Forewarned with Da Jump and similar abilities

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.

**JohnnyHell**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
No. It would refute it.

I disagree but it makes little difference. FAQ answers on one topic do not represent answers for another.

That's as maybe, but treating something as reinforcements means applying all relevant rules relating to reinforcements... it doesn't mean "extra emphasis this isn't a reinforcement". It means to all intents and purposes they are, so follow those rules.

Follow those rules =/= they are the same thing.

What it means in this instance is follow those rules for moving and shooting which, unfortunately, does not help us here.

You're just not reading it correctly now. If they'd written "they count as moving", sure. But they said to treat as reinforcements, which means they count as moving AND all other interactions and effects that being reinforcements brings.

**An Actual Englishman**

JohnnyHell wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
JohnnyHell wrote:
No. It would refute it.

I disagree but it makes little difference. FAQ answers on one topic do not represent answers for another.

That's as maybe, but treating something as reinforcements means applying all relevant rules relating to reinforcements... it doesn't mean "extra emphasis this isn't a reinforcement". It means to all intents and purposes they are, so follow those rules.

Follow those rules =/= they are the same thing.

What it means in this instance is follow those rules for moving and shooting which, unfortunately, does not help us here.

You're just not reading it correctly now. If they'd written "they count as moving", sure. But they said to treat as reinforcements, which means they count as moving AND all other interactions and effects that being reinforcements brings.

I'm reading it correctly. Nowhere does it say that it affects stratagems.

You're making an assumption it's the same for stratagems but this isn't proof by any stretch.

The Sentinel wrote:
If that was the case they would have answered the question with a simple yes or no like they have done in other FAQs. Instead in this instance they also further clarified how to treat units that are removed and set up using these types of Stratagems/Abilites/Powers. In the case of the Gate of Infinity psychic power you would have reinforcements that arrive in the Psychic Phase and while I don't have any armies that have those interceptor type Stratagems and I can't actually reference the text, I do believe that they specify they can be used when a unit arrives as reinforcements rather than in any specific phase. This would allow you to use it against anyone using one of these powers in the psychic phase or any other special ability/strat in any other phase of the game.

EDIT: I take that back I do have one of these Stratagems with Admech and it doesn't call out any specific phase. It says it may be played when an enemy unit arrives as reinforcements within 12" of an Admech unit.

The phasing is irrelevant and you're making a massive assumption that this brief FAQ response is to be used in the case of retaliatory stratagems.

For a start demonic summoning isn't used in the reinforcement part of the phase but is clearly units arriving as reinforcements so they have to allow the stratagem to cover different phases.

A unit that is already on the board and in play is surely not a reinforcement. By definition a reinforcement is a unit that you have not yet deployed. You have already deployed a unit that's Jumped or GoI up the board.

**JohnnyHell**

If the FAQ says to treat a unit being redeployed in this way as a reinforcement that's what you do. Why do you think only the Movement element counts?

There also isn't a "reinforcement Phase".

**An Actual Englishman**

JohnnyHell wrote:
If the FAQ says to treat a unit being redeployed in this way as a reinforcement that's what you do. Why do you think only the Movement element counts?

There also isn't a "reinforcement Phase".

I have not made any reference to a reinforcement phase anywhere.

You "treat the unit this way" in regards to firing heavy weapons and moving. That is all. There is literally no further clarification and you can read into it as much as you like but it'll be RAI not RAW territory.

**ian**

I dont think its just in regards to heavy weapons. Its a calrifcation on what models are treated like when there removed and put back. Just because the question was about heavy weapons dosnt mean that the faq cant eleborate on further reaching points

Automatically Appended Next Post:
In this case how you treat gate of infinity etc

**An Actual Englishman**

Again, you are assuming and you may well be right. But it isn't raw.

A faq question regarding one topic does not answer another.

**Mr. Shine**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
I have not made any reference to a reinforcement phase anywhere.

Posted 2018/02/18 22:10:08. Previous post edited with last update at 2018/02/18 22:10:58... crazy how forum do dat

You "treat the unit this way" in regards to firing heavy weapons and moving. That is all. There is literally no further clarification and you can read into it as much as you like but it'll be RAI not RAW territory.

No. The sentence telling us to treat them as reinforcements is simple and standalone, so we are told simply to treat such units as reinforcements without limitation.

**ian**

Arnt you assuming that the faq is just answering one topic ? Where is the raw stating faq may only be used in relation to the question answered

**An Actual Englishman**

Mr. Shine wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
I have not made any reference to a reinforcement phase anywhere.

Posted 2018/02/18 22:10:08. Previous post edited with last update at 2018/02/18 22:10:58... crazy how forum do dat

Yep, posting on phone means spellchecks a bitch. But feel free to speculate.

MrShine wrote:
You "treat the unit this way" in regards to firing heavy weapons and moving. That is all. There is literally no further clarification and you can read into it as much as you like but it'll be RAI not RAW territory.

No. The sentence telling us to treat them as reinforcements is simple and standalone, so we are told simply to treat such units as reinforcements without limitation.

ian wrote:
Arnt you assuming that the faq is just answering one topic ? Where is the raw stating faq may only be used in relation to the question answered

Wrong. The sentence telling us to treat them as reinforcements is in direct response to a question regarding moving and firing heavy weapons (someone wanted to exploit the rule to bypass the heavy weapon to shoot penalty).

Ian the rules are permissive, unless they say "you can use the FAQ in response each and every circumstance of this ruling" then you cannot.

You're making assumptions to suit your belief on the rule, which is fine, but is an assumption either way.

EDIT - quoting didn't format properly (just in case Mr Shine is suspicious).

**ian**

Or is the yes the direct part , it is an assumtion that a faq cannot elborate. We have to remmber that an faq is not part of the rule set it is gw reposese to questions its an important diffrence and means that it dosnt form part of the raw that part is done by amendments and erratas

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I know where not allowed to bring real world, but arnt faqs like case law theres no law set down but its an accepted way to do things ,bjt the key thing is its more flexable to cope with changimg times. Laws have to go though a diffrent process to be changed as i understand it

**An Actual Englishman**

ian wrote:
Or is the yes the direct part , it is an assumtion that a faq cannot elborate. We have to remmber that an faq is not part of the rule set it is gw reposese to questions its an important diffrence and means that it dosnt form part of the raw that part is done by amendments and erratas

To me the entire question is a direct response. Again the rules are permissive, if you think you can do something (but there is no statement that you can) then you should not do it. Also if I'm looking for the answer to my question as to whether someone can shoot Da Jumped Boyz with Foresight I wouldn't look to a FAQ response regarding Heavy Weapons and movement penalties for an answer.

As I said earlier, I've asked GW for a FAQ on the topic so we'll see what comes of it. As of now I don't think there's a clear answer either way.

**ian**

I do understand that it is permissive. Which is why i said about using an faq as a rule theres no permission to do that . The rule book gives you the permission to use them as rules and from what i remmber so does the codex. Theres a whole debate on faqs etc, but my stance is that they do not have to have the same rigger imposed on them that rules do. Hence why they can be used in other situtations

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do understand that it is permissive. Which is why i said about using an faq as a rule theres no permission to do that . The rule book gives you the permission to use them as rules and from what i remmber so does the codex. Theres a whole debate on faqs etc, but my stance is that they do not have to have the same rigger imposed on them that rules do. Hence why they can be used in other situtations

**Mr. Shine**

It's abundantly clear that setting up a unit mid-turn using Da Jump is setting up a unit arriving as reinforcements. It is quite literally the definition per the first sentence of Reinforcements in the core rules.

Throwing Reinforcement Points or Tactical Reserves or the rulebook FAQ into the mix is a red herring and blatantly irrelevant. This thread was over after the first reply.

**jeff white**

Marmatag wrote:
Reinforcements => set up battlefield mid turn.

This does not mean:

Set up battlefield mid turn => Reinforcements.

You would need to argue that being set up on the battlefield mid turn happens IF AND ONLY IF the unit is coming from reinforcements. Which is not possible. There is an easy counterexample - units disembarking a transport. They are being set up mid turn, but not arriving from reinforcements.

^^

If you look at every other use of the term "reinforcements" in the BRB, it is used in EVERY case to name a specific sort of thing, and DA JUMP is not that sort of thing but another thing entirely. "Reinforcements" names other resources brought in from other fields of operation, not the same resources moved within the same field of operation.

**An Actual Englishman**

jeff white wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
Reinforcements => set up battlefield mid turn.

This does not mean:

Set up battlefield mid turn => Reinforcements.

You would need to argue that being set up on the battlefield mid turn happens IF AND ONLY IF the unit is coming from reinforcements. Which is not possible. There is an easy counterexample - units disembarking a transport. They are being set up mid turn, but not arriving from reinforcements.

^^

If you look at every other use of the term "reinforcements" in the BRB, it is used in EVERY case to name a specific sort of thing, and DA JUMP is not that sort of thing but another thing entirely. "Reinforcements" names other resources brought in from other fields of operation, not the same resources moved within the same field of operation.

Exactly this.

**ian**

I think the faq provides a clear way of dealing with it. And trying to say that it only applies to the question is just a way out of it. Its not just a red herring

**doctortom**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
The Sentinel wrote:
From the BRB FAQ:

Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infnity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements

The implication here is that we treat them as arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy Weapons.

If we treat units like reinforcements, does that mean that they, by definition, aren't?

Wouldn't that back up my stance that they aren't reinforcements and shouldn't be able to be targeted by Foresight?

I

It's an implication, but also it can be taken as a statement that for any purpose they are treated as reinforcements. They could have added the phrase "for purposes of moving and firing heavy weapons" at the end of their statement if they wanted to limit it to those functions.