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.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

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.

Yet, in addition to them saying the Facebook page isn't official, they still say on their FAQ page at Warhammer community:

"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, trying to say it's a clarification doesn't absolve them from not posting it over on the Warhammer community page. Even as a clarification, it would be a question on how the army works, and according to GW all the most up-to-date answers should be provided there.


As I said before numerous times, I think it's fine for saying what is intended, and would discuss it with an opponent, but by GW's own admission it's not RAW until they post it over in their FAQ section.

AGAIN they do NOT say the fab PAGE isn't official
they state "they" are not a rules source
They're not claiming to be the rules source. Just the communications medium

Nothing more

Again, you missed my point 1. The rulebook doesn't say the faq is a rules source, so it isn't
Oh wait. GW have said it is. You are willing to accept GW stating that, yet you do not accept GW saying that about THIS specific clarification?
Inconsistent rules argument. You lose.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
AGAIN they do NOT say the fab PAGE isn't official
they state "they" are not a rules source
They're not claiming to be the rules source. Just the communications medium

Nothing more

Again, you missed my point 1. The rulebook doesn't say the faq is a rules source, so it isn't
Oh wait. GW have said it is. You are willing to accept GW stating that, yet you do not accept GW saying that about THIS specific clarification?
Inconsistent rules argument. You lose.

I didn't miss your point. You miss the point that GW says that the most up to date rules updates and answers will be put in their FAQ section. Is this an answer to questions that have come in? Yes. Is this in the FAQ section? No. So, while it's fine for RAI (and therefore for a large number of people), it's not RAW yet by GW's own standatds that they set up, and won't be RAW until they post it on the FAQ page or change what it says on the FAQ page for being where to find all atghe most up to date rules updates and answers.

Again, not true

The rulebook doesn't say anyo5er source counts as rules. So why do you accept the faq page? Because GW says so

Here, GW have said THESE ARE RULES. EIther you play without any faqs, or you play with this beta rule and the faq for the beta rule. You have no other *consistent* answer open to you. None.

I have what they say on the Warhammer community page, which is fine for RAW. And, is it reasonable to expect people to have to get a facebook account and check for rules there when GW themselves have said the most up to date rules will be in their FAQ section on the community website? Rules as intended, not an issue. Rules as written? Not what they've said at the Warhammer Community site, which has not changed since putting the post out.

 doctortom wrote:
I have what they say on the Warhammer community page, which is fine for RAW. And, is it reasonable to expect people to have to get a facebook account and check for rules there when GW themselves have said the most up to date rules will be in their FAQ section on the community website? Rules as intended, not an issue. Rules as written? Not what they've said at the Warhammer Community site, which has not changed since putting the post out.

We're talking beta rules here, right? Just a reminder.

nekooni wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
I have what they say on the Warhammer community page, which is fine for RAW. And, is it reasonable to expect people to have to get a facebook account and check for rules there when GW themselves have said the most up to date rules will be in their FAQ section on the community website? Rules as intended, not an issue. Rules as written? Not what they've said at the Warhammer Community site, which has not changed since putting the post out.

We're talking beta rules here, right? Just a reminder.

Yup, which means you should be talking to your opponent in the first place about whether to use the beta rule, then you can determine if you want to apply the facebook post.

 doctortom wrote:
I have what they say on the Warhammer community page, which is fine for RAW. And, is it reasonable to expect people to have to get a facebook account and check for rules there when GW themselves have said the most up to date rules will be in their FAQ section on the community website? Rules as intended, not an issue. Rules as written? Not what they've said at the Warhammer Community site, which has not changed since putting the post out.

So GW cannot change how they deliver rules? Simple yes or no. Of you say no, you are inconsistent. If you say yes, you agree with me that these are rules. Not that I need your agreement - these ARE the rules, regardless of your opinion.
And you allow the community site to be a source of rules over the rulebook , because of a statement on the community site. Yet a statement on the Facebook page that these are rules is not sufficient. Explain, citing rules sources, your inconsistency.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
I have what they say on the Warhammer community page, which is fine for RAW. And, is it reasonable to expect people to have to get a facebook account and check for rules there when GW themselves have said the most up to date rules will be in their FAQ section on the community website? Rules as intended, not an issue. Rules as written? Not what they've said at the Warhammer Community site, which has not changed since putting the post out.

So GW cannot change how they deliver rules? Simple yes or no. Of you say no, you are inconsistent. If you say yes, you agree with me that these are rules. Not that I need your agreement - these ARE the rules, regardless of your opinion.
And you allow the community site to be a source of rules over the rulebook , because of a statement on the community site. Yet a statement on the Facebook page that these are rules is not sufficient. Explain, citing rules sources, your inconsistency.

I get what people are debating it's still a GW official channel and all that, but what about the hobbyists out there that don't use Facebook or have an account? How are they to see these rule changes unless through the official community site where the FAQ's are posted?

Is it fair to hobbyists to place updates on social media that a lot of people don't have or actively avoid or have no interest in?

I'm not debating fair

Is it fair that you need internet access? Define the limits of "fair" here.

The actual rule works just fine - they only needed to clarify it - but regardless, this clarification is rules, and cannot be ignored.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm not debating fair

Is it fair that you need internet access? Define the limits of "fair" here.

The actual rule works just fine - they only needed to clarify it - but regardless, this clarification is rules, and cannot be ignored.

I'm not debating clarification of rules, have that debate with the other guy. I'm talking about business practise. Is it good business practice to place updates for rules on a media outlet that is on a random post that a lot of their player base potentially won't see or find easy to access?

Or is best business practise to have one single location for all official rule updates so that every player has the equal opportunity to view and access?

I'll do what you did to guy above, is it good business practise yes or no?

Again i am not debating it's not a clarification of rules, I'm talking about best business practise, which is the best method?

That isn't a debate for YMDC
Which is about rules

These are rules. Their delivery method, and the relative methodsof such,,aren't a topic that needs debating here

It's also irrelevant. They've chosen, deliberately, to embrace Facebook.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That isn't a debate for YMDC
Which is about rules

These are rules. Their delivery method, and the relative methodsof such,,aren't a topic that needs debating here

It's also irrelevant. They've chosen, deliberately, to embrace Facebook.

So rather than answering, you are changing topic and now trying to divert. See the hyprocrasy?

Going back to the original query I will answer like I did on page one.

Due to the posts I have seen and have been available to myself, because I went to the warhammer 40k page and couldn't find this confirmation people are talking about.

When units are removed from the board under any means, phychic powers or stratagems, when they come bakc in they are "set up", being set up off the board is coming in as reinforcements. So if used in turn one you still cannot leave deployment.

If my opponent disagree's I am not going to argue it's simple. We and get on with playing toy soldiers and have a laugh and a beer.

Please read the tenets of the forum
Feel free to tsk your question elsewhere.

I also didn't change topic. I pointed out your position was irrelevant, and your question not suitable for here

Personally I see no issue with them using Facebook. Whether it is good business pr@ctice, if you claim it isn't you would need some support for that. I'm not qualified to answer it myself - I have an opinion, but that's not important.

No hypocrisy. You should maybe understand the meaning of the word.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That isn't a debate for YMDC
Which is about rules

These are rules. Their delivery method, and the relative methodsof such,,aren't a topic that needs debating here

It's also irrelevant. They've chosen, deliberately, to embrace Facebook.

So rather than answering, you are changing topic and now trying to divert. See the hyprocrasy?

Going back to the original query I will answer like I did on page one.

Due to the posts I have seen and have been available to myself, because I went to the warhammer 40k page and couldn't find this confirmation people are talking about

the link to the fb post in question is on page one of this thread.
GW differentiates between units that were set up in reserves, then come in; and units that were set up on the table, then for some reason are removed and come in again.
*edit* just to clarify: That is what GW explains in the FB post and how GW says the beta rule affects units. I'm just repeating their argument.

The "business practice" was criticized multiple times here, that's not really something "open to debate", so to speak - noone's saying that's having a proper update in the FAQ documents wouldn't be better than posting a picture to their Facebook wall.

And how are people w/o a FB post being left out? You can still access the post without a FB account. It's probably been posted to all the community sites/40k news sites, and so on. If someone is interested in that, it's not that hard to find the information even if you don't have a FB account subscribed to the 40k page (or at all).
And from GWs PoV it appears to not be an "update" but a "clarification", and it's "just a beta rule" - maybe that's their reasoning, I don't know. Ask THEM why they think it's the proper way to do this, I don't think anyone in here thinks that way. What people in here disagree is whether or not that post has any relevance on how to read the beta rules and whether or not their "clarification" should be considered at all.

nekooni wrote:
the link to the fb post in question is on page one of this thread.
GW differentiates between units that were set up in reserves, then come in; and units that were set up on the table, then for some reason are removed and come in again.

If that is actually accurate and not photoshopped.

Tenets of YMDC wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop can be easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

2a. Rulings via GW's social media accounts, twitch streams, etc., even though often provided by the actual games designers, are still not considered official rulings by GW until they are actually published in a errata/FAQ. As such, while it is fine to bring up rulings provided this way in YMDC, it must always be couched with the understanding that these are not official, binding rulings until they actually make their way into a errata/FAQ. If you are mentioning such a ruling, please take the time to post a link to where it can be found so that others can verify for themselves what you're referring to.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
the link to the fb post in question is on page one of this thread.
GW differentiates between units that were set up in reserves, then come in; and units that were set up on the table, then for some reason are removed and come in again.

If that is actually accurate and not photoshopped.

Tenets of YMDC wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop can be easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

2a. Rulings via GW's social media accounts, twitch streams, etc., even though often provided by the actual games designers, are still not considered official rulings by GW until they are actually published in a errata/FAQ. As such, while it is fine to bring up rulings provided this way in YMDC, it must always be couched with the understanding that these are not official, binding rulings until they actually make their way into a errata/FAQ. If you are mentioning such a ruling, please take the time to post a link to where it can be found so that others can verify for themselves what you're referring to.

What? It's literally a link to facebook. To the 40k page. The official one. Which posted that image.

I guess they did use photoshop or something similar to make that image, yes. What is your issue with that?

If you are mentioning such a ruling, please take the time to post a link to where it can be found so that others can verify for themselves what you're referring to.

So what is your point? That link was provided.

Yes, the photo comes from the official Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page.

I dont have facebook, so I can not check the validity of the photo.

It's an open group, so you should be able to use my link without being signed up for Facebook.

 Ghaz wrote:
It's an open group, so you should be able to use my link without being signed up for Facebook.

Work blocks facebook it seems.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
It's an open group, so you should be able to use my link without being signed up for Facebook.

Work blocks facebook it seems.

That must be it. Because the post is accessible without being logged in at all.

But sure, let's discuss good practices. Like checking a source out before commenting on it. Can I assume the same quality work in the other thread circling around a GW FB post where you contributed interesting PoVs?

And btw it seems like in the other thread you've been to the same facebook page, to find quotes to use in your argumentation. odd.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
the link to the fb post in question is on page one of this thread.
GW differentiates between units that were set up in reserves, then come in; and units that were set up on the table, then for some reason are removed and come in again.

If that is actually accurate and not photoshopped.

Tenets of YMDC wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop can be easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

2a. Rulings via GW's social media accounts, twitch streams, etc., even though often provided by the actual games designers, are still not considered official rulings by GW until they are actually published in a errata/FAQ. As such, while it is fine to bring up rulings provided this way in YMDC, it must always be couched with the understanding that these are not official, binding rulings until they actually make their way into a errata/FAQ. If you are mentioning such a ruling, please take the time to post a link to where it can be found so that others can verify for themselves what you're referring to.

To be fair, the ruling in question is not even an official rule. It's a beta rule.

 mokoshkana wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
the link to the fb post in question is on page one of this thread.
GW differentiates between units that were set up in reserves, then come in; and units that were set up on the table, then for some reason are removed and come in again.

If that is actually accurate and not photoshopped.

Tenets of YMDC wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop can be easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

2a. Rulings via GW's social media accounts, twitch streams, etc., even though often provided by the actual games designers, are still not considered official rulings by GW until they are actually published in a errata/FAQ. As such, while it is fine to bring up rulings provided this way in YMDC, it must always be couched with the understanding that these are not official, binding rulings until they actually make their way into a errata/FAQ. If you are mentioning such a ruling, please take the time to post a link to where it can be found so that others can verify for themselves what you're referring to.

To be fair, the ruling in question is not even an official rule. It's a beta rule.

True, but their plan is to only update the big FAQs only once every 6 months - if they know about this issue now they should really post their clarification in their community website FAQ section, or at the very least make an article about it there so that the same place you're picking up the beta rule you get the clarification as to how they wanted you playing it. As it stands it won't be as clear as to how many people are playing it by the Facebook post and how many are just playing the Beta Rule straight from the FAQ until it's time for the new FAQ, so a lot of the feedback could be suspect.

There's "should", and I don't think anyone disagrees on that

It does stop a) the beta rule working raw and rai and b) the clarification being entirely official and "raw".

 doctortom wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nekooni wrote:
the link to the fb post in question is on page one of this thread.
GW differentiates between units that were set up in reserves, then come in; and units that were set up on the table, then for some reason are removed and come in again.

If that is actually accurate and not photoshopped.

Tenets of YMDC wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop can be easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

2a. Rulings via GW's social media accounts, twitch streams, etc., even though often provided by the actual games designers, are still not considered official rulings by GW until they are actually published in a errata/FAQ. As such, while it is fine to bring up rulings provided this way in YMDC, it must always be couched with the understanding that these are not official, binding rulings until they actually make their way into a errata/FAQ. If you are mentioning such a ruling, please take the time to post a link to where it can be found so that others can verify for themselves what you're referring to.

To be fair, the ruling in question is not even an official rule. It's a beta rule.

True, but their plan is to only update the big FAQs only once every 6 months - if they know about this issue now they should really post their clarification in their community website FAQ section, or at the very least make an article about it there so that the same place you're picking up the beta rule you get the clarification as to how they wanted you playing it. As it stands it won't be as clear as to how many people are playing it by the Facebook post and how many are just playing the Beta Rule straight from the FAQ until it's time for the new FAQ, so a lot of the feedback could be suspect.

Which is why the vast majority of those who accept the Facebook post are also calling for the faq to be updated.

 doctortom wrote:
As I said before numerous times, I think it's fine for saying what is intended, and would discuss it with an opponent, but by GW's own admission it's not RAW until they post it over in their FAQ section.

Sorry, what? When have GW admitted that it isn't RAW and what makes you think it isn't? GW have provided clarification for people who aren't reading RAW properly, nothing more. RAW = RAI = clarification from GW. It can hardly be GW's fault that people take a FAQ response about something different and try to apply it to another thing that doesn't work.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
As I said before numerous times, I think it's fine for saying what is intended, and would discuss it with an opponent, but by GW's own admission it's not RAW until they post it over in their FAQ section.

Sorry, what? When have GW admitted that it isn't RAW and what makes you think it isn't? GW have provided clarification for people who aren't reading RAW properly, nothing more. RAW = RAI = clarification from GW. It can hardly be GW's fault that people take a FAQ response about something different and try to apply it to another thing that doesn't work.

You do realise that the RaW in this case can't be read in multiple ways, right? It is unambiguous and clear. Not liking a rule doesn't make it unclear.

Yes, it's only read in one way. Correctly at least

Your reading is flawed, and is directly contradicted by GW themselves. It's hilarious really.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, it's only read in one way. Correctly at least

Your reading is flawed, and is directly contradicted by GW themselves. It's hilarious really.

Except it literally isn't flawed. If GW want to change the way the rule works they need to change it.

Just because a random GW staffer on Facebook is wrong doesn't change what the rule says.