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.

nekooni wrote:

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.

I would stick to the official FAQ print that goes through checkers and is approved via a process.

I get that someone form GW confirmed it on facebook. But this is just one employee who voiced his opinion or maybe asked the collegue next to them. You cnanot take FB rule posts as gospel unless they have come in an official post format, which again would go through the approval process. But a reply to a comment or message cannot be taken at gospel.

In this case I would continue using the FAq print thats states "Any units arriving in this manner...". As it stands using this stratagem falls under this FAq answer. As such they are restricted by the current BETA rules. If it changes going forward so be it. But until there is an official post or an update to FAQ I would strongly advise my opponents to follow the current printed FAQ too.

nekooni wrote:

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.

So what about all the people who give feedback to the rule as it actually is written? What about all the people who give incorrect feedback because they aren't following the rule as written? If GW want clear feedback they NEED to update the beta rule. The majority of people who give feedback aren't going to be aware of some random Facebook post.

 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.

Except it's not a "random person on Facebook", and pretending otherwise is just being ignorant.

 Larks 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.

Except it's not a "random person on Facebook", and pretending otherwise is just being ignorant.

It literally is.

If the facebook account also said "Ultramarines automatically hit and wound with all their weapons." would you play it that way? No, you wouldn't because it's blatantly false and doesn't follow the rules. Same situation with the beta rule.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

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.

So what about all the people who give feedback to the rule as it actually is written? What about all the people who give incorrect feedback because they aren't following the rule as written? If GW want clear feedback they NEED to update the beta rule. The majority of people who give feedback aren't going to be aware of some random Facebook post.

Why are you asking me to defend GW on that? I already said multiple times that they should update the FAQs, didn't I?

BaconCatBug wrote:
If the facebook account also said "Ultramarines automatically hit and wound with all their weapons." would you play it that way? No, you wouldn't because it's blatantly false and doesn't follow the rules. Same situation with the beta rule.

You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Larks 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.

Except it's not a "random person on Facebook", and pretending otherwise is just being ignorant.

It literally is.

If the facebook account also said "Ultramarines automatically hit and wound with all their weapons." would you play it that way? No, you wouldn't because it's blatantly false and doesn't follow the rules. Same situation with the beta rule.

What a ridiculous counter-example. That you even feel that's equatable is not worth addressing.

Are you serious? Is this really how you play the game, or is it just some shtick for you and your buddies to get some laughs over how obnoxious you can make this "BCB" persona?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

I've answered it before. If you can't be bothered to read that or respond to it or to at least stop repeating the same idiotic question over and over again, that's really not my fault.

example: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9962780
so did Johnny: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/user/profile/10953.page
so did nosferatu when you asked him right after two people had already answered it: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9963926

Did you respond to any of these counter-arguments?

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

I've answered it before. If you can't be bothered to read that or respond to it or to at least stop repeating the same idiotic question over and over again, that's really not my fault.

example: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9962780

So you would play that Ultramarines basically always win if the GW Facebook post says it? And you wonder why people ignore the facebook post?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

I've answered it before. If you can't be bothered to read that or respond to it or to at least stop repeating the same idiotic question over and over again, that's really not my fault.

example: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9962780

So you would play that Ultramarines basically always win if the GW Facebook post says it? And you wonder why people ignore the facebook post?

If (and that's a very, very large if) they actually did something like that, I'd have to think about it. But a change that isn't obviously constructed to be utter bs? That's fine with me, yes.

"It's a change posted on FB" or "it's a change posted on GWs site" is the only difference you see between your ridiculous example and the issue at hand, isn't it?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

I've answered it before. If you can't be bothered to read that or respond to it or to at least stop repeating the same idiotic question over and over again, that's really not my fault.

example: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9962780

So you would play that Ultramarines basically always win if the GW Facebook post says it? And you wonder why people ignore the facebook post?

How about we discuss reality? That hypothetical post does not exist and will never exist.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

I've answered it before. If you can't be bothered to read that or respond to it or to at least stop repeating the same idiotic question over and over again, that's really not my fault.

example: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9962780

So you would play that Ultramarines basically always win if the GW Facebook post says it? And you wonder why people ignore the facebook post?

If it was in an official FAQ/Errata document would you play by those rules?

Slipspace wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

I've answered it before. If you can't be bothered to read that or respond to it or to at least stop repeating the same idiotic question over and over again, that's really not my fault.

example: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9962780

So you would play that Ultramarines basically always win if the GW Facebook post says it? And you wonder why people ignore the facebook post?

If it was in an official FAQ/Errata document would you play by those rules?

Excuse, Mr Hyperbolic Example, but I have a real example for you to use. In the latest errata they put this in:

Q: Is a Razorback firing a twin plasma gun destroyed if you roll a 1 to hit?
A: Yes.

So since they didn’t talk about supercharging roes my entire vehicle blows up on a 1 when I fire it normally? I only asked because we’ve got a clear question with a clear answer here in the errata that I’m very sure is wrong and no one would ever enforce.

My point here is that not even the errata is foolproof and I personally would like to see more communication from GW to clarify this sort of thing between errata.

Remember: You’re demanding they answer your hypothetical so it’s only fair you address my actual published example.

Gendif wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

I've answered it before. If you can't be bothered to read that or respond to it or to at least stop repeating the same idiotic question over and over again, that's really not my fault.

example: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9962780

So you would play that Ultramarines basically always win if the GW Facebook post says it? And you wonder why people ignore the facebook post?

If it was in an official FAQ/Errata document would you play by those rules?

Excuse, Mr Hyperbolic Example, but I have a real example for you to use. In the latest errata they put this in:

Q: Is a Razorback firing a twin plasma gun destroyed if you roll a 1 to hit?
A: Yes.

So since they didn’t talk about supercharging roes my entire vehicle blows up on a 1 when I fire it normally? I only asked because we’ve got a clear question with a clear answer here in the errata that I’m very sure is wrong and no one would ever enforce.

My point here is that not even the errata is foolproof and I personally would like to see more communication from GW to clarify this sort of thing between errata.

Remember: You’re demanding they answer your hypothetical so it’s only fair you address my actual published example.

Shouldn't you direct that question at BCB though?

I’m reading orange on black on a phone screen. I’ve got no idea who I’m talking to most of the time. But yes, him, he should answer.

Gendif wrote:
I’m reading orange on black on a phone screen. I’ve got no idea who I’m talking to most of the time. But yes, him, he should answer.

No point. This thread is pointless now. It's got the point where some people (myself) thinking the answer is you can;t as per the FAQ and that you shouldn't listen to FB posts that aren't official postings.

vs

People that listen to any posts from GW.

Neither side is going to win. Talk it through with your opponent, that's the answer.

Let this thread just die.

BCB - except it isn't "literally" a random guy on Facebook. It's not even figuratively. Or did you not mean "literally"? Ah, but we KNOW that you must have intended to write it, after all, that's your stance on GW written comma...

It's exactly an official GW communications channel that in this one specific instance has stated that the actual people who make the rules of the game have clarified the beta rule to state what we all knew it stated all along.

Also, stating they cannot update their own method of rules delivery is delusional, and inconsistent with your allowance of errata. After all the GW rule book does not state that the faqs are rules, on,y the faqs them selves do. They modify the "this is where all rules are" position to include the faqs

This modifies the "rulebiok plus faq" are where rules are stance into this one specific answer also being a rules source. And it does so in the exact same way you have stated is acceptable: a self referential allowance.

So, your position is and remains untenable. Accept your failings, stop with the fallacies that are so utterly tiresome to read, and graduate from mini-gwar to a better level of debate.

Gendif wrote:
Excuse, Mr Hyperbolic Example, but I have a real example for you to use. In the latest errata they put this in:

Q: Is a Razorback firing a twin plasma gun destroyed if you roll a 1 to hit?
A: Yes.

So since they didn’t talk about supercharging roes my entire vehicle blows up on a 1 when I fire it normally? I only asked because we’ve got a clear question with a clear answer here in the errata that I’m very sure is wrong and no one would ever enforce.

My point here is that not even the errata is foolproof and I personally would like to see more communication from GW to clarify this sort of thing between errata.

Remember: You’re demanding they answer your hypothetical so it’s only fair you address my actual published example.

Yes, I would play it that way because it's in the official errata and FAQs. Am I annoyed they use Special Snowflake FAQs? Yes, but I accept that is how it is.

The difference is the actual rules update is telling you this, not a random GW staffer on Facebook.

Gendif wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nekooni wrote:
You seem to be stuck in a loop there. Repeating bs doesn't magically turn it into a valid argument. But enjoy flinging it anyway, I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Answer the question. Yes or No. If you answer Yes, you prove my point that using Facebook as rules is ridiculous, if you answer No, you are inconstant and hypocritical.

So which is it, yes or no?

I've answered it before. If you can't be bothered to read that or respond to it or to at least stop repeating the same idiotic question over and over again, that's really not my fault.

example: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/756256.page#9962780

So you would play that Ultramarines basically always win if the GW Facebook post says it? And you wonder why people ignore the facebook post?

If it was in an official FAQ/Errata document would you play by those rules?

Excuse, Mr Hyperbolic Example, but I have a real example for you to use. In the latest errata they put this in:

Q: Is a Razorback firing a twin plasma gun destroyed if you roll a 1 to hit?
A: Yes.

So since they didn’t talk about supercharging roes my entire vehicle blows up on a 1 when I fire it normally? I only asked because we’ve got a clear question with a clear answer here in the errata that I’m very sure is wrong and no one would ever enforce.

My point here is that not even the errata is foolproof and I personally would like to see more communication from GW to clarify this sort of thing between errata.

Remember: You’re demanding they answer your hypothetical so it’s only fair you address my actual published example.

Why yes, it blows up when you fire it normally. This is the problem that the Imperium had when they went to the lowest bid independent contractors to build the Razorbacks. And, since this is what they wrote as RAW, someone will say this is what they intended too.

Seriously, though, good counter example. It's something that should be pointed out to GW so that they can insert the word they forgot to have there to indicate it's only for supercharging the plasmas.

Gendif wrote:
I’m reading orange on black on a phone screen. I’ve got no idea who I’m talking to most of the time. But yes, him, he should answer.

If the colours are an issue you can switch to a different theme. Although I wouldn't recommend "Classic". I think I just got some form of eye cancer from trying that one. Worksafe is pretty OK.

The facts are pretty simple peeps. RAW supports the RAI intention made clear in the facebook post.

You don't use a FAQ response about something entirely different to pass judgement on another thing unrelated. That's not how you read or interpret rules.

The entire premise of this argument is completely flawed and feels like attention seeking if I'm honest. 'Treating a unit like' reinforcements is clearly not the same as 'they are considered for all rules purposes' reinforcements. This argument was weak to begin with and the facebook post is the final nail in the coffin for all those rules lawyers and people trying to seek unfair advantage.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The facts are pretty simple peeps. RAW supports the RAI intention made clear in the facebook post.

You don't use a FAQ response about something entirely different to pass judgement on another thing unrelated. That's not how you read or interpret rules.

The entire premise of this argument is completely flawed and feels like attention seeking if I'm honest. 'Treating a unit like' reinforcements is clearly not the same as 'they are considered for all rules purposes' reinforcements. This argument was weak to begin with and the facebook post is the final nail in the coffin for all those rules lawyers and people trying to seek unfair advantage.

Obviously enough people disagreed with your assessment of the RAW for it to be an issue where they had to put out the facebook post in the first place. You shouldn't be acting high and mighty about it.

 doctortom wrote:


Obviously enough people disagreed with your assessment of the RAW for it to be an issue where they had to put out the facebook post in the first place. You shouldn't be acting high and mighty about it.

Not sure how you came to the conclusion I'm acting high and mighty. I stated facts. Facts that all those who disagreed with my assessment chose to ignore.

GW have to do these type of clarifications all the time because those guys exist. And here they are. Still arguing something that GW couldn't make clearer.

 doctortom wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The facts are pretty simple peeps. RAW supports the RAI intention made clear in the facebook post.

You don't use a FAQ response about something entirely different to pass judgement on another thing unrelated. That's not how you read or interpret rules.

The entire premise of this argument is completely flawed and feels like attention seeking if I'm honest. 'Treating a unit like' reinforcements is clearly not the same as 'they are considered for all rules purposes' reinforcements. This argument was weak to begin with and the facebook post is the final nail in the coffin for all those rules lawyers and people trying to seek unfair advantage.

Obviously enough people disagreed with your assessment of the RAW for it to be an issue where they had to put out the facebook post in the first place. You shouldn't be acting high and mighty about it.

Disagreement doesn't mean it's unclear, it means people don't want to accept the rule because they dislike it.

I dislike re-rolls happening after modifiers, do I throw a hissy fit and DEMAND that people play it the way I want despite it being not what the rule says? Of course I don't, because I am an adult who plays with their toy soldiers by the rules in the rulebook.

This thread isn't really about the stratagem or FAQs. This is about the authority of sources, And a few rules dogmatists who are trying to usurp a place into the rules hierarchy for their own aggrandizement.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
This thread isn't really about the stratagem or FAQs. This is about the authority of sources, And a few rules dogmatists who are trying to usurp a place into the rules hierarchy for their own aggrandizement.

YeoApparently GW aren't allowed to decide the sources for the rules that they write
It's an absurd position to hold.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
This thread isn't really about the stratagem or FAQs. This is about the authority of sources, And a few rules dogmatists who are trying to usurp a place into the rules hierarchy for their own aggrandizement.

YeoApparently GW aren't allowed to decide the sources for the rules that they write
It's an absurd position to hold.

Actually it looks like he's trying to hold GW to their word of what sources they say are official.

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
This thread isn't really about the stratagem or FAQs. This is about the authority of sources, And a few rules dogmatists who are trying to usurp a place into the rules hierarchy for their own aggrandizement.

YeoApparently GW aren't allowed to decide the sources for the rules that they write
It's an absurd position to hold.

Actually it looks like he's trying to hold GW to their word of what sources they say are official.

They're (GW) saying that the fb community team isn't a valid source on their own because they are not the rules team. In this instance they went to said rules team, got a proper answer and are relaying that answer.

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
This thread isn't really about the stratagem or FAQs. This is about the authority of sources, And a few rules dogmatists who are trying to usurp a place into the rules hierarchy for their own aggrandizement.

YeoApparently GW aren't allowed to decide the sources for the rules that they write
It's an absurd position to hold.

Actually it looks like he's trying to hold GW to their word of what sources they say are official.

Again, two issues with that
1) GW changed their word when they released the first faq, because the rulebook doesn't day this is where rules can be found. So inconsistent argument
2) as pointed out umpteen times, the community team have said the community team are not rules people. This set of rules was *communicated* by the comm7nity team, but *attributed* to the rules team. As such this isn't inconstant.

The "this isn't rules" side are arguing an untenable position.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
This thread isn't really about the stratagem or FAQs. This is about the authority of sources, And a few rules dogmatists who are trying to usurp a place into the rules hierarchy for their own aggrandizement.

YeoApparently GW aren't allowed to decide the sources for the rules that they write
It's an absurd position to hold.

Actually it looks like he's trying to hold GW to their word of what sources they say are official.

Again, two issues with that
1) GW changed their word when they released the first faq, because the rulebook doesn't day this is where rules can be found. So inconsistent argument
2) as pointed out umpteen times, the community team have said the community team are not rules people. This set of rules was *communicated* by the comm7nity team, but *attributed* to the rules team. As such this isn't inconstant.

The "this isn't rules" side are arguing an untenable position.

Agreed on all accounts, just wanted to add another point that feeds into this:

3) The community team aren't relaying new rules. They are providing clarification on existing rules because some people misunderstood how they worked with other, vaguely related FAQ responses. So they still holding true to their word in terms of what sources are official. Again this isn't a new rule or source, merely a clarification.