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.

 Slinky wrote:
If only you could super-ignore people, so you can't even click on their messages and accidentally read them...

I know. I do this with people out of sheer masochism.

Maybe what [REDACTED] said this time is sensiblOH MY GOD IT'S WORSE THAN I THOUGHT!

Not you, BCB.

Good enough for me.

And even I was in UK, I would never play with BCB, so this is not an issue.

 Slinky wrote:
If only you could super-ignore people, so you can't even click on their messages and accidentally read them...

I made a css style to do just that, see my signature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 GuardStrider wrote:
On the official FB

You do realise the official facebook/website also says Iron Hands can stack Feel No Pain? And look how that turned out. If their "intent" was for Da Jump to work T1, they NEED to change the rule.

 GuardStrider wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Vindication (again)!

Is this official enough for everyone?

Someone is going to say it's the community team so it's not right (because there is no contact between teams it seems)

"And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers." There ya go. The community team themselves saying that they are not a source for rules questions. Make all the Also Ill gladly deepstrike with everything now since nothing that deepstrikes uses the word deploy. Their pretty picture means gak. Do I get 4 guns on crisis suits because the community team posted 4 guns on the preview article even though the codex says 3? No I don't think so. No matter how many copies I print out the community team still gets overruled by the actual rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You do realise the official facebook/website also says Iron Hands can stack Feel No Pain? And look how that turned out.

Irrelevant. It's a living rule set. Their statement was 100% true at the time.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You do realise the official facebook/website also says Iron Hands can stack Feel No Pain? And look how that turned out.

Irrelevant. It's a living rule set. Their statement was 100% true at the time.

And their statement is 100% false this time. Maybe I am showing my age, but I remember a time when sending the same question 3 times got 4 wrong and different answers back from their Email.

The ONLY rules are found in the Rulebooks and Errata, not facebook, not discord chats, NOTHING ELSE.

Until GW change the rule or make a Special Snowflake FAQ, that will not change.

The Errata only addresses units that started in tactical reserves and were NOT deployed as normal.

If the unit has actually deployed on turn 1 and did not start in reserves, than the Errata doesn't affect that unit.
An ability that puts them into reserves does not retroactively consider them to have started there.

No clarification was even needed, though it is welcome.

-

 DominayTrix wrote:

"And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers." There ya go. The community team themselves saying that they are not a source for rules questions. Make all the Also Ill gladly deepstrike with everything now since nothing that deepstrikes uses the word deploy. Their pretty picture means gak. Do I get 4 guns on crisis suits because the community team posted 4 guns on the preview article even though the codex says 3? No I don't think so. No matter how many copies I print out the community team still gets overruled by the actual rules.

1) They're not responding to a question with this post
2) They do not make that disclaimer on said post

I'm just surprised people were even saying that these rules (da jump, the shard of the deceiver, ect) didn't work like pic above. Glad GW did post something quick though just to clear it up for those misinterpreting it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You do realise the official facebook/website also says Iron Hands can stack Feel No Pain? And look how that turned out.

Irrelevant. It's a living rule set. Their statement was 100% true at the time.

And their statement is 100% false this time. Maybe I am showing my age, but I remember a time when sending the same question 3 times got 4 wrong and different answers back from their Email.

The ONLY rules are found in the Rulebooks and Errata, not facebook, not discord chats, NOTHING ELSE.

So you'll only be happy if they go modify an article from ELEVEN MONTHS ago? Good grief, dude. Good grief.

Wow.

The amount of willful ignorance (if they chose not to understand it) or genuine disingenuity (if they understand it, but pretend not to) in this thread is staggering. It's clear as day to me what is being said.

Weren't people applying a segment regarding heavy weapons firing from reserve, then applying that to how things enter from deep strike as justification for "nope you can't"?

Isn't that reaching further than GW literally producing a document saying "this is exactly what it means", even though it's not in magenta?

I dunno, I'm all for playing things as accurate as possible, but It seems the justification for saying no to begin with was kind of a stretch.

Sometimes I wonder if there are people on here who are so completely deluded they actually believe without a shadow of a doubt that they know the rules better than the gw rules writers. Unbelievable.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Weren't people applying a segment regarding heavy weapons firing from reserve, then applying that to how things enter from deep strike as justification for "nope you can't"?

Isn't that reaching further than GW literally producing a document saying "this is exactly what it means", even though it's not in magenta?

I dunno, I'm all for playing things as accurate as possible, but It seems the justification for saying no to begin with was kind of a stretch.

I think the rule clearly says No. But considering this latest bit I will happily agree that GW wants these abilities to work turn 1.
They should just learn to write better rules so this confusion didn't happen in the first place (and they definitely should update the faq to be clear).

Hell, even per GW, on the post: "this post has been written with the studio so is 100% how these rules work under the beta Tactical Reserves rules."

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

"And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers." There ya go. The community team themselves saying that they are not a source for rules questions. Make all the Also Ill gladly deepstrike with everything now since nothing that deepstrikes uses the word deploy. Their pretty picture means gak. Do I get 4 guns on crisis suits because the community team posted 4 guns on the preview article even though the codex says 3? No I don't think so. No matter how many copies I print out the community team still gets overruled by the actual rules.

1) They're not responding to a question with this post
2) They do not make that disclaimer on said post

You are right it isn't on their post it is on their about me for the entire page. Hey its ok though, if we are going to go strictly RAW then I will deepstrike on the first turn with no problem. I will happily hand you my codex and point out that my deep strike rules do not deploy on the first turn. Nope they set up on the first turn. Don't get me wrong I think shunts should work on the first turn, but I think they should be allowed because the FAQ says so. "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." So far I have checked Necrons, Tau, Tyranids, and CSM. Not a single one of them "deploys" arriving by deep strike. There isn't a caveat that says anything about having come from reserves. You can either generalize deploy to mean set up which unfortunately includes the shunts or you use strict language which makes it do nothing. It is poorly written and needs to be fixed.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Hell, even per GW, on the post: "this post has been written with the studio so is 100% how these rules work under the beta Tactical Reserves rules."

Yep, I can understand people being sceptical of quick replies on the comment section where the community team may be missing something, but this was clearly a previously thought and prepared posted by them with the intent of clarifying.

Here, GW I'll do your job for you, for free even.

"Units that begin the first turn on the battlefield, but are for any reason removed and then set up again during the first turn are not affected by this rule."

One line, ONE line is all you need.

Warhammer 40000 FB wrote:
Well [redacted], we stand by the fact that we here in the Community Team have no influence over the rules. But luckily, this post has been written in collaboration with the studio and reviewed by the rules writers. As such, it's legit. We are not the same team... but we talk to each other. A lot.

 GuardStrider wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Hell, even per GW, on the post: "this post has been written with the studio so is 100% how these rules work under the beta Tactical Reserves rules."

Yep, I can understand people being sceptical of quick replies on the comment section where the community team may be missing something, but this was clearly a previously thought and prepared posted by them with the intent of clarifying.

Yeah, pretty much. It seems a lot more likely than not that this reflects how the rules team wants it played, and I bet most people take it that way even if the RAW clearly goes the other way.

A FB post by GW is good enough for me. They stated their intent. It's still unfortunate that some one asked the question and used the word "usable" which is completely subjective. (And very lazy.) I'm pleased that GW has enough mind reading ability to distill, "can we still first turn jump into the enemy deployment Zone?" from the word "usable".

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Here, GW I'll do your job for you, for free even.

"Units that begin the first turn on the battlefield, but are for any reason removed and then set up again during the first turn are not affected by this rule."

One line, ONE line is all you need.

In seven different languages, to be fair.

Plus you then need to ensure the layout of the 7 documents are correct.

It's not like "bang in a line of text DONE!"

There. Are we done now?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if there are people on here who are so completely deluded they actually believe without a shadow of a doubt that they know the rules better than the gw rules writers. Unbelievable.

There are plenty of people who know the rules better than the gw design team, it’s people who think they know the intent better than the design team that are funny.

This thread is a beautiful example of everything wrong with the 40k community and why i suggested making beta rules a beta only. The majority of people are fine but there are "those guys and gals" who even when given official confirmation still want to take advantage and manipulate rules to ruin other people's fun. I sure hope I never get into a game with any of those people. Uou all know who you are.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There. Are we done now?

That’s about as cut and dry as you can get without an FAQ update, it’s official.

 GuardStrider wrote:
On the official FB

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Vindication (again)!

Is this official enough for everyone?

So, uh, the Community team muddled it up in the comments to that very post.

Warhammer 40,000: This is direct from the studio, Logan: 'Treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'.

In response to Logan McLaren about 1 minute ago. Counting as having arrived from reserves seems to muddle things RIGHT BACK UP AGAIN.

EDIT: Please note I don't maintain a Facebook and have no idea how to blow up posts for those screenshots.

Audustum wrote:

 GuardStrider wrote:
On the official FB

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Vindication (again)!

Is this official enough for everyone?

So, uh, the Community team muddled it up in the comments to that very post.

Warhammer 40,000: This is direct from the studio, Logan: 'Treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'.

In response to Logan McLaren about 1 minute ago. Counting as having arrived from reserves seems to muddle things RIGHT BACK UP AGAIN.

No it doesn't.

It's clear that they can be deployed anywhere, not just their own DZ. It's also clear that they count as having moved and cannot be warptimed/whatever'd to move again.

I can understand this, why can't you?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Here, GW I'll do your job for you, for free even.

"Units that begin the first turn on the battlefield, but are for any reason removed and then set up again during the first turn are not affected by this rule."

One line, ONE line is all you need.

One line that is completely unneeded. If the unit begin the first turn deployed, it is ALREADY not affected by the Tactical Reserves errata.

-

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 GuardStrider wrote:
On the official FB

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Vindication (again)!

Is this official enough for everyone?

So, uh, the Community team muddled it up in the comments to that very post.

Warhammer 40,000: This is direct from the studio, Logan: 'Treat these units as having arrived from reserves' which really is shorthand for 'these units cannot move again for any reason (including Warptime) and counts as having moved for firing heavy weapons.'.

In response to Logan McLaren about 1 minute ago. Counting as having arrived from reserves seems to muddle things RIGHT BACK UP AGAIN.

No it doesn't.

It's clear that they can be deployed anywhere, not just their own DZ. It's also clear that they count as having moved and cannot be warptimed/whatever'd to move again.

I can understand this, why can't you?

Because they said it counts as reinforcements and reinforcements literally prevents that movement?