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.

 doctortom wrote:
Actually I do, as that can affect some stratagems and powers that come into play when someone arrives on the board when not coming in from the edge(Auspex for one)

Fair.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

GW make the rules. GW Facebook team are an extension of GW.

And yet the GW Facebook team literally say they aren't the rules. Funny that.

They can't be rules, silly. They are people. They can, however, post rules updates or clarifications. Particularly when those clarifications are through official informational leaflets.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It's a post created by the GW team. It is infinitely more official than any interpretation of the rules that you have. Infinitely. They literally create the rules. They're also able to decide at any time that the definition of the rules has changed and now incorporates posts such as that, which is clearly what they've done here.

I'm sorry BCB, it's over. This is as official as you're going to get until the next FAQ. GW have more important things to focus on than appeasing your rules lawyering and obsession with the minutiae.

The facebook team says that they "can’t give you official answers"

"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." -About section, General Information sub-section Graph 3

Therefore facebook is not a rules source.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/about/?ref=page_internal

Again, THEY can't give official answers.

They didn't

The rules team did so

As they told you

It's not the hardest concept to grasp.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, THEY can't give official answers.

They didn't

The rules team did so

As they told you

It's not the hardest concept to grasp.

And we are just supposed to take their word for it?

They have been wrong before, so I personally don't trust them.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, THEY can't give official answers.

They didn't

The rules team did so

As they told you

It's not the hardest concept to grasp.

And we are just supposed to take their word for it?

short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Have they been wrong in a little comment randomly sprinkled in a comment feed, or have they actually published something wrong as a post like the one we're talking about?

The rules team has been wrong in the BRB (that's why they have to publish errata), do you no longer take the brb as a rule source?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It's a post created by the GW team. It is infinitely more official than any interpretation of the rules that you have. Infinitely. They literally create the rules. They're also able to decide at any time that the definition of the rules has changed and now incorporates posts such as that, which is clearly what they've done here.

I'm sorry BCB, it's over. This is as official as you're going to get until the next FAQ. GW have more important things to focus on than appeasing your rules lawyering and obsession with the minutiae.

The facebook team says that they "can’t give you official answers"

"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." -About section, General Information sub-section Graph 3

Therefore facebook is not a rules source.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/about/?ref=page_internal

And they've stated that this time they went to the games designers and asked if it's correct that way. If you don't believe THAT statement, I can't help you.

What doesnt Go into my head ist, the rule is a Beta rule for testing and giving Feedback. It is due to change before becomimg a "real" rule. GW Take a short path to clearyfy and their Intention (which gives a hint in what rule will become).

People refuse that because its not official enough to modify their not yet official rule...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It's a post created by the GW team. It is infinitely more official than any interpretation of the rules that you have. Infinitely. They literally create the rules. They're also able to decide at any time that the definition of the rules has changed and now incorporates posts such as that, which is clearly what they've done here.

I'm sorry BCB, it's over. This is as official as you're going to get until the next FAQ. GW have more important things to focus on than appeasing your rules lawyering and obsession with the minutiae.

The facebook team says that they "can’t give you official answers"

"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." -About section, General Information sub-section Graph 3

Therefore facebook is not a rules source.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/about/?ref=page_internal

Again I'm not saying Facebook or this post is a 'rules source'. Its a clarification. Something I'm sure they're capable of doing. Even more so in this instance where they have repeatedly said that the rules team had massive input into the infographic.

As others have said, if you don't trust that, its a problem with you and not the game/rule set.

nekooni wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And we are just supposed to take their word for it?

short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Have they been wrong in a little comment randomly sprinkled in a comment feed, or have they actually published something wrong as a post like the one we're talking about?

Both

The rules team has been wrong in the BRB (that's why they have to publish errata), do you no longer take the brb as a rule source?

Errata changes rules. That does not mean they got the rules wrong originally though, maybe they didn't like the way something worked and changed it through errata.

nekooni wrote:
And they've stated that this time they went to the games designers and asked if it's correct that way. If you don't believe THAT statement, I can't help you.

I believe they went to the rules writers, but I do not trust the telephone game.

Until it is in an actual FaQ or Errata it is not RaW. (Even if it may be the RaI).

 DeathReaper wrote:

Until it is in an actual FaQ or Errata it is not RaW. (Even if it may be the RaI).

This is wrong. The rule interaction RAW also allows units to be Da Jumped or GoI or whatever outside of their deployment zone turn 1. As stated earlier, if they have arrived on the battlefield, they have already arrived and fulfilled this criteria. Hence they can now b moved anywhere. The info graphic just proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Until it is in an actual FaQ or Errata it is not RaW. (Even if it may be the RaI).

This is wrong. The rule interaction RAW also allows units to be Da Jumped or GoI or whatever outside of their deployment zone turn 1.

Incorrect, because of the FaQ's the RaW does not allow Da Jump or GoI outside the deployment zone. (Even though RaI may).

As stated earlier, if they have arrived on the battlefield, they have already arrived and fulfilled this criteria. Hence they can now b moved anywhere.

As per RaW, what you stated is false.

The info graphic just proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

For RaI maybe.

RaW is another story though.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Until it is in an actual FaQ or Errata it is not RaW. (Even if it may be the RaI).

This is wrong. The rule interaction RAW also allows units to be Da Jumped or GoI or whatever outside of their deployment zone turn 1.

Incorrect, because of the FaQ's the RaW does not allow Da Jump or GoI outside the deployment zone. (Even though RaI may).

As stated earlier, if they have arrived on the battlefield, they have already arrived and fulfilled this criteria. Hence they can now b moved anywhere.

As per RaW, what you stated is false.

The info graphic just proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

For RaI maybe.

RaW is another story though.

Proof to support this false claim?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Proof to support this false claim?

It is not false.

Re-read this and learn why the RaW says what it says and why it is not a false claim.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/755345.page

But I will stop with the off topic, since it is not appropriate.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Proof to support this false claim?

It is not false.

Re-read this and learn why the RaW says what it says and why it is not a false claim.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/755345.page

But I will stop with the off topic, since it is not appropriate.

I'm not going to re-read a thread I've already commented in.

I want your argument as to the wrong claim you made above? If you don't have an argument of your own for it then you shouldn't claim that it's RAW since it clearly isn't. Unless you can prove that the units moved by GOI or Da Jump or whatever are put back into reserves you're reading RAW wrong.

elodingens wrote:
What doesnt Go into my head ist, the rule is a Beta rule for testing and giving Feedback. It is due to change before becomimg a "real" rule. GW Take a short path to clearyfy and their Intention (which gives a hint in what rule will become).

People refuse that because its not official enough to modify their not yet official rule...

Problem with gw's attitude word on facebook is enough is that now there's tons of players who haven't read that. That's why any professional company gives official answers in one place. Would take less than minute for gw. Only reason gw doesn't do it like that is they don't design games like professionals. They are just bunch of amateurs.

An Actual Englishman wrote:
I'm not going to re-read a thread I've already commented in.

I want your argument as to the wrong claim you made above? If you don't have an argument of your own for it then you shouldn't claim that it's RAW since it clearly isn't. Unless you can prove that the units moved by GOI or Da Jump or whatever are put back into reserves you're reading RAW wrong.

Who claimed that "units moved by GOI or Da Jump or whatever are put back into reserves"?


Basically:

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."

any unit that "uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again" are treated as what?

 DeathReaper wrote:

An Actual Englishman wrote:
I'm not going to re-read a thread I've already commented in.

I want your argument as to the wrong claim you made above? If you don't have an argument of your own for it then you shouldn't claim that it's RAW since it clearly isn't. Unless you can prove that the units moved by GOI or Da Jump or whatever are put back into reserves you're reading RAW wrong.

Who claimed that "units moved by GOI or Da Jump or whatever are put back into reserves"?


Basically:

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."

any unit that "uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again" are treated as what?

Again, this is a fallacy.

I've bolded the part that is relevant and why it doesn't support your argument - you can't use FAQ responses about something entirely different to answer another question that is only vaguely related.
Something I've already mentioned in this thread.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Again, this is a fallacy.

I've bolded the part that is relevant and why it doesn't support your argument.

It is not fallacy, you are adding a restriction that is not there.

They answer the question of "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? "

with Yes.

Then they go on to clarify how you treat such units.

"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" because it says "a unit that" which = any unit that uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield etc...

You are restricting "a unit that" to 'a unit that fires heavy weapons' Which is not correct, since you are adding restrictions that are not there.

you can't use FAQ responses about something entirely different to answer another question that is only vaguely related.
Something I've already mentioned in this thread.

Yes you can if they give a blanket clarification like they did here.

It isn't a "blanket" clarification
It is intrinsically linked to the question that was asked, because that is how ocntext works
You cannot simply pull a sentence out of context and apply it universally. That isn't how language parsing works. You are, simply, wrong and cannot be correct in this interpretation.

Same as you are incorrect in asserting that the people who write the bloody game cannot decide how and when to publish changes or clarifications to their own bloody game.

Your arrogance is, like BCBs, simply astounding.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It isn't a "blanket" clarification

Incorrect. they answer the question with a Yes. Then they say that such units (meaning ANY unit... not 'a unit that fires heavy weapons'

Stop adding things.

Same as you are incorrect in asserting that the people who write the bloody game cannot decide how and when to publish changes or clarifications to their own bloody game.

What are you talking about with this?

Your arrogance is, like BCBs, simply astounding.

Please do not be rude.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not fallacy, you are adding a restriction that is not there.

They answer the question of "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? "

with Yes.

Then they go on to clarify how you treat such units.

"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" because it says "a unit that" which = any unit that uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield etc...

You are restricting "a unit that" to 'a unit that fires heavy weapons' Which is not correct, since you are adding restrictions that are not there.

you can't use FAQ responses about something entirely different to answer another question that is only vaguely related.
Something I've already mentioned in this thread.

Yes you can if they give a blanket clarification like they did here.

This is evidently wrong based on the infographic I've already provided in this very thread.

IT is you who's adding something that isn't there.

The question is; "For the purposes of firing heavy weapons are units considered to have moved when their location changes with a psychic power?" The answer is; "Yes, for the purposes of moving and firing heavy weapons the unit is considered to be arriving from reinforcements and has thus moved." You are ADDING the clause "treat them this way for all other interactions also" which doesn't exist in the response.

Nice try though.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

This is evidently wrong based on the infographic I've already provided in this very thread.

The infographic is not RaW.

IT is you who's adding something that isn't there.

I didn't add anything

The question is; "For the purposes of firing heavy weapons are units considered to have moved when their location changes with a psychic power?" The answer is; "Yes, for the purposes of moving and firing heavy weapons the unit is considered to be arriving from reinforcements and has thus moved." You are ADDING the clause "treat them this way for all other interactions also" which doesn't exist in the response.

Nice try though.

I never said anythitng like that, at all. So I am not sure what you are talking about.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

This is evidently wrong based on the infographic I've already provided in this very thread.

The infographic is not RaW.

IT is you who's adding something that isn't there.

I didn't add anything

The question is; "For the purposes of firing heavy weapons are units considered to have moved when their location changes with a psychic power?" The answer is; "Yes, for the purposes of moving and firing heavy weapons the unit is considered to be arriving from reinforcements and has thus moved." You are ADDING the clause "treat them this way for all other interactions also" which doesn't exist in the response.

Nice try though.

I never said anythitng like that, at all. So I am not sure what you are talking about.

Look at what nosferatu said. You've completely added context to a response that doesn't exist.

The question is in relation to firing heavy weapons only. The answer is specific to that question. You can take it and try to use it for something else all you like, but you're breaking RAW.

ITS A GAME! Not law. Lives don't depend on it. I'm happy to accept RAI arguments as they are often clear. Bacon stug and the other fella on here asking for citations and what have, the face book group is gamesworkshop. It's thier official Facebook page. It's a chance to communicate directly with the company. If they've gone to the effort to make a nice clear ouster like that then accept it even if, God forbid, it proves you were wrong. It does happen. (Quite often). Chill out and enjoy the game.

As for the original question, I would play if that they can't keep any buffs, I know it says strategems, but the intent is pretty clear.

Incorrect DR.
They answer the question. With the COMPLETE answer. That's BOTH sentences
You are by definition removing context, meaning your conclusion fails any basic analysis.

You're wrong. Accept and regain some grace.

As for you stating GW cannot decide how and where they publish rules for their game? Yes, that IS arrogance. It is a statement of fact.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

This is evidently wrong based on the infographic I've already provided in this very thread.

The infographic is not RaW.

IT is you who's adding something that isn't there.

I didn't add anything

The question is; "For the purposes of firing heavy weapons are units considered to have moved when their location changes with a psychic power?" The answer is; "Yes, for the purposes of moving and firing heavy weapons the unit is considered to be arriving from reinforcements and has thus moved." You are ADDING the clause "treat them this way for all other interactions also" which doesn't exist in the response.

Nice try though.

I never said anythitng like that, at all. So I am not sure what you are talking about.

Sod it I'm joining in. Death reaper that's exactly what you are saying. This FAQ Answer that is about heavy weapons and moving covers all circumstances, you say it proves your case. When in fact it's very specific. Then we have the info graphic. Produced by gamesworkshop themselves saying you are wrong. If the people who produce the game you are arguing about say you are wrong, then sorry mate it means you are wrong regardless of FAQs about similar but not identical instances. It was what bacon tabun was saying too. You are both wrong. End of, now stop it and move on.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
You've completely added context to a response that doesn't exist.

The question is in relation to firing heavy weapons only. The answer is specific to that question. You can take it and try to use it for something else all you like, but you're breaking RAW.

and the answer to the question is "Yes"

Then they clarify how you treat ANY unit that uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again and such units are subject to the restriction.

I have not added anything. I am not breaking RaW.

RaI says something different than RaW in this case. and that is okay.

The answe is the ENTIRE para marked "A"
Stop inventing new ways to read a single answer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The answe is the ENTIRE para marked "A"
Stop inventing new ways to read a single answer.

I did not invent anything.

General clarifications happen in answers to specific questions. This is not news.

You're taking one answer and pretending it is divorced from it's question , and that it is two answers
That position is untenable as it ignores context, paragraph construction and how GW write faqs. It's simply wrong, and you have no credibility with the argument.

I'm surprised this offtopic discussion has gone on this long. It's actually really simple:

RAW: The errata and FAQ do not allow units, arriving from reinforcements (which "Da Jump" is), to deploy outside the deployment zone - period.
RAI: You ARE allowed to deploy outside the deployment zone T1, as long as you were previously on the board already.

It is not reasonable to expect every player to have access to knowledge of every Facebook post ever made by GW. The facebook GW team also clearly states that they cannot provide official answers - except "this one time because we asked the rules team and it's actually official"; "here's a nice pretty picture".

RAW: Facebook GW cannot provide official answers.
RAI: Facebook GW CAN provide official answers, because "they talked to the rules team".

As far as the official question stated in this thread:

RAW: Waters are murky if the unit retains the buff. The question in specific is referring only to stratagem usage, so...
RAI: ...it's not a stretch of the imagination to understand they meant that rule to apply to units reployed via other methods (such as "Da Jump").

.
.
Knock it off you guys; both sides have said their piece, and the resolution comes down to if you're a RAW player, or a RAI player.