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.
2018/04/20 21:42:07
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
Crimson wrote: Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.
And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?
Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.
Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.
You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.
Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.
No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.
Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.
Read my previous post. The RAW on this rule is very clear and yes it is your fault if you ignore the word "furthermore" and ignore the entire first paragraph of the rule.
Ugh I hate definition debates.Ignoring the fact that there are countless different colloquial ways to use words and even more subtle differences between definitions. Furthermore does not limit the scope of the noun, it simply suggests that the two statements are linked in some way. In this case the train of logic goes "Some units can deep strike anywhere on the map by going into reserves you can only put 50% of your power level into reserves. While we are talking about units that can deploy anywhere, any unit that can be setup anywhere cannot be setup in the opponents deployment zone on their first turn." This uses furthermore properly. This uses any units as a noun that means any units. All at face value.
Yes there are almost infinate was to use a word. The word was used in a very obvious way in this rule with one correct way to read it. GW has clarified what the correct way to read this was for people reading it wrong. Yet, people are still arguing that there now blatantly obviously wrong way of reading this (blatantly because GW has spelled out exactly how to read it) is still somehow correct.
Do you have anything tangible besides "YOU ARE READING IT WRONG CAUSE GW SAID SO?" The argument has been, and still is that what GW says it is does not clearly match what the rule states. You keep ignoring that different people come from different backgrounds, with different dialects, different levels of experience, and different levels of exposure to GW rules content. What is obvious to you is not obvious to others. This is the wrong interpretation for GW's intent, no doubt about that. This does not mean it is the correct literal interpretation of what it says. Yet another example, every time you take an insulting jab at "people who read it wrong" you are probably thinking directly about people in this thread. You could intend for it to be aimed at someone in here, but the literal interpretation deals with everyone who you think "reads it wrong."
Nothing insulting about what im saying or incorrect. Anyone that is arguing that things like "Da Jump" wont work turn one read the rule wrong. It's not an insult you simply read it wrong. It doesn't mean you're dumb it simply means that you were wrong. The reason why i keep bringing up what GW said is that it proves me and everone else that said you read the rule wrong correct. There really isnt anything to argue anymore because GW has come out and just said that you were wrong and i was right.
2018/04/20 21:46:10
Subject: Re:GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
Da Jump absolutely can be used turn 1. But can only be done once per turn. So got to be careful to support that jumping unit. But it can indeed be used. The community page was pretty clear.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/20 21:47:37
"In Warfare, preparation is the key. Determine that which your foe prizes the most. Then site your heavy weapons so that they overlook it. In this way, you may be quite sure that you shall never want for targets."
— Lion El'Jonson
"What I cannot crush with words I will crush with the tanks of the Imperial Guard!"
- Lord Commander Solar Macharius
2018/04/20 21:50:06
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.
2018/04/20 21:52:40
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
Crimson wrote: Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.
And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?
Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.
Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.
You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.
Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.
No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.
Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.
Read my previous post. The RAW on this rule is very clear and yes it is your fault if you ignore the word "furthermore" and ignore the entire first paragraph of the rule.
No offense, but your entire argument goes off-kilter because you're using a limited and non-exclusive definition of furthermore. That's your problem.
EDIT: Somehow, on my screen at least, my posts aren't being automatically appended. I'll stop here to avoid a flood.
No my entire argument is correct as GW themselves have said i had the correct interpretation of the rule and thuse read it correctly.
Noooot quite. GW said "this is what we meant" they never said "this is what we wrote" or "we didn't make a mistake in the original wording".
2018/04/20 21:53:50
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.
You mean like this?
2018/04/20 21:54:23
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
I find this interesting as a judge and TO myself, what I see here is a poorly written or interpreted rule, that has had GW attempt to clarify it twice, with consistency but in different mediums, that shows me clear intent and as such I would add it to the tourney pack for clairity, whilst I respect your method on deciding what you consider “official rules FAQ/errata” i disagree with your ruling on this particular one.
This Facebook post is as official as we can get until another FAQ. This is just like people arguing that the "Developer's Commentary" wasnt an official FAQ because it wasnt labeled as such, and that it as just something made for the Warhammer-Community people, with 0 rules relevance.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.
You mean like this?
As much as certain users like to think Dakkadakka as superior to 4chan, to the rest of the warhammer globosphere, Dakkadakka is just the same. Facebook, Reddit, Blogs, even local communities laugh at how hyperbolic is dakkadakka about everything
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/20 21:56:20
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2018/04/20 21:58:52
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
I find this interesting as a judge and TO myself, what I see here is a poorly written or interpreted rule, that has had GW attempt to clarify it twice, with consistency but in different mediums, that shows me clear intent and as such I would add it to the tourney pack for clairity, whilst I respect your method on deciding what you consider “official rules FAQ/errata” i disagree with your ruling on this particular one.
This Facebook post is as official as we can get until another FAQ. This is just like people arguing that the "Developer's Commentary" wasnt an official FAQ because it wasnt labeled as such, and that it as just something made for the Warhammer-Community people, with 0 rules relevance.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.
You mean like this?
As much as certain users like to think Dakkadakka as superior to 4chan, to the rest of the warhammer globosphere, Dakkadakka is just the same. Facebook, Reddit, Blogs, even local communities laugh at how hyperbolic is dakkadakka about everything
And non-40k communities laugh at how ridiculous we are both in terms of how much money we pay and how stupid our rules are. I'm not sure what the point of this tangent is (even Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation has made fun of us on at least 2 occasions).
2018/04/20 22:00:06
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.
You mean like this?
Well that's just mean spirited.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/20 22:01:11
"In Warfare, preparation is the key. Determine that which your foe prizes the most. Then site your heavy weapons so that they overlook it. In this way, you may be quite sure that you shall never want for targets."
— Lion El'Jonson
"What I cannot crush with words I will crush with the tanks of the Imperial Guard!"
- Lord Commander Solar Macharius
2018/04/20 22:05:10
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
Honour binds us to give you one solar month to depart our planet, should you fail to accept this generous offer, my armies will Conclude these negotiations
2018/04/20 22:05:48
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.
You mean like this?
Spoiler:
I shouldn't have laughed. But I did. Now I need to wear the cone of shame
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/20 22:05:57
2018/04/20 22:14:45
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.
You mean like this?
This image sums up why I keep posting here.
2018/04/20 22:16:47
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.
You mean like this?
exhaulted
2018/04/20 22:21:32
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.
You mean like this?
They aren't wrong...
2018/04/20 22:29:38
Subject: Re:GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
"In Warfare, preparation is the key. Determine that which your foe prizes the most. Then site your heavy weapons so that they overlook it. In this way, you may be quite sure that you shall never want for targets."
— Lion El'Jonson
"What I cannot crush with words I will crush with the tanks of the Imperial Guard!"
- Lord Commander Solar Macharius
2018/04/20 22:34:43
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
necrontyrOG wrote: We're running out of jokes here. Someone please close this thread...
Yeah, tapped of all sense.
"In Warfare, preparation is the key. Determine that which your foe prizes the most. Then site your heavy weapons so that they overlook it. In this way, you may be quite sure that you shall never want for targets."
— Lion El'Jonson
"What I cannot crush with words I will crush with the tanks of the Imperial Guard!"
- Lord Commander Solar Macharius
2018/04/20 22:54:45
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
The fluff is like ketchup and mustard on a burger. Yes it's desirable, yes it makes things better, but no it doesn't fundamentally change what you're eating and no you shouldn't just drown the whole meal in it.
2018/04/20 23:03:17
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
necrontyrOG wrote: We're running out of jokes here. Someone please close this thread...
Gw made it pretty clear on their facebook discussions that the rules phrasing won’t be adjusted while it is in beta so threads pointless now imo. They are well aware of the confusion and ways to fix it so that is good enough for me.
2018/04/20 23:05:33
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.
Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.
2018/04/20 23:09:39
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
dosiere wrote: To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.
Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.
Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/20 23:09:53
"In Warfare, preparation is the key. Determine that which your foe prizes the most. Then site your heavy weapons so that they overlook it. In this way, you may be quite sure that you shall never want for targets."
— Lion El'Jonson
"What I cannot crush with words I will crush with the tanks of the Imperial Guard!"
- Lord Commander Solar Macharius
2018/04/21 04:57:08
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
lolman1c wrote: Now I have to hire a lawyer to play 40k? This hobby is getting to expensive!
That could be a new format for tournaments.
Each player brings his own lawyer, and the two lawyers arguee for two and a half hours about the interpretations of the rules. The best ruler-lawyer wins the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/21 05:08:00
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2018/04/21 05:15:39
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: I wouldn’t expect this to sway anyone one way or another, but this forum’s reaction to the FAQ is the laughingstock of Facebook 40k discussion right now. This back and forth over this community picture is pretty indicative of why.
You mean like this?
Thanks for this
DFTT
2018/04/21 05:53:25
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
dosiere wrote: To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.
Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.
Yeah I’m not really sure why GW has such a hardline stance against adding any clarification to the rule itself. People are basically offering to proof read the text to make sure it works as intended in addition to testing balance. I get that its a beta rule and will probably not be the final version, but why not make sure it works on two fronts?
2018/04/21 06:37:49
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
dosiere wrote: To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.
Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.
Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.
A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/21 06:38:04
2018/04/21 07:29:47
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
dosiere wrote: To be fair, the rule is a bit confusing as written. I was pretty sure, but I’m glad they at least offered some clarification in one form or another. It would do zero harm to add one more sentence in the actual beta rule to keep it all in one place.
Furthermore, the time to do so is now while it’s still a beta rule. That way GW can ensure everyone is using it as intended, and maybe hire a blessed writer with some technical writing knowledge or experience going forward.
Hire a lawyer to make the wording as specific and technical as is possible.
A lawyer will tell you that any case resting mainly textual interpretation of the law without considering intent and context would be laughed out of court by any judge.
Unless you're in the U.K. where the court can decide the context and intent.
"In Warfare, preparation is the key. Determine that which your foe prizes the most. Then site your heavy weapons so that they overlook it. In this way, you may be quite sure that you shall never want for targets."
— Lion El'Jonson
"What I cannot crush with words I will crush with the tanks of the Imperial Guard!"
- Lord Commander Solar Macharius
2018/04/21 07:39:52
Subject: Re:GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
So does this mean you can deepstrike deepstriking units in turn 1 with alien cunning (tyranid warlord trait) and phantasm (eldar strategy) by deploying them non deepstriked first?
2018/04/21 07:50:40
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
*Adds certain people in thread who can't understand that beta rules don't effect units that were deployed normally prior to the first turn starting to his 'If given the opportunity, never play these people' list.*
*Goes on about his day.*
Take it easy.
-Red__Thirst-
You don't know me son, so I'll explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed.
