Switch Theme:

'Upon wings of fire' and new beta rules  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

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

You're getting close to what's actually going on - good job! There's still a bit to go until you reach reality, but you're making progress!

Spoiler:
it's still GWs rules team that's explaining to us how the rules are meant to work, not just a random GW staffer

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/17 19:06:38


 
   
Made in gb
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






 BaconCatBug wrote:
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.

Yea the raw is clear but for some reason you keep getting it wrong. As I said - RAW = RAI in this case.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 BaconCatBug wrote:
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.

I entirely trust the the official GW Facebook page, stating that the rules designers have said the way they wrote the rule is indeed how they intended to write the rule, and here are so,e examples of exactly how that rule works in practice

Your qualifications as a rules authority in the other hand are enitrely less... credible.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

nosferatu1001 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
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.

I entirely trust the the official GW Facebook page, stating that the rules designers have said the way they wrote the rule is indeed how they intended to write the rule, and here are so,e examples of exactly how that rule works in practice

Your qualifications as a rules authority in the other hand are enitrely less... credible.


Seconded.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






nosferatu1001 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
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.

I entirely trust the the official GW Facebook page, stating that the rules designers have said the way they wrote the rule is indeed how they intended to write the rule, and here are so,e examples of exactly how that rule works in practice

Your qualifications as a rules authority in the other hand are enitrely less... credible.
My "qualifications" are the rules in the rulebooks and their associated errata. I don't care if even Rick Priestley or Andy Chambers themselves said something on Facebook, unless it's in the rulebook or associated errata it simply is not part of the game. Period. To say otherwise causes the entire premise of the game to break down and collapse, which we can both agree is the less desirable result. You claim the rules team "intend" for the rule to work a certain way. If that's the case why have they not changed what the rule says?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/05/18 18:14:25


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




So you are claiming the rules don't say what they say, and further what the rules designers say doesn't matter to you, because you have decided the in,y way they can communicate the rules is in the way you dictate?

Arrogance AND hilarity in one package. Zero credibility as well.

GW gets to decide how they deliver rules. Not you, they've also stated that the way the wrote these rules conveys their intention of the rules, as proven by, well, GW saying so

GW vs random guy from the internet who has a poor parsing of rules? Yeah I know who has any credibility.
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






nosferatu1001 wrote:
GW gets to decide how they deliver rules. Not you, they've also stated that the way the wrote these rules conveys their intention of the rules, as proven by, well, GW saying so
Indeed. And how they have decided to deliver the rules is via the Rulebooks and Errata, as I have proven multiple times before and cannot be bothered to do again.

Neither of those are Facebook. I'll keep on playing the game by the rules, and you can keep playing the game with house rules.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
GW vs random guy from the internet who has a poor parsing of rules? Yeah I know who has any credibility.
Literal rules citations is a poor parsing? That's rather rude of you.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/05/18 18:24:52


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
GW gets to decide how they deliver rules. Not you, they've also stated that the way the wrote these rules conveys their intention of the rules, as proven by, well, GW saying so
Indeed. And how they have decided to deliver the rules is via the Rulebooks and Errata, as I have proven multiple times before and cannot be bothered to do again.

Neither of those are Facebook. I'll keep on playing the game by the rules, and you can keep playing the game with house rules.
nosferatu1001 wrote:
GW vs random guy from the internet who has a poor parsing of rules? Yeah I know who has any credibility.
Literal rules citations is a poor parsing? That's rather rude of you.


To be fair, Tactical Reserves does say before the shaded box. "....during the first battle round, such units can only be set up within their own deplyement zone. This means that to be most efficient, such units may want to wait until the second battle round. Note that we have not applied this restriction to Genestealer Cults or [b]abilities and Stratagems employed by armies such as Raven Guard - the opportunity to deploy units en mass after deployment is a central part of the desgin of these armies." Granted, how you go and define an army "such as" Raven Guard, or saying what "the opportunity to deploy units en mass after deployment" is hazy on the face of it and does need a clarification (which should be done in the FAQ section itself). Still, the hazy writing here does accommodate the interpretation that was given out in the Facebook post, so that posting is one interpretation of RAW even if you discount the Facebook post (which, given that the designers supposedly issued it, and as that has not been retracted yet we should be able to take that as a true statement). As it's already a viable interpretation of RAW, you should be talking to your opponent about how you wish to play the rule given that there can be multiple interpretations if not using the FB post. I could see you insisting that only Raven Guard and successor chapters could use it since RG was the only thing cited and you weren't given criteria to say what other armies' abilities and stratagems are enough like RG or are an army that deployed units en masse after deployement, but you would have a hard time denying a Raven Guard army what was described in the FB post since they are specifically given as an army that has exemptions to the Tactical Reserves rule. You should already be talking to your opponent anyway about whether you two will be using the Tactical Reserves Beta Rule in the first place.


   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Except in this case, where GW have decided that this rules clarification has been delivered by Facebook

Continue pretending you're right in this. You have zero credibility

No the interpretation you have placed on the rule is wrong, and proven as such by GW saying how they wrote the rule works i the way they intended, hence the GW rules team sourced clarification

You can keep ignoring the rules all you like but don't pretend you're some raw at all times "purist"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/19 14:02:09


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except in this case, where GW have decided that this rules clarification has been delivered by Facebook
Please show me in the rulebook or FAQ page where it says facebook is part of the rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/19 14:33:32


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except in this case, where GW have decided that this rules clarification has been delivered by Facebook
Please show me in the rulebook or FAQ page where it says facebook is part of the rules.


Please show me in the rulebook where it says the FAQs are part of the rules.

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Happyjew wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except in this case, where GW have decided that this rules clarification has been delivered by Facebook
Please show me in the rulebook or FAQ page where it says facebook is part of the rules.


Please show me in the rulebook where it says the FAQs are part of the rules.
From 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.
Of course if you want to go down that route, where does it define that a dice must be numbered 1-6? Where does it define what a roll is?

Or from the Rulebook FAQ
Although we strive to ensure that our rules are perfect, sometimes mistakes do creep in, or the intent of a rule isn’t as clear as it might be. These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions. As they’re updated regularly, each has a version number; when changes are made, the version number will be updated, and any changes from the previous version will be highlighted in magenta. Where a version number has a letter, e.g. 1.1a, this means it has had a local update, only in that language, to clarify a translation issue or other minor correction.

The facebook page LITERALLY SAYS IT IS NOT RULES.

There are several unwritten axioms that the game relies on to function, as do most games not written in Lojban. "Things a random person says on Facebook are rules" is not one of them.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/05/19 15:23:16


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

That quote you used also proves that RAW does not always equal RAI, nice one. You can stop banging that particular drum now, eh?

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




So you cannot prove your claim. Thus you are inconsistent and proven, for the tenth time on this, simply wrong.

The Facebook team says THEY are not rules. That's fine. THEY have said THE RULES TEAM have said these are rules. Thus they are rules.

For someone normally so hung up on precision, the fact you are being deliberately misleading here - despite being corrected on this multiple times - is either deliberate or is incompetence.
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except in this case, where GW have decided that this rules clarification has been delivered by Facebook
Please show me in the rulebook or FAQ page where it says facebook is part of the rules.


Please show me in the rulebook where it says the FAQs are part of the rules.
From 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.
Of course if you want to go down that route, where does it define that a dice must be numbered 1-6? Where does it define what a roll is?

Or from the Rulebook FAQ
Although we strive to ensure that our rules are perfect, sometimes mistakes do creep in, or the intent of a rule isn’t as clear as it might be. These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions. As they’re updated regularly, each has a version number; when changes are made, the version number will be updated, and any changes from the previous version will be highlighted in magenta. Where a version number has a letter, e.g. 1.1a, this means it has had a local update, only in that language, to clarify a translation issue or other minor correction.

The facebook page LITERALLY SAYS IT IS NOT RULES.

There are several unwritten axioms that the game relies on to function, as do most games not written in Lojban. "Things a random person says on Facebook are rules" is not one of them.


I'm not seeing that in the rulebook. I asked where in the rulebook the FAQs are rules. Not some random site.

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Also note that the clear delineation between "rules" and frequently asked questions.

These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions.


Rules and "responses". What are responses?
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran



Canada

Fragile wrote:
Also note that the clear delineation between "rules" and frequently asked questions.

These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions.


Rules and "responses". What are responses?


Perhaps in this context "rules" are things like the Character targeting rules, the Smite change and the Tactical Reserves rules. They add a rule or change a rule. Perhaps "responses" are simply the company answering questions about rules. The answer might look like a new rule, but are merely the company clarifying how the rule looks. Examples of "responses" would be Grinding Advance and Speed of the Raven.

For a "rule" I want to see it in a book or a somewhat official-looking FAQ. For a "response" I am comfortable with less rigorous sources. Those less rigorous sources can even be other players at the FLGS or tourney. I play in the world of HIWPI, since that is what wargaming is. Having said that, an "official" FAQ carries more weight than a Facebook post from the GW team with respect to "responses." The GW Facebook post also carries more weight than a fellow player at the FLGS.



All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Fragile wrote:
Also note that the clear delineation between "rules" and frequently asked questions.

These documents collect amendments to the rules and present our responses to players’ frequently asked questions.


Rules and "responses". What are responses?
Are you seriously asking this?

"amendments to the rules" = Errata

"our responses to players’ frequently asked questions" = Answers to the FaQ's.


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Deathreaper, as usual, you completely miss the point.
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

Fragile wrote:
Deathreaper, as usual, you completely miss the point.

There's actually a point to all of that?
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






Good lordy, what a read.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that GW (probably*) put on the FB page (although I don't want it to, as I despise the stupid name "Slamguinius" and the stupid memes that accompany it. So anything keeping it from my games is a good thing, but I digress...).

*I say probably, as I (like many other people) do not have a Privacyinvasionbook account, nor do I want one, nor even want to go near their site; so I only have to go on what was presented in this thread, and as such is a fething stupid place to put rules. I wonder how many of these "you activated my trap card" rulings I've missed out on due to not wanting to go anywhere near that place.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/20 18:39:25



Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 Grimtuff wrote:
Good lordy, what a read.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that GW (probably*) put on the FB page (although I don't want it to, as I despise the stupid name "Slamguinius" and the stupid memes that accompany it. So anything keeping it from my games is a good thing, but I digress...).

*I say probably, as I (like many other people) do not have a Privacyinvasionbook account, nor do I want one, nor even want to go near their site; so I only have to go on what was presented in this thread, and as such is a fething stupid place to put rules. I wonder how many of these "you activated my trap card" rulings I've missed out on due to not wanting to go anywhere near that place.


You don't need an account to follow the links provided. Do it in incognito mode if you're concerned about privacy. But don't use it as a backhanded way of discrediting an argument based on that source.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






nekooni wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Good lordy, what a read.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that GW (probably*) put on the FB page (although I don't want it to, as I despise the stupid name "Slamguinius" and the stupid memes that accompany it. So anything keeping it from my games is a good thing, but I digress...).

*I say probably, as I (like many other people) do not have a Privacyinvasionbook account, nor do I want one, nor even want to go near their site; so I only have to go on what was presented in this thread, and as such is a fething stupid place to put rules. I wonder how many of these "you activated my trap card" rulings I've missed out on due to not wanting to go anywhere near that place.


You don't need an account to follow the links provided. Do it in incognito mode if you're concerned about privacy. But don't use it as a backhanded way of discrediting an argument based on that source.


No.

It is a stupid place to put rules. I refuse to even go near the site and won't give Zuckerberg the satisfaction with his smug reptilian grin of trying to access it by some other means. GW have an official place to put rules, which is one their own site. Putting official rulings on FB is akin to someone going "A ha! You activated my trap card" as if we're playing Yu-Gi-Oh or something.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/21 02:04:11



Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

 Grimtuff wrote:
nekooni wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Good lordy, what a read.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that GW (probably*) put on the FB page (although I don't want it to, as I despise the stupid name "Slamguinius" and the stupid memes that accompany it. So anything keeping it from my games is a good thing, but I digress...).

*I say probably, as I (like many other people) do not have a Privacyinvasionbook account, nor do I want one, nor even want to go near their site; so I only have to go on what was presented in this thread, and as such is a fething stupid place to put rules. I wonder how many of these "you activated my trap card" rulings I've missed out on due to not wanting to go anywhere near that place.


You don't need an account to follow the links provided. Do it in incognito mode if you're concerned about privacy. But don't use it as a backhanded way of discrediting an argument based on that source.


No.

It is a stupid place to put rules. I refuse to even go near the site and won't give Fuckerberg the satisfaction with his smug reptilian grin of trying to access it by some other means. GW have an official place to put rules, which is one their own site. Putting official rulings on FB is akin to someone going "A ha! You activated my trap card" as if we're playing Yu-Gi-Oh or something.


I agree it's a stupid place to put rules, however, that is where they decided to clarify this issue. And while the people who run the page may not be the rules team, when they go "Hey rules team, people are asking about this." and the rules team replies "Tell 'em that this is the answer.", then that is the official answer.

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 Happyjew wrote:
I agree it's a stupid place to put rules, however, that is where they decided to clarify this issue. And while the people who run the page may not be the rules team, when they go "Hey rules team, people are asking about this." and the rules team replies "Tell 'em that this is the answer.", then that is the official answer.
They haven't clarified anything, because it's not in an FAQ document.
   
Made in de
Witch Hunter in the Shadows



Aachen

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Happyjew wrote:
I agree it's a stupid place to put rules, however, that is where they decided to clarify this issue. And while the people who run the page may not be the rules team, when they go "Hey rules team, people are asking about this." and the rules team replies "Tell 'em that this is the answer.", then that is the official answer.
They haven't clarified anything, because it's not in an FAQ document.

They have. Just not in the proper place.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

nekooni wrote:
Fragile wrote:
Deathreaper, as usual, you completely miss the point.

There's actually a point to all of that?
Not that I saw.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




It’s a beta rule suggestion they asked people to test. They could recover feedback and answer questions on Facebook for all they want.
It’s officially from the rules team and clarified then who cares except asshats crying about suggested beta rules not being clarified in official faq format, while the rule itself isn’t even officially part of the rules yet.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/20 19:56:32


 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





gungo wrote:
It’s a beta rule suggestion they asked people to test. They could recover feedback and answer questions on Facebook for all they want.
It’s officially from the rules team and clarified then who cares except asshats crying about suggested beta rules not being clarified in official faq format, while the rule itself isn’t even officially part of the rules yet.


Problem is that when it's only on FB post which is probably rather buried now there's TONS of players(probably over 50% of all 40k players) who haven't HEARD of it. End result: You can come up in tournament against players who haven't heard of it and that can results in long argument.

Today this EXACT ISSUE came up for me in real tournament. Opponent wasn't aware of the clarification, we couldn't find it from fb quickly, tournament organizers were even confused about it. End result long annoying rule arqument which took longer than it would take for GW to put it on official location and which dampened the mood right away.

There's no excuse for GW to NOT put it in same place as FAQ is. It's GW deliberately making sure this issue comes up inevitably and players have to spend time arguing can you da jump out of DZ on turn 1 or not.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

It’s a beta. Why would they issue a beta rule FAQ before the end of the beta? Just feed it back. That’s what a beta is.

If a tournament incorporates it but doesn’t have their own ruling then that’s on them.

As of now it’s not part of the rules unless by mutual agreement. If you can’t agree a solution amicably don’t play it, or feed the disagreement back to GW.

Honestly, Facebook is a more appropriate channel than the official FAQ page for a rule that is not even rules yet, as only rulings on the actual rules we all play by should go there. All this ‘no excuse blah blah’ stuff is a little OTT. Just send GW your feedback - they’ve asked for it. If they get enough they might issue an updated beta rule before end of the beta, but I wouldn’t hold your breath. Because it’s a beta.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/20 21:31:57


 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: