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.

Right. As you say, you have to talk anyway, as you cannot make a blanket assumption that everyone is using the beta rules in the first place.

 Crimson wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:


There's always a "right" answer, where "right" means "according to the rules as they are currently written."

Yeah, that's where you're wrong. There literally isn't always the right answer.

Well, agree to disagree, I guess. I doubt I'm convincing you of much anyway.

How is this discussion still ongoing? We can see from the opening post the marketing team from GW put out that if the units are already deployed they can be moved by GOI or Da Jump or any other similar abilities. It literally says it.

I'm sure the rules will be clarified when they are "official" and there'll be no confusion around the wording. Until then use the facebook thing as clarification. Simple.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How is this discussion still ongoing? We can see from the opening post the marketing team from GW put out that if the units are already deployed they can be moved by GOI or Da Jump or any other similar abilities. It literally says it.

I'm sure the rules will be clarified when they are "official" and there'll be no confusion around the wording. Until then use the facebook thing as clarification. Simple.

The FB page is not the rules.

I am very sorry for all of you that the method that GW has chosen to communicate with players, including occasional rules clarifications, does not fit your personal level of "official" nor the rules of YMDC.

The problem is simple an event organiser or event goer wants to make sure they have all the rules they need as up to do for the event.
The have all the books and go to the FAQ and errata page of the GW website and download all the FAQ's. They now have the offical current rules.
How are they supposed to find a reply to a comment on facebook, let alone know that they have to try and find it?

Heck if it wasn't brought up on this forum I wouldn't have known or for that matter thought to look at facebook, let alone know that the answer is somewhere in a respone to a comment on a 900 plus commented post on a profile that is primarily a PR channel.

Ice_can wrote:
The problem is simple an event organiser or event goer wants to make sure they have all the rules they need as up to do for the event.
The have all the books and go to the FAQ and errata page of the GW website and download all the FAQ's. They now have the offical current rules.
How are they supposed to find a reply to a comment on facebook, let alone know that they have to try and find it?

Heck if it wasn't brought up on this forum I wouldn't have known or for that matter thought to look at facebook, let alone know that the answer is somewhere in a respone to a comment on a 900 plus commented post on a profile that is primarily a PR channel.

Can vouch. Just had a tournament player get surprised by this whole "go look at Facebook" thing mid match.

Audustum wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The problem is simple an event organiser or event goer wants to make sure they have all the rules they need as up to do for the event.
The have all the books and go to the FAQ and errata page of the GW website and download all the FAQ's. They now have the offical current rules.
How are they supposed to find a reply to a comment on facebook, let alone know that they have to try and find it?

Heck if it wasn't brought up on this forum I wouldn't have known or for that matter thought to look at facebook, let alone know that the answer is somewhere in a respone to a comment on a 900 plus commented post on a profile that is primarily a PR channel.

Can vouch. Just had a tournament player get surprised by this whole "go look at Facebook" thing mid match.

Thats just not acceptable for me, hence why I would say it either needs to be in the tournament pack or its played raw from the faq.

Facebook is not acceptable as a rules communication method.

To make it worse, as GW itself has said, FB is not an official source for rules disputes. So if GW says it's not official I don't see how anyone else can gainsay them.

The real question is does the second sentence a few answer exist in a raw vacuum outside of the context of the question, or does it exist with the context of that question ?

Neither answer is or isn't RAW, as they are both the rules as written.

GW may not make an official clarification because RAW that may have always been the case, i.e. the second sentence about treeating the unit as if it were reinforcements only applies for counting as moving as per the question it is part of an answer to.

In which case they may not see the need to further clarify the answer they think is already there.