Switch Theme:

'Upon wings of fire' and new beta rules  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Norn Queen






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





Florence, KY

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

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

Spoiler:








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

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




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

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

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

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

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

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





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





Florence, KY

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

Again...

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

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

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Ghaz wrote:
They (the Facebook team) can't give you an official answer. Never do they say they can't post an official answer from the Game Designers.
"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
They (the Facebook team) can't give you an official answer. Never do they say they can't post an official answer from the Game Designers.
"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.


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

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
They (the Facebook team) can't give you an official answer. Never do they say they can't post an official answer from the Game Designers.
"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/22 17:21:31


'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Ghaz wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
They (the Facebook team) can't give you an official answer. Never do they say they can't post an official answer from the Game Designers.
"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

So you can't show where GW has said that the Game Designers can only use the FAQs for rules clarifications.
Show me where it says I can't write on a post-it note "BaconCatBug automatically wins all games" and have it be rules. That is how silly your argument is.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/22 17:23:35


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
They (the Facebook team) can't give you an official answer. Never do they say they can't post an official answer from the Game Designers.
"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

So you can't show where GW has said that the Game Designers can only use the FAQs for rules clarifications.
Show me where it says I can't write on a post-it note "BaconCatBug automatically wins all games" and have it be rules. That is how silly your argument is.


A fallacy is not a cogent argument.

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/22 17:28:48


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
They (the Facebook team) can't give you an official answer. Never do they say they can't post an official answer from the Game Designers.
"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

So you can't show where GW has said that the Game Designers can only use the FAQs for rules clarifications.
Show me where it says I can't write on a post-it note "BaconCatBug automatically wins all games" and have it be rules. That is how silly your argument is.

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/22 17:30:46


'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Ghaz wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
They (the Facebook team) can't give you an official answer. Never do they say they can't post an official answer from the Game Designers.
"It doesn't say I can't" is not an argument.

So you can't show where GW has said that the Game Designers can only use the FAQs for rules clarifications.
Show me where it says I can't write on a post-it note "BaconCatBug automatically wins all games" and have it be rules. That is how silly your argument is.

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


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

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

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

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

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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Indeed. BCB has passed through hilarious into just fallacious. They're not even attempting to argue honestly.
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

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

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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/23 00:23:01


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

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

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

Or does it just apply to those in Tactical Reserves?

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

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/23 00:38:04


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




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






nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, who'd have thought you can't just take a sentence out of a rule and apply it without context
The blurb before the rule doesn't change what the rule does, no matter how much you whine about it.
   
Made in gb
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, who'd have thought you can't just take a sentence out of a rule and apply it without context
The blurb before the rule doesn't change what the rule does, no matter how much you whine about it.

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

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






 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, who'd have thought you can't just take a sentence out of a rule and apply it without context
The blurb before the rule doesn't change what the rule does, no matter how much you whine about it.

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

You need to explain, unless I am misreading things, exactly why units that are moved via powers are considered to have gone into tactical reserves. You also need to explain why this interaction needs to follow the same rules for units that 'arrive' on to the battlefield when units that have had a power cast on them must have, by virtue of the casting rules, already arrived on the battlefield.
Well, the first problem is that you think units can "go into tactical reserves". That'sNotHowThatWorksThat'sNotHowAnyOfThisWorks.voxcast < For the No-Fun-Brigade: This is called tongue-in-cheek humour.

There is no such thing as "going into Tactical Reserves". The rule says "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone". The rule doesn't care HOW it arrives, just that it arrives. Da Jump (and other similar powers) says "Remove this unit from the battlefield". If they have been removed from the battlefield, when they are set up they must have arrived on the battlefield. In addition the rules for Reinforcements in the BRB states "Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn, sometimes by using teleporters, grav chutes or other, more esoteric means. Typically, this happens at the end of the Movement phase, but it can also happen during other phases." Da Jump "sets up" the unit mid phase, thus units using Da Jump arrive as reinforcements. The final line of the Reinforcements rule says "Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes[...]"

Therefore, units that are affected by Da Jump arrive as reinforcements, and thus cannot be set up outside their deployment zone Turn 1 as per the Tactical Reserves beta rule. Q.E.D.

This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2018/05/23 08:55:21


 
   
Made in gb
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






 BaconCatBug wrote:

There is no such thing as "going into Tactical Reserves". The rule says "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone". The rule doesn't care HOW it arrives, just that it arrives. Da Jump (and other similar powers) says "Remove this unit from the battlefield". If they have been removed from the battlefield, when they are set up they must have arrived on the battlefield.

You see, this is where you're wrong. Arriving is a one time thing. Once I have arrived somewhere I cannot arrive again. That would be called returning to the battlefield or the party or whatever other example you'd like to pick.

Nowhere does the BRB or beta rules define that units that are 'set up' mid turn have 'arrived' and this is the language used in the beta rule. If the beta rule said 'any units set up on the battlefield must be placed in the controlling player's deployment zone' I'd be agreeing with you. It doesn't say that though so your argument falls down. Particularly if it relies on an incorrect interpretation of 'arrived'.
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:

There is no such thing as "going into Tactical Reserves". The rule says "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone". The rule doesn't care HOW it arrives, just that it arrives. Da Jump (and other similar powers) says "Remove this unit from the battlefield". If they have been removed from the battlefield, when they are set up they must have arrived on the battlefield.

You see, this is where you're wrong. Arriving is a one time thing. Once I have arrived somewhere I cannot arrive again. That would be called returning to the battlefield or the party or whatever other example you'd like to pick.

Nowhere does the BRB or beta rules define that units that are 'set up' mid turn have 'arrived' and this is the language used in the beta rule. If the beta rule said 'any units set up on the battlefield must be placed in the controlling player's deployment zone' I'd be agreeing with you. It doesn't say that though so your argument falls down. Particularly if it relies on an incorrect interpretation of 'arrived'.


To be fair I can arrive somewhere, then leave and arrive again, at a later time...
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:

There is no such thing as "going into Tactical Reserves". The rule says "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone". The rule doesn't care HOW it arrives, just that it arrives. Da Jump (and other similar powers) says "Remove this unit from the battlefield". If they have been removed from the battlefield, when they are set up they must have arrived on the battlefield.

You see, this is where you're wrong. Arriving is a one time thing. Once I have arrived somewhere I cannot arrive again. That would be called returning to the battlefield or the party or whatever other example you'd like to pick.

Nowhere does the BRB or beta rules define that units that are 'set up' mid turn have 'arrived' and this is the language used in the beta rule. If the beta rule said 'any units set up on the battlefield must be placed in the controlling player's deployment zone' I'd be agreeing with you. It doesn't say that though so your argument falls down. Particularly if it relies on an incorrect interpretation of 'arrived'.
If I arrive at the train station, go back home because I forgot my ticket, then go back to the train station, am I not arriving at the train station when I go back?

I already showed you that the Reinforcement rules treats being set up mid phase as arriving, and that's not even including the fact you LITERALLY remove the unit from the battlefield. Once it's removed, it's not on the battlefield anymore, and when you set it up again it must, by definition, be arriving on the battlefield. It was not on the battlefield, now it is. How can you not say that is arriving?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/23 10:13:48


 
   
Made in gb
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






 BaconCatBug wrote:
If I arrive at the train station, go back home because I forgot my ticket, then go back to the train station, am I not arriving at the train station when I go back?
No, I'd say you were returning.

baconcatbug wrote:I already showed you that the Reinforcement rules treats being set up mid phase as arriving, and that's not even including the fact you LITERALLY remove the unit from the battlefield. Once it's removed, it's not on the battlefield anymore, and when you set it up again it must, by definition, be arriving on the battlefield. It was not on the battlefield, now it is. How can you not say that is arriving?
No, you didn't show me that the reinforcement rules treat units set up as arriving. Nowhere have you shown this. This is your issue - you believe you've shown something that you haven't. Again you are wrong - there isn't a definition of 'arriving' in the brb. So you are yet again making assumptions which, for someone supposedly so obsessed with raw is telling. As I said above, I'd call a unit that was removed from the battlefield and replaced on the battlefield immediately "returning" not arriving. If you forget your wallet you return to the train station, you don't arrive.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
If I arrive at the train station, go back home because I forgot my ticket, then go back to the train station, am I not arriving at the train station when I go back?
No, I'd say you were returning.

baconcatbug wrote:I already showed you that the Reinforcement rules treats being set up mid phase as arriving, and that's not even including the fact you LITERALLY remove the unit from the battlefield. Once it's removed, it's not on the battlefield anymore, and when you set it up again it must, by definition, be arriving on the battlefield. It was not on the battlefield, now it is. How can you not say that is arriving?
No, you didn't show me that the reinforcement rules treat units set up as arriving. Nowhere have you shown this. This is your issue - you believe you've shown something that you haven't. Again you are wrong - there isn't a definition of 'arriving' in the brb. So you are yet again making assumptions which, for someone supposedly so obsessed with raw is telling. As I said above, I'd call a unit that was removed from the battlefield and replaced on the battlefield immediately "returning" not arriving. If you forget your wallet you return to the train station, you don't arrive.
Did you not see the final line of the reinforcement rule which I literally quoted? The one that says units that are set up as reinforcements are arriving?
   
Made in gb
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






 BaconCatBug wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
If I arrive at the train station, go back home because I forgot my ticket, then go back to the train station, am I not arriving at the train station when I go back?
No, I'd say you were returning.

baconcatbug wrote:I already showed you that the Reinforcement rules treats being set up mid phase as arriving, and that's not even including the fact you LITERALLY remove the unit from the battlefield. Once it's removed, it's not on the battlefield anymore, and when you set it up again it must, by definition, be arriving on the battlefield. It was not on the battlefield, now it is. How can you not say that is arriving?
No, you didn't show me that the reinforcement rules treat units set up as arriving. Nowhere have you shown this. This is your issue - you believe you've shown something that you haven't. Again you are wrong - there isn't a definition of 'arriving' in the brb. So you are yet again making assumptions which, for someone supposedly so obsessed with raw is telling. As I said above, I'd call a unit that was removed from the battlefield and replaced on the battlefield immediately "returning" not arriving. If you forget your wallet you return to the train station, you don't arrive.
Did you not see the final line of the reinforcement rule which I literally quoted? The one that says units that are set up as reinforcements are arriving?
That's not what it says though is it? It says 'units arriving as reinforcements' which is a completely different thing to 'reinforcements are considered to have arrived for all rules purposes'. In fact it insenuates that units can be set up as reinforcements but not be considered to be arriving on the battlefield, as I believe and GW have clarified.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, who'd have thought you can't just take a sentence out of a rule and apply it without context
The blurb before the rule doesn't change what the rule does, no matter how much you whine about it.

1) no whining, you seem to be confused again
2) nope, no it diesnt. Context again.
3) found your proof in the brb that allows you to use the errata yet? Or found where you can ignore the rules clarification provided by GW rule team?
I note you haven't commented on you literally being wrong about what GW actually said. No concession, to maybe show some good grace?
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






I'll concede when I am wrong when I am actually wrong. So far I have been 100% in the right, because I follow the rules.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




You won't concede that when you stated GW "literally" said something, that they in fact didn't, that you were therefore wrong?
Really? Despite the quotes proving you repeatedly misrepresented what GW said, in a lame attempt to make your position less flawed?

That position being, of course, that GW isn't allowed to choose how they deliver rules and rules clarifications, only you can decide this?
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






nosferatu1001 wrote:
You won't concede that when you stated GW "literally" said something, that they in fact didn't, that you were therefore wrong?
Really? Despite the quotes proving you repeatedly misrepresented what GW said, in a lame attempt to make your position less flawed?

That position being, of course, that GW isn't allowed to choose how they deliver rules and rules clarifications, only you can decide this?
GW is allowed to choose how they deliver rules and rules clarifications. And the way they have chosen is through the official FAQ and Errata documents. The GW Facebook page says they aren't official rules, so they aren't. It's that simple and no amount of pleading to authority is going to change that.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: