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.

Again, that statement unfortunately says nothing about whether or not these powers can be used to go outside deployment zone on turn 1, just that they can be used. While it may seem obvious what the intent is, until we get a properly worded response or errata it is almost worthless.

 ikeulhu wrote:
Again, that statement unfortunately says nothing about whether or not these powers can be used to go outside deployment zone on turn 1, just that they can be used. While it may seem obvious what the intent is, until we get a properly worded response or errata it is almost worthless.

Obvious intent.

In the case of Da Jump, those models are not tactical reserves, they have already 'arrived', and no part of Da Jump says place the models in Tactical Reserves. Tactical Reserves has nothing to do with the use of Da Jump.

If they start on the board, fill your boots.

The deepstrike limitation of Tactical Reserves doesn't talk about reserves either so that has no bearing.

 Rismonite wrote:

 ikeulhu wrote:
Again, that statement unfortunately says nothing about whether or not these powers can be used to go outside deployment zone on turn 1, just that they can be used. While it may seem obvious what the intent is, until we get a properly worded response or errata it is almost worthless.

Obvious intent.

In the case of Da Jump, those models are not tactical reserves, they have already 'arrived', and no part of Da Jump says place the models in Tactical Reserves. Tactical Reserves has nothing to do with the use of Da Jump.

Too bad the new rule didn\t attach itself to units arriving from tactical reserves but for units arriving on turn 1 which Da Jump 100% did. They could have easily written alterative way like "units that were put to reserve in deployment cannot be placed outside own deployment zone on turn 1" but screwed up.

And btw attached for fun reason why screenshots are super bad idea as "proof". Took me like 5 seconds to fake out answer from GW team, no special skill or tool. Just your standard web browser.

And of course even now we have no official clarification. The guys that answered have made it clear themselves that their answers aren't official rule clarifications so they are pretty much HIWP material.

 Rismonite wrote:

Obvious intent.

In the case of Da Jump, those models are not tactical reserves, they have already 'arrived', and no part of Da Jump says place the models in Tactical Reserves. Tactical Reserves has nothing to do with the use of Da Jump.

I completely agree. The problem is there are plenty of people out there who will need an official word from GW themselves that states it can be used to go outside of the deployment zone on turn 1 before the debate will truly end.

That's good enough for me to choose a side in this - thanks.

 ikeulhu wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:

Obvious intent.

In the case of Da Jump, those models are not tactical reserves, they have already 'arrived', and no part of Da Jump says place the models in Tactical Reserves. Tactical Reserves has nothing to do with the use of Da Jump.

I completely agree. The problem is there are plenty of people out there who will need an official word from GW themselves that states it can be used to go outside of the deployment zone on turn 1 before the debate will truly end.

It's not so obvious intent when they just introduced rule intended to kill turn 1 alpha strikes...

But now let's see if we get official word rather than unofficial ambigious word which still can mean either way.

If someone tries to tell me I can't da jump outside of my deployment zone I'm gonna da jump my fist into their face.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
If someone tries to tell me I can't da jump outside of my deployment zone I'm gonna da jump my fist into their face.

That properly orky response deserves an exalt, sir!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
If someone tries to tell me I can't da jump outside of my deployment zone I'm gonna da jump my fist into their face.

Good to know. Will make sure never ever play against guy who thinks violence is acceptable.

tneva82 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
If someone tries to tell me I can't da jump outside of my deployment zone I'm gonna da jump my fist into their face.

Good to know. Will make sure never ever play against guy who thinks violence is acceptable.

I'm sure he'll be careful to avoid flying to Finland with his horde of Orks for you to piously avoid playing him.

Do make sure to question all your opponents about their violent predilections before commencing play. It'll save some time.

tneva82 wrote:

Good to know. Will make sure never ever play against guy who thinks violence is acceptable.

Says the person who plays a game that literally glorifies violence!

tneva82 wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:

 ikeulhu wrote:
Again, that statement unfortunately says nothing about whether or not these powers can be used to go outside deployment zone on turn 1, just that they can be used. While it may seem obvious what the intent is, until we get a properly worded response or errata it is almost worthless.

Obvious intent.

In the case of Da Jump, those models are not tactical reserves, they have already 'arrived', and no part of Da Jump says place the models in Tactical Reserves. Tactical Reserves has nothing to do with the use of Da Jump.

Too bad the new rule didn\t attach itself to units arriving from tactical reserves but for units arriving on turn 1 which Da Jump 100% did. They could have easily written alterative way like "units that were put to reserve in deployment cannot be placed outside own deployment zone on turn 1" but screwed up.

And btw attached for fun reason why screenshots are super bad idea as "proof". Took me like 5 seconds to fake out answer from GW team, no special skill or tool. Just your standard web browser.

And of course even now we have no official clarification. The guys that answered have made it clear themselves that their answers aren't official rule clarifications so they are pretty much HIWP material.

Where did you get this screenshot from? That isn't an actual picture of the conversation in the big faq thread I linked on facebook. It's been modified. It should be taken down.

 Rismonite wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:

 ikeulhu wrote:
Again, that statement unfortunately says nothing about whether or not these powers can be used to go outside deployment zone on turn 1, just that they can be used. While it may seem obvious what the intent is, until we get a properly worded response or errata it is almost worthless.

Obvious intent.

In the case of Da Jump, those models are not tactical reserves, they have already 'arrived', and no part of Da Jump says place the models in Tactical Reserves. Tactical Reserves has nothing to do with the use of Da Jump.

Too bad the new rule didn\t attach itself to units arriving from tactical reserves but for units arriving on turn 1 which Da Jump 100% did. They could have easily written alterative way like "units that were put to reserve in deployment cannot be placed outside own deployment zone on turn 1" but screwed up.

And btw attached for fun reason why screenshots are super bad idea as "proof". Took me like 5 seconds to fake out answer from GW team, no special skill or tool. Just your standard web browser.

And of course even now we have no official clarification. The guys that answered have made it clear themselves that their answers aren't official rule clarifications so they are pretty much HIWP material.

Where did you get this screenshot from? That isn't an actual picture of the conversation in the big faq thread I linked on facebook. It's been modified. It should be taken down.

Did you bother reading what he wrote? He tells you where he got it from - he manufactured it as an example of why you can't rely on pictures of screenshots as proof of something. That's not even bringing in the point that when GW FAQ's something the answer may not be the same as what the Facebook team said (that's happened before).

nevermind...

Anyone can fake a facebook post. They are meaningless. The rules are clear and without errata or special snowflake FAQ they won't change.

Wow really? Yeah the screenshot popped out at me before what he wrote did.

I supplied a direct link to the conversation on facebook since screenies aren't good enough

.pdf files can be faked too, so lets throw the whole faq out.

 Rismonite wrote:
Wow really? Yeah the screenshot popped out at me before what he wrote did.

I supplied a direct link to the conversation on facebook since screenies aren't good enough

.pdf files can be faked too, so lets throw the whole faq out.

Again, Facebook, emails etc are NOT permitted on YMDC and are pointless to discuss.

I got an email from Matt Ward himself saying my Ultramarines automatically win their games. Prove me wrong!

 Rismonite wrote:
Wow really? Yeah the screenshot popped out at me before what he wrote did.

I supplied a direct link to the conversation on facebook since screenies aren't good enough

.pdf files can be faked too, so lets throw the whole faq out.

They aren't the ones who write the FAQs, so their answer is not necessarily what it will be when they put it into a FAQ.

From the Tenets of YMDC:


2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.


Facebook posts get lumped in here as not being official - it's already been shown how somebody could spoof an answer, and the Facebook posts aren't always consistent with what comes out later in a FAQ.

tneva82 wrote:
Good to know. Will make sure never ever play against guy who thinks violence is acceptable.

What. A. Shame.

 r_squared wrote:
Do make sure to question all your opponents about their violent predilections before commencing play. It'll save some time.

I'm going to go to Finland JUST to find and use "da jump" on him.

 ikeulhu wrote:
That properly orky response deserves an exalt, sir!

Thank you kindly!

 doctortom wrote:
Did you bother reading what he wrote? He tells you where he got it from - he manufactured it as an example of why you can't rely on pictures of screenshots as proof of something. That's not even bringing in the point that when GW FAQ's something the answer may not be the same as what the Facebook team said (that's happened before).

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Anyone can fake a facebook post. They are meaningless. The rules are clear and without errata or special snowflake FAQ they won't change.

This is getting fething pathetic. Stop embarrassing yourselves. This is as much as you're going to get in terms of an official clarification until an amends is released and it couldn't be more obvious what the ruling is.

You can all go ahead and play your sad little game that only exists in your head while the rest of us play how the developers actually intended it. Keep clutching at those straws guys!

Yeah I checked the group info they do back off of their rules interpretations. Throw the facebook post away then.

You still can't apply rules just for tactical reserves to a psychic power.

The FB answer was unfortunately not terribly clear, so in that sense it is not so useful. However, their rules answers usually tend to be correct. If they're not sure, they usually say so, or reply something like 'we forward this question to the design team for future FAQ' or something like that. Their answers may not be good enough to win Dakka rules lawyering fights, but they're usually good enough for people who actually want to resolve an issue in order to play the game.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Good to know. Will make sure never ever play against guy who thinks violence is acceptable.

What. A. Shame.

 r_squared wrote:
Do make sure to question all your opponents about their violent predilections before commencing play. It'll save some time.

I'm going to go to Finland JUST to find and use "da jump" on him.

 ikeulhu wrote:
That properly orky response deserves an exalt, sir!

Thank you kindly!

 doctortom wrote:
Did you bother reading what he wrote? He tells you where he got it from - he manufactured it as an example of why you can't rely on pictures of screenshots as proof of something. That's not even bringing in the point that when GW FAQ's something the answer may not be the same as what the Facebook team said (that's happened before).

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Anyone can fake a facebook post. They are meaningless. The rules are clear and without errata or special snowflake FAQ they won't change.

This is getting fething pathetic. Stop embarrassing yourselves. This is as much as you're going to get in terms of an official clarification until an amends is released and it couldn't be more obvious what the ruling is.

You can all go ahead and play your sad little game that only exists in your head while the rest of us play how the developers actually intended it. Keep clutching at those straws guys!

If you just want to argue "who is playing it more", please note that ITC, the largest tournament ruleset, is going to rule you can't GoI or Da Jump out of your deployment zone T1 according to other posters in this forum. London GT might well follow suit as well if that happens.

ITC has also pre-empted GW several times this edition.

Audustum wrote:
If you just want to argue "who is playing it more", please note that ITC, the largest tournament ruleset, is going to rule you can't GoI or Da Jump out of your deployment zone T1 according to other posters in this forum. London GT might well follow suit as well if that happens.

ITC has also pre-empted GW several times this edition.

I don't want to argue anything, nor could I care what anyone on here believes. The ITC is an American led thing. They don't play by the same missions that are in the rule book(s). I live in the UK (obviously) and though I agree that they have pre-empted GW before, it doesn't mean they have here. Particularly when GW themselves have said otherwise..

This conversation needs to be cooled down. Already had to ding one poster for rulebreaking.

The RAW seem very clear here that the restriction applies. There's a FAQ which is even explicit that you treat units using things like Gate as arriving as reinforcements. I have no idea how people are discerning intent otherwise since these abilities function exactly like a deep strike and any game design argument for why one should be restricted on turn 1 would seem to apply just about as well to the other.

Dionysodorus wrote:
The RAW seem very clear here that the restriction applies. There's a FAQ which is even explicit that you treat units using things like Gate as arriving as reinforcements. I have no idea how people are discerning intent otherwise since these abilities function exactly like a deep strike and any game design argument for why one should be restricted on turn 1 would seem to apply just about as well to the other.

We now have a clear statement from GW that allows turn 1 redeployment. Yes, I agree the RAW rule does not allow it but todays information is, imo, good enough to allow it. I would just urge GW to update the Faq to be more clear.

 Ordana wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
The RAW seem very clear here that the restriction applies. There's a FAQ which is even explicit that you treat units using things like Gate as arriving as reinforcements. I have no idea how people are discerning intent otherwise since these abilities function exactly like a deep strike and any game design argument for why one should be restricted on turn 1 would seem to apply just about as well to the other.

We now have a clear statement from GW that allows turn 1 redeployment. Yes, I agree the RAW rule does not allow it but todays information is, imo, good enough to allow it. I would just urge GW to update the Faq to be more clear.

Agreed, we have a clear statement from GW that allows turn 1 redeployment. They said you can benefit from the powers. What they didn't make clear, though, is that you can use that redeployment to leave your deployment zone in the first turn.

I'll agree that RAI they seem to want it to but they can't figure out what the actual ISSUE is (heaven forbid they come read our forums) so RAW you still can't do it

EDIT: I'll add that I bet GW didn't realize how badly this would hurt stuff like GK/Orks and are now scrambling to 'undo' that damage. It's why RAI doesn't match RAW.