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.

 Crimson wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

If they put in one official location amount of people missing it are lot less AND YOU WOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO SHOW THEM in case you run up against one that hasn't heard of it! In this case I could have easily have shown the official clarification. Less than minute and game would have been continuing.

Instead we had to spend long time going over the issue.

Because GW can't be bothered to do the correct thing any PROFESSIONAL game designer would have done.

Just don't use the beta rules if you can't handle this. Our local league doesn't.

Lol. There's NO GOOD REASON WHATSOEVER for GW to do this this way. Only blinded white knights would claim otherwise. There's NO upside from this whatsoever for GW. Only bad sides. Hell they spent more time doing it bad way than it would have taken to do good way. Ie they burned money doing it badly.

If GW acted professionally and did things in most customer friendly AND most profit making way for GW they would do it like any professional game studio would do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Perhaps one should not use beta rules in tournaments then? Do people even understand what 'beta' means? Do major e-sports events use beta builds of the games or actual release versions? (Hint, it's the latter.)

This. If a Tourney uses a beta rule without their own house clarification on its meaning, made available to players ahead of time, then they’re not running a level playing field. You should be able to know what rules are in use and what the decisions on grey areas are ahead of time. OP simply shouldn’t have been put in the position he was. The here issue is the tournament’s choices.

NO!

Blame lies in GW and GW alone. They are the one acting unprofessionally. They are the ones doing it in customer unfriendly way. They are the ones that burned their own money doing it badly.

You just blamed victims rather than perpetrator.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:
Has anyone considered that the facebook clarification is not an errata? As in GW understands their written rule differently to players and as such it doesn't merit changing at all (in their eyes at least).

Consider this: the FAQ has the section called "Tactical Reserves" which outlines how many units may be deployed off of the table. Then under the exact same rule it says that any units being set up first turn can only be set up in the deployment zone. So while there is no specific sentence that outlines "being set up" as coming in from reserves, it would seem that the deployment restriction only applies to units that are also subjected to the tactical reserves rule.

Lastly, an FAQ on the FAQ is not going to be here till September due to how many people complained about FAQs happening too fast.

But rule text itself makes no mentions of reserves etc. Rule text itself RAW applies to da jump etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The problem/question is - What happens when the TO is aware of the beta rule and wants to implement it and is unaware of a FB post that clarifies/changes that rule? As has been pointed out it's possible to be unaware of FB posts and even then you can't be sure the "answer" given is official or not.

Beta Rules are published in the GW community section of the website. This particular clarification is buried in some FB Q&A.

The tournament should have a comprehensive FAQ pack of their own covering things. As these packs are tantamount to a bunch of house rules anyway a GW FAQ Facebook post would be irrelevant - the tourney has decided how Rule X will be working this weekend and told everyone in advance. Don’t do all that AND throw in beta rules (expect bugs) and you get situations like the OP’s.

Or GW could do what they should have done in the first place and put official stuff in one place.

Blame is 100% on GW. Victim blaming and GW white knighting gets you nowhere.

The blame is on GW, but not because the beta rule updates were not with the FAQs.

They need an official section of the website for Beta rules that are completely separate from the FAQs, Errata and Adjustments. Then they need to post changes to the beta rules as updates to them.

Alternatively, they could provide 1 document with the 4 sections (Errata, FAQ, Adjustment, Beta) and use the pink text to indicate recent changes.

I'm not at all sure why no one at GW is smart enough to figure this out. Do they ALL have 2 digit IQs there? Is there something in the water? Lead pipes? Inbreeding?

There is something rotten in Nottingham.

Mostly what I’m reading here is ‘waaaah, I had to make myself look unsporting at an event and it’s not my fault, I was forced into it by the evil GW, possibly at gunpoint’.

Seriously, that sort of thing you should ask about before you get into the game if you’re planning to use it, come to an agreement before it’s a problem. You already stated that you expected it to come up, so you should have been talking to the TO and/or your opponent before getting into the situation...

This is what you get when you use Beta rules in a tournament. Gw hasn't even finished making them yet so likely didn't even think about da jump. However, if you read the beta rule it pretty much says (when it uses the word "Furthermore") what anything already deployed can redeploy on turn 1. A lot of this whole "da jump can't do turn 1!" Comes from people reading brief versions of the rule rather than the full rule itself.

 lolman1c wrote:
This is what you get when you use Beta rules in a tournament. Gw hasn't even finished making them yet so likely didn't even think about da jump. However, if you read the beta rule it pretty much says (when it uses the word "Furthermore") what anything already deployed can redeploy on turn 1. A lot of this whole "da jump can't do turn 1!" Comes from people reading brief versions of the rule rather than the full rule itself.

This. I've said several times that using beta rules in tournaments is dumb and there's a reason no one else does it.

Also OP, if you suspected this might happen why didn't you bookmark the Facebook page post or the Dakka thread that linked to it? Seems like an easy solution and one you would have thought of it you were worried about this.

Ah ok, so tneva82 just started the thread to moan and is biting at everyone who posts a differing viewpoint? Mate, decrying everyone as “white knighting” isn’t going to garner you any sympathy. The tournament is at fault for running an unclear beta rule, not GW. I’m done with the thread if you’re looking for a fight not a conversation, shame.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
This is what you get when you use Beta rules in a tournament. Gw hasn't even finished making them yet so likely didn't even think about da jump. However, if you read the beta rule it pretty much says (when it uses the word "Furthermore") what anything already deployed can redeploy on turn 1. A lot of this whole "da jump can't do turn 1!" Comes from people reading brief versions of the rule rather than the full rule itself.

This. I've said several times that using beta rules in tournaments is dumb and there's a reason no one else does it.

Also OP, if you suspected this might happen why didn't you bookmark the Facebook page post or the Dakka thread that linked to it? Seems like an easy solution and one you would have thought of it you were worried about this.

He also posted in the YMDC thread that has hyperlinks to the FB post, so he was surely able to find it if needed. Never mind, eh?

This all seems awfully convenient. I'm not sure why you're so worried about this either. The problem was that you had not saved the Facebook clarification and the tournament organisers were unaware of it.

Download the picture on to your phone, particularly if going to a tournament and you're concerned some people might be unaware. It takes seconds.

This is no different from the tournament organisers being unaware of the FAQ itself, or another errata.

This feels like another '"let's moan about GW" pity party thread to me.

Some people have loudly said that they will not acknowledge posts on facebook and only accept it when it appears in the FAQ/Errata ...


... leading to irresolvable rules arguments, potentially...


Mark.

See the issue is the nets only been used commercially for three decades, gw just hasn't had the time to learn how it works...

Cheeslord wrote:
Some people have loudly said that they will not acknowledge posts on facebook and only accept it when it appears in the FAQ/Errata ...


... leading to irresolvable rules arguments, potentially...


Mark.

It's literally as simple as the judges at the event saying that the Facebook ruling stands at the start of the tournament. I refuse to believe that NONE of them knew it exis...I just remembered that we're talking about people who used beta rules in a 400 player tournament. Nevermind.

Cheeslord wrote:
Some people have loudly said that they will not acknowledge posts on facebook and only accept it when it appears in the FAQ/Errata ...


... leading to irresolvable rules arguments, potentially...


Mark.

Except in the case of this beta rule, it's not irresolvable. The rule is crystal clear, it's not my problem if you dislike what the rule says.

Audustum wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Could someone translate the OP into English?

TLDR: GW put out an errata to the beta rules in the Big FAQ but only did it in a one-off (and soon buried) Facebook post. People don't see this post. OP has to have a large rules argument at a tournament with both his opponent and the TO about the errata to the Big FAQ because they don't read Facebook. GW should put all FAQ and Errata in the same place; not Facebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 godardc wrote:
What ? They are clarifying their faq on facebook ?!

Yyyyyyyeeeeepppp.

Thats actually because it was not an errata. The rule, as initially written, covers all the cases above, players just incorrectly interpreted when the rules applied on a mass scale when it was initially released.

The "Tactical Reserves" beta rule applies ONLY to models NOT PLACED ON THE BATTLEFIELD during deployment, and clearly spells that out in the wording of the rule.

"Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve,
etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. "

Did you put your unit on the battlefield during the deployment phase?

if so, no part of the rule applies to that unit.

the_scotsman wrote:
Did you put your unit on the battlefield during the deployment phase?

if so, no part of the rule applies to that unit.

As usual, people take one line out of context and use it to justify their incorrect position.

Let's look at the other part of the rule.

Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere).

If you remove a unit from the battlefield with a Psychic Power, they must then arrive to the battlefield again. The power literally tells you to remove the unit from the battlefield.

But this isn't what this thread is about. As the OP correctly states, GW should do things properly. They are a company, not 2 people in a garage and have had THIRTY YEARS to get this right.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Cheeslord wrote:
Some people have loudly said that they will not acknowledge posts on facebook and only accept it when it appears in the FAQ/Errata ...


... leading to irresolvable rules arguments, potentially...


Mark.

It's literally as simple as the judges at the event saying that the Facebook ruling stands at the start of the tournament. I refuse to believe that NONE of them knew it exis...I just remembered that we're talking about people who used beta rules in a 400 player tournament. Nevermind.

So, lets frame this up another way.

Lets say a player went on fb and asked "hey, during my movement phase, if my models have fly, can I move within 1" of enemy models and engage them in combat with no overwatch?" and the fb rules team replied "no" would you then need to have every event stand up before the beginning of said event and say

"hey guys, just want to make it clear, the FB ruling on Fly stands in this event, and you may not break the rules of the game and move into combat during your movement phase with models that have Fly."

You wouldn't, right? Because that's just a clarification of an existing rule, it's not any kind of new rule put in place. Someone was confused, and the FB team outlined for them how the rule worked, without changing the rule in any way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Did you put your unit on the battlefield during the deployment phase?

if so, no part of the rule applies to that unit.

As usual, people take one line out of context and use it to justify their incorrect position.

Let's look at the other part of the rule.

Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere).

If you remove a unit from the battlefield with a Psychic Power, they must then arrive to the battlefield again. The power literally tells you to remove the unit from the battlefield.

...so, your argument is that the rule titled "Tactical Reserves"...

Which begins with a sentence describing how many units can be placed in Tactical Reserves using a variety of different rules...

And has first and third paragraphs pertaining unequivocally to units deploying in Tactical Reserves off the battlefield instead of normal deployment...

And a second paragraph that states that units that arrive on the first turn MUST BE DEPLOYED fully within the player's deployment zone...

which the rules team then clarified to reiterate ONLY APPLIES to units placed off the battlefield during deployment as outlined by this rule, called Tactical Reserves...

You're saying that the second paragraph of that rule should be removed from the context of units placed off the battlefield during deployment and read on its own to become a blanket rule that applies to all units that arrive on the battlefield by any method in any phase including but not limited to deployment. And your reasoning for arguing this is entirely so you can claim that the clarification by the rules team was a "rules change" instead of a "rules clarification" and whinge about it on the internet.

Have I got that about right?

Here's a hint: If a sentence or paragraph begins with the word "Furthermore" that's usually an indication that it should not be treated as a standalone, individual statement and instead should be applied in the context of whatever came before the word "Furthermore."

It doesn't matter what the rule is called, it's what the rule says is important.

And what the rule says is that powers like Da Jump can't be used to leave your deployment zone turn 1. It's that simple.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This all seems awfully convenient. I'm not sure why you're so worried about this either. The problem was that you had not saved the Facebook clarification and the tournament organisers were unaware of it.

Download the picture on to your phone, particularly if going to a tournament and you're concerned some people might be unaware. It takes seconds.

This is no different from the tournament organisers being unaware of the FAQ itself, or another errata.

This feels like another '"let's moan about GW" pity party thread to me.

This.

I find it highly suspect that a TO would be wholly unaware of the FB ruling. Regardless a tournament should post which rules will be used.

If I was involved in a tournament and bringing a list that relied on that ruling I'd be making sure the TO was aware of that ruling.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This all seems awfully convenient. I'm not sure why you're so worried about this either. The problem was that you had not saved the Facebook clarification and the tournament organisers were unaware of it.

Download the picture on to your phone, particularly if going to a tournament and you're concerned some people might be unaware. It takes seconds.

This is no different from the tournament organisers being unaware of the FAQ itself, or another errata.

This feels like another '"let's moan about GW" pity party thread to me.

This.

I find it highly suspect that a TO would be wholly unaware of the FB ruling. Regardless a tournament should post which rules will be used.

If I was involved in a tournament and bringing a list that relied on that ruling I'd be making sure the TO was aware of that ruling.

So if I doctor a facebook post to say all Ultramarines have 60 wounds, that's ok? After all, if I saved it to my phone it must be real!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This all seems awfully convenient. I'm not sure why you're so worried about this either. The problem was that you had not saved the Facebook clarification and the tournament organisers were unaware of it.

Download the picture on to your phone, particularly if going to a tournament and you're concerned some people might be unaware. It takes seconds.

This is no different from the tournament organisers being unaware of the FAQ itself, or another errata.

This feels like another '"let's moan about GW" pity party thread to me.

This.

I find it highly suspect that a TO would be wholly unaware of the FB ruling. Regardless a tournament should post which rules will be used.

If I was involved in a tournament and bringing a list that relied on that ruling I'd be making sure the TO was aware of that ruling.

So if I doctor a facebook post to say all Ultramarines have 60 wounds, that's ok? After all, if I saved it to my phone it must be real!

Like I said, its not hard to bookmarks a page and it's not like London is a third world country with no WiFi.

In fact wasn't a wifi connection both available and smartphone/laptop REQUIRED since the scoring was all done through an app players were required to sign up for before playing

 BaconCatBug wrote:

So if I doctor a facebook post to say all Ultramarines have 60 wounds, that's ok? After all, if I saved it to my phone it must be real!

So if I doctor a FAQ PDF to say all Ultramarines have 60 wounds, that's ok?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It doesn't matter what the rule is called, it's what the rule says is important.

And what the rule says is that powers like Da Jump can't be used to leave your deployment zone turn 1. It's that simple.

Paragraph 1 under the Fight Phase includes the sentence

"After all charging units have fought, the players alternate choosing eligible units to fight with until all eligible units on both sides have fought once each."

If you choose not to read the preceding statement, which says that units within 1" of enemy models or units that charged may Fight, you can make the argument that this line allows all units on the board to pile in and fight, "it's that simple." That's usually the traditional definition of "taking a rule out of context" - willfully choosing to ignore requirements and restrictions to how and when the rule applies laid out in previous statements.

This is identical to the big FAQ rule, which begins with the sentence I quoted outlining what units the rule applies to. one easy way to determine whether a rule applies to your unit is to check additional rules contained within the same paragraph, but sometimes (in advanced reading situations) a box with a header will be used to denote when multiple rules use the SAME set of situational restrictions.

One example of this can be found on the "transport" section of the main rule book, where one paragraph states that units that Disembark may act normally on their turn (move, shoot, assault etc.) However, just in case you might be fooled into thinking it might apply to situations where you might THINK a unit is Disembarking (say, from a Night Scythe or Monolith) you have this helpful rules box to show you that all the rules in this section only apply to units with the Transport keyword. These advanced reading techniques can be difficult, but stick with it! Soon you'll be reading like a pro!

Come on, guys. If tneva82 had spoken with the TO prior to the tournament about a ruling he "knew" would come up, then he wouldn't have been able to start yet another thread on DakkaDakka about how GW is bad and ruining the hobby through easily resolvable rules debates.

I don't have any rules to hand right now, but I recall the argument against turn 1 "teleport etc." was based on the rules for the power that let the unit teleport (veil of darkness, Da Jump or whatever) having wording along the lines of "treat this unit as though it had arrived from reserves", or words to that effect.

Maybe thats completely wrong. I will try and remember to look it up tonight...

Mark.

"Da Jump has a warp charge value of 7. If manifested, select a friendly Ork Infantry unit within 6" of the psyker. Remove this unit from the battlefield, then set it up anywhere on the battlefield more than 9" from enemy models. This unit counts as having moved for the purposes of any rules (eg firing Heavy Weapons.)"

please note that this reading of the rules (i.e. the Tactical Reserves rule would apply to any unit Removed From the Battlefield for any reason) would also mean that it would be illegal to disembark from a transport turn 1 outside your deployment zone.

The rules for Embark state "Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side - it is now Embarked on the transport" and in the preceding section it outlines that units can start Embarked on board a transport.

If BCB's interpretation stands, there is no functional difference between a unit Removed From The Battlefield that deployed on board a Rhino, or a unit Removed From The Battlefield due to a psychic power, or a unit Removed from the Battlefield due to deep striking during deployment.

Do we need TWO threads with BCB vs the world over this rule? Keep the YMDC stuff to YMDC, peeps!