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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
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.

The rule already allows it
A poorly taken out of context faq answer doesn't imp8nge on it
And thy clearly did intend it. They literally told you they intended it. They also wrote it. Your opinion otherwise, however strongly you say it, doesn't actually matter one jot.

So the argument is in fact, whether Facebook snowflake should be considered a rule/FAQ/errata or not?

What's the actual rule/interaction that's being argued about? Is there any?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
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.

The rule already allows it
A poorly taken out of context faq answer doesn't imp8nge on it
And thy clearly did intend it. They literally told you they intended it. They also wrote it. Your opinion otherwise, however strongly you say it, doesn't actually matter one jot.

Except my "opinion" is the actual rule. That's the great thing about being a RaW purist, you can never be wrong. The RaW is correct by virtue of being RaW, if they errata it you were right, and if they Special Snowflake FAQ it you were also right.

To me, an image put out by GWs facebook account is a lot more official than the opinion of someone on dakka.

 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 errata it... once they make it an actual rule. Right now it's a beta which means you should play it how they intended in order to give them meaningful feedback. If you just stop at current rules contradictions and go no further then you are not helping shape the beta other than informing them of needing a clarification to the rule. It's not really productive TBH.

Dandelion wrote:

 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 errata it... once they make it an actual rule. Right now it's a beta which means you should play it how they intended in order to give them meaningful feedback. If you just stop at current rules contradictions and go no further then you are not helping shape the beta other than informing them of needing a clarification to the rule. It's not really productive TBH.

I'm not a psychic (sad as that makes me). I can't tell how they intended it. I can tell how they wrote it. And I can use that as a guideline for figuring out maybe how they intended it. But I can't KNOW how they intended it, and neither can you, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

If the rules contradict themselves, I know how I can play the game. But I don't know what they intended, and neither does anyone else, except (maybe) them. So I'll report this as a rules contradiction, on their Beta rule, and if they don't fix it, that won't stop me from playing games, but it will mean they didn't clarify what they intended.

If that's not helpful, then I guess I'm not helpful.

 Octopoid wrote:

If the rules contradict themselves, I know how I can play the game. But I don't know what they intended, and neither does anyone else, except (maybe) them. So I'll report this as a rules contradiction, on their Beta rule, and if they don't fix it, that won't stop me from playing games, but it will mean they didn't clarify what they intended.
.

Except that they did give us clarification on the intent. The Facebook post on their official page was written in collaboration with the developers to let us know the intent. Granted, they should have released that post on the community page as well, but to say that no one knows what they intended is just untrue at this point.

 ikeulhu wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

If the rules contradict themselves, I know how I can play the game. But I don't know what they intended, and neither does anyone else, except (maybe) them. So I'll report this as a rules contradiction, on their Beta rule, and if they don't fix it, that won't stop me from playing games, but it will mean they didn't clarify what they intended.
.

Except that they did give us clarification on the intent. The Facebook post on their official page was written in collaboration with the developers to let us know the intent. Granted, they should have released that post on the community page as well, but to say that no one knows what they intended is just untrue at this point.

So the Facebook post says. I can make a Facebook post that says I wrote it in collaboration with the developers that says, for example, that Death Guard units fielded by Octopoid always pass their Disgustingly Resilient rolls. When it's on the community page in an official capacity, then it's official. Until then, it's hearsay.

EDIT: See TENETS OF YMDC, point 2.

 Octopoid wrote:

So the Facebook post says. I can make a Facebook post that says I wrote it in collaboration with the developers that says, for example, that Death Guard units fielded by Octopoid always pass their Disgustingly Resilient rolls. When it's on the community page in an official capacity, then it's official. Until then, it's hearsay.

You posting on Facebook is not the same as a post from an official Facebook page by posters that are officially endorsed by GW. If you want to willfully ignore such clarification, feel free, but you really need a better argument to justify doing so.

 ikeulhu wrote:
but you really need a better argument to justify doing so.

Sure don't.

 ikeulhu wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

So the Facebook post says. I can make a Facebook post that says I wrote it in collaboration with the developers that says, for example, that Death Guard units fielded by Octopoid always pass their Disgustingly Resilient rolls. When it's on the community page in an official capacity, then it's official. Until then, it's hearsay.

You posting on Facebook is not the same as a post from an official Facebook page by posters that are officially endorsed by GW. If you want to willfully ignore such clarification, feel free, but you really need a better argument to justify doing so.

There have been answers on Facebook that have been overturned before, either by a retraction on FB later or by being different when the FAQ finally rolled around.

Still, it's a reasonable indication of intent and worth discussing with an opponent as to how to play it. We shouldn't expect to have to search Facebook for answers like this, but we shouldn't completely ignore it if we know it's out there. By the same token, we don't get to assume that the FB post automatically overrides the published FAQ without a discussion with your opponent first (as he shouldn't be expected to be following their facebook forum).

 Octopoid wrote:

 ikeulhu wrote:
but you really need a better argument to justify doing so.

Sure don't.

If you fail to convince someone of something, then you need a better argument.
Willfully ignoring a facebook clarification for an unfinished rule is unnecessarily pedantic and impedes providing actual feedback to the devs. Even so, that clarification is unneeded unless you somehow treat "setting up" a unit to be anything from reserves to transports. Which honestly breaks the game.

The rule specifies units set up in reserves during deployment as being Tactical Reserves. Then, under the same rule, adds that any units set up in the first turn must be set up in your deployment zone. I personally read that as only affecting units in Tactical Reserves. The Warhammer Facebook account only adds merit to my interpretation.

Feel free to continue under your interpretation until you are convinced otherwise, but you really aren't helping to test out the rules. Remember, it's a beta, GW WANTS you to find problems with the rule and then report them back.
You have found 1 problem. Report it.
Now if you really want to be helpful, go ahead and try the rule according to the facebook post's clarification. If not, don't bother with the beta anymore because any feedback you have will be unrepresentative of the rule as it is intended.

It's not just a random Facebook statement. It is an image with related rules discussion put together by there actual rules development team alongside the community team, and then put out as an official communication.

It's not just the Warhammer Facebook person posting txt in response to a question.

blaktoof wrote:
It's not just a random Facebook statement. It is an image with related rules discussion put together by there actual rules development team alongside the community team, and then put out as an official communication.

It's not just the Warhammer Facebook person posting txt in response to a question.

Yet still not actually rules at this point.

It shows intent, but does not change anything as the Errata and FAQ's are the things that change and update rules. Facebook does not.

 doctortom wrote:

There have been answers on Facebook that have been overturned before, either by a retraction on FB later or by being different when the FAQ finally rolled around.

Still, it's a reasonable indication of intent and worth discussing with an opponent as to how to play it. We shouldn't expect to have to search Facebook for answers like this, but we shouldn't completely ignore it if we know it's out there. By the same token, we don't get to assume that the FB post automatically overrides the published FAQ without a discussion with your opponent first (as he shouldn't be expected to be following their facebook forum).

I can completely agree with this viewpoint. I honestly think the way the clarification was done is pretty awful on GW's part, but choosing to ignore it just because of that is not helping GW make the game they are attempting to make. The developers HAVE informed the public how they think the rule is supposed to work, and it is irritating that people still want to insist they have not. Just because anyone disagrees with how they did so does not change this fact. Any expectation for GW to release an errata just for a beta rule instead of waiting to fix it when/if it moves past beta is unfortunately unrealistic given past GW behavior.

Also, I think that almost any use of a beta rule should be discussed with an opponent before play, especially when it has the potential for significantly different interpretations as in this case. When it comes down to it, I am just trying to have a fun experience, and if someone really wants to insist on playing it RAW instead of what is now clearly RAI I would rather just play strictly RAW if that is what will make it the most fun for everyone involved. However, if someone really wants to help GW improve the game they should at least consider both interpretations when it comes to play testing for feedback purposes.

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
It's not just a random Facebook statement. It is an image with related rules discussion put together by there actual rules development team alongside the community team, and then put out as an official communication.

It's not just the Warhammer Facebook person posting txt in response to a question.

Yet still not actually rules at this point.

It shows intent, but does not change anything as the Errata and FAQ's are the things that change and update rules. Facebook does not.

In your opinion

GW doesnt agree with you
I'm pretty sure I know who I trust more.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In your opinion

GW doesnt agree with you
I'm pretty sure I know who I trust more.

Funny, I was under the assumption GW wrote the rules, thus the people following the rules are the ones GW agree with?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In your opinion

GW doesnt agree with you
I'm pretty sure I know who I trust more.

Funny, I was under the assumption GW wrote the rules, thus the people following the rules are the ones GW agree with?

GW has decided your interpretation of the rules ( actually, a wilful misinterpretation, by taking a faq out of context) isn't correct.

I'm pretty sure you're gwar junior at this point.

Dandelion wrote:

If you fail to convince someone of something, then you need a better argument.
Willfully ignoring a facebook clarification for an unfinished rule is unnecessarily pedantic and impedes providing actual feedback to the devs. Even so, that clarification is unneeded unless you somehow treat "setting up" a unit to be anything from reserves to transports. Which honestly breaks the game.

The rule specifies units set up in reserves during deployment as being Tactical Reserves. Then, under the same rule, adds that any units set up in the first turn must be set up in your deployment zone. I personally read that as only affecting units in Tactical Reserves. The Warhammer Facebook account only adds merit to my interpretation.

Feel free to continue under your interpretation until you are convinced otherwise, but you really aren't helping to test out the rules. Remember, it's a beta, GW WANTS you to find problems with the rule and then report them back.
You have found 1 problem. Report it.
Now if you really want to be helpful, go ahead and try the rule according to the facebook post's clarification. If not, don't bother with the beta anymore because any feedback you have will be unrepresentative of the rule as it is intended.

Thank you Dandelion, you hit the hammer on the head and put it better than I likely would have!

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In your opinion

GW doesnt agree with you
I'm pretty sure I know who I trust more.

Funny, I was under the assumption GW wrote the rules, thus the people following the rules are the ones GW agree with?

GW has decided your interpretation of the rules ( actually, a wilful misinterpretation, by taking a faq out of context) isn't correct.

I'm pretty sure you're gwar junior at this point.

Who?

I'm not misinterpreting anything. If anything I would much prefer to Da Jump turn one with my Boyz but as it stands, if I use the Beta rule I can't. I can only pray to Gork and Mork that GW does fix it in the final rule.

Edit: 4444 get.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
It's not just a random Facebook statement. It is an image with related rules discussion put together by there actual rules development team alongside the community team, and then put out as an official communication.

It's not just the Warhammer Facebook person posting txt in response to a question.

Yet still not actually rules at this point.

It shows intent, but does not change anything as the Errata and FAQ's are the things that change and update rules. Facebook does not.

In your opinion

GW doesnt agree with you
I'm pretty sure I know who I trust more.

Not in my opinion, as per RaW.

GW does agree with me on the RaW. The second paragraph does not hinge on the first one at all. The RaW agrees with how I have explained. the RaI may be different, but currently the RaW applies to any unit.
.

The second sentence is related to the first. Context, don't ignore it.

BCB - GW have publicly disagreed with you. Wilful ignorance doesn't help your argument.

All I can say is I now really hope GW do take this from beta rule to a full rule without changing the wording as everyone understood what they ment, so they didn't need to change the wording as everyones feedback said it worked fine.

It's not the first, second heck I've lost track of the number of times, GW's answer to what they heck does that rule mean, is well it's obvious.
People wouldn't be asking if it was obvious.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The second sentence is related to the first. Context, don't ignore it.

I am not ignoring the context.

here is the breakdown again.

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, and 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" 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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The second sentence is related to the first. Context, don't ignore it.

BCB - GW have publicly disagreed with you. Wilful ignorance doesn't help your argument.

GW have done no such thing. If they had, there would be errata.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The second sentence is related to the first. Context, don't ignore it.

BCB - GW have publicly disagreed with you. Wilful ignorance doesn't help your argument.

They haven't publicly disagreed with him from a RAW standpoint. They have made their intention clear. BCB is arguing from a RAW standpoint, however, and GW has not issued a FAQ to change the rules from what they just put out in their big FAQ. A facebook post is not a FAQ.

This is why it needs to be discussed with opponents beforehand. They explained their intention with the facebook post, but some people might not have heard of it or do not want to play the game (for whatever reason) without something having been officially changed in a FAQ first. You can't blame somebody from wanting to follow the published rules even if the company making the rules makes their intentions clear that they don't want the rules working the way they wrote them. You might think it's boneheaded of the person, but that's a play style he can choose to make. You can decide whether or not to play that person, but you aren't entitled to automatically play the game in a manner not established in the rules themselves.

This seems to be one of the problems here, most things breaking down to a RAI vs RAW argument.

Since you guys/gals seem to have a pretty good handle on the rule if I deepstrike a grey knight nemesis dread into my own detachment zone can I then use gate of infinity to re-deploy that unit outside of my deployment zone?

Also, I can't find the wording that restricts the use of warptime etc on a unit that arrived from deepstrike (not in the "BIG FAQ" or the grey knight codex as best as I can tell) but I know that it is floating out there somewhere and maybe what restricts the deepstrike then GOI that I want in order to keep my GKNDK from getting blown off the board turn 1...

bananathug wrote:

Also, I can't find the wording that restricts the use of warptime etc on a unit that arrived from deepstrike (not in the "BIG FAQ" or the grey knight codex as best as I can tell) but I know that it is floating out there somewhere and maybe what restricts the deepstrike then GOI that I want in order to keep my GKNDK from getting blown off the board turn 1...

It's in the main rulebook faq and also in the chaos marine faq specific to warptime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bananathug wrote:
Since you guys/gals seem to have a pretty good handle on the rule if I deepstrike a grey knight nemesis dread into my own detachment zone can I then use gate of infinity to re-deploy that unit outside of my deployment zone?
.

We have been given guidance that the beta rules doesn't apply to units already deployed, so gate of inifitny is not effected

bananathug wrote:
Since you guys/gals seem to have a pretty good handle on the rule if I deepstrike a grey knight nemesis dread into my own detachment zone can I then use gate of infinity to re-deploy that unit outside of my deployment zone?

Also, I can't find the wording that restricts the use of warptime etc on a unit that arrived from deepstrike (not in the "BIG FAQ" or the grey knight codex as best as I can tell) but I know that it is floating out there somewhere and maybe what restricts the deepstrike then GOI that I want in order to keep my GKNDK from getting blown off the board turn 1...

1) You can't because GoI is locked to your deployment zone turn 1, assuming you're using the Beta rule.

2) It's in the Rulebook FAQ and prohibits all "move" (but not charging) after arriving as reinforcements, though it does call out Warptime by name.

WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.2 wrote:Q: Can such a unit move or Advance for any other reason e.g. because of an ability such as The Swarmlord’s Hive Commander ability, or because of a psychic power such as Warptime from the Dark Hereticus discipline, or because of a Stratagem like Metabolic Overdrive from Codex: Tyranids, etc.?
A: No.

So point 1 depends on the resolution of the facebook/faq's faq for GOI/da jump etc? That's fun.

Point 2 seems more nuanced because technically GOI is not technically a move so could be argued that it can be used on units that have deepstruck right?

Thanks BCB