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.

Well turn 1 charges arent even that scary anymore with the FAQ regarding charging.

You can't pull the fight thrice shenanigans anymore since now you have to actually succesfully charge (as in get within 1" of enemy unit) to have the model considered to have charge the said unit...

 skchsan wrote:
Well turn 1 charges arent even that scary anymore with the FAQ regarding charging.

You can't pull the fight thrice shenanigans anymore since now you have to actually succesfully charge (as in get within 1" of enemy unit) to have the model considered to have charge the said unit...

.. That's not really a change? I'm not quite following.

This is in reference to multi charge where you used to use the fight again ability/stratagems to slingshot youself into the second rank. If the charge wasnt successful, you cant fight them as you are no longer considered to have charged a unit by simply declaring the charge.

Edit. I see that the FAQ I'm referencing is pretty poorly written. As per FAQ, if you succesfully charged at leazt once, then you are considered to successfully charged ALL of you targets while also saying if you failed a charge, you havent charged.

So if you declared a charge against unit thats 3" anx one thats 12" away, if you make a charge on the unit 3" away, you charged both of them, but if you failed a charge on one of them, you fail both - which is to say in this particular case, a charge roll of 3" is a successful charge against unit that is 12" away...

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The problem is some people took the:

"treat them as arriving from reserves/reinforcements for the purpose of shooting weapons" to mean "these units are arriving from reinforcements"

Warhammer 40,000
Axel Johnson as we've said above, they are only counted as reinforcements in terms of movement, which the FAQ itself asks. They count as having moved, they cannot be targetted by abilities like Warptime and they will suffer a -1 to Hit penalty with Heavy weapons. It does not preclude them from using abilities like 'Da Jump'. If it did, we would not have included it in the post above.

Well since it says "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 Infinity 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."

they answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes. then go on to say "Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements."

"Such units"? Which units? well "a unit [that] 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 Infinity psychic power"

Any unit that uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again is subject to the restriction. not just " for the purpose of shooting weapons" as you said, because it says "a unit that" which = any unit that...

The question is about if they count as moving for shooting. This is a prime example of people taking an answer, ignoring the question then applying the result to everything.

blaktoof wrote:
The question is about if they count as moving for shooting. This is a prime example of people taking an answer, ignoring the question then applying the result to everything.

No, the answer EXPLICITLY says to "treat them as reinforcements."

Not "treat them as reinforcements for the purposes of whether they have moved or not", but a blanket "treat them as reinforcements."

That means you treat them as reinforcements (a defined rules phrase) in all regards.

blaktoof wrote:
The question is about if they count as moving for shooting. This is a prime example of people taking an answer, ignoring the question then applying the result to everything.

Sure. Except that:

Warhammer 40,000
Axel Johnson as we've said above, they are only counted as reinforcements in terms of movement, which the FAQ itself asks. They count as having moved, they cannot be targetted by abilities like Warptime and they will suffer a -1 to Hit penalty with Heavy weapons. It does not preclude them from using abilities like 'Da Jump'. If it did, we would not have included it in the post above.

We're told to apply all the same restrictions as reinforcements, except for being limited to the deployment zone. If it was just a question about shooting Heavy weapons, why would the unit not be targetable by Warptime? That's got nothing to do with moving and shooting.

So the FAQ suggests we should follow all the restrictions. Their follow-up confirms that we should, but then also says "Oh but we didn't mean the deployment zone bit, just ignore that one." We're left scratching our heads about how the heck we were supposed to know the intention was to follow all the restrictions except one, which was never called out. We also wonder how we're supposed to convince a TO of that, if they haven't seen a specific random Facebook comment, since it hasn't been fixed in the official FAQ.

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The problem is some people took the:

"treat them as arriving from reserves/reinforcements for the purpose of shooting weapons" to mean "these units are arriving from reinforcements"

Warhammer 40,000
Axel Johnson as we've said above, they are only counted as reinforcements in terms of movement, which the FAQ itself asks. They count as having moved, they cannot be targetted by abilities like Warptime and they will suffer a -1 to Hit penalty with Heavy weapons. It does not preclude them from using abilities like 'Da Jump'. If it did, we would not have included it in the post above.

Well since it says "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 Infinity 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."

they answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes. then go on to say "Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements."

"Such units"? Which units? well "a unit [that] 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 Infinity psychic power"

Any unit that uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again is subject to the restriction. not just " for the purpose of shooting weapons" as you said, because it says "a unit that" which = any unit that...

The question is about if they count as moving for shooting. This is a prime example of people taking an answer, ignoring the question then applying the result to everything.

I did not ignore the question.

Re-read my post I did not ignore the question. They answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes.

Then, after the question is answered they go on to clarify how you treat units that use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again. Which is to Treat units that use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements

 skchsan wrote:
This is in reference to multi charge where you used to use the fight again ability/stratagems to slingshot youself into the second rank. If the charge wasnt successful, you cant fight them as you are no longer considered to have charged a unit by simply declaring the charge.

Edit. I see that the FAQ I'm referencing is pretty poorly written. As per FAQ, if you succesfully charged at leazt once, then you are considered to successfully charged ALL of you targets while also saying if you failed a charge, you havent charged.

So if you declared a charge against unit thats 3" anx one thats 12" away, if you make a charge on the unit 3" away, you charged both of them, but if you failed a charge on one of them, you fail both - which is to say in this particular case, a charge roll of 3" is a successful charge against unit that is 12" away...

Having made a charge wasn't the pre req for being able to attack a unit, however. It's unambiguously related to having declared a charge against a unit.

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The problem is some people took the:

"treat them as arriving from reserves/reinforcements for the purpose of shooting weapons" to mean "these units are arriving from reinforcements"

Warhammer 40,000
Axel Johnson as we've said above, they are only counted as reinforcements in terms of movement, which the FAQ itself asks. They count as having moved, they cannot be targetted by abilities like Warptime and they will suffer a -1 to Hit penalty with Heavy weapons. It does not preclude them from using abilities like 'Da Jump'. If it did, we would not have included it in the post above.

Well since it says "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 Infinity 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."

they answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes. then go on to say "Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements."

"Such units"? Which units? well "a unit [that] 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 Infinity psychic power"

Any unit that uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again is subject to the restriction. not just " for the purpose of shooting weapons" as you said, because it says "a unit that" which = any unit that...

The question is about if they count as moving for shooting. This is a prime example of people taking an answer, ignoring the question then applying the result to everything.

I did not ignore the question.

Re-read my post I did not ignore the question. They answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes.

Then, after the question is answered they go on to clarify how you treat units that use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again. Which is to Treat units hat use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements

It doesn't say that.

It's treating units that are firing after using such an ability as reinforcements. Again, you are inferring additional meaning in the answer beyond the scope of the question. You are taking the first complete sentence of the answer and applying it to all purposes when the question is only about shooting. RAI it might apply to every situation but it certainly doesn't say it does. Turns out it doesn't.

 DeathReaper wrote:


I did not ignore the question.

Re-read my post I did not ignore the question. They answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes.

Then, after the question is answered they go on to clarify how you treat units that use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again. Which is to Treat units hat use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements

You treat them as such for determining if they count as moving. It's a specific answer to a specific question. Besides, the facebook guys have confirmed the intent of the rule after discussing it with the rules team.
On top of that, this particular FAQ was written before the new deepstrike rules were developed so "arriving from reinforcements" had no such limitations at all. They just forgot to update it.

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


I did not ignore the question.

Re-read my post I did not ignore the question. They answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes.

Then, after the question is answered they go on to clarify how you treat units that use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again. Which is to Treat units hat use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements

It doesn't say that.

It's treating units that are firing after using such an ability as reinforcements. Again, you are inferring additional meaning in the answer beyond the scope of the question. You are taking the first complete sentence of the answer and applying it to all purposes when the question is only about shooting. RAI it might apply to every situation but it certainly doesn't say it does. Turns out it doesn't.

It really does say that, as my post has shown.

Why do you think the second sentence is restricted to firing after using such an ability?

It says nothing of the sort.

It just says that we 'Treat units that use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements'

Dandelion wrote:
You treat them as such for determining if they count as moving.

Incorrect, the answer says no such thing.

It's a specific answer to a specific question.

The first sentence answers the specific question with a yes. The second is a blanket clarification to any unit that "uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again"

Besides, the facebook guys have confirmed the intent of the rule after discussing it with the rules team.

Facebook is not Rules. it is not Errata, it is not FAQ.

On top of that, this particular FAQ was written before the new deepstrike rules were developed so "arriving from reinforcements" had no such limitations at all. They just forgot to update it.

and until they do, if they ever do, the rules now restrict any unit "as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements."

This disjointed ruleset is unacceptable. Am i supposed to monitor the facebook community page to know how to play this game now?

Sorry no, if it's not posted in an official source I am not going to be held accountable for it.

Just because McFloggenbadgerspoon in Sussexwitchhamburg writes a reply to a customer in a sad attempt to clarify a very poorly written rule, doesn't mean it's something i'm going to follow. Not an official channel? Not an official rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
snip

I still disagree with your assessment. Before even knowing the RAI, I took that particular answer to only apply to movement. You are adding meaning to the answer that I would not. So who's wrong? Well, we asked GW, and GW has clarified it on facebook. Should they update the FAQ? Yes. But thanks to people who complained about FAQs and errata being too quick we now have to wait until september to get an official ruling.

But even ignoring all that, the beta rule is just that, a beta. It is not actually a part of the rules yet and as such it is not beholden to be rest of the FAQs for consistency... yet. You play how it is intended and then say "Hey, btw, your FAQ contradicts the beta rule" to which GW says "Oh, right. Let's get on that. We wouldn't want the actual finalized rule to be inconsistent."

Facebook is the best you're going to get for beta rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Not an official rule.

That's why it's called a beta. It's not an official rule yet.

Dandelion wrote:
Before even knowing the RAI, I took that particular answer to only apply to movement.

Before the Facebook comment, would you have taken that answer to mean that a unit using a relocation ability could not be targeted by Warp Time? If so, could you explain why?

Dandelion wrote:
I still disagree with your assessment.

you can disagree, but the RaW is how I have explained.

Before even knowing the RAI, I took that particular answer to only apply to movement.

you should not have, because it literally applies to any unit.

You are adding meaning to the answer that I would not.

I am not adding anything, you are restricting any unit to 'only units that fire weapons' Don't add anything.

So who's wrong?

Your argument is clearly wrong as you are adding a restriction that is not there.

Well, we asked GW, and GW has clarified it on facebook.

FB is not an official rules source.

Should they update the FAQ? Yes. But thanks to people who complained about FAQs and errata being too quick we now have to wait until september to get an official ruling.

If they meant for it do be different, then they should update the FAQ. but for now it says what it says.

But even ignoring all that, the beta rule is just that, a beta. It is not actually a part of the rules yet and as such it is not beholden to be rest of the FAQs for consistency... yet. You play how it is intended and then say "Hey, btw, your FAQ contradicts the beta rule" to which GW says "Oh, right. Let's get on that. We wouldn't want the actual finalized rule to be inconsistent."

Facebook is the best you're going to get for beta rules.

Beta rules or not many people will play with them.

And as Marmatag said "This disjointed ruleset is unacceptable. Am i supposed to monitor the facebook community page to know how to play this game now?

Sorry no, if it's not posted in an official source I am not going to be held accountable for it."

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


I did not ignore the question.

Re-read my post I did not ignore the question. They answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes.

Then, after the question is answered they go on to clarify how you treat units that use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again. Which is to Treat units hat use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements

It doesn't say that.

It's treating units that are firing after using such an ability as reinforcements. Again, you are inferring additional meaning in the answer beyond the scope of the question. You are taking the first complete sentence of the answer and applying it to all purposes when the question is only about shooting. RAI it might apply to every situation but it certainly doesn't say it does. Turns out it doesn't.

It really does say that, as my post has shown.

Why do you think the second sentence is restricted to firing after using such an ability?

It says nothing of the sort.

It just says that we 'Treat units that use a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements'

Dandelion wrote:
You treat them as such for determining if they count as moving.

Incorrect, the answer says no such thing.

It's a specific answer to a specific question.

The first sentence answers the specific question with a yes. The second is a blanket clarification to any unit that "uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again"

Besides, the facebook guys have confirmed the intent of the rule after discussing it with the rules team.

Facebook is not Rules. it is not Errata, it is not FAQ.

On top of that, this particular FAQ was written before the new deepstrike rules were developed so "arriving from reinforcements" had no such limitations at all. They just forgot to update it.

and until they do, if they ever do, the rules now restrict any unit "as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements."

It's your interpretation that the second sentence is a blanket statement and not tied to the question at all.

blaktoof wrote:
It's your interpretation that the second sentence is a blanket statement and not tied to the question at all.

No, that is literally how that second sentence is written. It does not give any restrictions on what it applies to, as the question asked has already been answered by the first sentence.

Therefore it applies to "such units" and "such units" refers to "a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again" without any restrictions.

No, it's ignoring the context of the question
Removing sentences out of where they're written is a particularly bad way to parse a ruleset.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it's ignoring the context of the question
Removing sentences out of where they're written is a particularly bad way to parse a ruleset.

Who is? blaktoof? yea it seems so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it's ignoring the context of the question
Removing sentences out of where they're written is a particularly bad way to parse a ruleset.

Instead of using references to the rule here is the rule in its text. If you are going to talk about rules as written you need to do so verbatim. Here's the sentence in question at the bottom. There are two huge immediate problems. 1. It restricts any units that deploy during a players first turn. (minus infiltrators etc) 2. Units that deep strike do not use the word deploy. No wiggling around this one boys. If someone can find a codex that actually uses the word deploy for its deep strike rules I will happily edit this, but I have checked all the codexes I have a copy to check and still none. They all SET UP OVER 9 INCHES AWAY. Which is the exact same language that all of the "psyker" strikes use. So the only hard separation is whether or not the unit started on the board this turn and has to be removed from the board first. Go back to that second paragraph and find me any exception in the actual clarification portion that limits it to units that did not start on the board. Before the same tired arguments get brought up again, no this does not change the way the rule will be actually played because we have intent clarified. Yes I understand it is a beta rule and should be flexible. No that does not change that we should fix how it is written so it matches intent. Think of it this way, you ask for a Coke, but in your mind you wanted a Root Beer. Your friend gives you a Root Beer because you clarified by pointing at the root beer. (this is our facebook picture) Is it clear what you want? Yes. Did you get your desired outcome after clarifying? Yes. Did your intention match the outcome? Yes. This does not change the fact that you asked for a coke and should change your order in the future to root beer. (this is updating the RAW in our case)
Edit: Grammar

 UncleJetMints wrote:

The thing is that we now live in a age where companies can use facebook to answer our questions and since GW clearly wants to do that then they have full rights to do it and, as fans, there is really nothing you can do about it. While I wish they would do it slightly better( an official subreddit or forum), This is just the long and short of it.
.

But any PROFESSIONAL company knows to put official stuff in one easily found place.

Now seems GW has decided to abandon any pretense of actually being professional game developers so we are in situation where you need to have with you to play game:

a) rulebook
b) faq for rulebook
c) index
d) faq for index
e) codex
f) faq for index
g) chapter approved. After this year maybe multiples
h) maybe faq for chapter approved
i) direct link n+1 posts and comments on FB. When lots(maybe even majority) players don't even follow them.

Just to play game you thus need 7+ documents or books and n+ direct links in your phone.

Many players will never even know those comments and questions.

Professional company would use FB for getting questions, forwarding them to developers and once they put in answer they would be put where all stuff is(which for GW is funnily enough logically the faqs&erratas section). Not so that you have some stuff here, some stuff there and some stuff in yet another place.

tneva82 wrote:

 UncleJetMints wrote:

The thing is that we now live in a age where companies can use facebook to answer our questions and since GW clearly wants to do that then they have full rights to do it and, as fans, there is really nothing you can do about it. While I wish they would do it slightly better( an official subreddit or forum), This is just the long and short of it.
.

But any PROFESSIONAL company knows to put official stuff in one easily found place.

Now seems GW has decided to abandon any pretense of actually being professional game developers so we are in situation where you need to have with you to play game:

a) rulebook
b) faq for rulebook
c) index
d) faq for index
e) codex
f) faq for index
g) chapter approved. After this year maybe multiples
h) maybe faq for chapter approved
i) direct link n+1 posts and comments on FB. When lots(maybe even majority) players don't even follow them.

Just to play game you thus need 7+ documents or books and n+ direct links in your phone.

Many players will never even know those comments and questions.

Professional company would use FB for getting questions, forwarding them to developers and once they put in answer they would be put where all stuff is(which for GW is funnily enough logically the faqs&erratas section). Not so that you have some stuff here, some stuff there and some stuff in yet another place.

I'll have you know that GW relied on their highly trianed professionals to get this information out.

"Whoop whoop whoop whoop! Moe! Larry! We need to get this correction of the correction out to the people?"

"Then why did you do it on Facebook instead of in the Community Newsletter, numbskull? "

"It seemed a good idea at the time, Moe. Nyuk nyuk nyuk"

*sound of Curly getting a face slap*

"Look at the grouse!"


It really should be put out on the community website. Given that picture, it already looks like a document they could drop in the FAQ section and also make note of with an article.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The question is about if they count as moving for shooting. This is a prime example of people taking an answer, ignoring the question then applying the result to everything.

No, the answer EXPLICITLY says to "treat them as reinforcements."

Not "treat them as reinforcements for the purposes of whether they have moved or not", but a blanket "treat them as reinforcements."

That means you treat them as reinforcements (a defined rules phrase) in all regards.[/quote


As if ....

The question was about shooting. Basically do they count as moving. Yes treat them as IF, not just AS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quite honestly in my honest opinion it didn’t need to be clarified.

Especially the question about are they counted as moving
When a player uses a power that picks them up and places them somewhere else on the board. REALLY. ??? Did you have to move them to place them elsewhere? Yes?

Also to clarify the question when answered only needed a yes no answer. No other explanation needed. Plus when readers skim read and leave off words/ word combos like the combo of AS IF. Then the interpretation is muttled.


as if (or as though)
phrase of as
1.
as would be the case if.
"she behaved as if he weren't there"

Having read through the entire post, I still can't seem to find the nutshell of the argument... What are the camps at play here in this argument?

 skchsan wrote:
Having read through the entire post, I still can't seem to find the nutshell of the argument... What are the camps at play here in this argument?

One camp thinks Facebook posts overrule the rules. The other camp thinks the rules (along with special snowflake FAQs) are the correct way to play.

One camp wants to play the way GW has told us they intended it to play, and the other camp wants to be rule lawyers.

Admittedly, using a Facebook post on your official Facebook page to clarify intent of a Beta rule is not the best way to handle things, but this is GW we are talking about after all. Does anyone really expect them to change the wording of a BETA rule until they decide to make it official? I do not like it, but expecting GW to do so is just wishful thinking. We all know GW has a problem writing rules properly, so I choose to play how they want us to play instead of how their sloppily written rules would actually play out if followed to the technical letter.

 ikeulhu wrote:
One camp wants to play the way GW has told us they intended it to play, and the other camp wants to be rule lawyers.

If GW intended for it to be, they would errata it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ikeulhu wrote:
One camp wants to play the way GW has told us they intended it to play, and the other camp wants to be rule lawyers.

If GW intended for it to be, they would errata it.

They will likely errata it just as soon as they errata most of the problems listed in your signature.

For the record, I think you often make a lot of good points BCB, but expecting GW to errata every little thing, especially considering a rule that is in beta, is quite unrealistic. It would be great if they did, but we all know better!

The whole point of a beta rule is to take feedback and change it. If enough people comment about it, they will change the rule to allow Da Jump etc turn 1.

Yeah, I expect if and when GW gets around to moving the rule past Beta they will reword it properly to avoid the current issues. It is some what aggravating when you consider that just adding one line saying "This rule does not apply to units that have already been deployed onto the battlefield," would have prevented the current conflict with its interpretation. My concern is that we now have two groups playing it two different ways so the feedback GW gets will be different depending on which group is submitting the feedback, but I guess that is just something GW has to deal with when they decide to introduce a sloppily written beta rule.