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:

 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.

So you've decided you have the sole authority to decide how GW can clarify rules?
You, mr random internet guy?
Cute. Will you answer, with rules cites from the BRB, why the community site is a valid source if rules this time? Or will you duck it again?
Page and graph please. Back up your assertions or accept your failings.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

To clarify the rule that they're trying to get feedback on. If the rule is being played incorrectly (either through bad wording or players misinterpreting the rule) then that lessens the value of the feedback.

 Ghaz wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

To clarify the rule that they're trying to get feedback on. If the rule is being played incorrectly (either through bad wording or players misinterpreting the rule) then that lessens the value of the feedback.

Just saying there’s no obligation to use the This Is The Rules channel. Sure, that would be ideal but there are also reasons why that might not be used. Whatever your mileage, constantly decrying guidance from the writers (that has been shared far beyond Facebook) as akin to a random post is patently just like sticking your fingers in your ears and crying “la la la la”. And the guy who said he couldn’t find details at a tourney could somehow post in this thread... that has hyperlinks to said post.

So here's a question I have on all this:

Does the facebook post matter at all?

Let's say I'm a competitively minded necron player, angling for a bit of favorable rules interpretation.

The wording on how my units arrive on the battlefield from Night Scythes and Monoliths looks, if you squint, similar to the rule for Disembarking from a transport. The distinction in the Rules as Written, of course, is that neither of those vehicles have the Transport keyword, and therefore when my units get put down on the board, they can't be made to move again for any reason.

So lets say I go down to facebook and ask GW: "Hey guys, if I have a unit of necrons and they beam down from a Night Scythe, can I move with them afterwards since it's the beginning of the movement phase?"

And GW answers: "No, sorry."

Does that change ANYTHING at all? Does it matter at all? Has the rule document shifted one way or another based on a person reading the rules in a way that's provably incorrect and being corrected?

the_scotsman wrote:
So here's a question I have on all this:

Does the facebook post matter at all?

Let's say I'm a competitively minded necron player, angling for a bit of favorable rules interpretation.

The wording on how my units arrive on the battlefield from Night Scythes and Monoliths looks, if you squint, similar to the rule for Disembarking from a transport. The distinction in the Rules as Written, of course, is that neither of those vehicles have the Transport keyword, and therefore when my units get put down on the board, they can't be made to move again for any reason.

So lets say I go down to facebook and ask GW: "Hey guys, if I have a unit of necrons and they beam down from a Night Scythe, can I move with them afterwards since it's the beginning of the movement phase?"

And GW answers: "No, sorry."

Does that change ANYTHING at all? Does it matter at all? Has the rule document shifted one way or another based on a person reading the rules in a way that's provably incorrect and being corrected?

If you're a competitive player, then the final rule stands with the TO's decision.

If you're playing a one-off game, then it comes down to if you believe GW Facebook has legal authority to introduce new rulings/faqs in their posts. At that point, it's between all the players involved; I'd say go with the option that least favors you, so you'll never come out unfavorably should a TO ruling not go your way - but, GW cares more about RAI then RAW, and they keep showing it; over and over again.

Play how you want.

RAW: The errata and FAQ do not allow units, arriving from reinforcements (which "Da Jump" is), to deploy outside the deployment zone - period.
RAI: You ARE allowed to deploy outside the deployment zone T1, as long as you were previously on the board already.

It is not reasonable to expect every player to have access to knowledge of every Facebook post ever made by GW. The facebook GW team also clearly states that they cannot provide official answers - except "this one time because we asked the rules team and it's actually official"; "here's a nice pretty picture".

RAW: Facebook GW cannot provide official answers.
RAI: Facebook GW CAN provide official answers, because "they talked to the rules team".

RAW: da jump works
RAI: da jump works

RAW: GW gets to decide how they deliver rules updates because it's their fething game
End of
You literally cannot argue against this position, in any logical or sense based manner. It's entirely GWs choice and mandate. No one else's.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
RAW: da jump works
RAI: da jump works

RAW: GW gets to decide how they deliver rules updates because it's their fething game
End of
You literally cannot argue against this position, in any logical or sense based manner. It's entirely GWs choice and mandate. No one else's.

RaW Da Jump doesn't work. You made a mistake in your post.

And GW did decide how to deliver their rules, it's via rules and official FAQs & Errata.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
RAW: da jump works
RAI: da jump works

RAW: GW gets to decide how they deliver rules updates because it's their fething game
End of
You literally cannot argue against this position, in any logical or sense based manner. It's entirely GWs choice and mandate. No one else's.

RaW Da Jump doesn't work. You made a mistake in your post.

And GW did decide how to deliver their rules, it's via rules and official FAQs & Errata.

Incorrect and we've been over how enough. Your position is wrong and based on a poor parsing of the rules.

And GW decided to modify that, for this case

As is their right

You're literally telling the games designers they're not allowed to decide how they deliver rules. And you expect anyone , ever, to treat your opinion srirously? As not being entirely comical?
You've yet to actually answer the required question - which is why you treat the errata as rules but not this, and ONLY using the BRB to do so. Because, and you know this, YOU CANNOT DO SO.
You dissemble and argue dishonestly, hoping people won't notice you repeatedly ducking this

Instead, it's just further proof of your logically flawed position.

I am holding GW to their own rules. Nothing more. You're free to house rule as you wish, I don't know why you're so upset.

No, you're making up a standard that you don't apply consistently

Aka making stuff up

Why do you treat the errata as rules? Prove it, citing page and graph, quoting directly from the brb

For a rules guy, this should be simple. Care to take up the challenge, or will you dissemble and avoid again?
At least the fifth time of asking.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you're making up a standard that you don't apply consistently

Aka making stuff up

Why do you treat the errata as rules? Prove it, citing page and graph, quoting directly from the brb

For a rules guy, this should be simple. Care to take up the challenge, or will you dissemble and avoid again?
At least the fifth time of asking.

This is pretty obviously standard "arguing from an untenable position."

GW uses visual boxes in several places in the rules to group rules that all apply to a particular subset of situations (See the "Transports" sidebar in the main rules for the most obvious example of this).

This lets them use paragraph spacing to make rules more easily understandable, but it means that everything within the box applies to the general situation of Transports (As defined as units with the Transport keyword in the first sentence of the rules box) and should not be taken out of that context to apply to the rest of the game.

They very clearly did an identical thing with the new Tactical Reserves rule, and all three rules outlined in the box apply to the specific situation of units that use abilities that set them aside during deployment to arrive as reinforcements. You'd be mighty confused if you took a random paragraph from the Transports rule box and tried to make it work with every unit in the game.

Because it's pretty much untenable to argue otherwise, BCB and co have switched over to different topics than the one actually being discussed, in order to avoid having to actually address the main point. The gw FAQ team's response on Facebook carries exactly as much weight as BCB's rants on Dakka: Absolutely nothing. Nothing has changed about the rule, because it has not been demonstrated that it can ever apply to anything besides the subgroup of units outlined by the two requirements of the first sentence.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you're making up a standard that you don't apply consistently

Aka making stuff up

Why do you treat the errata as rules? Prove it, citing page and graph, quoting directly from the brb

For a rules guy, this should be simple. Care to take up the challenge, or will you dissemble and avoid again?
At least the fifth time of asking.

Just because it isn't in the rulebook doesn't make it not rules. The FAQ page explicitly states it is rules, and is owned by GW, thus official. The codexes are rules. The GW Facebook Page literally tells you it's not rules.

It's clear you have some sort of personal issue against me, thus I shall decline to reply to you in the future.

I'm inclined to agree with BCB, more or less.

Official rules changes and clarifications are published via the FAQs and Erratas page of Warhammer Community. Anything else, while interesting and potentially useful, isn't official... even if the poster says "Guys, this is totally official." When playing with friends, or when talking to a TO, a social media post might inform the local ruling. However, I (and many other players) only look to the FAQs and Erratas page for official, set in stone rulings. You just can't operate a rule set and have your rulings/faqs/erratas scattered over a variety of sources.

Facebook is a particularly terrible place to publish anything "official", because the posts get lost in the shuffle almost immediately and not only does a large portion of the player base never see the post, but they probably also wouldn't be able to find it even if they knew about it.

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with BCB, more or less.

Official rules changes and clarifications are published via the FAQs and Erratas page of Warhammer Community. Anything else, while interesting and potentially useful, isn't official... even if the poster says "Guys, this is totally official." When playing with friends, or when talking to a TO, a social media post might inform the local ruling. However, I (and many other players) only look to the FAQs and Erratas page for official, set in stone rulings. You just can't operate a rule set and have your rulings/faqs/erratas scattered over a variety of sources.

Facebook is a particularly terrible place to publish anything "official", because the posts get lost in the shuffle almost immediately and not only does a large portion of the player base never see the post, but they probably also wouldn't be able to find it even if they knew about it.

To be clear, I agree with BCB on his smokescreen point - facebook should not (and to this point, is not) used to publish official rules changes.

Where I fundamentally disagree with them is on whether this ruling on facebook changes anything at all, because he has yet to demonstrate why all the rules statements contained in the box labeled "Tactical Reserves" are entirely separate statements that apply to completely separate units, while they are grouped and formatted in exactly the same way as several other rules within the main rulebook.

We establish a unit criteria - units which use abilities during deployment to arrive later on the battlefield as reinforcements - and then we have one rule applying to that subset of units.

Then (BCB version) we STOP. Throw out that subset. and apply two more rules that apply to ALL UNITS IN THE GAME AT ALL TIMES that are removed and replaced onto the battlefield.

If we applied this kind of logic to nearly any other section of the rules, the game would completely fall apart, because with each new sentence, GW would need to re-establish which units the sentence applies to.

 Ghaz wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

To clarify the rule that they're trying to get feedback on. If the rule is being played incorrectly (either through bad wording or players misinterpreting the rule) then that lessens the value of the feedback.

Here’s the deal Gw rules team already clarified it.
Furthermore as a beta rule suggestion the tournament you played is under no obligation to play with that rule. If they chose to play with beta rules then They should both be willing and able to clarify the inevitable questions that come up with that beta rule. Judges should know the rules and not just the FAQs but all the common you make the call scenarios that are not always defined in the rules.
Once the rule gets rewritten and made official I’m sure Gw rulesteam will answer any clarifications. But right now this rule will likely change before becoming official for match play.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with BCB, more or less.

Official rules changes and clarifications are published via the FAQs and Erratas page of Warhammer Community. Anything else, while interesting and potentially useful, isn't official... even if the poster says "Guys, this is totally official." When playing with friends, or when talking to a TO, a social media post might inform the local ruling. However, I (and many other players) only look to the FAQs and Erratas page for official, set in stone rulings. You just can't operate a rule set and have your rulings/faqs/erratas scattered over a variety of sources.

Facebook is a particularly terrible place to publish anything "official", because the posts get lost in the shuffle almost immediately and not only does a large portion of the player base never see the post, but they probably also wouldn't be able to find it even if they knew about it.

To be clear, I agree with BCB on his smokescreen point - facebook should not (and to this point, is not) used to publish official rules changes.

Where I fundamentally disagree with them is on whether this ruling on facebook changes anything at all, because he has yet to demonstrate why all the rules statements contained in the box labeled "Tactical Reserves" are entirely separate statements that apply to completely separate units, while they are grouped and formatted in exactly the same way as several other rules within the main rulebook.

We establish a unit criteria - units which use abilities during deployment to arrive later on the battlefield as reinforcements - and then we have one rule applying to that subset of units.

Then (BCB version) we STOP. Throw out that subset. and apply two more rules that apply to ALL UNITS IN THE GAME AT ALL TIMES that are removed and replaced onto the battlefield.

If we applied this kind of logic to nearly any other section of the rules, the game would completely fall apart, because with each new sentence, GW would need to re-establish which units the sentence applies to.

Ok, let's review the exact wording:

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 [Emphasis added; OK, so we're talking about 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. [Ok, this is updating the Tactical Reserves rules already present in the book.]
-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). [Ok, this is clarifying the units that arrive before the game starts - outside of a turn.]
-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. [No change here.]

The first part references which units can be put into reserve, and how many.
The second part details general game rules, and does not specifically include, or more importantly, EXCLUDE, other units (ie: ones that enter the battlefield other ways "Da Jump"). It's very important to include the fact that they're talking about AS REINFORCEMENTS; during which we will reference those rules (which say units entering the battlefield and being "set-up", can't be outside of the deployment zone T1).
The third part is standard clarification, if they aren't there by the end of the third turn, they're gone.

Your other argument is that this ONLY applies to units being Tatically Reserved, and no other sections, since it's a "closed' box. Well - are you saying that every section MUST include all reference components (what is a die, what is a hit, wound, armor save, etc)?

Or can we agree that just because a part references a rule that's not specifically in it's section, other/second sections can be referenced/affected by the parts in the first?

Ergo... 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). applies to all units entering the battlefield via their own means - and since GSC/Infiltrate stratagems are given the clear; if you enter the field via a method other than those two ("Da Jump", transports), you're limited to your deployment zone T1.

Youre excluding the second requirement with your emphasis: instead of being set up DURING DEPLOYMENT. Omitting this second filter is exactly what causes the silly rules interactions with transports, but it's actually there in the rule whether you willfully ignore it or not.

You set up two criteria for a unit to be affected by any of the three different rules set up by Tactical Reserves: 1, not set up during deployment, and 2, arriving on the board as reinforcements.

A unit disembarking from a transport is not set up on the board, but does not set up as reinforcements.

A unit removed by a psychic power is set up as reinforcements, but not deployed off the board.

There's no difference between this clarification on Facebook or any other clarification because gw did not change the rule in any way. You're just choosing to interpret that because the second statement only references one of the two criteria that it only applies to one of the two criteria.

This is "Designer's commentary are not official rules because it was posted in Warhammer-community" all over again.

 Galas wrote:
This is "Designer's commentary are not official rules because it was posted in Warhammer-community" all over again.

Haha I’d forgotten that little gem. Apt comparison.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you're making up a standard that you don't apply consistently

Aka making stuff up

Why do you treat the errata as rules? Prove it, citing page and graph, quoting directly from the brb

For a rules guy, this should be simple. Care to take up the challenge, or will you dissemble and avoid again?
At least the fifth time of asking.

Just because it isn't in the rulebook doesn't make it not rules. The FAQ page explicitly states it is rules, and is owned by GW, thus official. The codexes are rules. The GW Facebook Page literally tells you it's not rules.

It's clear you have some sort of personal issue against me, thus I shall decline to reply to you in the future.

Wrong, again. The Facebook page says they are not a rules source. This rules clarification on a perfectly operable rule is from the rules team, and is this official regardless of your opinion
Stop falsely representing what is said. Given you have been corrected on this this is now clearly deliberate, and thus dishonest.

Your inability to back up your position, or accept gracefully that you are wrong, is telling.

Here we go again... “it’s clear you have some sort of personal issue with me” is deflection and distraction, an attempt to derail, discredit and rile up. If people feel you keep arguing wrongly then they may bring you up on it. It’s not a “gotcha” and it’s not personal... this forum is about correctly interpreting the rules. If you’re not doing that people might want to discuss that and offer guidance to help you understand where you’ve gone wrong.

Saying “I’m not talking to you anymore” isn’t very useful or productive, and seems like an attempt to tar other posters as unreasonable - this doesn’t actually make you appear more credible, btw. Stick to discussing the rule, politely and calmly, and either engage constructively or just block others.

You really need to demonstrate some backup for your position other than “you feel it isn’t official” when they’ve literally said it’s from the Rules writers. You needle others to do so often enough, so it cuts both ways. You disliking this ruling or it’s source doesn’t change the fact that it is official guidance.

For a beta rule.

That isn’t even rules rules yet.

Maybe accept consensus and care a little less? Send feedback on function of the rule or methods of delivery to the FAQ hotline email.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, you're making up a standard that you don't apply consistently

Aka making stuff up

Why do you treat the errata as rules? Prove it, citing page and graph, quoting directly from the brb

For a rules guy, this should be simple. Care to take up the challenge, or will you dissemble and avoid again?
At least the fifth time of asking.

Just because it isn't in the rulebook doesn't make it not rules. The FAQ page explicitly states it is rules, and is owned by GW, thus official. The codexes are rules. The GW Facebook Page literally tells you it's not rules.

It's clear you have some sort of personal issue against me, thus I shall decline to reply to you in the future.

Wrong, again. The Facebook page says they are not a rules source. This rules clarification on a perfectly operable rule is from the rules team, and is this official regardless of your opinion
Stop falsely representing what is said. Given you have been corrected on this this is now clearly deliberate, and thus dishonest.

Your inability to back up your position, or accept gracefully that you are wrong, is telling.

Given that they say they are not a rules source, if you go by that it would seem that rules clarifications would fall under the purview of "rules source" - clarifying a rule would pertain to the rules as much as posting a new rule. I can see where that would invalidate your argument from BCB/s standpoint. That said, they did check with the rules team, so I wouldn't discount what they posted as not worth considering; it is them relaying how the rules team intended for it to work. It should also have been put in the FAQ section so we wouldn't have needed all this debate in the first place.

As I've said before, though, given they consulted with the rules guys on this, what they posted is certainly BRAI (since we're dealing with a beta rule) and people knowing about it would most likely want to play it that way, since there is the leeway for interpretation of what can and can't ignore the Tactical Reserves rule from the text in the last few sentences before the shaded box. But, since you should be talking to your opponent anyway, decide first if you're using the Tactical Reserves rule in the first place, then decide if you're going to use the exceptions from the Facebook post. Personally I'd play with the post but I wouldn't fault people who didn't because they don't frequent facebook and didn't read it or even if's a case of general principle for someone who wants GW to live up to what they claim about all rules updates and questions being included in the FAQ area in the Warhammer community. I wouldn't assume automatically that the Facebook post is going to automatically be applied during the game; converserly I wouldn't expect it to automatically be ignored during the game either. It's something to talk about. If BCB wants to call that a house rule, that's fine. I'd bet most people would "house rule" it in line with the Facebook post (if they're using the beta rule in the first place - if not, then the FB post is a moot point).

What the Facebook page actually says in regards to rules:

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

So they can't give official answers to rules questions, but they can post rules clarifications from the Games Designers.

 Ghaz wrote:
What the Facebook page actually says in regards to rules:

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

So they can't give official answers to rules questions, but they can post rules clarifications from the Games Designers.

Honey BCBadger don't care.

 Ghaz wrote:
What the Facebook page actually says in regards to rules:

And a quick note on rules questions - we can’t give you official answers. We’re not the Games Designers, they’re locked up in the studio. We might be able to give you some general advice or point you in the right direction but better to try and work it out with your gaming buddies.

So they can't give official answers to rules questions, but they can post rules clarifications from the Games Designers.

I think the issue is that while we all know these are official statements from the rules people, they're not being posted in a place where the average player will see them or where they're easily viewed a week, a month, 6 months from now. GW has a mechanism for putting out rules updates. If they choose NOT to use that mechanism and instead post something to FB... a lot of people will simply not see the ruling OR consider it interesting but not binding until it makes it's way into an official FAQ/Errata stored in the official FAQ/Errata location. GW should really be saying things like "this is how we want the rule to work... expect to see a clarification in an upcoming faq/errata" on social media, but are instead saying simply "this is how we want the rule to work... consider this to be the faq/errata on the subject".

I don't use Facebook and I don't religiously follow Warhammer-Community's daily articles. If I'm looking for rules for my army, I check my Codex and the FAQ/Errata section of Warhammer-Community ONLY. I don't read through every FB post ever written or sift through hundreds of articles.

Oh, I definitely agree that they should have been posted with the beta rule.

Ive repeatedly said it's not the best place, but that doesn't mean is less official.
That's what BCB is deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting.

Official as RAW or official as RAI, though? The GW Facebook guys say they checked with the rules guys, but did the rules guys make the document? Or, was it the Facebook people who whipped it up based on what they are told. Since it hasn't been posted to the FAQ, it might be the latter. So, BCB can argue that it's not RAW (at the same time, disproving his own statement that RAW always = RAI). Most people will play by the intention of what was posted if they know of it.

In this case though, both RAW and RAI align. This has been confirmed not only through a ton of discussion on here but also through GW themselves with their clarification.

The rules designers and community team should not be held accountable because people have misinterpreted rules.

Official as RAW, well raw clarification given the rules already said what they clarified
Saying GW cannot vary how they deliver rules is what lacks any support, fails to be consistent given BCB accepts the community site, and is overall such a bizarre statement from a complete internet nobody that it's actually laughable. Claiming you have authority over the actual games company and can dictate how and where they publish rules is lacking in all credibility it cannot be taken seriously