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:

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.

Pretty much, I have no intention of playing the rule RAW. I understand how it is meant to be played. I just want the rules to match since there was a miscommunication. Changing the text to match intent will not change how the rule is going to be tested, but it does safeguard against any further misinterpretations. Its the same exact thing as when someone misspeaks, but you know what they meant. They will restate it with a simple "Oops sorry I meant ____________" and you can move on since things were made clear. In our case they wrote down the wrong thing so now they go back real quick and fix it. We know what GW means we aren't ignoring them. I just find "oh you know what I meant Im not going to fix it" unacceptable for things like rules especially if beta rules are going to become a defacto standard. It just makes things go so much smoother if RAW matches RAI. I promise you that adding a line or two of clarification will not change how the rule is being played unless GW messes it up again which would really just set us back to the same cycle until it does finally match their intentions.

Nothing is stopping you using GoI, that isn't what I am saying. I am saying if you use GoI you're limited to your deployment zone.

bananathug wrote:
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

If you start your unit on the table then you can use GOI into their deployment if you are following the intended test parameters. It is pretty clear though no movement if you deepstrike even in your own deployment. The RAW vs RAI debate doesn't really apply to you since you just want to know functionally if you can.

You cannot GoI or Da Jump to be set up outside your deployment zone Turn 1.

But remember you can use GOI and Da Jump to leave your deployment zone turn 1.

BCB's playing by RAW so isn't using the FB answer yet, despite your answer being how GW intends for it to work.

 doctortom wrote:
BCB's playing by RAW so isn't using the FB answer yet, despite your answer being how GW intends for it to work.

so what you're saying I am playing by the rules?

To be honest we have had FB answers and email responses in the past that were not only mistaken, but completely nonsensical.

They made the intent clear, yes. Now add consistency to your newfound enthusiasm, GW, and update your FAQ with an additional question.

Wait, I'm still confused. Anyone have the text from the facebook post (as a rule I don't go on that site)?

My understanding is the facebook post opens the possibility to GoI out of my deployment zone and the "cannot move" after deepstrike does not prevent deepstrike after deepstrike (I'm not familiar enough with warptime/da jump ability text to really know).

bananathug wrote:
Wait, I'm still confused. Anyone have the text from the facebook post (as a rule I don't go on that site)?

My understanding is the facebook post opens the possibility to GoI out of my deployment zone and the "cannot move" after deepstrike does not prevent deepstrike after deepstrike (I'm not familiar enough with warptime/da jump ability text to really know).

The problem is, Facebook posts are not official. See The Tenets of YMDC, point 2. Therefore, it is not an official rule or errata, and does not officially affect anything.

bananathug wrote:
Wait, I'm still confused. Anyone have the text from the facebook post (as a rule I don't go on that site)?

My understanding is the facebook post opens the possibility to GoI out of my deployment zone and the "cannot move" after deepstrike does not prevent deepstrike after deepstrike (I'm not familiar enough with warptime/da jump ability text to really know).

It's all on the first page of this thread.

The game designers clarified the intent of the beta rules.
Ignoring the game designers advice is wilful ignorance at this point.

Captyn_Bob wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Wait, I'm still confused. Anyone have the text from the facebook post (as a rule I don't go on that site)?

My understanding is the facebook post opens the possibility to GoI out of my deployment zone and the "cannot move" after deepstrike does not prevent deepstrike after deepstrike (I'm not familiar enough with warptime/da jump ability text to really know).

It's all on the first page of this thread.

The game designers clarified the intent of the beta rules.
Ignoring the game designers advice is wilful ignorance at this point.

Facebook is not the game designers. If they want the rule to work, they need to change the rule

With respect, the tenets are meaningless compared to the advice of the game designers. I predict (With zero information so may be wrong) that every big TO will go with the game designers clarification.
I hate Facebook rules clarifications.. perhaps if everyone moans about it they'll learn.. But ignoring it doesn't help. And if they keep doing It, we may have to adapt.

 Octopoid wrote:

The problem is, Facebook posts are not official. See The Tenets of YMDC, point 2. Therefore, it is not an official rule or errata, and does not officially affect anything.

The said tenets are outdated and stupid. GW does not five a feth about some Dakka tenets, and frankly, neither do I.

Can we have two separate forum sections:
One for people who actually want help with the rules in order to play the game;
Second for people who want to do these inane rules lawyer battles.

 Crimson wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

The problem is, Facebook posts are not official. See The Tenets of YMDC, point 2. Therefore, it is not an official rule or errata, and does not officially affect anything.

The said tenets are outdated and stupid. GW does not five a feth about some Dakka tenets, and frankly, neither do I.

Can we have two separate forum sections:
One for people who actually want help with the rules in order to play the game;
Second for people who want to do these inane rules lawyer battles.

So you're saying you don't play the game by the rules? Isn't that kind of pointless? The whole point of a game is to use a framework of rules to win the game.

 Crimson wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

The problem is, Facebook posts are not official. See The Tenets of YMDC, point 2. Therefore, it is not an official rule or errata, and does not officially affect anything.

The said tenets are outdated and stupid. GW does not five a feth about some Dakka tenets, and frankly, neither do I.

Can we have two separate forum sections:
One for people who actually want help with the rules in order to play the game;
Second for people who want to do these inane rules lawyer battles.

I believe you are becoming a little aggressive. BaconCat does not fight against said ruling, he just wants to see it in the actual FAQ, and not in a facebook post. This is a very good idea. Because it might just happen that I don't use facebook, or that I am not subscribed in warhammer's facebook page, and then I have to take your word for it that you are allowed to jump your orkz out of deployment. Since they took the effort to actually go and ask the FAQ team, as they so boast in their facebook post reply, do the fething extra step and make an amendment in your rulepack. Then everyone is happy and we don't have to do this.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
I believe you are becoming a little aggressive. BaconCat does not fight against said ruling, he just wants to see it in the actual FAQ, and not in a facebook post. This is a very good idea. Because it might just happen that I don't use facebook, or that I am not subscribed in warhammer's facebook page, and then I have to take your word for it that you are allowed to jump your orkz out of deployment. Since they took the effort to actually go and ask the FAQ team, as they so boast in their facebook post reply, do the fething extra step and make an amendment in your rulepack. Then everyone is happy and we don't have to do this.

Thank you. You're the first person to actually understand this.

I would love for Da Jump to work turn 1, it's the only thing orks have going for them. The sad truth is the current beta rule doesn't work that way.

I hate this.

GW really needs to put out a glossary of terms and keep to those definitions.

If Da Jump is good GoI should be good as well, right? They have pretty much the same text. GoI units are not arriving from reserves, they are not "moving" although they are moving...

Arrive from reserves - yes so deployed in own deployment zone
Psychic power on deepstriking unit - can't "move or advance" GoI (or even interceptor shunts) not "moving" but moving

So technically it looks like I can deepstrike my interceptors and dread knight, shunt the interceptors >9" away from enemy GoI DK >9" enemy all on the 1st turn.

Deepstrike into own deployment zone - good
Not "moving" with a psychic power/strat/ability - good (most questionable part)
GoI and Interceptor moves exempted from 1st round in your own deployment area restrictions - good

Flaws?

bananathug wrote:
I hate this.

GW really needs to put out a glossary of terms and keep to those definitions.

If Da Jump is good GoI should be good as well, right? They have pretty much the same text. GoI units are not arriving from reserves, they are not "moving" although they are moving...

Arrive from reserves - yes so deployed in own deployment zone
Psychic power on deepstriking unit - can't "move or advance" GoI (or even interceptor shunts) not "moving" but moving

So technically it looks like I can deepstrike my interceptors and dread knight, shunt the interceptors >9" away from enemy GoI DK >9" enemy all on the 1st turn.

Deepstrike into own deployment zone - good
Not "moving" with a psychic power/strat/ability - good (most questionable part)
GoI and Interceptor moves exempted from 1st round in your own deployment area restrictions - good

Flaws?

Thousand Sons have the same, with Dark Matter Crystal. In the end what this will accomplish is to create endless nightmares for TO to organize and decide upon. Imagine a 300 strong tournament. TO needs to make a rulepack clear before people start sending their lists. Currently there are so many open points to decide upon that TO will feel like writing a whole new book every time they try to do it.

bananathug wrote:
I hate this.

GW really needs to put out a glossary of terms and keep to those definitions.

If Da Jump is good GoI should be good as well, right? They have pretty much the same text. GoI units are not arriving from reserves, they are not "moving" although they are moving...

Arrive from reserves - yes so deployed in own deployment zone
Psychic power on deepstriking unit - can't "move or advance" GoI (or even interceptor shunts) not "moving" but moving

So technically it looks like I can deepstrike my interceptors and dread knight, shunt the interceptors >9" away from enemy GoI DK >9" enemy all on the 1st turn.

Deepstrike into own deployment zone - good
Not "moving" with a psychic power/strat/ability - good (most questionable part)
GoI and Interceptor moves exempted from 1st round in your own deployment area restrictions - good

Flaws?

Bonus move after arriving from reinforcement restrictions are in place. I do not believe you can deepstrike interceptors and use thier personal teleporters. You could of course just deploy them

topaxygouroun i wrote:

I believe you are becoming a little aggressive. BaconCat does not fight against said ruling, he just wants to see it in the actual FAQ, and not in a facebook post. This is a very good idea. Because it might just happen that I don't use facebook, or that I am not subscribed in warhammer's facebook page, and then I have to take your word for it that you are allowed to jump your orkz out of deployment. Since they took the effort to actually go and ask the FAQ team, as they so boast in their facebook post reply, do the fething extra step and make an amendment in your rulepack. Then everyone is happy and we don't have to do this.

They will do that when it's time for next batch of FAQs or the rule becomes official in the next CA. They have a schedule for these things, and you have instructions on how to play it meanwhile. Do you understand what beta means? Beta releases may contain unusually high amount of bugs. If you don't like how they handle this, then don't use the beta rules until they become official.

 Crimson wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

I believe you are becoming a little aggressive. BaconCat does not fight against said ruling, he just wants to see it in the actual FAQ, and not in a facebook post. This is a very good idea. Because it might just happen that I don't use facebook, or that I am not subscribed in warhammer's facebook page, and then I have to take your word for it that you are allowed to jump your orkz out of deployment. Since they took the effort to actually go and ask the FAQ team, as they so boast in their facebook post reply, do the fething extra step and make an amendment in your rulepack. Then everyone is happy and we don't have to do this.

They will do that when it's time for next batch of FAQs or the rule becomes official in the next CA. They have a schedule for these things, and you have instructions on how to play it meanwhile. Do you understand what beta means? Beta releases may contain unusually high amount of bugs. If you don't like how they handle this, then don't use the beta rules until they become official.

You misunderstand. I'm all about beta rules and feedback. But don't suggest beta rules, and then release a contradicting facebook post two days later, and then end all your communication about the matter. Stick to your beta rules, get your feedback, and adjust accordingly.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

You misunderstand. I'm all about beta rules and feedback. But don't suggest beta rules, and then release a contradicting facebook post two days later, and then end all your communication about the matter. Stick to your beta rules, get your feedback, and adjust accordingly.

What more is there to communicate? They made their intent crystal clear. It is not really GW's problem that there are some neurotic people who cannot accept that this is how it should be played even if Jervis Johnson showed up on their doorstep in person and told them so. Or would you have preferrd if they had not clarified it at all, and let the confusion reign for several months?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
BCB's playing by RAW so isn't using the FB answer yet, despite your answer being how GW intends for it to work.

so what you're saying I am playing by the rules?

As written.

Not accounting for rules as intended even when they announce what their intention is.

So, really just a fractional subset of the rules. :

Personally I think you should get to do things like fire pistols when within 1" of an enemy unit, or get to fire assault weapons even when advancing. thumbsup:

But. the game has fundamental problems by RAW. Since they don't tell you that the six sided dice you use Should not be dice with all 6's, by RAW you have no reason to object to an opponent using those dice.

EDIT: I do have a question, BCB. Do you play with the Beta rules as counting as RAW to follow, or do you wait until they aren't Beta rules any more?

Captyn_Bob wrote:

bananathug wrote:
[SOME STUFF I TYPED]
Flaws?

Bonus move after arriving from reinforcement restrictions are in place. I do not believe you can deepstrike interceptors and use thier personal teleporters. You could of course just deploy them

This is exactly my question. Is there a difference between "moving" (using the rules for moving/advancing like in the abilities called out in the actual faq) vs the general idea of moving a model (changing the location in space of an object). These are the types of interactions where a defined meaning of a word is really important and why actual rules lawyers should be at least consulted because throwing around terms which have both a general meaning, to move a model vs specific meanings to "move" a model only creates confusion.

Warptime - move a unit as if it were the movement phase (so "moving") that's out
Swarmlord - move as if it were the movement phase ("moving) that's out
Metabolic overdrive - move again in the movement phase ("moving")

Seems like all of their examples are "moving" and not moving.

GoI doesn't have anything about moving, remove and then place which falls outside of the "moving" but clearly within the general definition of move...

 Crimson wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

You misunderstand. I'm all about beta rules and feedback. But don't suggest beta rules, and then release a contradicting facebook post two days later, and then end all your communication about the matter. Stick to your beta rules, get your feedback, and adjust accordingly.

What more is there to communicate? They made their intent crystal clear. It is not really GW's problem that there are some neurotic people who cannot accept that this is how it should be played even if Jervis Johnson showed up on their doorstep in person and told them so. Or would you have preferrd if they had not clarified it at all, and let the confusion reign for several months?

The GW facebook said that if your name begins with B you automatically win. Prove me wrong.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

I believe you are becoming a little aggressive. BaconCat does not fight against said ruling, he just wants to see it in the actual FAQ, and not in a facebook post. This is a very good idea. Because it might just happen that I don't use facebook, or that I am not subscribed in warhammer's facebook page, and then I have to take your word for it that you are allowed to jump your orkz out of deployment. Since they took the effort to actually go and ask the FAQ team, as they so boast in their facebook post reply, do the fething extra step and make an amendment in your rulepack. Then everyone is happy and we don't have to do this.

They will do that when it's time for next batch of FAQs or the rule becomes official in the next CA. They have a schedule for these things, and you have instructions on how to play it meanwhile. Do you understand what beta means? Beta releases may contain unusually high amount of bugs. If you don't like how they handle this, then don't use the beta rules until they become official.

You misunderstand. I'm all about beta rules and feedback. But don't suggest beta rules, and then release a contradicting facebook post two days later, and then end all your communication about the matter. Stick to your beta rules, get your feedback, and adjust accordingly.

You're assuming GW knows that the facebook post and the FAQ contradict each other. As far as they know, they don't need to change the FAQ at all to show their intent. If you look at the rule, GW specifically calls out units set up during deployment as being in Tactical Reserves, then under the very same rule says any units that arrive on the 1st turn must be set up in the deployment zone.
People who take the second paragraph to be independent of the first are likely misinterpreting the rule as far as GW is concerned.

 Crimson wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

The problem is, Facebook posts are not official. See The Tenets of YMDC, point 2. Therefore, it is not an official rule or errata, and does not officially affect anything.

The said tenets are outdated and stupid.

Then perhaps you would be best served on a different forum. For the most part, people here are requested, expected, and (generally, with some exceptions) willing to follow the Tenets of YMDC. If you feel they are stupid, perhaps you should contact a moderator to see about having them taken down.

 Crimson wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

You misunderstand. I'm all about beta rules and feedback. But don't suggest beta rules, and then release a contradicting facebook post two days later, and then end all your communication about the matter. Stick to your beta rules, get your feedback, and adjust accordingly.

What more is there to communicate? They made their intent crystal clear. It is not really GW's problem that there are some neurotic people who cannot accept that this is how it should be played even if Jervis Johnson showed up on their doorstep in person and told them so. Or would you have preferrd if they had not clarified it at all, and let the confusion reign for several months?

I would prefer if you didn't attach demeaning adjectives next to the word "people" to begin with. After that I would argue that no, these are not my only two options (either suck it and accept it or ignore it). There can be more solutions, you know. What me and bacon say makes perfect sense. Just take the 10-ish minutes it takes and add the nice screenshot with the "TOP 5 SECRET TRIXX" in the faq. That's literally all it takes. Don't even change the format, just paste the facebook post onto the FAQ page. And we will disagree on the "confusion". The confusion was created because they added the facebook thing. Without the second input the rule was crystal clear. Maybe not crystal, but clear for sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

I believe you are becoming a little aggressive. BaconCat does not fight against said ruling, he just wants to see it in the actual FAQ, and not in a facebook post. This is a very good idea. Because it might just happen that I don't use facebook, or that I am not subscribed in warhammer's facebook page, and then I have to take your word for it that you are allowed to jump your orkz out of deployment. Since they took the effort to actually go and ask the FAQ team, as they so boast in their facebook post reply, do the fething extra step and make an amendment in your rulepack. Then everyone is happy and we don't have to do this.

They will do that when it's time for next batch of FAQs or the rule becomes official in the next CA. They have a schedule for these things, and you have instructions on how to play it meanwhile. Do you understand what beta means? Beta releases may contain unusually high amount of bugs. If you don't like how they handle this, then don't use the beta rules until they become official.

You misunderstand. I'm all about beta rules and feedback. But don't suggest beta rules, and then release a contradicting facebook post two days later, and then end all your communication about the matter. Stick to your beta rules, get your feedback, and adjust accordingly.

You're assuming GW knows that the facebook post and the FAQ contradict each other. As far as they know, they don't need to change the FAQ at all to show their intent. If you look at the rule, GW specifically calls out units set up during deployment as being in Tactical Reserves, then under the very same rule says any units that arrive on the 1st turn must be set up in the deployment zone.
People who take the second paragraph to be independent of the first are likely misinterpreting the rule as far as GW is concerned.

"Later on you can explain to me how that's a comfort"
~ Jayne Cobb, Firefly.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The GW facebook said that if your name begins with B you automatically win. Prove me wrong.

Provide a link to said post and we can talk.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Octopoid wrote:

Then perhaps you would be best served on a different forum.

The thought has certainly occurred to me.

If you feel they are stupid, perhaps you should contact a moderator to see about having them taken down.

Good idea. I shall do that.