements would relate to units arriving on the battlefield from elsewhere rather than units that are already present
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.
Previous:
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.
I would argue quite firmly, that one should only be required to consider changes between an FAQ and it's source material, rather than each iteration of changes in between. After all, it's not called FAQ 3 of FAQ 2 of FAQ 1 of the Rulebook; it's just FAQ 1.3. To do otherwise would be an excercise in madness. Can you imagine if the FAQ ever reaches 1.23?
That being said, in this instance, the difference is very interesting, and perhaps gives an insight into what the writers were thinking at the time.
In conclusion, I think the only conclusion that can be safely drawn, is that it's extremely difficult to draw any conclusion, safely. On the one hand, by my interpretation, the reinforcements rule does not explicitly define all units that are removed and set up as reinforcements, although the rule itself does contain those words, and coupled with the general interpretation of the word reinforcements, means that, rules-as-written, the new movement is not explicitly forbidden, and therefore must be allowed. On the other hand, such an action seems a bit... filthy if you ask me, and I don't imagine it would make one the most popular player in the room.
The actual solution? Discuss it with your opponent. If you can't agree? Roll off. And as with all things in life, continually ask yourself the question, "is this worth losing a friend over?"
Tonberry7 wrote: Changes to FAQs are definitely changing what the rules say. Prior to 1.3 these units were treated as reinforcements as explicitly stated. Removal of this statement in 1.3 demonstrates that they are henceforth not to be treated as reinforcements and nowhere else in the rules say that they are. It really is that simple.
That logic is totally backward. The FAQ now doesn't say one way or the other whether they are reinforcements or not, thus we default to the rules in the rulebook, which say they are.
Therefore, they are.
No, the logic is sound. If removing an FAQ statement that defines them as reinforcements is of no relevance or consequence, why deliberately do it? It's a shaky argument, however, to stick your head in the sand and pretend that ruling never existed rather it than having been demonstrably rescinded. In any event, as it stands, the rules now don't say anywhere that they are treated as reinforcements.
Therefore, they aren't.
The rules LITERALLY say units that are set up mid phase are reinforcements. It is, again, literally explicitly stated. It could not be more clear without GW making an FAQ saying "Are units that are set up mid phase reinforcements? Yes"
Here is the entire sidebar from the core rules, yellow for emphasis.
BRB Page 177 wrote:REINFORCEMENTS
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. Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive – their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield – but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.) for the rest of their turn. Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons (pg 180). Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed.
Every single teleport effect in 8th instructs you to set up the unit. You are setting up the unit mid phase. That is what Reinforcements are.
Now, do we have a problem where FAQs contradict the rules of what Reinforcements can do later that turn? Yes and it's well known how I feel about those FAQs. But this particular FAQ does not change anything.
Unfortunately you're now making things up to reinforce your opinion. The word literally doesn't mean what you think it means; at no point do the rules state "units that are set up mid phase are reinforcements" It is, therefore, not literally explicitly stated that this is the case as you claim, otherwise you would have been able to apply your yellow highlight to this text.
Again, this particular section was written before things like the DMC existed and so doesn't offer much clarity on this situation. Hence the need for the FAQ.
Tonberry7 wrote: Changes to FAQs are definitely changing what the rules say. Prior to 1.3 these units were treated as reinforcements as explicitly stated. Removal of this statement in 1.3 demonstrates that they are henceforth not to be treated as reinforcements and nowhere else in the rules say that they are. It really is that simple.
That logic is totally backward. The FAQ now doesn't say one way or the other whether they are reinforcements or not, thus we default to the rules in the rulebook, which say they are.
Therefore, they are.
No, the logic is sound. If removing an FAQ statement that defines them as reinforcements is of no relevance or consequence, why deliberately do it? It's a shaky argument, however, to stick your head in the sand and pretend that ruling never existed rather it than having been demonstrably rescinded. In any event, as it stands, the rules now don't say anywhere that they are treated as reinforcements.
Therefore, they aren't.
To be fair, while you have asserted that the FAQ has been changed, you have not demonstrated it.
This is why it's considered bad form to rely on publications which are no longer available as proof; otherwise I could make up a sentence that has been "removed" from the FAQ and post a quote as "obvious proof" of RAI.
Also, I suspect that the sentence in question may have been removed to reduce possible confusion over reinforcement points. We don't know why the designers removed it, so it's potentially misleading to assume it was removed for any given reason and use that as support of one specific position.
Tonberry7 wrote: ...at no point do the rules state "units that are set up mid phase are reinforcements" It is, therefore, not literally explicitly stated that this is the case as you claim, otherwise you would have been able to apply your yellow highlight to this text.
Again, this particular section was written before things like the DMC existed and so doesn't offer much clarity on this situation. Hence the need for the FAQ.
Umm they may not say that exact sentence, but it literally is the case that units that are set up mid phase are reinforcements... Read the whole reinforcements rule.
Battle Primer Page 3 wrote:Reinforcements
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. Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive – their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield – but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.) for the rest of their turn. Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons. Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed.
They say "Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes" What "units" are the talking about here???
Could it be "units [that] have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn"?
A: Yes as the context of the rules literally tell us that they are referring to units that have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn when they mention reinforcements...
The rule is under the "Reinforcements" section of the rules. Therefore any unit that is "set up on the battlefield mid-turn" are "Reinforcements".
Anyone that says otherwise is not making a valid argument as I have a clear rules citation to back up what I have stated.
Tonberry7 wrote: Changes to FAQs are definitely changing what the rules say. Prior to 1.3 these units were treated as reinforcements as explicitly stated. Removal of this statement in 1.3 demonstrates that they are henceforth not to be treated as reinforcements and nowhere else in the rules say that they are. It really is that simple.
That logic is totally backward. The FAQ now doesn't say one way or the other whether they are reinforcements or not, thus we default to the rules in the rulebook, which say they are.
Therefore, they are.
No, the logic is sound. If removing an FAQ statement that defines them as reinforcements is of no relevance or consequence, why deliberately do it? It's a shaky argument, however, to stick your head in the sand and pretend that ruling never existed rather it than having been demonstrably rescinded. In any event, as it stands, the rules now don't say anywhere that they are treated as reinforcements.
Therefore, they aren't.
To be fair, while you have asserted that the FAQ has been changed, you have not demonstrated it.
This is why it's considered bad form to rely on publications which are no longer available as proof; otherwise I could make up a sentence that has been "removed" from the FAQ and post a quote as "obvious proof" of RAI.
The two different FAQ were kindly posted above, demonstrating the changes. I can only assume you've overlooked that. Agreed, making up sentences and claiming they had been removed would be very bad form.
Hi DeathReaper. Without regard to the FAQs that others have mentioned, I don't think it's certain that you can interpret all units being set up in this way as reinforcements, nor do I think it's certain that you can't. While it's a fair point that sometimes the nature of a rule requires it to be read in full to provide some context, rather than by relying on precise but incomplete individual components of said rule, it seems to me that for this rule in particular, Tonberry is correct to point out that
Tonberry7 wrote: ...at no point do the rules state "units that are set up mid phase are reinforcements"
I think it's unfortunate that the statements you have highlighted
Battle Primer Page 3 wrote:
Spoiler:
Reinforcements
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. Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive – their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield – but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.) for the rest of their turn. Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons. Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed.
serve to confuse the issue further, because although they do all contain the language necessary to define reinforcements as you are interpreting it, those phrases are not constructed together in way that explicitly defines reinforcements in that way.
Anyone that says otherwise is not making a valid argument as I have a clear rules citation to back up what I have stated.
I don't think it's fair to say that the citation is clear. I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong. If anything the depth to which people are arguing here shows that the rule is ambiguous at best. I don't think it would be fair to assume that those who think it's not clear are just not as adept at interpreting rules as others. Nor do I agree with those who would claim that the FAQs put that ambiguity to rest. I think what is required here is a clear FAQ on the precise definition of what constitutes reinforcements.
Reinforcements
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. Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive – their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield – but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.) for the rest of their turn. Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons. Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed.
The red line tells us that units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons.
And here is the confirmation by the latest FAQ :
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes.
A unit that is removed from the battlefield and is set up again count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons. Thus, these units are reinforcements.
To be fair, while you have asserted that the FAQ has been changed, you have not demonstrated it.
This is why it's considered bad form to rely on publications which are no longer available as proof; otherwise I could make up a sentence that has been "removed" from the FAQ and post a quote as "obvious proof" of RAI.
The two different FAQ were kindly posted above, demonstrating the changes. I can only assume you've overlooked that. Agreed, making up sentences and claiming they had been removed would be very bad form.
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.
Previous:
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.
These aren't links to the FAQs - they're quotes. Importantly, there's no way to verify that the claimed text of the previous FAQ is correct. For example, I could just as easily claim the following as the previous version:
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. Note that such units do not count as arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements.
This is why I was saying that you had asserted the text instead of demonstrating it. (Admittedly I had missed that the "previous text" was posted by someone else, but the point stands.)
Reinforcements
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. Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive – their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield – but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.) for the rest of their turn. Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons. Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed.
The red line tells us that units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons.
And here is the confirmation by the latest FAQ :
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes.
A unit that is removed from the battlefield and is set up again count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons. Thus, these units are reinforcements.
A crow is a bird, and a pigeon is a bird. Thus, a crow is a pigeon.
A crow is a bird, and a pigeon is a bird. Thus, a crow is a pigeon.
That's a false equivalence I'm afraid.
If the first sentence of the Reinforcements rule isn't defining reinforcements then nothing does. There is nothing else that the sentence "Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having move" can be referring to.
A crow is a bird, and a pigeon is a bird. Thus, a crow is a pigeon.
That's a false equivalence I'm afraid.
If the first sentence of the Reinforcements rule isn't defining reinforcements then nothing does. There is nothing else that the sentence "Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having move" can be referring to.
A crow is a bird, and a pigeon is a bird. Thus, a crow is a pigeon.
That's a false equivalence I'm afraid.
If the first sentence of the Reinforcements rule isn't defining reinforcements then nothing does. There is nothing else that the sentence "Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having move" can be referring to.
Reinforcements is self-defining.
What does that mean? What exactly are Reinforcements then?
A crow is a bird, and a pigeon is a bird. Thus, a crow is a pigeon.
That's a false equivalence I'm afraid.
If the first sentence of the Reinforcements rule isn't defining reinforcements then nothing does. There is nothing else that the sentence "Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having move" can be referring to.
But a unit that is teleporting from one point on the table isn't arriving, is it? It was already on the battlefield. The part about moving and firing heavy weapons only applies to units that are actually arriving through those means, according to a strict reading of the rules.
The issue is that the rules appear to have been written on the assumption that "reinforcements" are units which are not on the table at the start of the game, and are using special rules to join the battle (hence the use of words like "arrive".) Similar language was then used for other abilities which allow units to do short-range teleports mid-battle, and it's not clear whether these are supposed to use the same rules or not.
I personally feel that units teleporting from one point of the battlefield to another mid-battle should be treated in the same way as reinforcements for the purpose of moving, shooting etc, but I don't think the rules as written are incontrovertible. There's definitely some vague language and undefined terminology going on here.
A crow is a bird, and a pigeon is a bird. Thus, a crow is a pigeon.
That's a false equivalence I'm afraid.
If the first sentence of the Reinforcements rule isn't defining reinforcements then nothing does. There is nothing else that the sentence "Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having move" can be referring to.
But a unit that is teleporting from one point on the table isn't arriving, is it? It was already on the battlefield. The part about moving and firing heavy weapons only applies to units that are actually arriving through those means.
The issue is that the rules appear to have been written on the assumption that "reinforcements" are units which are not on the table at the start of the game, and are using special rules to join the battle (hence the use of words like "arrive".) Similar language was then used for other abilities which allow units to do short-range teleports mid-battle, and it's not clear whether these are supposed to use the same rules or not.
That's the crux of the issue. I don't have a bias in this, I'm just trying to understand it.
I've not seen a convincing argument that teleported units aren't arriving though. Because they've been taken off the battlefield.
My position is that it needs more clarification, but the default interpretation should be that they are Reinforcements because that fits best with the RAW.
The red line tells us that units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons.
Yes, it does, but it only tell us this. It does not explicitly tell us that they are reinforcements.
And here is the confirmation by the latest FAQ :
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes.
And this statement reaffirms it, but it reaffirms only that they have moved. It does not explicitly tell us that they are reinforcements.
A unit that is removed from the battlefield and is set up again count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons.
Yes.
Thus, these units are reinforcements.
No. Perhaps this is implied, but it is not explicit. The only source I can find that makes this statement explicitly, is you.
Again, I'm not saying that this interpretation is wrong. You're interpretation is supported by the fact that these behaviors (removed and set up) are described in a rule called Reinforcements, but again, nowhere in this rule is it explicitly stated that all units removed and set up this way are reinforcements.
The red line tells us that units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons.
Yes, it does, but it only tell us this. It does not explicitly tell us that they are reinforcements.
And here is the confirmation by the latest FAQ :
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes.
And this statement reaffirms it, but it reaffirms only that they have moved. It does not explicitly tell us that they are reinforcements.
A unit that is removed from the battlefield and is set up again count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons.
Yes.
Thus, these units are reinforcements.
No. Perhaps this is implied, but it is not explicit. The only source I can find that makes this statement explicitly, is you.
Again, I'm not saying that this interpretation is wrong. You're interpretation is supported by the fact that these behaviors (removed and set up) are described in a rule called Reinforcements, but again, nowhere in this rule is it explicitly stated that all units removed and set up this way are reinforcements.
That's all well and good, but I don't see any workable definition of Reinforcements presented with rules precedence other than a unit that is set up mid turn.
Unless GW gives further clarification that is what we have to work with.
That's all well and good, but I don't see any workable definition of Reinforcements presented with rules precedence other than a unit that is set up mid turn.
Unless GW gives further clarification that is what we have to work with.
We also have the general understanding of the word reinforcements, which would apply only to units that arrived on the battlefield from somewhere else, as opposed to units that move from one part of the battlefield to another, and we absolutely need further clarification; I don't think anyone disputes that. But what we have to work with, still does not explicitly apply to units moved using Da Jump etc. We can argue that it does by implication, and I'd like to reiterate that I am in favor of that interpretation, but it is not explicit.
That's all well and good, but I don't see any workable definition of Reinforcements presented with rules precedence other than a unit that is set up mid turn.
Unless GW gives further clarification that is what we have to work with.
We also have the general understanding of the word reinforcements, which would apply only to units that arrived on the battlefield from somewhere else, as opposed to units that move from one part of the battlefield to another, and we absolutely need further clarification; I don't think anyone disputes that. But what we have to work with, still does not explicitly apply to units moved using Da Jump etc. We can argue that it does by implication, and I'd like to reiterate that I am in favor of that interpretation, but it is not explicit.
Common English interpretation of Reinforcements isn't particularly relevant when we have a passage describing what reinforcements are.
It might not be intuitive, but there are lots of unintuitive things that are clearly how you are supposed to play the game.
Common English interpretation of Reinforcements isn't particularly relevant when we have a passage describing what reinforcements are.
It might not be intuitive, but there are lots of unintuitive things that are clearly how you are supposed to play the game.
Yes, the passage describes Reinforcements, but again, it does not explicitly say that all units removed and set up again are considered reinforcements. It may be implied, it may be unintuitive, it may even be how we are supposed to play, but it is absolutely not clear.
Common English interpretation of Reinforcements isn't particularly relevant when we have a passage describing what reinforcements are.
It might not be intuitive, but there are lots of unintuitive things that are clearly how you are supposed to play the game.
Yes, the passage describes Reinforcements, but again, it does not explicitly say that all units removed and set up again are considered reinforcements. It may be implied, it may be unintuitive, it may even be how we are supposed to play, but it is absolutely not clear.
I'm not saying anything with 100% conviction. But we need something workable to play with until a time where there is more information. And one interpretation, in my opinion, holds a lot more water than the other.
1) One of these arguments is using the difference between an out of date FAQ and a current FAQ as proof - this is not how it works, as if I were to look now, there is no evidence of the removed sentence - meaning only players who read and remembered the old FAQ would know how the rules work.
2) The reinforcements paragraph goes into depth about whether the unit counts as having moved for the purposes of firing heavy weapons. This is explicitly stated. The fact that the FAQ had to add a question in as to whether units moved via da jump etc count as having moved for the purposes of firing heavy weapons, implies that they could have easily stated "These units follow the rules for reinforcements", but instead stated that they do count as having moved. if they were obviously reinforcements, then they wouldn't have had to clarify. as they were clarifying, they could easily have clarified that they were reinforcements. The fact that they did not, and simply clarified an excerpt of the reinforcement rules pertaining to heavy weapons, implies that they are not reinforcements.
As it is, I haven't seen anything to state that any unit is classed as "Reinforcements", and so any rules which apply to reinforcements don't appear to apply to anything.
My conclusions:
1) The rules are very poorly written, no news there!
2) stating that A is B because C applies to B and C applies to A is not true - otherwise one could argue equivalence in anything - a model which moves counts as having moved, as does a reinforcement, therefore is everything that moves a reinforcement?
3) people need to be more careful in quoting rules - there was a lot of "models set up mid turn are reinforcements" until someone quoted the whole rule and it turned out this isn't what it says.
Tonberry7 wrote: Games Workshop, WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.2, p6, column 2, paragraph 1. Please compare that with the updated FAQ and consider the implications of GW deliberately removing the 2nd sentence in the answer.
Please provide the actual quotation you are referring to. We have no earlier version of the FAQ to refer back to to make such comparisons on their site. Please make everybody's life easier on people by providing actual quotations as opposed to references to things not available on the GW website now.
You asked for a citation not a quotation. Please make your mind up. If you don't have the earlier version then your opinions throughout have been poorly informed and therefore of little merit.
Thanks for the personal attack there, bub. Fortunately, JohnnyHell was reasonable on this unlike yourself. Yes, I asked for a citation, but I made an apparently unwarranted assumption that it would be a citation to current rules, not something not currently available. BCB does have a good response to this.
BaconCatBug wrote: That change to the FAQ doesn't change what the rules say. Unless the FAQ is changed to say "They are not treated as reinforcements.", the rules say they do.
Changes to FAQs are definitely changing what the rules say. Prior to 1.3 these units were treated as reinforcements as explicitly stated. Removal of this statement in 1.3 demonstrates that they are henceforth not to be treated as reinforcements and nowhere else in the rules say that they are. It really is that simple.
People looking to the FAQ now do not know what the previous FAQ said. You can take the change to the FAQ as an indication of intention, but fthe change of the FAQ wording is not enough. As BCB points out, you still have what the Refinforcements sidebar says that indicates that the unit would be treated as reinforcements. If GW really wanted them to not be treated as reinforcements, they would not merely have changed the wording, but added a FAQ question about if units removed from the board and set up again elsewhere count as reinforcements. As they didn't do that, there is no RAW statement to prove that they are not reinforcements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Halfpast_Yellow wrote: You are asserting that all units set up are reinforcements. This is not a correct RAW reading.
Per your quote, all reinforcements are set up mid turn. This does not mean all units set up mid turn are reinforcements. It is a very simple affirming the consequent fallacy.
Units that have already been set up on the board and then re-setup are not reinforcements. It fails the english language test, it fails the FAQ context test as outlined above, it fails the further clarification from GW test.
The quote literally has " Typically, this happens at the end of the Movement phase, but it can also happen during other phases" in it. That means potentially it could be the start of a turn at the start of the movement phase, or at the end of the turn at the end of the last phase. What we do have is rules with these other powers, etc that say you remove the unit from the board and set it up again. The rules as they stand now do not differentiate between set up and set up again.
Again, I'm not saying that this interpretation is wrong. You're interpretation is supported by the fact that these behaviors (removed and set up) are described in a rule called Reinforcements, but again, nowhere in this rule is it explicitly stated that all units removed and set up this way are reinforcements.
Conversely, there is no rules statement that says units removed on the board and set up again aren't reinforcements, so you're left with the statement that's in the rules about units being set up after deployment. A simple FAQ question specifically addressing this is sorely needed.
Ah, I didn't realise people were committing a logical fallacy
A implies b does not mean that b implies a.
Just because SOME units that are set up count as reinforcements does not mean all are
We have a working definition - it's units that arrive. Not units that had already arrived.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Ah, I didn't realise people were committing a logical fallacy
A implies b does not mean that b implies a.
Just because SOME units that are set up count as reinforcements does not mean all are
We have a working definition - it's units that arrive. Not units that had already arrived.
The rules literally say all units that are set up mid game are reinforcements.
Okay, nope, I looked and I looked and I just cannot understand people saying the plain text of the rule does not say what it says.
The rule says:
Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive – their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield – but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.) for the rest of their turn.
We can all agree, I think, this prevents units "set up in this manner" (defined elsewhere) from moving further. So the question really is: what is "set up in this manner" referring to? That answer is provided in the very first sentence:
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.
Now, GW included some fluff in this so let's take it out to just have the nuts and bolts:
Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn,
And there's what "set up in this manner" is referring to. It's referring to units that are "set up on the battlefield mid-turn".
So the rule is very simple: if a unit is set up on the battlefield mid-turn, it cannot move or Advance further. That's it. This is not a "a implies b or b implies a" scenario, this is not a scenario where we can say it applies to some setups and not other setups, the rule very clearly applies to all setups and limits everything it applies to.
I mean, I'm normally the one who wants to drive a truck through RAW, but there's no wiggle room here.
ikeulhu wrote: It literally says many, not any. Those are in fact two different words.
It says "many" because not all units can be set up mid turn. Those that can are reinforcements. There is no "interpretation" to be done here. Saying that X unit isn't reinforcements despite being set up mid turn is like saying hit reroll auras affect wound rolls because they are both rolls.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Ah, I didn't realise people were committing a logical fallacy
A implies b does not mean that b implies a.
Just because SOME units that are set up count as reinforcements does not mean all are
We have a working definition - it's units that arrive. Not units that had already arrived.
The rules literally say all units that are set up mid game are reinforcements.
ikeulhu wrote: It literally says many, not any. Those are in fact two different words.
"Many" is immediately preceding and affecting "units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn". This is in reference to not ALL units having such an ability, which you can see by changing 'many' to 'any' and re-reading the sentence. "Any units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn" would give Guardsmen a teleport. "Many units have the ability..." is just describing something. The universality of the rule comes from the other sentence I focused on:
Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive
Everything that is set up mid-turn cannot move or advance.
Here’s a question: if re-deployment mid turn is a reinforcement, does the unit being re-deployed arrive at full strength?
Reinforcement does imply a new unit is arriving, not the unit that was removed, which is supported by the Astra Militarum Stratagem that lets a brand new unit replace the removed unit. However, if the re-deployed unit remains at the same strength as it was when removed, it wasn’t a reinforcement.
Just a thought exercise on why specific terms have specific meanings.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Here’s a question: if re-deployment mid turn is a reinforcement, does the unit being re-deployed arrive at full strength?
Reinforcement does imply a new unit is arriving, not the unit that was removed, which is supported by the Astra Militarum Stratagem that lets a brand new unit replace the removed unit. However, if the re-deployed unit remains at the same strength as it was when removed, it wasn’t a reinforcement.
Just a thought exercise on why specific terms have specific meanings.
SJ
...what? Why would they arrive at full strength? Reinforcement doesn't imply any such thing. It states what reinforcement means. Reinforcements are units set up on the battlefield mid-turn. There's nothing anywhere to imply they might arrive at full strength, or half-strength, or anything of the sort. They arrive in whatever condition their rule states. That's all.
If units that are re-deployed are considered reinforcements, why does the Da Jump power specify that the unit it is used on is counted as having moved for all rules purposes, since if it was a reinforcement that would already apply. Is GW just being redundant, or is the Reinforcement sidebar just sloppily written?
Personally, I do agree that this needs a FAQ or errata, as the Reinforcement sidebar can be interpreted to apply to all units that are set-up mid turn. I have a feeling that this is a case of GW writing rules that do not actually reflect what they thought they were writing, such as in the case of assault and pistol weapons.
All GW rules are written sloppily. It's even possible that the removal of the line on pg.7 of the rulebook 1.3 update was simply a copy/paste error. The editor forgot to mark the last sentence.
The red line tells us that units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons.
Yes, it does, but it only tell us this. It does not explicitly tell us that they are reinforcements.
It does if you do not ignore the context of the rule.
"units that arrive as reinforcements" What units? Well that is answered earlier in that particular section of the rules. I highlighted them in cyan above. and again below.
Battle Primer Page 3 wrote:Reinforcements
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. Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive – their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield – but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.) for the rest of their turn. Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons. Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed.
citation #1 "Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn" These are the units they are talking about in the rule. Any unit that is set up on the battlefield mid-turn.
citation #2 "Units that are set up in this manner..." In what manner? refer to citation #1
citation #3 "Units that arrive as reinforcements " What units? refer to citation #1
Yes, the passage describes Reinforcements, but again, it does not explicitly say that all units removed and set up again are considered reinforcements. It may be implied, it may be unintuitive, it may even be how we are supposed to play, but it is absolutely not clear.
It is absolutely clear if you do not ignore the context of the rules.
You keep referring to "context" as if that's some catchall excuse. The "context" of the rule is "Any unit that sets up during a turn", which includes units that "teleport".
BaconCatBug wrote: You keep referring to "context" as if that's some catchall excuse.
No I do not. Not sure why you said it was some catchall excuse, it is just literally how we need to read the rules in this case as the rule that says "Units that are set up in this manner..." does not mean anything if you ignore the context. Since the are referencing an earlier sentence you need to take the context into account to understand what the rules are talking about.
In this case "Units that are set up in this manner..." is referring to the first sentence which states "Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn" So it is talking about those specific units that are "set up on the battlefield mid-turn" (all of my quotes are from the Battle Primer Page 3 Reinforcements rule)
The "context" of the rule is "Any unit that sets up during a turn", which includes units that "teleport".
This is true. (But I am not sure why you put the quotation marks there on the word context, without reference to what you were quoting).
The writers appear to be making a distinction between units arriving on the battlefield for the first time via an innate ability or Stratagem, and those simply redeploying via ability/Stratagem having already arrived for battle earlier.
If so they haven’t done an amazing job of it at all, but that’s the best way I can find of articulating what I think they *meant* to do, but haven’t succeeded at. Colloquial rules hasn’t worked here. If they didn’t mean to lump everything together, the first FAQ stacked that completely, and revising the FAQ still leaves the Core Rules knackering that too.
If you go with a particular RAW interpretation, then the term reinforcements only applies to units that have an ability that allows them to be set up mid-turn, meaning that if the source of being set up is not an ability on their datasheet then they would not be reinforcements. This means powers like Da Jump and GoI would not apply, and neither would strategems such as Teleportarium.
Fact of the matter is GW should do a better job of defining exactly what counts as reinforcements or not. That being said, when they wrote the original sidebar, abilities were the only real source of mid turn deployment. Powers such as Da Jump that re-set up deployed units were specifically written to count those units as moving because they are not included by the sidebar. Things only started becoming murky when they introduced stratagems and FAQs that claimed (and then did not claim with the most recent) such units were reinforcements.
Major tournaments are already playing this post-faq that you can indeed use Warptime on DMC units. Note: Before BCB or other chronic "nu uhh" lads chime in with "they can house rule blah blah blah", no one cares about what you believe to be house rules or RAW. Everyone is clear on your position, we get it, for the rest of the world, this is how it is being played at the moment.
I think the root of al lthis is the idea that something is set up as a reinforcement, or that something is a reinforcement.
If we take away the idea that a unit "is a reinforcement", as no part of the rules in question declare that a unit becomes a reinforcement, nor apply restrictions exclusively to units which have become reinforcements, the "the unit isn't a reinforcement" argument falls down.
Let's just work on the principle that the wording of the rule is what needs to be analysed, not whether the title of the rule is applied by extension to the units to which it is applied at the time.
We are left with:
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. Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive – their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield – but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.) for the rest of their turn. Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons. Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed.
And I have to agree with the majority here, that any units set up mid turn cannot move or advance. because the rules state that any unit set up mid turn cannot move or advance.
remove the "this is or isn't reserves" part from your arguments, as it isn't a title to be applied to units, it's just the title of this paragraph in the rulebook. you wouldn't label a unit as "Movement" because you had to apply the "Movement" rules to them. though I do like the idea of a controversial model spending every turn labelled as "The most important rule"!
so to summarise: units being or not being reserves isn't a thing. it's just the title of the paragraph which explains the rules which apply to units set up mid turn - the purpose of this discussion.
What does it matter if their psychic phase isnt ? The FAQ already stated that units arriving as reinforcements cannot move for any reason, not with a stratagem, not with an ability, not with a psychic power.
WGXH wrote: Not to throw more fuel on the fire... but doesn’t the rule also specify that “... their entire movement phase is used...”
Wouldn’t that imply that their psychic phase isn’t? The restriction to a phase is listed there.
Sorry if this confuses matters.
They don't lose their psychic phase. The issue is that you can't use a psychic power to move a unit that is setup as reinforcements this turn. That's why it's been so important to define whether a teleported unit counts as being setup as reinforcements, which the rules are not totally clear on. Here is the relevant FAQ:
The rules for reinforcements say that when a unit is set up on
the battlefield as reinforcements, it cannot move or Advance
further that turn, but can otherwise act normally (shoot,
charge, etc.).
Q: Can such a unit move or Advance for any other reason
e.g. because of an ability such as The Swarmlord’s Hive
Commander ability, or because of a psychic power such as
Warptime from the Dark Hereticus discipline, or because
of a Stratagem like Metabolic Overdrive from Codex:
Tyranids, etc.?
A: No.
p5freak wrote: What does it matter if their psychic phase isnt ? The FAQ already stated that units arriving as reinforcements cannot move for any reason, not with a stratagem, not with an ability, not with a psychic power.
But then there is also an FAQ saying they can charge, pile in and consolidate, so who even knows what is what at this point.
Honestly how hard can it be to just make the rule "A unit that is set up at any time during a phase is considered reinforcements (this includes, but is not limited to, units that arrive from outside the battlefield and units that are removed from the battlefield to be immediately set up). Units that are considered reinforcements may not move further during the Movement, Psychic or Shooting phase that turn." GW I will literally work for you for free!
p5freak wrote: What does it matter if their psychic phase isnt ? The FAQ already stated that units arriving as reinforcements cannot move for any reason, not with a stratagem, not with an ability, not with a psychic power.
But then there is also an FAQ saying they can charge, pile in and consolidate, so who even knows what is what at this point.
If they cant move for any reason, but can charge, pile in and consolidate, those arent movement
Honestly how hard can it be to just make the rule "A unit that is set up at any time during a phase is considered reinforcements (this includes, but is not limited to, units that arrive from outside the battlefield and units that are removed from the battlefield to be immediately set up). Units that are considered reinforcements may not move further during the Movement, Psychic or Shooting phase that turn." GW I will literally work for you for free!
p5freak wrote: What does it matter if their psychic phase isnt ? The FAQ already stated that units arriving as reinforcements cannot move for any reason, not with a stratagem, not with an ability, not with a psychic power.
But then there is also an FAQ saying they can charge, pile in and consolidate, so who even knows what is what at this point.
Honestly how hard can it be to just make the rule "A unit that is set up at any time during a phase is considered reinforcements (this includes, but is not limited to, units that arrive from outside the battlefield and units that are removed from the battlefield to be immediately set up). Units that are considered reinforcements may not move further during the Movement, Psychic or Shooting phase that turn." GW I will literally work for you for free!
p5freak wrote: What does it matter if their psychic phase isnt ? The FAQ already stated that units arriving as reinforcements cannot move for any reason, not with a stratagem, not with an ability, not with a psychic power.
But then there is also an FAQ saying they can charge, pile in and consolidate, so who even knows what is what at this point.
Honestly how hard can it be to just make the rule "A unit that is set up at any time during a phase is considered reinforcements (this includes, but is not limited to, units that arrive from outside the battlefield and units that are removed from the battlefield to be immediately set up). Units that are considered reinforcements may not move further during the Movement, Psychic or Shooting phase that turn." GW I will literally work for you for free!
It breaks disembarking?
Whaddya know, turns out rules writing isn't as straight forward as some people would have you believe.
Whilst I know I've been pushing the "units set up mid phase can't move", I'm not sure whether this means that "units set up mid phase cannot be moved".
This is very different, as there is a movement phase in which a model is relocated by a specific action, which is moving.
so reasonably, one can assume that a psychic power which specifically "Allows a model to move" cannot be used (or can, but has no effect), whereas powers which relocate a model, such as "Da Jump", could, in the same way as charging is allowed.
Though by this logic, if the charging rules state that the model "moves this many inches" (and I suspect they do, don't have the book in front of me) then you could say that one can arrive mid-turn, and may declare a charge, take the overwatch, and then not move due to the rules.
If seems that the FAQ is only stating that units that are moved out of phase are to be treated as having moved in the Movement phase, and by extension, any rule that bypasses the normally rules may or may not be used on such units, depending solely on your ability to argue your case. Nice one, GW.
Wow. I have returned to Dakka for clarification. I do not have any!
I have just read this whole thread. Start to finish. I was unsure before, I am unsure now. I too noticed the removal of the clarification from the FAQ. My issue with the sentence removal is that there was absolutely no explanation for it, nor was there any additional entry to the FAQ to justify it's removal. To me, this was poor form. I can only assume the clarification was added in FAQ Ver 1.2 due to the ambiguity you have all discussed here. Which to me makes the removal of said clarification absolutely baffling.
Anyway. I want to be able to Warptime post using the DMC relic. I also believe that I could justifiably argue its use considering some of the evidence presented above. Honestly though, it is my belief that RAI I am forbidden from doing this. I don't personally agree that it is clear RAW. But I do think it tends to lend itself to restricting me considering the quoted reinforcement rule previously. As such, until there is clarification, I will not attempt to use this combination in any environment. no matte how much I want to.
As an aside, this question was asked on the GW community Facebook page. I understand that these are not official rules writers and they are not placed to make official rulings, but the question directly referred to this debate and therefore I believe it to be relevant evidence. Someone asked if warptiming post DMC was a legal move. Another poster responded, quoting the reinforcement rules as others have in this thread, and stated that due to this rule, a unit moved using DMC could not then subsequently warptime. The official Warhammer community team then replied, and agreed with the ruling that had been stated. Not hard evidence I know, but relevant I think.
Finally, as a question, has anyone emailed the GWFAQ team to ask this question? Surely if enough of us do then we should receive clarification in the future? I am hoping before the next ITC season.
Units that use either Da Jump, Dark Matter Crystal or Veil of Darkness.
Can these units be chosen to move again with an ability in the shooting phase or physic phase. ??
Easiest example is Thousand Sons using Dark Matter Crystal and Warptime.
Is this allowed
Based on GW past history, and given the responses to date, the answer would be no.
GW does not want a unit that deploys/redeploys more than 9" away from an enemy, in the same turn, to be able to walk closer to the enemy, and to then get an easy charge off. The few units that could do it before FAQ2 lost those abilities.
Units that use either Da Jump, Dark Matter Crystal or Veil of Darkness.
Can these units be chosen to move again with an ability in the shooting phase or physic phase. ??
Easiest example is Thousand Sons using Dark Matter Crystal and Warptime.
Is this allowed
Based on GW past history, and given the responses to date, the answer would be no.
GW does not want a unit that deploys/redeploys more than 9" away from an enemy, in the same turn, to be able to walk closer to the enemy, and to then get an easy charge off. The few units that could do it before FAQ2 lost those abilities.
Indeed, it would seem there's a good reason to suggest the intent is clearly "no".
I hope many others have emailed 40kfaq@gwplc.com with this question to get a truly definitive answer - though I am in the camp that because the Reinforcements section discusses units set up mid-turn rather than just units arriving from Reserves, that the answer is definitive albeit potentially confusing.
If a unit was removed from the battlefield and arrives back and has to do so following the rules of 9" away from an enemy unit then to me thats re-inforcements not tactical reserves.
I thought GW covered this on Facebook and they aren’t reserves. I know! FB isn’t an official faq etc but it is from the company making the game. That’s plenty official for me.
Andykp wrote: I thought GW covered this on Facebook and they aren’t reserves. I know! FB isn’t an official faq etc but it is from the company making the game. That’s plenty official for me.
They aren't reserves.
However, they are still reinforcements.
Edit:
Notably, LVO is not gonna allow it, if you plan on playing there.
Just as a retort to anyone saying the Psychic phase would allow you to move, I would ask that you provide a power or ability that allows you to move and does not specify that "you may move as though it were the movement phase." The FAQ states you used your whole MOVEMENT phase, and these psychic abilities are effectively granting an exception to pretend its the movement phase again, which as already been used completely. So this argument doesn't fly for my interpretation.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: So if a unit is re-deployed via a psychic power or stratagem do they count as coming from reserves for the purposes of auspex scan type stratagems?
It would depend on the power, but Auspex Scan only cares about units "set up on the battlefield as Reinforcements", it does not mention Reserves at all. For purposes of DMC/Da Jump/Etc, yes, Auspex Scan works against them.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: So if a unit is re-deployed via a psychic power or stratagem do they count as coming from reserves for the purposes of auspex scan type stratagems?
Auspex Scan says "set up on the battlefield as Reinforcements" not reserves.
