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.

No,pleading to,authority fallacy here. I leave the fallacies to you. It isn't an appeal to authors to fallacy to point out that GW get to decide how they deliver rules updates, not you. This is because, when it comes to GWs rules, they are the actual authority - unlike you. The fallacy would be if I were claiming to be the authority - Good job I haven't been.

That also isn't what the GW Facebook page actually says though. And you know that isn't what it says, because it has been quoted to you three times now

Your inability to tell the truth about the Facebook page is telling

And your inability to realise that Facebook is not rules is telling also.

Lets agree to disagree. Like I said, you're free to house rule or ignore rules as you wish.

Except when GW says it is
Which they're entitled to do

You're wrong. You know it , everyone here knows it, but you're too proud to admit it, so will lie and deflect and dissemble, hoping eventually people might forget or give up corr3cing you, every time you're wrong

As a result any credibility you had, has mostly been lost.

Feel free to ignore the rules as defined by GW, that's entirely your right (as long as your opponent agrees, of course) - just don't pretend to anyone, including yourself, that you aren't doing so.

You know the raw allows da jump, you know GW have said the raw allows da jump, yet you dishonestly claim otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You know the raw allows da jump, you know GW have said the raw allows da jump, yet you dishonestly claim otherwise.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

If GW decide to change the statement on their facebook page to not say it isn't rules, then I will accept it as rules, at which point I will gladly pack it in because using Facebook as rules is beyond idiotic. Until then, Facebook is not rules.

Still lying I see

That's not what the Facebook page states. You know this. Care to quote it, as you are required to do to prove your stance? I've quoted it, maybe you should as well?

I know you're a raw guy, so this shouldn't be tricky for you.

 DoomMouse wrote:
I think that 'upon wings of fire' could be used on a BA jump pack captain to deep strike him outside my deployment zone turn 1 if needed? I've seen a bunch of threads on the new beta rules, but nothing addressing this example in particular. Did GW ever address it specifically? If it is possible then I'll be very happy to throw captain smashy and his thunder hammer to his death turn 1 as usual

In the "Upon Wings of Fire" stratagem it does not say the unit counts as arriving from reserves, just that you pick up and move the unit outside of 9" of an enemy unit.

The Beta Rule states "in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield [From Reserves, that has not been deployed on the table] during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the
controlling player’s deployment zone"

Therefore, you can use your stratagem to suicide a kickass captain or death company squad or whatever outside of your deployment zone on turn one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And your inability to realise that Facebook is not rules is telling also.

Lets agree to disagree. Like I said, you're free to house rule or ignore rules as you wish.

If you'd like to be disproven by rules, check my post.

With respect to arriving:

Index 1 FAQ Page 2:
Q: If, in a matched play game, I use the Swooping Hawk’s Skyleap ability to remove the unit from the battlefield during the third or subsequent battle round, does the Tactical Reserves rule mean they count as destroyed?
A: No. The unit must already have arrived on the battlefield before the end of the third battle round in order to be able to use the Skyleap ability.
However, if the unit used its Children of Baharroth ability to set up in the skies during deployment, and it had not arrived by the end of third battle round, then it would count as destroyed in a matched play game due to the Tactical Reserves rule.

Can't believe this thread turned into a 8 page flame war on whether FB clarifications count as rules or not! I agree with fireskulls analysis of the situation tbh. Played at the LGT at the weekend, and everyone I played was happy with the stratagem applying, and I had an ork player 'da jump' turn 1 against me. So seems most competitive people are happy with it

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 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.

Actually that comment on strawman comparisons was about BDB's arguments. Sorry if I confused you. I get annoyed by over the top histrionics from him as well, especially when there's somewhat of an argument that can be made.

But I've been opposed to BCB on other things (especially when he says RAW=RAI). This time I see the point on both sides (though not the histrionics). I don't think it's reasonable to deny that the facebook post exists, but likewise I don't think it's reasonable for someone to assume that everybody has to automatically play by the facebook post. Some people might not have seen the post, some people have other reasons such as not wanting to accept anything that isn't in their FAQ section. Given it's a beta rule to start wtih, both sides should be talking about it. BCB is taking a hardcore "this isn't RAW, nobody should play with it if they want to play by the rules" stance, which is wrong since we know that the rules designers intended for it to work like was said in the facebook posts. What I find grating is that the vast number coming out against BCB seem to be taking the position that you're forced to use the facebook post, which isn't right either. It's a beta rule, so you need to first be talking about whether you're going to play using that rule. While you're doing that it would be the time to discuss if you are going to play the Tactical Reserves rule as they intended and include what was said in the facebook post. BCB would need to be having a discussion anyway with people if he's using the tactical reserve rule since the last couple of sentences before the shaded box would allow for an interpretation that matches up with the Facebook post, but is murkier and more open to semantic wrangling by those inclined.

But, whenever I post stuff like that, it seem that the people are coming out and essentially saying "no, you HAVE to play it by the facebook post", which is just as wrong as what BCB is doing. At this point I'm about ready to say a pox on the lot of you.

 doctortom wrote:
But, whenever I post stuff like that, it seem that the people are coming out and essentially saying "no, you HAVE to play it by the facebook post", which is just as wrong as what BCB is doing. At this point I'm about ready to say a pox on the lot of you.

I've seen very little "you must play by the post". Most of it has been whether or not the post is a valid rules source.

 doctortom wrote:
Actually that comment on strawman comparisons was about BDB's arguments. Sorry if I confused you. I get annoyed by over the top histrionics from him as well, especially when there's somewhat of an argument that can be made.

But I've been opposed to BCB on other things (especially when he says RAW=RAI). This time I see the point on both sides (though not the histrionics). I don't think it's reasonable to deny that the facebook post exists, but likewise I don't think it's reasonable for someone to assume that everybody has to automatically play by the facebook post. Some people might not have seen the post, some people have other reasons such as not wanting to accept anything that isn't in their FAQ section. Given it's a beta rule to start wtih, both sides should be talking about it. BCB is taking a hardcore "this isn't RAW, nobody should play with it if they want to play by the rules" stance, which is wrong since we know that the rules designers intended for it to work like was said in the facebook posts. What I find grating is that the vast number coming out against BCB seem to be taking the position that you're forced to use the facebook post, which isn't right either. It's a beta rule, so you need to first be talking about whether you're going to play using that rule. While you're doing that it would be the time to discuss if you are going to play the Tactical Reserves rule as they intended and include what was said in the facebook post. BCB would need to be having a discussion anyway with people if he's using the tactical reserve rule since the last couple of sentences before the shaded box would allow for an interpretation that matches up with the Facebook post, but is murkier and more open to semantic wrangling by those inclined.

But, whenever I post stuff like that, it seem that the people are coming out and essentially saying "no, you HAVE to play it by the facebook post", which is just as wrong as what BCB is doing. At this point I'm about ready to say a pox on the lot of you.

Fair enough, I was confused. I'm with you - this argument is becoming too much and should end really. Eventually GW will update the FAQ or integrate the clarification in another way and all this discussion is moot. Probably best to park this until that time. I know my meta and they wouldn't have a problem playing the beta rules as specified by GW in the Facebook post and that's all that matters to me really.

 Happyjew wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
But, whenever I post stuff like that, it seem that the people are coming out and essentially saying "no, you HAVE to play it by the facebook post", which is just as wrong as what BCB is doing. At this point I'm about ready to say a pox on the lot of you.

I've seen very little "you must play by the post". Most of it has been whether or not the post is a valid rules source.

Most of that came as a passive aggressive "fine, you can break the rules and play with your house rules if you want, but RAW is this or that" I think.

 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.

Yeah, I mean what does THIS sentence mean in the rules?

"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way while they are embarked."

How can we figure out what Embarked means? What could these other paragraphs and sentences in the same rules box preceding this sentence POSSIBLY have to do with the wording of this rule? HOW CAN WE FIGURE OUT what this sentence means???? God GW sucks at rules writing amirite.

the_scotsman 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.

Yeah, I mean what does THIS sentence mean in the rules?

"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way while they are embarked."

How can we figure out what Embarked means? What could these other paragraphs and sentences in the same rules box preceding this sentence POSSIBLY have to do with the wording of this rule? HOW CAN WE FIGURE OUT what this sentence means???? God GW sucks at rules writing amirite.

It says "bark" right there. The real question is who this is meant to apply to - trees or dogs?

Edit: I am now sure (as in:this is the rules as written 1000%) that is has to be dogs. Because if you take the rule, it literally says "ark", and only dogs went on that, not trees. Because trees can't walk.

nekooni wrote:

the_scotsman 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.

Yeah, I mean what does THIS sentence mean in the rules?

"Embarked units cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way while they are embarked."

How can we figure out what Embarked means? What could these other paragraphs and sentences in the same rules box preceding this sentence POSSIBLY have to do with the wording of this rule? HOW CAN WE FIGURE OUT what this sentence means???? God GW sucks at rules writing amirite.

It says "bark" right there. The real question is who this is meant to apply to - trees or dogs?

Edit: I am now sure (as in:this is the rules as written 1000%) that is has to be dogs. Because if you take the rule, it literally says "ark", and only dogs went on that, not trees. Because trees can't walk.

Unless you're playing one of the Middle-Earth games, where some of the trees might walk.

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:
It says "bark" right there. The real question is who this is meant to apply to - trees or dogs?

Edit: I am now sure (as in:this is the rules as written 1000%) that is has to be dogs. Because if you take the rule, it literally says "ark", and only dogs went on that, not trees. Because trees can't walk.

Unless you're playing one of the Middle-Earth games, where some of the trees might walk.

Wrong! No further explanation necessary.

nekooni wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:
It says "bark" right there. The real question is who this is meant to apply to - trees or dogs?

Edit: I am now sure (as in:this is the rules as written 1000%) that is has to be dogs. Because if you take the rule, it literally says "ark", and only dogs went on that, not trees. Because trees can't walk.

Unless you're playing one of the Middle-Earth games, where some of the trees might walk.

Wrong! No further explanation necessary.

Really? At least the Lord of the Rings game does.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Ent

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:
It says "bark" right there. The real question is who this is meant to apply to - trees or dogs?

Edit: I am now sure (as in:this is the rules as written 1000%) that is has to be dogs. Because if you take the rule, it literally says "ark", and only dogs went on that, not trees. Because trees can't walk.

Unless you're playing one of the Middle-Earth games, where some of the trees might walk.

Wrong! No further explanation necessary.

Really? At least the Lord of the Rings game does.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Ent

That's not an official rules source!

nekooni wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:
It says "bark" right there. The real question is who this is meant to apply to - trees or dogs?

Edit: I am now sure (as in:this is the rules as written 1000%) that is has to be dogs. Because if you take the rule, it literally says "ark", and only dogs went on that, not trees. Because trees can't walk.

Unless you're playing one of the Middle-Earth games, where some of the trees might walk.

Wrong! No further explanation necessary.

Really? At least the Lord of the Rings game does.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Ent

That's not an official rules source!

Can you produce a list approved by RAW then of what Noah took on the ark? I've read that he had plenty of trees...at the very least, converted into lumber to make the ark.

 doctortom wrote:
Can you produce a list approved by RAW then of what Noah took on the ark? I've read that he had plenty of trees...at the very least, converted into lumber to make the ark.

That's ridiculous! Oh, look, over there, a Carnifex!

nekooni wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nekooni wrote:
It says "bark" right there. The real question is who this is meant to apply to - trees or dogs?

Edit: I am now sure (as in:this is the rules as written 1000%) that is has to be dogs. Because if you take the rule, it literally says "ark", and only dogs went on that, not trees. Because trees can't walk.

Unless you're playing one of the Middle-Earth games, where some of the trees might walk.

Wrong! No further explanation necessary.

Really? At least the Lord of the Rings game does.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Ent

That's not an official rules source!

Just some random GW staffer’s model

 Grimtuff wrote:
Good lordy, what a read.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that GW (probably*) put on the FB page (although I don't want it to, as I despise the stupid name "Slamguinius" and the stupid memes that accompany it. So anything keeping it from my games is a good thing, but I digress...).

*I say probably, as I (like many other people) do not have a Privacyinvasionbook account, nor do I want one, nor even want to go near their site; so I only have to go on what was presented in this thread, and as such is a fething stupid place to put rules. I wonder how many of these "you activated my trap card" rulings I've missed out on due to not wanting to go anywhere near that place.

Everyone that knows someone that uses Facebook is already on Facebook whether they want to be or not, due to Facebook building shadow accounts on everyone mentioned on the Facebook post, in a posted photo, or in a contact list on a phone used to access Facebook. As in, you are F’d anyway regardless of consent.

SJ