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.

Okay, not going to lie... I never actually saw that image and read the rules on the website so I basically missed that. As an academic I can't deny that grammar is perfect. For anyone who doesn't know how 'furthermore' is used, it's a conjunction (like dead mentions). So basically it's in reference to the last paragraph and can't exist without taking it into account while also adding additional information.

Furthermore, the 'instead of being set up on the battlefield feild" sentence must be taken into account when read the whole rule. The grammer solved the problem before the GW devs did.

Futhermore, in an academic or professional sense, if you started talking about something differently from the previous paragraph then you are technically committing super mega grammar heresy. You have gone off topic and ruined the flow of the subject. However, if they used the word 'however' then they can talk about what ever they like.

Gw actually got this correct.
However, I like apples.

However, even this in my mind is grammar heresy. Futhermore, everything with a conjunction should always relate to the topic. The ultimate best way to separate the two, so you don't have any reference to the previous paragraph, is to just start the sentence off with no conjunction or with a line/stars in between the two paragraphs.

In conclusion, you're all insane and I don't even like apples!

 Ordana wrote:

Trunkello wrote:

 Gojiratoho wrote:

Trunkello wrote:
"we spoke to the studio about that FAQ and they told us that '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.'."

So as the Deceiver is using an ability like this and is treated as having arrived from reserves. Then it doesnt fall under the first turn deepstrike category. But! If they cannot move for any reason does that mean they are just outside of rapidfire range? As the grand illusion rule states they must be set up more than 12".

Grand Illusion isn't being set up from reserves, it's redeploying units already set up on the board. Also, the GI rule states that models cannot charge their first turn. You are free to move and shoot normally though.

They gave this answer because of an earlier FAQ:
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.
And after that they clarified it more to: 'treat these units ( these as units using a rule to redeploy) 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.'."

According to this, for me it looks like units redeployed with the Grand illusion cannot move so they will have to stay more than 12" away from enemy units.

Again, Grand Illusion is after deployment but before the first turn. The question you mention has no bearing on it since it is talking about re-deployment DURING the turn.
A unit redeployed with Grand Illusion acts normally in every single way and would not even count as moving if they don't move in the movement phase. They are only limited to not being allowed to charge.

The original question doesnt mention any restriction on the described action. Doesnt matter if its during the turn or before the turn or during movement or outside movement. It says that an ability that removes them from the battlefield and sets them up again on the battlefield. And Grand illusion does just that:
Grand Illusion: At the beginning of the first battle
round, but before the first turn begins, you can remove
the C’tan Shard of the Deceiver and/or up to D3 other
friendly NECRONS units from the battlefield, then set
them up again more than 12" from any enemy models.[u]
If you do so, these units cannot charge in your first turn.

The examples in the question may be during the turn but the question itself is not specific to them nor is the answer. RAI vs RAW. I dont want to argue over it and im gonna play it withouth the restriction on movement but as it stands, according to these FAQs they could not move.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
"Could you clarify if abilities and stratagems used after the initial deploymen on the 1st turn t that remove a unit of the table and allow us to place again such as Gate of Infinity are usable according to the new tactical reserves rule?"

"You can indeed Gonçalo - those units have started the game deployed on the battlefield and can benefit from psychic powers such as Gate of Infinity and Da Jump.".

That came right from GWs Warhammer 40k account.

GW's COMMUNITY team clarified this; they've said many times before that they're not the rules writers and their word doesn't mean anything. Nothing can be drawn from the community team giving a certain answer.

Absolutely depends, sometimes they actually directly ask the rules team and post their response on FB page, as in this case. And in any case, a ruling provided by them is still more official than some random internet rule lawyers and can be used as an interim-ruling until an official one (or a comment by the rules team) is available.

I mean if there is ever a rules dispute at a tourney, why should the judge use your interpretation when there is one provided on an official GW channel? Because the community team is not the rules team, even though neither are you?

The job of the GW community team is communication between us and them PR is more than simply marketing.

So their communication is in a sense the developpers.

Trunkello wrote:
The original question doesnt mention any restriction on the described action. Doesnt matter if its during the turn or before the turn or during movement or outside movement. It says that an ability that removes them from the battlefield and sets them up again on the battlefield. And Grand illusion does just that:
Grand Illusion: At the beginning of the first battle
round, but before the first turn begins, you can remove
the C’tan Shard of the Deceiver and/or up to D3 other
friendly NECRONS units from the battlefield, then set
them up again more than 12" from any enemy models.[u]
If you do so, these units cannot charge in your first turn.

The examples in the question may be during the turn but the question itself is not specific to them nor is the answer. RAI vs RAW. I dont want to argue over it and im gonna play it withouth the restriction on movement but as it stands, according to these FAQs they could not move.

So, a redeployed unit cannot move for the rest of the game and will count as moving for the rest of the game. Because the answer in question does not limit it to only the current turn...

No your being incredibly silly.

 Ordana wrote:

Trunkello wrote:
The original question doesnt mention any restriction on the described action. Doesnt matter if its during the turn or before the turn or during movement or outside movement. It says that an ability that removes them from the battlefield and sets them up again on the battlefield. And Grand illusion does just that:
Grand Illusion: At the beginning of the first battle
round, but before the first turn begins, you can remove
the C’tan Shard of the Deceiver and/or up to D3 other
friendly NECRONS units from the battlefield, then set
them up again more than 12" from any enemy models.[u]
If you do so, these units cannot charge in your first turn.

The examples in the question may be during the turn but the question itself is not specific to them nor is the answer. RAI vs RAW. I dont want to argue over it and im gonna play it withouth the restriction on movement but as it stands, according to these FAQs they could not move.

So, a redeployed unit cannot move for the rest of the game and will count as moving for the rest of the game. Because the answer in question does not limit it to only the current turn...

No your being incredibly silly.

It says to treat them just as they arrived from reserve. So they can move again next turn.

Reminds me of the advertisement they made for the blood angels dreadnought formation in 7th. The advertisement literally stated the the dreads would be able to use their shoot twice ability out of a drop pod - but then they made an FAQ that they could not use their shoot twice ability out of the drop pod.

That was significant as it basically made the formation unusable. However - this clarification is meaningless for the GK. They were preactically unplayabler when half their army could deep strike. So only being able to DS 1 unit is worthless. 100% worthless - like the GK army in genreal - is worthless.

Trunkello wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Trunkello wrote:
The original question doesnt mention any restriction on the described action. Doesnt matter if its during the turn or before the turn or during movement or outside movement. It says that an ability that removes them from the battlefield and sets them up again on the battlefield. And Grand illusion does just that:
Grand Illusion: At the beginning of the first battle
round, but before the first turn begins, you can remove
the C’tan Shard of the Deceiver and/or up to D3 other
friendly NECRONS units from the battlefield, then set
them up again more than 12" from any enemy models.[u]
If you do so, these units cannot charge in your first turn.

The examples in the question may be during the turn but the question itself is not specific to them nor is the answer. RAI vs RAW. I dont want to argue over it and im gonna play it withouth the restriction on movement but as it stands, according to these FAQs they could not move.

So, a redeployed unit cannot move for the rest of the game and will count as moving for the rest of the game. Because the answer in question does not limit it to only the current turn...

No your being incredibly silly.

It says to treat them just as they arrived from reserve. So they can move again next turn.

Next turn being... your first turn since it happens before the first turn.
Same way RG with Strike from the Shadows or Alpha Legion Cultists get to act normally in their first turn.

Are people so crazy that they can't admit they're wrong they have to go straight out and say an official post with official approval is not official. Be an adult and admit when you are wrong... this thread is just pure insanity. I don't even have words for it anymore.

 Ordana wrote:

Trunkello wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Trunkello wrote:
The original question doesnt mention any restriction on the described action. Doesnt matter if its during the turn or before the turn or during movement or outside movement. It says that an ability that removes them from the battlefield and sets them up again on the battlefield. And Grand illusion does just that:
Grand Illusion: At the beginning of the first battle
round, but before the first turn begins, you can remove
the C’tan Shard of the Deceiver and/or up to D3 other
friendly NECRONS units from the battlefield, then set
them up again more than 12" from any enemy models.[u]
If you do so, these units cannot charge in your first turn.

The examples in the question may be during the turn but the question itself is not specific to them nor is the answer. RAI vs RAW. I dont want to argue over it and im gonna play it withouth the restriction on movement but as it stands, according to these FAQs they could not move.

So, a redeployed unit cannot move for the rest of the game and will count as moving for the rest of the game. Because the answer in question does not limit it to only the current turn...

No your being incredibly silly.

It says to treat them just as they arrived from reserve. So they can move again next turn.

Next turn being... your first turn since it happens before the first turn.
Same way RG with Strike from the Shadows or Alpha Legion Cultists get to act normally in their first turn.

Okay you convinced me with that. See i am not completly stubborn just act like a bad robotprogram that freezes when an action is missing in the process

 lolman1c wrote:
Are people so crazy that they can't admit they're wrong they have to go straight out and say an official post with official approval is not official. Be an adult and admit when you are wrong... this thread is just pure insanity. I don't even have words for it anymore.

Yep, I don't see what else there is to discuss here. I originally interpreted the rule one way, GW have come out and said it's actually meant another way, so my original interpretation was wrong and I'm now totally happy playing it the intended way. I'd still like to see an expanded clarification in the official FAQs but it's very obvious what the rule is now.

 Burnage wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Are people so crazy that they can't admit they're wrong they have to go straight out and say an official post with official approval is not official. Be an adult and admit when you are wrong... this thread is just pure insanity. I don't even have words for it anymore.

Yep, I don't see what else there is to discuss here. I originally interpreted the rule one way, GW have come out and said it's actually meant another way, so my original interpretation was wrong and I'm now totally happy playing it the intended way. I'd still like to see an expanded clarification in the official FAQs but it's very obvious what the rule is now.

The discussion is about how the rules text has a different meaning than the FAQ. I know how the rule is meant to be played and the clarification solved that. That has never been a problem for me. Now the problem is that the literal meaning does not match the intention. Use the movement example for why this is important. Take any unit and give it say 5 inches of movement in its Codex. GW releases a hype article that says it can move 10, but does not release any errata or changes to the movement listed. People go "sweet that clarifies how they can move 10 inches now." People then complain "wait you said in the codex it was 5 inches. If its supposed to be 10 can you change it to 10? People then go "ugh this is stupid why would you fix what is says when its clearly intended to move 10 inches. I don't understand how you can think 5 inches is the movement when they clearly said they intended 10.Until they change the actual codex the movement is still 5. In our case, any unit is still any unit. It needs some description to what limitations "any" has if you want it to mean something besides all units.
Edit: derp typed 10 in a place where it should be 5

 lolman1c wrote:
Are people so crazy that they can't admit they're wrong they have to go straight out and say an official post with official approval is not official. Be an adult and admit when you are wrong... this thread is just pure insanity. I don't even have words for it anymore.

SOME people are being willfully stubborn so that they can complain about GW some more.

Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.

 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.

And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.

It's a beta rule. They have plenty of time to reword it for the next CA.

I love how there's so much rule lawyering going on for beta rules. It's the best way to acquire the feedback needed for these rules. I would caution you all to try and pretend you're talking to another human being when you send your feedback in, though. This constant GW SUCKS AT EVERYTHING nonsense that pervades this place day and night probably won't do any good if you want your feedback actually heard.

Avoid words like 'broken' as well. It pretty much means nothing.

Audustum wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.

And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.

Thats a very fair point, but its something that is handled socially. Many people won't even know faqs exist and they'll discover them through interaction. That's the reality of living rules.

 Crimson wrote:
It's a beta rule. They have plenty of time to reword it for the next CA.

AND THIS IS WHY I SAID BETA RULES SHOULD STICK TO PLAY TESTING! If a tournament uses a beta rule then they're the one at fault not the new player or gw.

Audustum wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.

And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.

If hes that new why is he at a tournament? Why does he not know if the tournament is using beta rules beforehand?
Is it time do start making up outlandish situations to justify stupid arguments now? Cause I love it when Dakka does that.

 lolman1c wrote:

AND THIS IS WHY I SAID BETA RULES SHOULD STICK TO PLAY TESTING! If a tournament uses a beta rule then they're the one at fault not the new player or gw.

Yep.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.

And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.

Thats a very fair point, but its something that is handled socially. Many people won't even know faqs exist and they'll discover them through interaction. That's the reality of living rules.

I mean, I think it's a pretty fair inference that they'd know about FAQ's. Just about all board games have them, even Monopoly.

 Crimson wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

AND THIS IS WHY I SAID BETA RULES SHOULD STICK TO PLAY TESTING! If a tournament uses a beta rule then they're the one at fault not the new player or gw.

Yep.

Nah if you really think about it. The idea of a beta rule is to use it. It is basically GW admitting though that - they don't do any play testing and we are paying them money to test their game so they don't have to spend money to do it themselves.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.

And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.

If hes that new why is he at a tournament? Why does he not know if the tournament is using beta rules beforehand?
Is it time do start making up outlandish situations to justify stupid arguments now? Cause I love it when Dakka does that.

What? What's outlandish about a newbie at a tournament? I went to a tournament within, like, my first handful of months after STARTING 40k. I barely finished painting. I went to NOVA shortly after.

A tournament rules packet can say "using beta rules" and the poor newbie would, reasonably in my opinion, conclude that means the beta rules in the FAQ are what is meant, rather than "go comb Facebook for even more".

Audustum wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.

And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.

Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.

 djones520 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.

And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.

Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.

You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.

Audustum wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.

And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.

Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.

You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.

Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wpuldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.

And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.

Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.

You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.

Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wpuldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

See the post immediately above you (that you even quoted). Newbies don't know to go dig through Facebook for additional FAQ and errata.

Audustum wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.

And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.

Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.

You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.

Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wpuldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

See the post immediately above you (that you even quoted). Newbies don't know to go dig through Facebook for additional FAQ and errata.

What I meant was that he would assume that the beta rules would mean units could still teleport out of the DZ turn 1 since these rules make no reference to either deep striking or reserves. No one would think otherwise unless you set out to deliberatly find discrepancies like these. I've been playing for over 20 years and have friends who've played for even longer and I usually learn about them from arguments on here.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Who fething cares? You know now how it is supposed to work. The end.

And what about a new player who has no clue about the Facebook, takes his Codex and FAQ's to a tournament, then is smashed by a huge horde of boyz using Da Jump (because he's new)? He's told "Oh what it's not a rule but it was on Facebook". The heck is that? What other game out there do you need to comb Facebook posts for errata?

Rules go in rulebooks and publications. Don't be that guy. Don't settle for anything less.

Don't show up to a tournament without knowing the rules.

You miss the point. The point is a newbie wouldn't know to look on Facebook for rules nor is it reasonable to expect them to. That newbie has the FAQ's and his Codex. By all reasonable measures he HAS the rules.

Fictional Newbie would probably assume that the way it was clarified was the way its supposed to be anyway. People who have just started tend not to rules lawyer because they wpuldn't know the game well enough to question these things.

See the post immediately above you (that you even quoted). Newbies don't know to go dig through Facebook for additional FAQ and errata.

What I meant was that he would assume that the beta rules would mean units could still teleport out of the DZ turn 1 since these rules make no reference to either deep striking or reserves. No one would think otherwise unless you set out to deliberatly find discrepancies like these. I've been playing for over 20 years and have friends who've played for even longer and I usually learn about them from arguments on here.

That's just evidence you live in a bubble, unfortunately. This is very much a grey area and I'm fortunate to have a wide net, beyond just this forum, of veteran gaming opinions to draw on. It's not only some mythical 'forum populace' where these discussions happen.