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.

Here is the beta rule

And again, Facebook is not rules. Random pictures created by interns are not rules. You are free to pretend as such. I'll keep on playing by the rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And again, Facebook is not rules. Random pictures created by interns are not rules. You are free to pretend as such. I'll keep on playing by the rules.

It certainly looks like a rules clarification, issued by Games Workshop. It's your prerogative to treat is as not rules, as it hasn't been published where they keep the FAQs, but it's enough for many people seeing it to accept what the intention of the new rule is.

What's interesting is that even if you use this FAQ, technically you couldn't use Webway Infiltration and then the Dark Matter Crystal. What was posted on Facebook says "but this rule doesn't apply to any units that are set up during deployment". It does NOT say "this rule doesn't apply to any units that have been set up". They did not give any examples of a unit that arrived from reinforcements during the first turn and then used an ability, psychic power, stratagem or whatever to be moved out of the deployment zone. According to what this says, you can only apply those to units that were set up during deployment. So, examples like da Jump are fine if the units involved started the game on the board, but it would not apply to units not set up during deployment but are having their (initial) set up during turn 1.

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And again, Facebook is not rules. Random pictures created by interns are not rules. You are free to pretend as such. I'll keep on playing by the rules.

It certainly looks like a rules clarification, issued by Games Workshop. It's your prerogative to treat is as not rules, as it hasn't been published where they keep the FAQs, but it's enough for many people seeing it to accept what the intention of the new rule is.

What's interesting is that even if you use this FAQ, technically you couldn't use Webway Infiltration and then the Dark Matter Crystal. What was posted on Facebook says "but this rule doesn't apply to any units that are set up during deployment". It does NOT say "this rule doesn't apply to any units that have been set up". They did not give any examples of a unit that arrived from reinforcements during the first turn and then used an ability, psychic power, stratagem or whatever to be moved out of the deployment zone. According to what this says, you can only apply those to units that were set up during deployment. So, examples like da Jump are fine if the units involved started the game on the board, but it would not apply to units not set up during deployment but are having their (initial) set up during turn 1.

Ok so by that logic if I make a facebook post saying "All people who have a name beginning with B automatically win" on it and slap the GW logo on it, that's rules? Call me old fashioned, but to me only the Rulebooks, Codexes and FAQ/Errata for them are rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And again, Facebook is not rules. Random pictures created by interns are not rules. You are free to pretend as such. I'll keep on playing by the rules.

It certainly looks like a rules clarification, issued by Games Workshop. It's your prerogative to treat is as not rules, as it hasn't been published where they keep the FAQs, but it's enough for many people seeing it to accept what the intention of the new rule is.

What's interesting is that even if you use this FAQ, technically you couldn't use Webway Infiltration and then the Dark Matter Crystal. What was posted on Facebook says "but this rule doesn't apply to any units that are set up during deployment". It does NOT say "this rule doesn't apply to any units that have been set up". They did not give any examples of a unit that arrived from reinforcements during the first turn and then used an ability, psychic power, stratagem or whatever to be moved out of the deployment zone. According to what this says, you can only apply those to units that were set up during deployment. So, examples like da Jump are fine if the units involved started the game on the board, but it would not apply to units not set up during deployment but are having their (initial) set up during turn 1.

Ok so by that logic if I make a facebook post saying "All people who have a name beginning with B automatically win" on it and slap the GW logo on it, that's rules? Call me old fashioned, but to me only the Rulebooks, Codexes and FAQ/Errata for them are rules.

If you do it from GW's official facebook account. Yes. Coincidentally, just last week I started spelling my name with a silent 'B'. It's now bJoshua.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And again, Facebook is not rules. Random pictures created by interns are not rules. You are free to pretend as such. I'll keep on playing by the rules.

It certainly looks like a rules clarification, issued by Games Workshop. It's your prerogative to treat is as not rules, as it hasn't been published where they keep the FAQs, but it's enough for many people seeing it to accept what the intention of the new rule is.

What's interesting is that even if you use this FAQ, technically you couldn't use Webway Infiltration and then the Dark Matter Crystal. What was posted on Facebook says "but this rule doesn't apply to any units that are set up during deployment". It does NOT say "this rule doesn't apply to any units that have been set up". They did not give any examples of a unit that arrived from reinforcements during the first turn and then used an ability, psychic power, stratagem or whatever to be moved out of the deployment zone. According to what this says, you can only apply those to units that were set up during deployment. So, examples like da Jump are fine if the units involved started the game on the board, but it would not apply to units not set up during deployment but are having their (initial) set up during turn 1.

Ok so by that logic if I make a facebook post saying "All people who have a name beginning with B automatically win" on it and slap the GW logo on it, that's rules? Call me old fashioned, but to me only the Rulebooks, Codexes and FAQ/Errata for them are rules.

It's rules if you get GW to post it on their Facebook page. though (as I said before) "unofficial" rules in that they're not posted in the FAQ section. Just making a random page? No. We're talking about pages that GW posts on their facebook site though, that's different from just a random person making up their own kaka.

EDIT: Has not read deviantduck's reply before posting - Ninja'd!

 doctortom wrote:
No. We're talking about pages that GW posts on their facebook site though, that's different from just a random person making up their own kaka.

And this is where we fundamentally disagree. Some random social media intern posting on Facebook/MySpace/Twitter/Instagram is not rules, any more than me making a picture in MS paint is rules.

Yes, we disagree. The people running the GW Facebook page aren't just "some random social media intern", they are representing the company when they post on Facebook. It's not just some yobbo at Billy Bob's 40K Emporium And Bait Shop putting up a post on their own website and trying to claim it's an official GW post.

 doctortom wrote:
Yes, we disagree. The people running the GW Facebook page aren't just "some random social media intern", they are representing the company when they post on Facebook. It's not just some yobbo at Billy Bob's 40K Emporium And Bait Shop putting up a post on their own website and trying to claim it's an official GW post.

Why bother playing by ANY of the rules if you're going to just ignore the ones you don't like? If you want free-form nonsense you have D&D for that. This is a board game with a set of rules to follow.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Yes, we disagree. The people running the GW Facebook page aren't just "some random social media intern", they are representing the company when they post on Facebook. It's not just some yobbo at Billy Bob's 40K Emporium And Bait Shop putting up a post on their own website and trying to claim it's an official GW post.

Why bother playing by ANY of the rules if you're going to just ignore the ones you don't like? If you want free-form nonsense you have D&D for that. This is a board game with a set of rules to follow.

You lost me on this one. What rule is Dr bTom ignoring? If anything you're ignoring the legitimate GW FB post that cites examples of how the new beta rules work.

 deviantduck wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Yes, we disagree. The people running the GW Facebook page aren't just "some random social media intern", they are representing the company when they post on Facebook. It's not just some yobbo at Billy Bob's 40K Emporium And Bait Shop putting up a post on their own website and trying to claim it's an official GW post.

Why bother playing by ANY of the rules if you're going to just ignore the ones you don't like? If you want free-form nonsense you have D&D for that. This is a board game with a set of rules to follow.

You lost me on this one. What rule is Dr bTom ignoring? If anything you're ignoring the legitimate GW FB post that cites examples of how the new beta rules work.

Again, Facebook is NOT RULES. I don't know how much clearer I can get on that. The Facebook page LITERALLY says it's not rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Yes, we disagree. The people running the GW Facebook page aren't just "some random social media intern", they are representing the company when they post on Facebook. It's not just some yobbo at Billy Bob's 40K Emporium And Bait Shop putting up a post on their own website and trying to claim it's an official GW post.

Why bother playing by ANY of the rules if you're going to just ignore the ones you don't like? If you want free-form nonsense you have D&D for that. This is a board game with a set of rules to follow.

That's a disingenuous statement. Accepting statements clarifying rules that the company who makes the game puts out on their own Facebook page is not suddenly ignoring the rules I don't like and wanting "free-form nonsense". You are not helping your argument one iota by making such comparisons. I am following rules, and I'm not the one putting his fingers in his ears going "Na na na na na I can't HEAR you!" when the company is telling us how one of its rules work. You might not like how the rule is disseminated (and quite frankly that is a flaw that GW has that they need to address, these things should be quickly put up on the FAQ page as well), but there are many people willing to take GW's statements about their rules as how they work, and play them that way. I doubt you'll see many, if any, major tournaments not following the rules as they clarified.

The issue with the Facebook post is some people think that the post is an additional errata, or clarification. It is just giving examples of results of the rules as written for the errata.

It is true that Facebook has not officially been called an official rules source, but it is disenginous to state that the Facebook post is an eratta of the big faq and is a new set of rules. The examples from the Facebook quote are all valid from the erratta without the Facebook post.

It's the same misrepresentation BCB makes every time this comes up, because it punctures their view on rules and they can't accept it.

blaktoof wrote:
The issue with the Facebook post is some people think that the post is an additional errata, or clarification. It is just giving examples of results of the rules as written for the errata

Which is funny because RaW Da Jump is affected, so the Facebook page is actually wrong. GW getting their own rules wrong when asked? Did I time travel to 1993 and asked the Roolz Boyz again?

I think we’ve had this thread before...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I think we’ve had this thread before...

It's deja vu all over again.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The issue with the Facebook post is some people think that the post is an additional errata, or clarification. It is just giving examples of results of the rules as written for the errata

Which is funny because RaW Da Jump is affected, so the Facebook page is actually wrong. GW getting their own rules wrong when asked? Did I time travel to 1993 and asked the Roolz Boyz again?

Everything you said is simply untrue unless you try to apply the tactical reserves rules to units that are not using tactical reserves.

blaktoof wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The issue with the Facebook post is some people think that the post is an additional errata, or clarification. It is just giving examples of results of the rules as written for the errata

Which is funny because RaW Da Jump is affected, so the Facebook page is actually wrong. GW getting their own rules wrong when asked? Did I time travel to 1993 and asked the Roolz Boyz again?

Everything you said is simply untrue unless you try to apply the tactical reserves rules to units that are not using tactical reserves.

Everything I said is true because the beta Tactical Reserves rule applies to ANY unit that arrives onto the battlefield, not just those that were deployed elsewhere.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The issue with the Facebook post is some people think that the post is an additional errata, or clarification. It is just giving examples of results of the rules as written for the errata

Which is funny because RaW Da Jump is affected, so the Facebook page is actually wrong. GW getting their own rules wrong when asked? Did I time travel to 1993 and asked the Roolz Boyz again?

Everything you said is simply untrue unless you try to apply the tactical reserves rules to units that are not using tactical reserves.

Everything I said is true because the beta Tactical Reserves rule applies to ANY unit that arrives onto the battlefield, not just those that were deployed elsewhere.

Not according to the actual rules as written, or the comments about the rules by the people who write the rules preceeding it in the big faq, or the marketing piece on Facebook listing some types of units unaffected and affected by said rules.

The rule has always been clear things like Da Jump, GoI etc

As stated in the info graphic the tactical reserves beta rule effects units that have not yet deployed. Units that have already started on the table (ie - arrived) are not affected by the rule.

To answer Raven's question RAW yes you can place units elsewhere on the board as long as they have already arrived on the table.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The rule has always been clear things like Da Jump, GoI etc

As stated in the info graphic the tactical reserves beta rule effects units that have not yet deployed. Units that have already started on the table (ie - arrived) are not affected by the rule.

To answer Raven's question RAW yes you can place units elsewhere on the board as long as they have already arrived on the table.

That's RAW according to Facebook. Which I accept, but it's sill not good practice. They should do an actual FAQ.

blaktoof wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The issue with the Facebook post is some people think that the post is an additional errata, or clarification. It is just giving examples of results of the rules as written for the errata

Which is funny because RaW Da Jump is affected, so the Facebook page is actually wrong. GW getting their own rules wrong when asked? Did I time travel to 1993 and asked the Roolz Boyz again?

Everything you said is simply untrue unless you try to apply the tactical reserves rules to units that are not using tactical reserves.

Everything I said is true because the beta Tactical Reserves rule applies to ANY unit that arrives onto the battlefield, not just those that were deployed elsewhere.

Not according to the actual rules as written, or the comments about the rules by the people who write the rules preceeding it in the big faq, or the marketing piece on Facebook listing some types of units unaffected and affected by said rules.

Do you actually know what Rules as Written means? Because it's clear from your posting that you do not.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The rule has always been clear things like Da Jump, GoI etc

As stated in the info graphic the tactical reserves beta rule effects units that have not yet deployed. Units that have already started on the table (ie - arrived) are not affected by the rule.

To answer Raven's question RAW yes you can place units elsewhere on the board as long as they have already arrived on the table.

That's RAW according to Facebook. Which I accept, but it's sill not good practice. They should do an actual FAQ.

No it isn't.

All the Facebook info graphic does is explain the rule in no uncertain terms for those who cannot or do not follow the BRB, FAQs and beta rules.

It gives no new meaning or ruling if its own, it merely explains the existing rules and how that interact for those who were struggling.

But... That's not true. That's not even close to true.

The RAW of the beta rule affects Da Jump and all the rest.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But... That's not true. That's not even close to true.

The RAW of the beta rule affects Da Jump and all the rest.

It is entirely true. Completely, in fact.

RAW the beta rule does not effect Da Jump etc, see my first post in this thread, my many other posts on dakka regarding the topic or the GW info graphic top paragraph for why this is the case.

You are a perfect example of someone for whom the info graphic was made.

E - spelling.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But... That's not true. That's not even close to true.

The RAW of the beta rule affects Da Jump and all the rest.

It is entirely true. Completely, in fact.

RAW the beta rule does not effect Da Jump etc, see my first post in this thread, my many other posts on dakka regarding the topic or the GW info graphic top paragraph for why this is the case.

You are a perfect example of someone for whom the info graphic was made.

E - spelling.

Firstly it's "affect" not "effect". Secondly, the RaW of the beta rule does affect Da Jump, because the rule says it does.

So, when Da Jump says to "Remove them from the battlefield", they are NOT set up on the battlefield mid-turn immediately after?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But... That's not true. That's not even close to true.

The RAW of the beta rule affects Da Jump and all the rest.

It is entirely true. Completely, in fact.

RAW the beta rule does not effect Da Jump etc, see my first post in this thread, my many other posts on dakka regarding the topic or the GW info graphic top paragraph for why this is the case.

You are a perfect example of someone for whom the info graphic was made.

E - spelling.

Firstly it's "affect" not "effect". Secondly, the RaW of the beta rule does affect Da Jump, because the rule says it does.

Firstly I'm on my.phone so you'll have to forgive the spelling mistakes.
Secondly you are entirely wrong, please show me where the beta rule says it affects Da Jump and not, as multiple posters on here and even GW through the info graphic have shown you, units that have not previously ARRIVED on the battlefield.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, when Da Jump says to "Remove them from the battlefield", they are NOT set up on the battlefield mid-turn immediately after?

They are not ARRIVING as they have already arrived. Hence the rule does not apply. As the Facebook post clearly states.

So the whole "Removed from the battlefield" is... Fluff text?