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.

A d6 roll of 6 on Cult Ambush says a unit can move normally after being placed. The new FAQ states that reinforcements cannot for any reason take a move action after coming in.

So is that roll just completely null and void now?

GSC is given a get out of jail free card.

Read the actual document not internet hype. ;-) GSC have an exemption within the rule.

Sorry for butting in, but could anyone clarify how and where GSC is allowed to actually move after ambushing? Yes, they're allowed to ambush into the opponent's deployment zone on turn 1 but the new limit on not moving after appearing is a separate thing.

 MasterSpark wrote:
Sorry for butting in, but could anyone clarify how and where GSC is allowed to actually move after ambushing? Yes, they're allowed to ambush into the opponent's deployment zone on turn 1 but the new limit on not moving after appearing is a separate thing.

They can't.

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.

Yeah, leave it to GW to give an exemption to GSC for deployment, but make their ability to move after setting up irrelevant beacuse of an FAQ.

I'm starting to believe they do get the pass. The other things the FAQ referenced were movements that occured in a different phase (psychic and shooting). The Cult Ambush is something that occurs as a function of the arrival, not an ability that is being placed on them later like the examples given.

 djones520 wrote:
I'm starting to believe they do get the pass. The other things the FAQ referenced were movements that occured in a different phase (psychic and shooting). The Cult Ambush is something that occurs as a function of the arrival, not an ability that is being placed on them later like the examples given.

The FAQ says for "any" reason. The Cult Ambush rule is a reason.

Sounds like we're going to get an amended page posted in Facebook if they actually want to let the GSC move after deploying.

 doctortom wrote:
Sounds like we're going to get an amended page posted in Facebook if they actually want to let the GSC move after deploying.

Maybe they should post it on their official site instead...

 Octopoid wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Sounds like we're going to get an amended page posted in Facebook if they actually want to let the GSC move after deploying.

Maybe they should post it on their official site instead...

What they should do and what they will do are not necessarily the same thing.

 djones520 wrote:
A d6 roll of 6 on Cult Ambush says a unit can move normally after being placed. The new FAQ states that reinforcements cannot for any reason take a move action after coming in.

So is that roll just completely null and void now?

No, the rule itself lays it out as an exception and cites it in the rule. You could argue that a 5 could not move due to not having the same exception.

According to a post made by GW on Facebook we should still be able to move after arriving from reserves.

My question is can you use the Return to the Shadows Strategem after the 2rd turn or does the unit automatically get destroyed?

 BuZzZzJaY wrote:
According to a post made by GW on Facebook we should still be able to move after arriving from reserves.

My question is can you use the Return to the Shadows Strategem after the 2rd turn or does the unit automatically get destroyed?

Once you’ve arrived on the table you’ve arrived and don’t get auto-destroyed after Turn 3. If you use a power or ability to remove the unit and redeploy it they don’t auto-die. That rule is just to prevent someone holding ‘deep strike’ units off the board until Turn 5 then getting Objectives, Linebreaker etc. uncontested for no-skill Victory Points.

 BuZzZzJaY wrote:
According to a post made by GW on Facebook we should still be able to move after arriving from reserves.

My question is can you use the Return to the Shadows Strategem after the 2rd turn or does the unit automatically get destroyed?

The problem with that post is that it's about as vague as they could have made the answer short of just not answering the question.

Also its an image of a facebook post, far too easy to Photoshop hence why most people won't accept them as proof of rules.

Facebook posts are not permitted in YMDC.

Facebook could say "All Ultramarine armies automatically win" but it doesn't change what the rules say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A d6 roll of 6 on Cult Ambush says a unit can move normally after being placed. The new FAQ states that reinforcements cannot for any reason take a move action after coming in.

So is that roll just completely null and void now?

No, the rule itself lays it out as an exception and cites it in the rule. You could argue that a 5 could not move due to not having the same exception.

The FAQ is clear, it says ANY reason. Being more specific doesn't counteract that. GW broke Cult Ambush and it's up to GW to fix it. Knowing GW...

Is this not just a case of the codex/index overriding the rulebook?

 Valkyrie wrote:
Is this not just a case of the codex/index overriding the rulebook?

No, because the FAQ explicitly states "for any reason". If it had just said "they cannot move", then the Cult Ambush rule would override it, but it doesn't, so Cult Ambush doesn't. This is one of the reasons I dislike Special Snowflake FAQs on principle when Errata should be used.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Facebook posts are not permitted in YMDC.

False.

As such, while it is fine to bring up rulings provided this way in YMDC, it must always be couched with the understanding that these are not official, binding rulings until they actually make their way into a errata/FAQ.

2a goes on to say it should have a link provided, which would be incredibly nice! However, for purpose of discussion and determining how to work out rules to allow the game to function as intended, social media is fine. It works well enough for plenty of people in clarifying how rules likely work.

Inb4 BCB "Well I play by the RULES"

Right, I forgot they recently changed it for (in my opinion) inane reasons.

In any case, "these are not official, binding rulings until they actually make their way into a errata/FAQ", so are therefore meaningless to the majority of people who play the game by the rules.

Edit: Also nice stealth removal of a point you were completely wrong on. You can't prove a negative.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Right, I forgot they recently changed it for (in my opinion) inane reasons.

In any case, "these are not official, binding rulings until they actually make their way into a errata/FAQ", so are therefore meaningless to the majority of people who play the game by the rules.

Perfectly meaningful for the majority of people who play the game as intended

Edit: Also nice stealth removal of a point you were completely wrong on. You can't prove a negative.

I reread the rule, and since the second sentence of result 6 begins with "Then," I can see the argument. However, I still read it as part of the rule for arriving, and clearly so do many others. Time will tell how they phrase it for the codex.

Jacksmiles wrote:
Perfectly meaningful for the majority of people who play the game as intended

So I assume if we were ever to have a game my Ultramarines would automatically win. After all, that's "intended".

Do you not see the issue where allowing one change as "intended" automatically opens the door for everything else? Slippery Slope is only a fallacy when it's being used fallaciously, not when used factually.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
Perfectly meaningful for the majority of people who play the game as intended

So I assume if we were ever to have a game my Ultramarines would automatically win. After all, that's "intended".

Link me to something that shows or implies that ruleswise and I'll happily never even set up against you as you add another tally to your W column

You: "Up for a game?"
Me: *while setting up on another table* "Sure! Ah you got me again! GG!"

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Facebook posts are not permitted in YMDC.

Facebook could say "All Ultramarine armies automatically win" but it doesn't change what the rules say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A d6 roll of 6 on Cult Ambush says a unit can move normally after being placed. The new FAQ states that reinforcements cannot for any reason take a move action after coming in.

So is that roll just completely null and void now?

No, the rule itself lays it out as an exception and cites it in the rule. You could argue that a 5 could not move due to not having the same exception.

The FAQ is clear, it says ANY reason. Being more specific doesn't counteract that. GW broke Cult Ambush and it's up to GW to fix it. Knowing GW...

Isn't the FAQ referencing additional factors causing units to move? It specifically references psychic powers and character abilities causing another unit to move.

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Isn't the FAQ referencing additional factors causing units to move? It specifically references psychic powers and character abilities causing another unit to move.

No, it is referencing, and I quote, "any other reason" and then lists a bunch of examples, which by definition is not an exhaustive list, and even reinforces that notion by adding "etc." to the end of the list.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
Perfectly meaningful for the majority of people who play the game as intended

So I assume if we were ever to have a game my Ultramarines would automatically win. After all, that's "intended".

Do you not see the issue where allowing one change as "intended" automatically opens the door for everything else? Slippery Slope is only a fallacy when it's being used fallaciously, not when used factually.

Except you once again use a fallacious fallacy. What you describe is “cheating”, not “intended”. Just stop.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Facebook posts are not permitted in YMDC.

Facebook could say "All Ultramarine armies automatically win" but it doesn't change what the rules say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A d6 roll of 6 on Cult Ambush says a unit can move normally after being placed. The new FAQ states that reinforcements cannot for any reason take a move action after coming in.

So is that roll just completely null and void now?

No, the rule itself lays it out as an exception and cites it in the rule. You could argue that a 5 could not move due to not having the same exception.

The FAQ is clear, it says ANY reason. Being more specific doesn't counteract that. GW broke Cult Ambush and it's up to GW to fix it. Knowing GW...

Except that is exactly how the game works. Rules that allows you to break other rules are clearly listed. Assault weapons etc.. A rule that clearly states it gives permission to move even though everyone else is denied that permission to move is clear. CA can move (at least on a 6) RAW, you can argue that they cannot move on a 5

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Facebook posts are not permitted in YMDC.

Citation needed.

Fragile wrote:
Except that is exactly how the game works. Rules that allows you to break other rules are clearly listed. Assault weapons etc.. A rule that clearly states it gives permission to move even though everyone else is denied that permission to move is clear. CA can move (at least on a 6) RAW, you can argue that they cannot move on a 5

I already said that is how the game works. However, the FAQ overrides the GSC Ambush rule by stating "any other reason". In addition, that logic allows Swarmlord's move to work regardless of the FAQ because it too is more specific.

Either the FAQ does nothing, or the FAQ stops GSC Ambush, there is no in-between.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Except that is exactly how the game works. Rules that allows you to break other rules are clearly listed. Assault weapons etc.. A rule that clearly states it gives permission to move even though everyone else is denied that permission to move is clear. CA can move (at least on a 6) RAW, you can argue that they cannot move on a 5

I already said that is how the game works. However, the FAQ overrides the GSC Ambush rule by stating "any other reason". In addition, that logic allows Swarmlord's move to work regardless of the FAQ because it too is more specific

You again fail to understand how any of the game rules interact. Previous to the FAQ, any ability that allowed you to move outside the normal "movement" phase would override the Reinforcement because they were a more specific rule. They gave a permission that was not denied by any other rule. Now the FAQ gives a blanket denial to any other rule that allows some kind of movement. (This is where your logic stops)

However, there is nothing to stop GW from making any rule that overrides that FAQ. All it has to do, is to be specific that it does. CA clearly states that it overrides that blanket restriction. Since the rule gives permission to move even though it came in from Reinforcements (clearly stating the restriction that it is ignoring) it can move. You can argue about the 5, but the 6 is clear permission

Either the FAQ does nothing, or the FAQ stops GSC Ambush, there is no in-between.

And this is where you always fall into your logic traps. This whole game is about the "in-between"s. They purposely over simplified the rules to get past all the legalese that everyone was trying to argue.