Switch Theme:

'Upon wings of fire' and new beta rules  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot






I think that 'upon wings of fire' could be used on a BA jump pack captain to deep strike him outside my deployment zone turn 1 if needed? I've seen a bunch of threads on the new beta rules, but nothing addressing this example in particular. Did GW ever address it specifically? If it is possible then I'll be very happy to throw captain smashy and his thunder hammer to his death turn 1 as usual

Fully Painted Armies: 2200pts Orks 1000pts Space Marines 1200pts Tau 2500pts Blood Angels 3500pts Imperial Guard/Renegades and 1700pts Daemons 450pts Imperial Knights  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





For matched play, The Big FAQ I has the Tactical Reserves beta rule which prevents you from deep striking outside your deployment zone in turn 1.

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/warhammer_40000_The_Big_FAQ_1_2018_en.pdf
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Offical rules no a bunch of unofficial, offical GW facebook posts shed some light, on RAI but they haven't appeared to be interested in actually explaining or correct the rules to mean what/play how they want.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 DoomMouse wrote:
I think that 'upon wings of fire' could be used on a BA jump pack captain to deep strike him outside my deployment zone turn 1 if needed? I've seen a bunch of threads on the new beta rules, but nothing addressing this example in particular. Did GW ever address it specifically? If it is possible then I'll be very happy to throw captain smashy and his thunder hammer to his death turn 1 as usual

The game designers have clarified via thier social media outlet that units that start on the board can still be redeployed using abilities that allow it.

DFTT 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





But sure would be nice having that on some bloody official place. As it is what of those(quite likely lot) people who don't follow FB.- Especially COMMENTS of posts. I can pretty much quarantee there are tons of players who have only read beta rules but never read that 2nd hand info from unofficial source and thus have no idea game developers have said anythign so as far they know they have only what's on community site. Which is deadlock on idea so basically game where somebody tries that will fall into infinite loop unless the players in question house rule one way or another as rule as written doesn't say either way conclusively.

That's why you keep all the official rule commentary/errata's in one place. Any professional company and even semi-professional ones know it. Too bad GW works with amateur company attitude.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Dallas area, TX

tneva82 wrote:
But sure would be nice having that on some bloody official place. As it is what of those(quite likely lot) people who don't follow FB.- Especially COMMENTS of posts. I can pretty much quarantee there are tons of players who have only read beta rules but never read that 2nd hand info from unofficial source and thus have no idea game developers have said anythign so as far they know they have only what's on community site. Which is deadlock on idea so basically game where somebody tries that will fall into infinite loop unless the players in question house rule one way or another as rule as written doesn't say either way conclusively.

That's why you keep all the official rule commentary/errata's in one place. Any professional company and even semi-professional ones know it. Too bad GW works with amateur company attitude.

The "official" Beta rule already confirms this though. The FB responses are merely there for convenience for people who are (somehow?) confused still.
If the units starts on the board to begin with, the beta rule does not apply in any way. It only applies to Tactical Reserves

   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2013246645662631/?type=3&theater

The relevant facebook post that explains that Upon Wings of Fire and similar abilities allow you to leave your DZ on turn 1.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Ordana wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2013246645662631/?type=3&theater

The relevant facebook post that explains that Upon Wings of Fire and similar abilities allow you to leave your DZ on turn 1.
Facebook is not a rulebook. The rules are clear.

I for one play the games by the rules. If only there was a word for someone who intentionally breaks the rules for an advantage...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/05 13:47:17


 
   
Made in gb
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot






Thanks guys, looks like it's a no for now then. (Or at least until they FAQ the FAQ). Guess I can always throw a captain up the board with forlorn fury even if it costs more CP!

Fully Painted Armies: 2200pts Orks 1000pts Space Marines 1200pts Tau 2500pts Blood Angels 3500pts Imperial Guard/Renegades and 1700pts Daemons 450pts Imperial Knights  
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I for one play the games by the rules.


Including not firing pistols while within 1" of an enemy or assault weapons after advancing?

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Happyjew wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I for one play the games by the rules.


Including not firing pistols while within 1" of an enemy or assault weapons after advancing?
Correct. I don't understand why everyone tries to "gotcha" me with this. I've only ever had 1 person be annoyed about me wanting to play by the rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/05 21:37:37


 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
I for one play the games by the rules.


Including not firing pistols while within 1" of an enemy or assault weapons after advancing?
Correct. I don't understand why everyone tries to "gotcha" me with this. I've only ever had 1 person be annoyed about me wanting to play by the rules.


How many people have you played like that then? 1?

I'd be rather annoyed if you insisted that pistols and assault weapons are basically useless weapon types.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






nekooni wrote:
How many people have you played like that then? 1?

I'd be rather annoyed if you insisted that pistols and assault weapons are basically useless weapon types.
And I am annoyed Modifiers happen after Re-rolls. Do I demand the rules be changed to accommodate my whims?
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.
I insist GW issue errata the proper way. Some random person on Facebook is not the rulebook or errata. If some random person on Facebook said "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+", would you play it that way? Of course not, because it's blatantly wrong.
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.
I insist GW issue errata the proper way. Some random person on Facebook is not the rulebook or errata. If some random person on Facebook said "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+", would you play it that way? Of course not, because it's blatantly wrong.


I wouldn't play it like that if a random person wrote it. But if GW said so while also saying that in this instance they'd talked to the rules guys, I would.

I'd also expect them to add it to the errata, but I can use that information until they do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/06 06:33:12


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

nekooni wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.
I insist GW issue errata the proper way. Some random person on Facebook is not the rulebook or errata. If some random person on Facebook said "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+", would you play it that way? Of course not, because it's blatantly wrong.


I wouldn't play it like that if a random person wrote it. But if GW said so while also saying that in this instance they'd talked to the rules guys, I would.

I'd also expect them to add it to the errata, but I can use that information until they do.


Agreed. It’s not “some random person” and in an exception from their normal posts GW expressly states it’s the rules writers’ intent to play it X way. This makes it valid to use as guidance, even if you don’t believe it carries the full weight of a regular rules publication.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.
I insist GW issue errata the proper way. Some random person on Facebook is not the rulebook or errata. If some random person on Facebook said "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+", would you play it that way? Of course not, because it's blatantly wrong.

And the proper way is your way, and you have the authority to decide on proper x how?
Again. Arrogance astounds

They f course are also not some "random guy" but the official GW page that has significantly more authority than you do to decide what is rules
Your viewpoint is appreciated but it is merely your opinion and, clearly,a minority one at that.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






nosferatu1001 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.
I insist GW issue errata the proper way. Some random person on Facebook is not the rulebook or errata. If some random person on Facebook said "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+", would you play it that way? Of course not, because it's blatantly wrong.

And the proper way is your way, and you have the authority to decide on proper x how?
Again. Arrogance astounds

They f course are also not some "random guy" but the official GW page that has significantly more authority than you do to decide what is rules
Your viewpoint is appreciated but it is merely your opinion and, clearly,a minority one at that.
Answer the question, if a Facebook post says "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+" would you argue that it is true the same way you're arguing this? Yes or No, one word answer please.

I am not the one making the rules, the Rulebooks and Errata do.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/06 21:03:50


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.
I insist GW issue errata the proper way. Some random person on Facebook is not the rulebook or errata. If some random person on Facebook said "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+", would you play it that way? Of course not, because it's blatantly wrong.

And the proper way is your way, and you have the authority to decide on proper x how?
Again. Arrogance astounds

They f course are also not some "random guy" but the official GW page that has significantly more authority than you do to decide what is rules
Your viewpoint is appreciated but it is merely your opinion and, clearly,a minority one at that.
Answer the question, if a Facebook post says "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+" would you argue that it is true the same way you're arguing this? Yes or No, one word answer please.

I am not the one making the rules, the Rulebooks and Errata do.


If “a Facebook post” said it, no.
If “a Facebook post on an official GW channel by GW employees that specifically states the rules writers endorse it and it represents their views”, then yes.

The latter is what we have. It’s not random internet noise from someone making up rules... it’s from The Rule Writers.




 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 JohnnyHell wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.
I insist GW issue errata the proper way. Some random person on Facebook is not the rulebook or errata. If some random person on Facebook said "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+", would you play it that way? Of course not, because it's blatantly wrong.

And the proper way is your way, and you have the authority to decide on proper x how?
Again. Arrogance astounds

They f course are also not some "random guy" but the official GW page that has significantly more authority than you do to decide what is rules
Your viewpoint is appreciated but it is merely your opinion and, clearly,a minority one at that.
Answer the question, if a Facebook post says "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+" would you argue that it is true the same way you're arguing this? Yes or No, one word answer please.

I am not the one making the rules, the Rulebooks and Errata do.


If “a Facebook post” said it, no.
If “a Facebook post on an official GW channel by GW employees that specifically states the rules writers endorse it and it represents their views”, then yes.

The latter is what we have. It’s not random internet noise from someone making up rules... it’s from The Rule Writers.






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.



From the about part on the 40k FB page. That is also official from GW channel GW employee etc, so thats rather conflicting isnt it?

40kGlobal AOA member, regular of Overlords podcast club and 4tk gaming store. Blogger @ http://sanguinesons.blogspot.co.uk/
06/2013: 1st at War of the Roses ETC warm up.
08/213: 3rd place double teams at 4tk
09/2013: 7th place, best daemon and non eldar/tau army at Northern Warlords GT
10/2013: 3rd/4th at Battlefield Birmingham
11/2013: 5th at GT heat 3
11/2013: 5th COG 2k at 4tk
01/2014: 34th at Caledonian
03/2014: 3rd GT Final 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet you insist that GW is only allowed to issue rulings in ways you approve of. It's quite bizarre.
I insist GW issue errata the proper way. Some random person on Facebook is not the rulebook or errata. If some random person on Facebook said "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+", would you play it that way? Of course not, because it's blatantly wrong.

And the proper way is your way, and you have the authority to decide on proper x how?
Again. Arrogance astounds

They f course are also not some "random guy" but the official GW page that has significantly more authority than you do to decide what is rules
Your viewpoint is appreciated but it is merely your opinion and, clearly,a minority one at that.
Answer the question, if a Facebook post says "Ultramarines hit and wound on a 1+" would you argue that it is true the same way you're arguing this? Yes or No, one word answer please.

I am not the one making the rules, the Rulebooks and Errata do.

Frame the question in a way that relates to the actual subject at hand, and isn't a boring, crass attempt at changing the topic of discussion which you're failing on, to something else. Slippery slope when you've actually created your own independent slope just for yourself is hilariously funny

"A" Facebook post? Of course not. But then you knew that when you framed the question so poorly
"A" Facebook post, from GW, stating this is from the rules writers? Yes, of course.

YOU are the one deciding the only source fir rules are rules and errata. Well , the games designers think otherwise, and guess what? They win out. Not you. Oh and not your interpretation of the faq that leads to this argument in the first place. The one that ignores context in favour of controversy.

You've reached the bottom. Try working up again, with some grace this time.
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block




MarkyMark wrote:

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.



From the about part on the 40k FB page. That is also official from GW channel GW employee etc, so thats rather conflicting isnt it?


They clarify in the comments and in response to being asked about this that whilst it’s true THEY can’t make rules clarifications this a message from the writers that they’re merely relaying.
They saw there was some confusion and have tried to clarify things: This is everything we’ve ever wanted from the GW rules team. We should thank them for finally doing something sensible rather than remaining silent.
   
Made in gb
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot






It is good, but still not very official - I hope they ammend the FAQ to include the changes that facebook was talking about. I just think I'd feel a bit stupid trying to reference a random GW facebook quote when my opponent asked me to justify how I could use the rule

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/07 11:18:11


Fully Painted Armies: 2200pts Orks 1000pts Space Marines 1200pts Tau 2500pts Blood Angels 3500pts Imperial Guard/Renegades and 1700pts Daemons 450pts Imperial Knights  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 DoomMouse wrote:
It is good, but still not very official - I hope they ammend the FAQ to include the changes that facebook was talking about. I just think I'd feel a bit stupid trying to reference a random GW facebook quote when my opponent asked me to justify how I could use the rule

This is what bugs me.about it, they clearly didn't have anyone outside the rules team that drafted the FAQ check that it conveyed what they ment it to, and when it became clear that the community didn't get the rules teams intention from the FAQ they should have updated the FAQ. Trying to make sure that all the casual players are upto date and aware of the FAQ updates and Beta rules and facebook FAQ to the FAQ and the interactions and what that means for their army has been a flippin nightmare.
Also each one of them has asked when I have explained it to them "Have they updated the FAQ?" Why GW think its fine as to post on facebook and call that job done is beyond me. It would take half a day tops to update the FAQ and link it out.

It's a fairly stupid line in the sand to draw on GW's part its OK to slip the FAQ's a month but not proofread them and refuse to update them when noone else understood what you ment from what you wrote.
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

MarkyMark wrote:

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.

From the about part on the 40k FB page. That is also official from GW channel GW employee etc, so thats rather conflicting isnt it?

But you can't take that as truth because it's just off of a random FB account, isn't it?

Spoiler:
I am being sarcastic here.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gendif wrote:
They clarify in the comments and in response to being asked about this that whilst it’s true THEY can’t make rules clarifications this a message from the writers that they’re merely relaying.
They saw there was some confusion and have tried to clarify things: This is everything we’ve ever wanted from the GW rules team. We should thank them for finally doing something sensible rather than remaining silent.


As much as I will take their FB comment as valid commentary on the FAQ/rules, it's not "everything" we're asking for. They should update the FAQ documents with that, that's the proper way to change the rules. It doesn't mean the FB commentary is irrelevant as some claim, but it's certainly not the best way of dealing with it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/07 14:32:44


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 DoomMouse wrote:
Thanks guys, looks like it's a no for now then. (Or at least until they FAQ the FAQ). Guess I can always throw a captain up the board with forlorn fury even if it costs more CP!


Best to talk about it with your opponent beforehand, first to determine if you're going to use the beta rules at all, and if so if you're going to use the FB post. Being a beta rule, if it's not a tournament (which will let you know what their rules are) you aren't forced to use it. They'd like for you to use it. and given the circumstance if you're going to use it you can just as easily accommodate using what they said in Facebook since at this time you're establishing what house rules you're going to play under.
   
Made in ca
Hardened Veteran Guardsman





What a time to be alive.

We've got some people refusing to acknowledge rules clarifications because those clarifications weren't published with "The Internet Rules Lawyer's Seal of Approval (Scratch-N-Sniff Edition)" Then other people arguing that even though a post was made specifying that it was a message from the rules team to clarify their intent, that since the page's description (written long before this clarification post in question) mentions the Facebook team isn't the rules team (which again, this post in question specifies that this came from the rules team THIS TIME), that it still is invalid.

THOSE folks can have fun playing their way (if they can find people willing to swallow their bizarre interpretation), and the rest of us will carry on?

For what it's worth, obviously they need to get this fix into the FAQ proper. Some folks can't be assed to check Facebook comments for clarifications - hell it's only through places like this and Reddit that I even found out about it.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






GW have only had 30 years to get it right, give them a break they are a new fledgling company! -rolleyes-

I think you'll find the vast majority of people play the game by the rules and don't use a random person on Facebook for their rules, they instead use the actual rulebooks.
   
Made in nz
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




Ankh Morpork

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW have only had 30 years to get it right, give them a break they are a new fledgling company! -rolleyes-


I don't disagree with this, but...

I think you'll find the vast majority of people play the game by the rules and don't use a random person on Facebook for their rules, they instead use the actual rulebooks.


...Jesus Christ this is cringeworthy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/08 03:55:49


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: