Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So sigh. I have been ridiculed here for complaining about gw not putting clarification about da jump etc where faqs are but instead keep them at facebook. But today in tournament happened exactly what i have been warning about.

My orks vs marines. Patrol scenario. He whittled one boy squad to 10. My turn. I mob up two squad and declare da jump. He notes no deep strike out of dz turn 1. I point out gw facebook post but seeing he had not seen it he logically enough went for judges. What is he to do? Trust my word? I'm human. Without even deliberate attemp to cheat i can make mistakes so his actions were 100% logical and sensible.

Judges initial reply was no da jump outside dz turn 1...

At this point i got angry and raised re-appeal pointing out to fb post. Follows hectic consult of rules and thinking are fb posts official. End result yes i could da jump.

Because gw can't be arsed to act like professionals and put these sorts of answers in one place with faq's we had to spend more time arquing about it than it would take gw to put it where it should be and game wouldn't have started with heated rule arqument.

And this is hardly going to be isolated case. Not every player follows fb and even less all posts. I would dare to bet not even half. And as proven here not just casuals but tournament players(and organisers...) can be unfamiliar with this.

And THIS is why rule changes and clarifications should be kept in one place.unlike some people are claiming it's not me being waac rule nitpicker refusing to accept gw's word but me wanting it in one official easy to find locations so i have something to show when i inevitably run against somebody who hasn't heard of it.

I try to folllow gw more than average yet with gw's system even i don't know am i playing with up to date rules. When am i on opposide side of this?

I sympathize with this completely. I was at tournament practice and something similar happened (I had to explain to my opponent that actually, he COULD use an ability to leave his deployment zone when he thought he was trapped there).

What ? They are clarifying their faq on facebook ?!

Could someone translate the OP into English?

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Could someone translate the OP into English?

TLDR: GW put out an errata to the beta rules in the Big FAQ but only did it in a one-off (and soon buried) Facebook post. People don't see this post. OP has to have a large rules argument at a tournament with both his opponent and the TO about the errata to the Big FAQ because they don't read Facebook. GW should put all FAQ and Errata in the same place; not Facebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 godardc wrote:
What ? They are clarifying their faq on facebook ?!

Yyyyyyyeeeeepppp.

 godardc wrote:
What ? They are clarifying their faq on facebook ?!

Yes. They asked games developers and put answer there rather condensingly. Why they put it there rather than with faq's i don't know. But it is what is and thanks to it this game got less than stellar start so thanks gw! One step forward, another back.

This thread is just beautiful juxtaposed with this one
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page

 Grimtuff wrote:
This thread is just beautiful juxtaposed with this one
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page

Yeah not sure but i think i might have raised this issue there. Certainly tried pointing out many threads but was dismissed as not believing gw's word when issue wasn't i didn't believe but that i wanted good logical place where gw would put this stuff rather than fb post which will get buried...

I actually tried to find relevant dakka thread to get link to fb post but failed as those too were buried.

This was fairly predictabie issue and was just matter of time before i ran into this gw deployed land mine :(

tneva82 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
This thread is just beautiful juxtaposed with this one
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page

Yeah not sure but i think i might have raised this issue there. Certainly tried pointing out many threads but was dismissed as not believing gw's word when issue wasn't i didn't believe but that i wanted good logical place where gw would put this stuff rather than fb post which will get buried...

I actually tried to find relevant dakka thread to get link to fb post but failed as those too were buried.

This was fairly predictabie issue and was just matter of time before i ran into this gw deployed land mine :(

My point was putting official rulings on FB is stupid, as evidenced by that 5 page thread of mudslinging.

Yeah. My point too as shown on this real life tournament where i ran into this when people dismissed my concern that only waac's would try to arque against it. Well no opponent wasn't waac and did only logical thing as he had not heard of it(not unlikely event) and then even organisers were confused about it and they didn't play so had no own sheep in it.

Is putting stuff on FB new? They did it with a big FAQ during 7th didn't they?

That was bit different and faq's were also put elsewhere. Fb was not only location for them. I never had the fb versions in 7th

Counter-question: Short of updating the FAQ to include the clarification, where exactly should GW put it?

 alextroy wrote:
Counter-question: Short of updating the FAQ to include the clarification, where exactly should GW put it?

That is EXACTLY what they should do. It costs almost nothing to update a .PDF either so there's no reason they shouldn't.

They could also at least put it on the same page as the FAQ's.

They seem to be pretty dedicated to only updating that particular area on their published schedule. I suppose they would be better off with a clarifying article on Warhammer Community if they don't want to update the actual documents to clarify the point.

 alextroy wrote:
Counter-question: Short of updating the FAQ to include the clarification, where exactly should GW put it?

Spend few minutes to update FAQ PDF? It's free for them except for workers time but if they spend time putting on facebook they could equally easily to put it to PDF... Or make new PDF or just upload image to the same page. End result: You have the clarification in one official location where it can be found lot easier than on depths of facebook(which traditionally hasn't been considered official even by their own admission so not all even know that they have changed this attitude).

I was singing along with you that this was what was going to happen, I hope it didn't ruin your game/tournament but I suggest that you write out a stongly worded email to GW's FAQ email that this Facebook faq isn't good enough.

Perhaps one should not use beta rules in tournaments then? Do people even understand what 'beta' means? Do major e-sports events use beta builds of the games or actual release versions? (Hint, it's the latter.)

 Crimson wrote:
Perhaps one should not use beta rules in tournaments then? Do people even understand what 'beta' means? Do major e-sports events use beta builds of the games or actual release versions? (Hint, it's the latter.)

Then again it's bound to come anyway so better get used. Oh and do you know what you are supposed to DO with beta rules? Yes that's right playtest them! And what better place to get good data about the rules than tournaments? None. You want tournament data.

No need to white knight GW for their laziness. This would have been easily preventable by them but they deliberately CHOSE to not do so. They wanted this to become issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
I was singing along with you that this was what was going to happen, I hope it didn't ruin your game/tournament but I suggest that you write out a stongly worded email to GW's FAQ email that this Facebook faq isn't good enough.

Game was ruined a bit but not strictly from this. It was one link in a chain of events starting from scenario that was about worst possible in this match up(h2h orks vs gunline primaris) as it had the 8th ed reserve style which screws assault armies big time vs gunlines. You get to deploy within 6" of your DZ. So basically assault units get speed slow down, shooty units just count as having moved which in this game didn't hurt them that much so basically it would be turkey shooting as I would be coming piece meal. Kill points too. Then this happened. Then my reserve rolls failed big time(on turn 2 I basically had KMK to play with). By then I was starting to fume up(unfortunate personal weakness I'm trying to work on) and was just looking for next game so was trying to get game over and done quickly so was doing my actions en haste to get the game done and over. This resulted in situation where opponent claimed after rerolling(With CP) shots for KMK I had rolled TWO dice. Now I'm 100% sure I did not do this deliberately. However I'm 100% positive I can not honestly claim I did NOT accidentally do this. I might have done it, I might not have done it. Since I couldn't honestly claim I did not I acceded the case quickly so rolled again the 6 I had just rolled and got 2.

At which point I was shall we say not in best mood. I didn't get insultive but did go silent and doing my stuff as fast as possible. I'm not happy about my own actions on that game and after tournament was over on the tournament's thread did make public apology for it. Can't blame anything on opponent for the events in game. Even this Da Jump check was logical action for him and what he even should do so ill will from there.

Games 1 and 3 were totally enjoyable though. Did bit overreact on game 1 death of my weirdboy to bad luck but that I got over quickly and it was mostly half disbelief. Just bit too strong cursing over just game mostly triggered by my own mistake I made on deployment(those make me most annoyed. Stupid mistakes I should have been able to avoid. Deploying weirdboy few " to right to be safe from snipers shouldn't have been too hard). and this I got over and enjoyed game against the beautifully painted alaitoc exodite eldars. It was tough game and was never having much hope for victory(him getting turn 1 and that weirdboy blowing himself up made it desperate climb from the get-go) but narrow loss was within grasp and had game stopped before 7th turn(BTW for me as orks getting full 7 turns, even if last turn was ignore LOS dark reaper just blowing up last model, a nob, from my army, was HUGE. We weren't even last game! I'm used to 2-3 turn games in tournaments! Opponents who also know how to play and 3h rounds made big difference) it would have been fairly narrow loss(like 7-13) rather than 0-20 due to wipeout.

3rd game was interesting ork vs ork. He had speed freak orks which was interesting. It was deadlock on 6 objectives so maelstrom cards decided which gave him in the end fairly easy victory. All my attempts to break the deadlock with da jump and stormboyz and chinork failed. Anything I sent there was promptly shot to death. Being shot to death by orks is a novelty experience

tneva82 wrote:

Then again it's bound to come anyway so better get used. Oh and do you know what you are supposed to DO with beta rules? Yes that's right playtest them! And what better place to get good data about the rules than tournaments? None. You want tournament data.

No need to white knight GW for their laziness. This would have been easily preventable by them but they deliberately CHOSE to not do so. They wanted this to become issue.

They have schedule for the FAQ updates. If they had updated the FAQ outside the schedule, then half of the players would miss that too, as they didn't expect an update. I am sure that once the rule becomes official the wording will be updated for more clarity. And testing beta rules is obviously fine, but you still must understand what a beta rule means. It might have bugs, and if you choose to use a beta product then it is not surprising that some issues might arise.

 Crimson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Then again it's bound to come anyway so better get used. Oh and do you know what you are supposed to DO with beta rules? Yes that's right playtest them! And what better place to get good data about the rules than tournaments? None. You want tournament data.

No need to white knight GW for their laziness. This would have been easily preventable by them but they deliberately CHOSE to not do so. They wanted this to become issue.

They have schedule for the FAQ updates. If they had updated the FAQ outside the schedule, then half of the players would miss that too, as they didn't expect an update. I am sure that once the rule becomes official the wording will be updated for more clarity. And testing beta rules is obviously fine, but you still must understand what a beta rule means. It might have bugs, and if you choose to use a beta product then it is not surprising that some issues might arise.

If they put in one official location amount of people missing it are lot less AND YOU WOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO SHOW THEM in case you run up against one that hasn't heard of it! In this case I could have easily have shown the official clarification. Less than minute and game would have been continuing.

Instead we had to spend long time going over the issue.

Because GW can't be bothered to do the correct thing any PROFESSIONAL game designer would have done.

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".

tneva82 wrote:

If they put in one official location amount of people missing it are lot less AND YOU WOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO SHOW THEM in case you run up against one that hasn't heard of it! In this case I could have easily have shown the official clarification. Less than minute and game would have been continuing.

Instead we had to spend long time going over the issue.

Because GW can't be bothered to do the correct thing any PROFESSIONAL game designer would have done.

Just don't use the beta rules if you can't handle this. Our local league doesn't.

 Crimson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

If they put in one official location amount of people missing it are lot less AND YOU WOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO SHOW THEM in case you run up against one that hasn't heard of it! In this case I could have easily have shown the official clarification. Less than minute and game would have been continuing.

Instead we had to spend long time going over the issue.

Because GW can't be bothered to do the correct thing any PROFESSIONAL game designer would have done.

Just don't use the beta rules if you can't handle this. Our local league doesn't.

Or GW could just publish a community article or a pdf that lists all the errata to the errata that's come out on Facebook. Might take a couple hours out of a single employee's Monday.

Or they could write the things in the first place specifically to be easy to do that with - take the little graphic template for the text box and use that etc then just add them to a web page as interim updates, stick a date on the front of the link and be done with it

 Crimson wrote:
Perhaps one should not use beta rules in tournaments then? Do people even understand what 'beta' means? Do major e-sports events use beta builds of the games or actual release versions? (Hint, it's the latter.)

This. If a Tourney uses a beta rule without their own house clarification on its meaning, made available to players ahead of time, then they’re not running a level playing field. You should be able to know what rules are in use and what the decisions on grey areas are ahead of time. OP simply shouldn’t have been put in the position he was. The here issue is the tournament’s choices.

The problem/question is - What happens when the TO is aware of the beta rule and wants to implement it and is unaware of a FB post that clarifies/changes that rule? As has been pointed out it's possible to be unaware of FB posts and even then you can't be sure the "answer" given is official or not.

Beta Rules are published in the GW community section of the website. This particular clarification is buried in some FB Q&A.

Has anyone considered that the facebook clarification is not an errata? As in GW understands their written rule differently to players and as such it doesn't merit changing at all (in their eyes at least).

Consider this: the FAQ has the section called "Tactical Reserves" which outlines how many units may be deployed off of the table. Then under the exact same rule it says that any units being set up first turn can only be set up in the deployment zone. So while there is no specific sentence that outlines "being set up" as coming in from reserves, it would seem that the deployment restriction only applies to units that are also subjected to the tactical reserves rule.

Lastly, an FAQ on the FAQ is not going to be here till September due to how many people complained about FAQs happening too fast.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The problem/question is - What happens when the TO is aware of the beta rule and wants to implement it and is unaware of a FB post that clarifies/changes that rule? As has been pointed out it's possible to be unaware of FB posts and even then you can't be sure the "answer" given is official or not.

Beta Rules are published in the GW community section of the website. This particular clarification is buried in some FB Q&A.

The tournament should have a comprehensive FAQ pack of their own covering things. As these packs are tantamount to a bunch of house rules anyway a GW FAQ Facebook post would be irrelevant - the tourney has decided how Rule X will be working this weekend and told everyone in advance. Don’t do all that AND throw in beta rules (expect bugs) and you get situations like the OP’s.

GW has not, AFAIK, stated a closing time for Beta Rules. People are assuming that the open comment period will run in conjunction with the FAQ cycle but it's never been stated as such. So maybe, they will change/make permanent the rule sometime in the summer.