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.

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

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

Everyone keeps saying GW should do it the proper way and update the FAQ, but we're defending GW?

And again with the random person on Facebook?

All you're doing here is flushing the last bits of credibility you had down the toilet.

 Larks wrote:
What a time to be alive.

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

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

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

This post sums it up well in regards to how credible the FB errata is. The botd can be givdn to people who reject the said errata - anyone with basic knowledge of photoshop can whip that image out in a jiffy. The same can be said of the screenshot of the chat someone had with an admin.

What GW needed to do was actually make this official by releasing a errata to their beta rules, or at least a subclause/beta-beta rule.

If one can only access the changes to the rule via internet forum or through a facebook post or messenger, I wouldn't buy it.

 Larks wrote:
What a time to be alive.

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

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

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

To be fair, people shouldn't be expected to have to check GW's facebook posts and replies to posts there in order to get the rules, especially when they could have as easily had it posted at the Warhammer Community Page where people expect to find FAQs and rules clarifications. This is especially true given they've said they'll put their clarifications and such in the FAQ section on the site, and yet there's still no sign of it being posted there. Saying "some folks can't be assed to check Facebook for clarifications" seems as arrogant an attitude as what you are accusing "The Internet Rules Lawyers" of.

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

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

Again

Not a random guy

Stop with the logical fallacies. It's tiresome.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

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

Again

Not a random guy

Stop with the logical fallacies. It's tiresome.

Yes, it is a random GW staffer, who's own Facebook page, say it with me, EXPLICITLY SAYS IT IS NOT A RULES SOURCE. It quite LITERALLY says it isn't a rule source.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

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

Again

Not a random guy

Stop with the logical fallacies. It's tiresome.

Yes, it is a random GW staffer, who's own Facebook page, say it with me, EXPLICITLY SAYS IT IS NOT A RULES SOURCE. It quite LITERALLY says it isn't a rule source.

And the same page says that in this instance, it is a rules source. No amount of capslock will change that.

--

Again: noone disagrees with the notion that GW should update the FAQ documents.
But we have a credible source as to what we are to do in the meantime.

When this Stratagem is used the models are removed from the table and return as if they are coming in from reserves. They arrive in the same manner as reserves or deepstriking would be.

I would strongly recommend this is not a viable tactic and if used in turn one then they can only come back in within the friendly deployment zone.

The benefits are identical to deepstrike and arrival form reserves but also have all the same restrictions. And they arrive in the same manner as reserves to to myself it is just most logical that they would also be restricted by turn one deepstrike restrictions.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

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

Again

Not a random guy

Stop with the logical fallacies. It's tiresome.

Yes, it is a random GW staffer, who's own Facebook page, say it with me, EXPLICITLY SAYS IT IS NOT A RULES SOURCE. It quite LITERALLY says it isn't a rule source.

So,,not a random guy. But a random GW guy. Or actually guys. So you're wrong in two ways already, versus your earlier claim.

It states THEY are not a rules source. Given your penchant for needless pedanticism with word choice, your refusal to do so here yet again dents your credibility. Error the third

lastly, you failed, yet again, to recall that they state IN THIS INSTANCE they have spoken to the rules people and THIS is rules. Which isn't a contradiction - they still are not a rules source, but s conduit in this case

Stop. Just stop. You are wrong in four ways, repeating the same fallacies over and over, and cannot admit your error in this case. It is a feature of debates to admit a mistake and move on. It's a sign of maturity.

Yes, I would prefer they updated the beta rule directly. But it's a beta rule. Prone to error.

I am not wrong because the rulebook plus errata agree with me. Unless you have something in the rulebook plus errata to the contrary...

Wilful ignorance of the rules isn't a winning argument

Arrogance that only you can decide what counts as"rules" is also a fairly large failure.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wilful ignorance of the rules isn't a winning argument

Arrogance that only you can decide what counts as"rules" is also a fairly large failure.

You are talking Rules as Intended, he is talking Rules as Written.

Over at the GW Community Site where you click to get to the FAQs it states:

"FAQs

Find all your rules updates, errata and answers to your frequently asked questions right here."

when you click on FAQs you get to the page which includes the statement

"Looking for the latest updates to your codex or battletome? Got a question about how something in your army works? Each of these FAQs contains all of the most up-to-date errata and answers you’ll need to make sure that your games run as smoothly as possible, incorporating feedback from you guys and gals out there in the Warhammer community, the playtesters and of course, our studio design team."


So, going by that it's not an official rules update if they don't have it in their FAQ section. We know what they intend because of the Facebook post, but it's not RAW because they haven't put it in their FAQ section and they say that all rules updates, errata and answers will be in that section.


Since you have to talk to your opponent anyway about whether you're going to use the beta rules, you might as well include talking about the Facebook post as that indicates what they had intended. Still, you're not required to use the posting from Facebook; in fact you're not required to use the beta rule itself. It all boils down to how your group (or your tournament organizer, if it's a tournament) wants to house rule using one or both of these rules.

EDIT: Given the Facebook post isn't official RAW yet, we have a demonstration here of a case where RAW is obviously not RAI as RAI was reported on Facebook.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Wilful ignorance of the rules isn't a winning argument

Arrogance that only you can decide what counts as"rules" is also a fairly large failure.

I am not the one deciding rules, I am not arrogant like the ones claiming that Facebook is magically rules.

The games rules consists of the Rulebooks.

BRB Page 175 wrote:WARHAMMER 40,000 CODEXES
So now you know what a datasheet is and how it works – in conjunction with the core rules that follow (plus your Citadel Miniatures, battlefield, dice and tape measure, of course!), you’ve got everything you need to start playing games of Warhammer 40,000 and dive into epic battle.

But where do you find datasheets? Well, when you buy a box of Citadel Miniatures they’ll be in the box with them, and they are also present in codexes. A codex is the ultimate resource for your chosen army (or armies!), containing datasheets for all the miniatures that are part of a particular Faction. But that’s not all – in codexesyou’ll also find army-specific special rules that reflect the character of the army, exciting Warlord Traits, Stratagems, wargear, and even unique relics. Each codex is also filled with a wealth of inspirational background material, organisational information, stunning art and miniatures photography, colour guides and heraldry, all of which provide context for how a Faction works in the Warhammer 40,000 universe. Head over to games-workshop.com to find out more.

BRB Page 176 wrote:Warhammer 40,000 puts you in command of a force of mighty warriors and war
machines. The core rules on these pages contain everything you need to know in
order to use your Citadel Miniatures collection to wage glorious battle across the
war-torn galaxy.

The official Errata webpage, found here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/?orderby=title&order=asc#items-warhammer-40000

Looking for the latest updates to your codex or battletome? Got a question about how something in your army works? Each of these FAQs contains all of the most up-to-date errata and answers you’ll need to make sure that your games run as smoothly as possible, incorporating feedback from you guys and gals out there in the Warhammer community, the playtesters and of course, our studio design team.

The eagle-eyed among you will realise that this isn’t the swish FAQ page we demoed back in March of 2017. Our Tech-Priests and Enginseers are still hard at work on that, and we hope to bring you a much more interactive FAQ service, where you’ll be able to submit questions and help contribute to the answers, early next year. For now though, you’ll find everything you need here.

So no, I am not so arrogant as to claim what the rules are, GW and their Rulebooks do. By claiming that some random post on Facebook are rules, it is you who are the arrogant one, arrogant enough that you would disregard the literal rules of the game.

As I have stated multiple times, you're free to make up rules, make house rules and ignore the rules all you want. The vast majority of people (I believe) play by the rules however and this forum is dedicated to discussing the rules. Proposed Rules exists for House Rules to be discussed.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
When this Stratagem is used the models are removed from the table and return as if they are coming in from reserves. They arrive in the same manner as reserves or deepstriking would be.

I would strongly recommend this is not a viable tactic and if used in turn one then they can only come back in within the friendly deployment zone.

The benefits are identical to deepstrike and arrival form reserves but also have all the same restrictions. And they arrive in the same manner as reserves to to myself it is just most logical that they would also be restricted by turn one deepstrike restrictions.

Yes it is similar to going into reserves, but at no time do they actually enter reserves. Reserves is a pregame condition that to my knowledge is not a state you can enter after the game begins.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
When this Stratagem is used the models are removed from the table and return as if they are coming in from reserves. They arrive in the same manner as reserves or deepstriking would be.

I would strongly recommend this is not a viable tactic and if used in turn one then they can only come back in within the friendly deployment zone.

The benefits are identical to deepstrike and arrival form reserves but also have all the same restrictions. And they arrive in the same manner as reserves to to myself it is just most logical that they would also be restricted by turn one deepstrike restrictions.

Yes it is similar to going into reserves, but at no time do they actually enter reserves. Reserves is a pregame condition that to my knowledge is not a state you can enter after the game begins.

The game does not care whether you go into reserves or not. If you remove the unit from the table, the set it up again, it is arriving. It wasn't on the battlefield, now it is. If that's not arriving then I don't know what is.

Where in on the card does it say the unit "arrives"?

It doesn't. The card tells you how to resolve itself.

TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve,
etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at
least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the
battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within
Tr ansports
that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your
army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the
controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a
Genestealer Cults
unit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn
begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems).
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.

So by your logic any unit set up with their ability ignores the new beta rule, because none of them say arrive, they all say "set up".

And people say I "abuse" RaW, you're saying the new beta rule literally does nothing.

Compare the wording of that stratagem to something like Teleport Strike. They are identical. If it applies to one, it applies to the other.

You can't even argue "It started on the battlefield" because it literally tells you to remove the unit before setting them up, so both rules have the unit being set up from off the battlefield.

Tactical Reserves defines what it covers. You're inferring more than RAW. The stratagem as written is not covered by the Tactical Reserves rule.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Tactical Reserves defines what it covers. You're inferring more than RAW. The stratagem as written is not covered by the Tactical Reserves rule.

It says it affects units that arrive "mid-game as reinforcements". That applies to GoI/Da Jump type effects.

Then it says "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere)." GoI/Da Jump type effects do this (else you argue the rule does nothing).

I am not inferring anything, the rule is explicitly clear.

The unit never enters reserves and thus can't be "mid-game as reinforcements". Nor does it "arrive"

 Crimson Devil wrote:


Where in on the card does it say the unit "arrives"?

It doesn't. The card tells you how to resolve itself.

TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve,
etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at
least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the
battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within
Tr ansports
that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your
army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.
Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the
controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a
Genestealer Cults
unit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn
begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems).
Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.

It says it in the Reinforcements rule. Refinforcements are not necessarily Reserves.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Tactical Reserves defines what it covers. You're inferring more than RAW. The stratagem as written is not covered by the Tactical Reserves rule.

It says it affects units that arrive "mid-game as reinforcements". That applies to GoI/Da Jump type effects.

Then it says "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere)." GoI/Da Jump type effects do this (else you argue the rule does nothing).

I am not inferring anything, the rule is explicitly clear.

This is the beta tactical rule verbatim
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.

Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer Cults unit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems).

Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.

You're cherry picking the rules to support your argument. If you read them as one whole rule, RAW supports the fact that these only apply to units being set up in reserve to then be brought onto the board on a later turn.

The first paragraph details that some units can be set up in reserve instead of on the battlefield. If you do this, at least half of your units and Power Level must be set up on the battlefield during deployment, which includes units embarked on Transports that are set up on the battlefield, even if your entire army has rules to set them up in reserve.

The second paragraph details that any unit set up off the board can only arrive on the board T1 wholly deployed in the controlling player's deployment zone, regardless of the wording of their reserves deployment rules for setting up. It calls out specific caveats to this ruling (Genestealer Cults being able to set up units in Reserve and then arrive on the table at the end of a player's movement phase, and any ability that allows units to be set up from reserves before the first turn actually starts).

The third paragraph deals with any unit that was set up in Reserves needs to arrive on the board by the end of the 3rd battle round or it is destroyed.

To paraphrase that all down:

You can set up some units in reserves (not on the battlefield). If you do this, at least half of your army (both # of units and PL) need to be set up on the board and not in reserves.
Any units you set up in reserves can only arrive wholly in your deployment zone on any player's first turn.
Any units you set up in reserves will be destroyed if they aren't brought in from reserves by the end of the 3rd battle round.

 Gojiratoho wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Tactical Reserves defines what it covers. You're inferring more than RAW. The stratagem as written is not covered by the Tactical Reserves rule.

It says it affects units that arrive "mid-game as reinforcements". That applies to GoI/Da Jump type effects.

Then it says "Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere)." GoI/Da Jump type effects do this (else you argue the rule does nothing).

I am not inferring anything, the rule is explicitly clear.

This is the beta tactical rule verbatim
TACTICAL RESERVES
Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements. When setting up your army during Deployment for a matched play game, at least half the total number of units in your army must be set up on the battlefield, and the combined Power Ratings of all the units you set up on the battlefield during Deployment (including those that are embarked within Transports that are set up on the battlefield) must be at least half of your army’s total Power Level, even if every unit in your army has an ability that would allow them to be set up elsewhere.

Furthermore, in matched play games, any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn must be deployed wholly within the controlling player’s deployment zone (even if its ability would normally let it be set up anywhere). This does not apply to a Genestealer Cults unit that is being set up according to the Cult Ambush ability, or to units that are set up after the first battle round has begun, but before the first turn begins (such as those set up via the Forward Operatives or Strike From the Shadows Stratagems).

Finally, any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the third battle round in a matched play game counts as having been destroyed.

You're cherry picking the rules to support your argument. If you read them as one whole rule, RAW supports the fact that these only apply to units being set up in reserve to then be brought onto the board on a later turn.

The first paragraph details that some units can be set up in reserve instead of on the battlefield. If you do this, at least half of your units and Power Level must be set up on the battlefield during deployment, which includes units embarked on Transports that are set up on the battlefield, even if your entire army has rules to set them up in reserve.

The second paragraph details that any unit set up off the board can only arrive on the board T1 wholly deployed in the controlling player's deployment zone, regardless of the wording of their reserves deployment rules for setting up. It calls out specific caveats to this ruling (Genestealer Cults being able to set up units in Reserve and then arrive on the table at the end of a player's movement phase, and any ability that allows units to be set up from reserves before the first turn actually starts).

The third paragraph deals with any unit that was set up in Reserves needs to arrive on the board by the end of the 3rd battle round or it is destroyed.

To paraphrase that all down:

You can set up some units in reserves (not on the battlefield). If you do this, at least half of your army (both # of units and PL) need to be set up on the board and not in reserves.
Any units you set up in reserves can only arrive wholly in your deployment zone on any player's first turn.
Any units you set up in reserves will be destroyed if they aren't brought in from reserves by the end of the 3rd battle round.

Actually it's not cherry picking to reference the Reinforcements rule since they talk about reinforcements.

?Many units have tghe agbility to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn, sometimes by using teleporters, grav chutes or other, more exotic means. Typically, this happens at the end of the Movement phase, but it can also happen during other phases. Units that are set up this mannere cannot move or advance further in the turn they arrive. (snip) Units that arrive as Reinforcements count as having Moved...(snip)"


Some stratagems and abilities work by telling you to take them off the board then set them up in a different area. From what is said in the Reinforcements section, these units would count as reinforcements. Note they have that phrase Units that arrive as reinforcements? It does match up with what's in the Tactical Reserves rule that says "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn". This is why they stuck the Facebook post out in the first place, because they realized they had screwed things these other abilities. If it didn't work that way, they wouldn't have needed the facebook post in the first place to exempt things that were already on the board then removed from the board then arrived on the board (again) - without the FB post if they leave and arrive they were caught by the Tactical Reserves rule to be only in their deployment zone, because they count as reinforcements arriving on the board in turn 1.

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

Really? Then why does this forum even exist? Why should anyone take any stock in anything you say, random guy on the internet?

 alextroy wrote:

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

Really? Then why does this forum even exist? Why should anyone take any stock in anything you say, random guy on the internet?

Because I provide citations from the actual rulebooks to back up my postings, not ramblings from a random facebook account that literally says it isn't rules.

They’re not “ramblings” or from “a random Facebook account”.

Stop trying to diminish facts that don’t fit your world view, please. This posting may not hold the weight of rules for certain purposes due to method of delivery (I’d not expect every tournament to use it, for instance), but you cannot pretend it is useful RAI info that enables us to play the game how the writers intended. Because that’s literally what it is. (Also, you can chalk it up as more “RAW does not always equal RAI” proof. :O )

How are people still arguing about this?!

Yes you can use wings of fire to move a unit outside of their deployment zone turn 1. The GW informational thing on Facebook made it clear.

It's also worth noting that the GW informational thing is not a new rule. So they aren't acting as a source for new rules. The Facebook thing is a clarification for those of the community (a large proportion no doubt) who misunderstood the beta reserve rules and how they impacted on units already deployed. To me this was clear but since so many people were complaining GW obviously felt the need to address it.

If the beta reserve rule isn't clear as is the time to change it is when it becomes an actual rule. There is no need to rewrite a beta rule, it's a waste of their time.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How are people still arguing about this?!

Yes you can use wings of fire to move a unit outside of their deployment zone turn 1. The GW informational thing on Facebook made it clear.

It's also worth noting that the GW informational thing is not a new rule. So they aren't acting as a source for new rules. The Facebook thing is a clarification for those of the community (a large proportion no doubt) who misunderstood the beta reserve rules and how they impacted on units already deployed. To me this was clear but since so many people were complaining GW obviously felt the need to address it.

If the beta reserve rule isn't clear as is the time to change it is when it becomes an actual rule. There is no need to rewrite a beta rule, it's a waste of their time.

People are "arguing" because there is a hardcore contingent of people who insist that breaking the rules of the game is somehow "intended".

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How are people still arguing about this?!

Yes you can use wings of fire to move a unit outside of their deployment zone turn 1. The GW informational thing on Facebook made it clear.

It's also worth noting that the GW informational thing is not a new rule. So they aren't acting as a source for new rules. The Facebook thing is a clarification for those of the community (a large proportion no doubt) who misunderstood the beta reserve rules and how they impacted on units already deployed. To me this was clear but since so many people were complaining GW obviously felt the need to address it.

If the beta reserve rule isn't clear as is the time to change it is when it becomes an actual rule. There is no need to rewrite a beta rule, it's a waste of their time.

People are "arguing" because there is a hardcore contingent of people who insist that breaking the rules of the game is somehow "intended".

Nice strawman.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
How are people still arguing about this?!

Yes you can use wings of fire to move a unit outside of their deployment zone turn 1. The GW informational thing on Facebook made it clear.

It's also worth noting that the GW informational thing is not a new rule. So they aren't acting as a source for new rules. The Facebook thing is a clarification for those of the community (a large proportion no doubt) who misunderstood the beta reserve rules and how they impacted on units already deployed. To me this was clear but since so many people were complaining GW obviously felt the need to address it.

If the beta reserve rule isn't clear as is the time to change it is when it becomes an actual rule. There is no need to rewrite a beta rule, it's a waste of their time.

The problem was when you combine the beta rule with the rule book FAQ answer (below) it was clear to a significant proportion of the community that the opposite was the RAW and RAI.

Hence why they needed to post the facebook clarification as it was as if GW forgot to check how the beta rule would interact with existing FAQ and errata. They knew what they ment and the playerbase was supposed to just be psykers? Thats poor writing

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.

But right now just be civil and make sure you have discussed the beta rules, FAQ and Facebook fail with your opponents before you start playing. Aslong as you are both playing the same interpretation no-one should feel gotcha'd.
My main annoyance is with GW's refusal to clarify the beta rule, another 5 months of having to make 100% sure me and my opponents have the same understanding of a poorly worded rule, because they won't put in a hours worth of work.

Ice_can wrote:
My main annoyance is with GW's refusal to clarify the beta rule, another 5 months of having to make 100% sure me and my opponents have the same understanding of a poorly worded rule, because they won't put in a hours worth of work.

They did clarify it, though. On Facebook, which isn't great, but they did. They SHOULD update the FAQ docs, too, but maybe they're thinking "well, these are Beta rules, people are supposed to TEST them, not treat them as gospel" or something similar - an update would still be the proper way though.