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.
2018/04/20 20:09:02
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
2018/04/20 20:09:02
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
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 wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
2018/04/20 20:10:10
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
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 wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/20 20:11:17
2018/04/20 20:15:32
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
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 wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.
No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.
2018/04/20 20:18:37
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
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 wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.
No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.
I'm just gonna quote DominayTrix.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
2018/04/20 20:22:25
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
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 wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.
No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.
I'm just gonna quote DominayTrix.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Yeah, I don't have to quote some random dakka posters "interpretation" of the rule. The rule clearly reads the way GW just had to reclarify because you are trying so hard to make it something its not. You are now literally arguing that GW doesn't have the final say on how their rule was written or intended.
2018/04/20 20:25:52
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
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 wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.
No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.
I'm just gonna quote DominayTrix.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Yeah, I don't have to quote some random dakka posters "interpretation" of the rule. The rule clearly reads the way GW just had to reclarify because you are trying so hard to make it something its not. You are now literally arguing that GW doesn't have the final say on how their rule was written or intended.
I'm quoting him because I'm getting tired of writing it and I'm certainly not saying GW doesn't have final authority. You're obviously reading too fast/distracted and comprehension is suffering as a result. Slow down and do it again.
I'll leave you with one final rule: just because something is how you or even your friends view something doesn't mean that's how everyone interprets it. This was a grey area. Reasonable minds came to different conclusions.
2018/04/20 20:29:58
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
This is a stupid argument because you can say whatever you want about Hypothetical Newbie to suit your argument.
From my own experience NO ONE in the two seperate groups I participate in 40k chats with interpreted the rule as meaning teleportation abilities meant you had to set up in your DZ on turn 1. No one even considered that it was a problem until I mentioned that the Salt Merchants on Dakka were arguing about it and as I mentioned the people in these chat groups include veterans with 20+ years of playing wargames.
This reminds.me of the launch of 8th where people were trying to argue that you could give a regiment of Imperial Guard the Blood Angels keyword to benefit from their rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/20 20:33:43
2018/04/20 20:31:53
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
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 wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.
No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.
I'm just gonna quote DominayTrix.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Yeah, I don't have to quote some random dakka posters "interpretation" of the rule. The rule clearly reads the way GW just had to reclarify because you are trying so hard to make it something its not. You are now literally arguing that GW doesn't have the final say on how their rule was written or intended.
I'm quoting him because I'm getting tired of writing it and I'm certainly not saying GW doesn't have final authority. You're obviously reading too fast/distracted and comprehension is suffering as a result. Slow down and do it again.
I'll leave you with one final rule: just because something is how you or even your friends view something doesn't mean that's how everyone interprets it. This was a grey area. Reasonable minds came to different conclusions.
>someone could read a rule wrong
>that somehow invalidates that the rule is actually super clear and worded correctly
Yeah, you guys are having to resort to using circular logic quoting each other because your arguments are so insanely poor.
2018/04/20 20:32:37
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
Sim-Life wrote: This is a stupid argument because you can say whatever you want about Hypothetical Newbie to suit your argument.
From my own experience NO ONE in the two seperate groups I participate in 40k chats with interpreted the rule as meaning teleportation abilities meant you had to set up in your DZ on turn 1. No one even considered that it was a problem until I mentioned that the Salt Merchants on Dakka were arguing about it and as I mentioned the people in these chat groups include veterans with 20+ years of playing wargames.
Exactly, I should be more used to this on Dakka by now. They create some hypothetical (that cant be disproved because its a hypothetical) then use it as the justification of why x,y or z has to interpreted in some crazy way.
2018/04/20 20:36:23
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
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 wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.
No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.
Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.
2018/04/20 20:38:16
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
Crimson wrote: Jesus, people. Do not make half-page-tall quote pyramids!
It is a beta rule. I am sure that in due time the essential part of this Facebook clarification will be included in the future FAQ or CA.
If they decided to use the rule they don't need the FB explanation. The RAW is actually 100% clear, they are ignoring the word "furthermore" in the second paragraph referring to units clearly not set up on the battlefield during deployment. To make their argument they are taking the second paragraph out of context of the first. That's why this argument is so ridiculous.
2018/04/20 20:41:38
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
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 wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.
No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.
Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.
Read my previous post. The RAW on this rule is very clear and yes it is your fault if you ignore the word "furthermore" and ignore the entire first paragraph of the rule.
2018/04/20 20:45:34
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
It is a beta rule. I am sure that in due time the essential part of this Facebook clarification will be included in the future FAQ or CA.
If they decided to use the rule they don't need the FB explanation. The RAW is actually 100% clear, they are ignoring the word "furthermore" in the second paragraph referring to units clearly not set up on the battlefield during deployment. To make their argument they are taking the second paragraph out of context of the first. That's why this argument is so ridiculous.
Sure, but it would not be the first time they clarify perfectly clear rules in a FAQ to shut up the rules lawyers.
It is a beta rule. I am sure that in due time the essential part of this Facebook clarification will be included in the future FAQ or CA.
If they decided to use the rule they don't need the FB explanation. The RAW is actually 100% clear, they are ignoring the word "furthermore" in the second paragraph referring to units clearly not set up on the battlefield during deployment. To make their argument they are taking the second paragraph out of context of the first. That's why this argument is so ridiculous.
Sure, but it would not be the first time they clarify perfectly clear rules in a FAQ to shut up the rules lawyers.
Yes, I understand why they have to release clarifications when people do these ridiculous rules lawyering. But honestly, when they are arguing against the official GW page telling them exactly how to read it I sometimes wonder if they are just wasting their time when dealing with these people that will intentionally "read it wrong" no matter what they do.
2018/04/20 20:55:27
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
There's a very clear distinction between what they did here and what they've done in the past. No law binds you to not accepting rules that are not in an FAQ
2018/04/20 20:59:26
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
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 wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.
No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.
Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.
Read my previous post. The RAW on this rule is very clear and yes it is your fault if you ignore the word "furthermore" and ignore the entire first paragraph of the rule.
Ugh I hate definition debates.Ignoring the fact that there are countless different colloquial ways to use words and even more subtle differences between definitions. Furthermore does not limit the scope of the noun, it simply suggests that the two statements are linked in some way. In this case the train of logic goes "Some units can deep strike anywhere on the map by going into reserves you can only put 50% of your power level into reserves. While we are talking about units that can deploy anywhere, any unit that can be setup anywhere cannot be setup in the opponents deployment zone on their first turn." This uses furthermore properly. This uses any units as a noun that means any units. All at face value.
2018/04/20 21:06:58
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
I feel like a lot of people here are completely missing the point of all the debate. Under the FAQ, it clearly states that any unit that arrives on the battlefield during the player's first turn must be deployed within that player's deployment zone.
The wording for rules like Da Jump and Veil of Darkness remove the unit from the battlefield, and then deploy that unit again in a different location. This unit follows the rules for reinforcements like they always have.
These 2 rules would mean that the unit you redeploy using Da Jump or Veil of Darkness would still follow the normal deployment rules for reinforcements. Now, I agree that this is silly, and the FB post clears this up, but it is clear that this response is contradictory to the original written rule. Those who act as though there isn't anything wrong here is acting mostly out of ignorance. Nowhere in the original ruling did it make a distinction between units that were in reinforcements, and units that had already been deployed, as units that had already been deployed, and were removed from the board for rules like Da Jump enter into reinforcements, and then immediately deployed using the rules specified.
2018/04/20 21:10:01
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
Darsath wrote: I feel like a lot of people here are completely missing the point of all the debate. Under the FAQ, it clearly states that any unit that arrives on the battlefield during the player's first turn must be deployed within that player's deployment zone.
The wording for rules like Da Jump and Veil of Darkness remove the unit from the battlefield, and then deploy that unit again in a different location. This unit follows the rules for reinforcements like they always have.
These 2 rules would mean that the unit you redeploy using Da Jump or Veil of Darkness would still follow the normal deployment rules for reinforcements. Now, I agree that this is silly, and the FB post clears this up, but it is clear that this response is contradictory to the original written rule. Those who act as though there isn't anything wrong here is acting mostly out of ignorance. Nowhere in the original ruling did it make a distinction between units that were in reinforcements, and units that had already been deployed, as units that had already been deployed, and were removed from the board for rules like Da Jump enter into reinforcements, and then immediately deployed using the rules specified.
The rules for these powers states "set up" not deploy.
2018/04/20 21:12:13
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
Darsath wrote: I feel like a lot of people here are completely missing the point of all the debate. Under the FAQ, it clearly states that any unit that arrives on the battlefield during the player's first turn must be deployed within that player's deployment zone.
The wording for rules like Da Jump and Veil of Darkness remove the unit from the battlefield, and then deploy that unit again in a different location. This unit follows the rules for reinforcements like they always have.
These 2 rules would mean that the unit you redeploy using Da Jump or Veil of Darkness would still follow the normal deployment rules for reinforcements. Now, I agree that this is silly, and the FB post clears this up, but it is clear that this response is contradictory to the original written rule. Those who act as though there isn't anything wrong here is acting mostly out of ignorance. Nowhere in the original ruling did it make a distinction between units that were in reinforcements, and units that had already been deployed, as units that had already been deployed, and were removed from the board for rules like Da Jump enter into reinforcements, and then immediately deployed using the rules specified.
The rules for these powers states "set up" not deploy.
Deep striking also says set up not deploy.
2018/04/20 21:15:22
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
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 wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.
No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.
Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.
Read my previous post. The RAW on this rule is very clear and yes it is your fault if you ignore the word "furthermore" and ignore the entire first paragraph of the rule.
Ugh I hate definition debates.Ignoring the fact that there are countless different colloquial ways to use words and even more subtle differences between definitions. Furthermore does not limit the scope of the noun, it simply suggests that the two statements are linked in some way. In this case the train of logic goes "Some units can deep strike anywhere on the map by going into reserves you can only put 50% of your power level into reserves. While we are talking about units that can deploy anywhere, any unit that can be setup anywhere cannot be setup in the opponents deployment zone on their first turn." This uses furthermore properly. This uses any units as a noun that means any units. All at face value.
Yes there are almost infinate was to use a word. The word was used in a very obvious way in this rule with one correct way to read it. GW has clarified what the correct way to read this was for people reading it wrong. Yet, people are still arguing that there now blatantly obviously wrong way of reading this (blatantly because GW has spelled out exactly how to read it) is still somehow correct.
2018/04/20 21:19:08
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
Darsath wrote: I feel like a lot of people here are completely missing the point of all the debate. Under the FAQ, it clearly states that any unit that arrives on the battlefield during the player's first turn must be deployed within that player's deployment zone.
The wording for rules like Da Jump and Veil of Darkness remove the unit from the battlefield, and then deploy that unit again in a different location. This unit follows the rules for reinforcements like they always have.
These 2 rules would mean that the unit you redeploy using Da Jump or Veil of Darkness would still follow the normal deployment rules for reinforcements. Now, I agree that this is silly, and the FB post clears this up, but it is clear that this response is contradictory to the original written rule. Those who act as though there isn't anything wrong here is acting mostly out of ignorance. Nowhere in the original ruling did it make a distinction between units that were in reinforcements, and units that had already been deployed, as units that had already been deployed, and were removed from the board for rules like Da Jump enter into reinforcements, and then immediately deployed using the rules specified.
The rules for these powers states "set up" not deploy.
This is the same wording for units that are impacted by the "deploy in your deployment zone" thing such as deep strikers. It has also been FAQ'd to clarify that these units do count as coming from reinforcements.
2018/04/20 21:24:14
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
Sim-Life wrote: This is a stupid argument because you can say whatever you want about Hypothetical Newbie to suit your argument.
From my own experience NO ONE in the two seperate groups I participate in 40k chats with interpreted the rule as meaning teleportation abilities meant you had to set up in your DZ on turn 1. No one even considered that it was a problem until I mentioned that the Salt Merchants on Dakka were arguing about it and as I mentioned the people in these chat groups include veterans with 20+ years of playing wargames.
This reminds.me of the launch of 8th where people were trying to argue that you could give a regiment of Imperial Guard the Blood Angels keyword to benefit from their rules.
And what part of "your subjective experience isn't everyones' objective reality" does not cover this? Here I go: My group is the opposite with a mix of opinions and has more years of gaming experience under their belt than yours including, I'd wager, over a wider spectrum of mediums. That doesn't mean everyone who DIDN'T see the grey is a complete and total dunce, it just means reasonable minds can differ.
2018/04/20 21:25:32
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
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 wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.
No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.
I'm just gonna quote DominayTrix.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Yeah, I don't have to quote some random dakka posters "interpretation" of the rule. The rule clearly reads the way GW just had to reclarify because you are trying so hard to make it something its not. You are now literally arguing that GW doesn't have the final say on how their rule was written or intended.
I'm quoting him because I'm getting tired of writing it and I'm certainly not saying GW doesn't have final authority. You're obviously reading too fast/distracted and comprehension is suffering as a result. Slow down and do it again.
I'll leave you with one final rule: just because something is how you or even your friends view something doesn't mean that's how everyone interprets it. This was a grey area. Reasonable minds came to different conclusions.
>someone could read a rule wrong
>that somehow invalidates that the rule is actually super clear and worded correctly
Yeah, you guys are having to resort to using circular logic quoting each other because your arguments are so insanely poor.
As I said, I quoted him because I'm starting to get tired of typing that point over and over, not because he was my source.
You find the rule super clear, that does not mean everyone did. In fact, GW seems to disagree with you as well otherwise they wouldn't have tried, twice now, to clarify it.
2018/04/20 21:26:18
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
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 wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.
No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.
Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.
Read my previous post. The RAW on this rule is very clear and yes it is your fault if you ignore the word "furthermore" and ignore the entire first paragraph of the rule.
No offense, but your entire argument goes off-kilter because you're using a limited and non-exclusive definition of furthermore. That's your problem.
EDIT: Somehow, on my screen at least, my posts aren't being automatically appended. I'll stop here to avoid a flood.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/20 21:27:53
2018/04/20 21:35:49
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
I find this interesting as a judge and TO myself, what I see here is a poorly written or interpreted rule, that has had GW attempt to clarify it twice, with consistency but in different mediums, that shows me clear intent and as such I would add it to the tourney pack for clairity, whilst I respect your method on deciding what you consider “official rules FAQ/errata” i disagree with your ruling on this particular one.
2018/04/20 21:38:01
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
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 wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.
No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.
Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.
Read my previous post. The RAW on this rule is very clear and yes it is your fault if you ignore the word "furthermore" and ignore the entire first paragraph of the rule.
Ugh I hate definition debates.Ignoring the fact that there are countless different colloquial ways to use words and even more subtle differences between definitions. Furthermore does not limit the scope of the noun, it simply suggests that the two statements are linked in some way. In this case the train of logic goes "Some units can deep strike anywhere on the map by going into reserves you can only put 50% of your power level into reserves. While we are talking about units that can deploy anywhere, any unit that can be setup anywhere cannot be setup in the opponents deployment zone on their first turn." This uses furthermore properly. This uses any units as a noun that means any units. All at face value.
Yes there are almost infinate was to use a word. The word was used in a very obvious way in this rule with one correct way to read it. GW has clarified what the correct way to read this was for people reading it wrong. Yet, people are still arguing that there now blatantly obviously wrong way of reading this (blatantly because GW has spelled out exactly how to read it) is still somehow correct.
Do you have anything tangible besides "YOU ARE READING IT WRONG CAUSE GW SAID SO?" The argument has been, and still is that what GW says it is does not clearly match what the rule states. You keep ignoring that different people come from different backgrounds, with different dialects, different levels of experience, and different levels of exposure to GW rules content. What is obvious to you is not obvious to others. This is the wrong interpretation for GW's intent, no doubt about that. This does not mean it is the correct literal interpretation of what it says. Yet another example, every time you take an insulting jab at "people who read it wrong" you are probably thinking directly about people in this thread. You could intend for it to be aimed at someone in here, but the literal interpretation deals with everyone who you think "reads it wrong."
2018/04/20 21:38:44
Subject: GW clarified Gate of infinity and Da Jump turn 1.
niv-mizzet wrote: As a judge, I can't accept anything not in an official FAQ or rules document. I know it sounds odd but...
-GW has a long history of responding different ways to the same question when asked outside official sources.
-the community team has flat out said that they are not the rules team, and nothing they say about the rules is official.
-It is unrealistic to expect every player to have gone through the entire fb history of the WH community team looking for "ninja FAQ's."
-"hype" material like a top 5 list of what units they think will be hot doesn't work either. If one recalls, the preview for iron hand marines specifically touted their venerable dreadnoughts as having "double feel no pain," which they obviously don't have.
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 wouldn't know the game well enough to question these things.
A noobie would read a rule at face value. He would see the phrase any unit and when you psyker blast him with ork boys he would go "wait what? I thought the beta rule says you can't setup units in my deployment on the first turn." ACKTUALLY if you look at the warhammer 40k facebook you would know that the rule doesn't include units that have already been setup during deployment. I know it doesn't say it on here, but that is what it is supposed to mean" That strikes me as way more rules sharking then to take a layman's interpretation of any unit to mean any unit. Define what it means to deploy vs set up. All this goes away if you say that the first time a unit is set up it counts as deploying. That's it.
Perfect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: The fault would still be on they hypothetical new player as it's up to you to keep yourself updated on all the rules a tournament is using whether they be official, tournament specific, FAQ or whatever. It would be no different then someone showing up to a tournament and not knowing how the tournament ruled how objectives are infinitely high then complained about it.
But in reality, this would never happen and seems to be getting thrown out here as another hypothetical situation to make the FAQ look bad and keep people arguing about it.
People have been screaming for decades for better-playtested rules from GW. They are finally doing the most efficient play testing possible (largest pool of data collected from players around the world) and people are now crying that they are using playtesting.
So you're saying all players who start 40k or are relatively new know to go look on Facebook for ninja FAQ's? Cause I sure wouldn't have.
No I'm saying you use the correct rule. The rule is clear on how it is used unless you are trying read it wrong or are just really dense. GW has now taken an extra step and clarified it for those with bad reading comprehension. New people still have to play by the rules even if they dont read it correctly.... this has never changed.
Here I'll use a real world example. The novel Fahrenheit 451 is about government censorship right? Its pretty obvious for anyone that reads it and it's a staple in most American High School English classes. A student turns in their essay about what the author was trying to teach and they write the usual "censorship is bad" that so many other students write. The teacher fails the student because they did not look up the news article where Bradbury openly says it has nothing to do with censorship and is a warning against television. (that is true btw look it up sometime) Would you say it's the students fault they did not interpret it the same way? It seems painfully clear to me it is about television. Bradbury even comes out to say exactly what it means. The only way it would be about censorship is if you wanted to see it that way and were trying to read it wrong or you are really that dense. Bradbury did a poor job conveying his message and that is on him. GW did a gak job conveying their rule, and that is on them. Besides, what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to others.
Read my previous post. The RAW on this rule is very clear and yes it is your fault if you ignore the word "furthermore" and ignore the entire first paragraph of the rule.
No offense, but your entire argument goes off-kilter because you're using a limited and non-exclusive definition of furthermore. That's your problem.
EDIT: Somehow, on my screen at least, my posts aren't being automatically appended. I'll stop here to avoid a flood.
No my entire argument is correct as GW themselves have said i had the correct interpretation of the rule and thuse read it correctly.
20000+ points
