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.
Now, can you back up your claim that ANY unit that is set up mid turn is reinforcements?
I already did that in this thread, multiple times. I wont bother to repeat myself again.
No, you didn't, because it doesn't say what you think it does, but thanks for your opinion nonetheless. At this point, however, we are just going around in circles so I'll just wish you the best of luck arguing your case in any games you might play.
So the things cited saying "set up" doesn't mean they're set up?
"Set up" certainly means they are set up. What it doesn't mean is that they are always set up as reinforcements.
Except the rules don't actually say that. If they have already been set up earlier they aren't arriving as reinforcements. Confirmed by the changes to the FAQ.
Citation please.
Games Workshop, WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.3, p7, paragraph 1
Now, can you back up your claim that ANY unit that is set up mid turn is reinforcements?
p.7 paragraph 1 of the Rulebook FAQ is discussing whether a unit counts as having moved for purposes of moving and firing Heavy Weapons. That FAQ question and answer makes no mention of reinforcements one way or another. Sorry, your rules citation is incorrect. If you think it applies, please quote the relevant portion of what you referenced.
It is discussing units using a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again. There is no mention of reinforcements one way or another because they are not being set up as reinforcements.
Games Workshop, WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.2, p6, column 2, paragraph 1. Please compare that with the updated FAQ and consider the implications of GW deliberately removing the 2nd sentence in the answer.
Now, can you back up your claim that ANY unit that is set up mid turn is reinforcements?
I already did that in this thread, multiple times. I wont bother to repeat myself again.
No, you didn't, because it doesn't say what you think it does, but thanks for your opinion nonetheless. At this point, however, we are just going around in circles so I'll just wish you the best of luck arguing your case in any games you might play.
So the things cited saying "set up" doesn't mean they're set up?
"Set up" certainly means they are set up. What it doesn't mean is that they are always set up as reinforcements.
The reinforcements sidebar treats units that are set up during a phase in a turn after deployment as refinforcements. Again, please provide a rules quotation that explicitly states that they aren't reinforcements.
Except the rules don't actually say that. If they have already been set up earlier they aren't arriving as reinforcements. Confirmed by the changes to the FAQ.
Citation please.
Games Workshop, WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.3, p7, paragraph 1
Now, can you back up your claim that ANY unit that is set up mid turn is reinforcements?
p.7 paragraph 1 of the Rulebook FAQ is discussing whether a unit counts as having moved for purposes of moving and firing Heavy Weapons. That FAQ question and answer makes no mention of reinforcements one way or another. Sorry, your rules citation is incorrect. If you think it applies, please quote the relevant portion of what you referenced.
It is discussing units using a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again. There is no mention of reinforcements one way or another because they are not being set up as reinforcements.
Lack of mention one way or another does not mean they don not count as that when there is a rule elsewhere that establishes that they are (the reinforcements sidebar).
Tonberry7 wrote: Games Workshop, WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.2, p6, column 2, paragraph 1. Please compare that with the updated FAQ and consider the implications of GW deliberately removing the 2nd sentence in the answer.
Please provide the actual quotation you are referring to. We have no earlier version of the FAQ to refer back to to make such comparisons on their site. Please make everybody's life easier on people by providing actual quotations as opposed to references to things not available on the GW website now.
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes.
Previous:
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/17 21:31:00
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"
That change to the FAQ doesn't change what the rules say. Unless the FAQ is changed to say "They are not treated as reinforcements.", the rules say they do.
Tonberry7 wrote: Games Workshop, WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.2, p6, column 2, paragraph 1. Please compare that with the updated FAQ and consider the implications of GW deliberately removing the 2nd sentence in the answer.
Please provide the actual quotation you are referring to. We have no earlier version of the FAQ to refer back to to make such comparisons on their site. Please make everybody's life easier on people by providing actual quotations as opposed to references to things not available on the GW website now.
You asked for a citation not a quotation. Please make your mind up. If you don't have the earlier version then your opinions throughout have been poorly informed and therefore of little merit.
BaconCatBug wrote: That change to the FAQ doesn't change what the rules say. Unless the FAQ is changed to say "They are not treated as reinforcements.", the rules say they do.
Changes to FAQs are definitely changing what the rules say. Prior to 1.3 these units were treated as reinforcements as explicitly stated. Removal of this statement in 1.3 demonstrates that they are henceforth not to be treated as reinforcements and nowhere else in the rules say that they are. It really is that simple.
Tonberry7 wrote: Changes to FAQs are definitely changing what the rules say. Prior to 1.3 these units were treated as reinforcements as explicitly stated. Removal of this statement in 1.3 demonstrates that they are henceforth not to be treated as reinforcements and nowhere else in the rules say that they are. It really is that simple.
That logic is totally backward. The FAQ now doesn't say one way or the other whether they are reinforcements or not, thus we default to the rules in the rulebook, which say they are.
Tonberry7 wrote: Changes to FAQs are definitely changing what the rules say. Prior to 1.3 these units were treated as reinforcements as explicitly stated. Removal of this statement in 1.3 demonstrates that they are henceforth not to be treated as reinforcements and nowhere else in the rules say that they are. It really is that simple.
That logic is totally backward. The FAQ now doesn't say one way or the other whether they are reinforcements or not, thus we default to the rules in the rulebook, which say they are.
Therefore, they are.
No, the logic is sound. If removing an FAQ statement that defines them as reinforcements is of no relevance or consequence, why deliberately do it? It's a shaky argument, however, to stick your head in the sand and pretend that ruling never existed rather it than having been demonstrably rescinded. In any event, as it stands, the rules now don't say anywhere that they are treated as reinforcements.
Tonberry7 wrote: Changes to FAQs are definitely changing what the rules say. Prior to 1.3 these units were treated as reinforcements as explicitly stated. Removal of this statement in 1.3 demonstrates that they are henceforth not to be treated as reinforcements and nowhere else in the rules say that they are. It really is that simple.
That logic is totally backward. The FAQ now doesn't say one way or the other whether they are reinforcements or not, thus we default to the rules in the rulebook, which say they are.
Therefore, they are.
No, the logic is sound. If removing an FAQ statement that defines them as reinforcements is of no relevance or consequence, why deliberately do it? It's a shaky argument, however, to stick your head in the sand and pretend that ruling never existed rather it than having been demonstrably rescinded. In any event, as it stands, the rules now don't say anywhere that they are treated as reinforcements.
Therefore, they aren't.
The rules LITERALLY say units that are set up mid phase are reinforcements. It is, again, literally explicitly stated. It could not be more clear without GW making an FAQ saying "Are units that are set up mid phase reinforcements? Yes"
Here is the entire sidebar from the core rules, yellow for emphasis.
BRB Page 177 wrote:REINFORCEMENTS Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn, sometimes by using teleporters, grav chutes or other, more esoteric means. Typically, this happens at the end of the Movement phase, but it can also happen during other phases. Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive – their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield – but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.) for the rest of their turn. Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons (pg 180). Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed.
Every single teleport effect in 8th instructs you to set up the unit. You are setting up the unit mid phase. That is what Reinforcements are.
Now, do we have a problem where FAQs contradict the rules of what Reinforcements can do later that turn? Yes and it's well known how I feel about those FAQs. But this particular FAQ does not change anything.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/10/17 23:41:06
You are asserting that all units set up are reinforcements. This is not a correct RAW reading.
Per your quote, all reinforcements are set up mid turn. This does not mean all units set up mid turn are reinforcements. It is a very simple affirming the consequent fallacy.
Units that have already been set up on the board and then re-setup are not reinforcements. It fails the english language test, it fails the FAQ context test as outlined above, it fails the further clarification from GW test.
Sorry Halfpast_Yellow, but your argument isn't logical. No unit entry or rule refers to setting up a unit as reinforcements. They just tell you to setup the unit. So either every unit set up mid-turn are reinforcements or none of them are.
I'm no rules lawyer, and I don't really have any bone in this fight, but it seems to me that this thread is starting to go on a bit, and is becoming a little bit uncivil at times, and it seems to me that we are no closer to actually giving khsofsos an answer to his question. So I'd like, if I may, to try to summarize a few of the main arguments in this thread, and to try to expand upon/counter/question some of them further. Please don't take offense if I don't quote one of your points in this post; I'm just trying to grasp the important ones as I see them. Also please don't take any personal offense if I make an argument against yours. I know its sometimes easy to come across as condescending when communicating using only text, but I assure you that I have nothing but respect for the arguments I am quoting here.
khsofsos wrote:
Spoiler:
Hi everyone. Quick question.
Units that use either Da Jump, Dark Matter Crystal or Veil of Darkness.
Can these units be chosen to move again with an ability in the shooting phase or physic phase. ??
Easiest example is Thousand Sons using Dark Matter Crystal and Warptime.
Is this allowed
Now I personally don't have access to any of the special rules that you mentioned, so I am immediately at a disadvantage and already have to make several (dangerous) assumptions from the get go. That said, a quick google image search, tells me that Da Jump is an Ork psychic ability that allows a unit to be "removed from the battlefield" and then "set up" again, and that this unit counts as "having moved for the purposes of any rules."
It seems to me, that the crux of answering this question lies in whether or not units removed and set up in this way count as reinforcements or not. This seems to be the sticking point that most in this thread are arguing most passionately about. My feeling is that if we could reach some conclusion about this point together, then the answer to your question would be quite trivial. That is, that if the unit counts as reinforcements, then it cannot be moved again for any other reason. However, if said unit does not count as reinforcements, then nothing prohibits them from being moved again.
p5freak wrote:Read the core rule pg.3 reinforcements. Any unit(s) set up mid turn are reinforcements.
The actual wording is, "Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn..." and later, "Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive..."
It does not say specifically that, "Any unit(s) set up mid turn are reinforcements," but I can certainly see how it could be interpreted that way. Personally, I think the language used here is ambiguous, and I have sympathy for both interpretations.
In support of them being reinforcements:
The phrase "set up on the battlefield mid turn" is used and it is in used the context of a rule titled reinforcements
In support of them not being reinforcements:
There is no explicit statement saying that all units set up mid turn are reinforcements
The usual understanding of the word reinforcements would relate to units arriving on the battlefield from elsewhere rather than units that are already present
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes.
Previous:
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements.
I would argue quite firmly, that one should only be required to consider changes between an FAQ and it's source material, rather than each iteration of changes in between. After all, it's not called FAQ 3 of FAQ 2 of FAQ 1 of the Rulebook; it's just FAQ 1.3. To do otherwise would be an excercise in madness. Can you imagine if the FAQ ever reaches 1.23?
That being said, in this instance, the difference is very interesting, and perhaps gives an insight into what the writers were thinking at the time.
In conclusion, I think the only conclusion that can be safely drawn, is that it's extremely difficult to draw any conclusion, safely. On the one hand, by my interpretation, the reinforcements rule does not explicitly define all units that are removed and set up as reinforcements, although the rule itself does contain those words, and coupled with the general interpretation of the word reinforcements, means that, rules-as-written, the new movement is not explicitly forbidden, and therefore must be allowed. On the other hand, such an action seems a bit... filthy if you ask me, and I don't imagine it would make one the most popular player in the room.
The actual solution? Discuss it with your opponent. If you can't agree? Roll off. And as with all things in life, continually ask yourself the question, "is this worth losing a friend over?"
Tonberry7 wrote: Changes to FAQs are definitely changing what the rules say. Prior to 1.3 these units were treated as reinforcements as explicitly stated. Removal of this statement in 1.3 demonstrates that they are henceforth not to be treated as reinforcements and nowhere else in the rules say that they are. It really is that simple.
That logic is totally backward. The FAQ now doesn't say one way or the other whether they are reinforcements or not, thus we default to the rules in the rulebook, which say they are.
Therefore, they are.
No, the logic is sound. If removing an FAQ statement that defines them as reinforcements is of no relevance or consequence, why deliberately do it? It's a shaky argument, however, to stick your head in the sand and pretend that ruling never existed rather it than having been demonstrably rescinded. In any event, as it stands, the rules now don't say anywhere that they are treated as reinforcements.
Therefore, they aren't.
The rules LITERALLY say units that are set up mid phase are reinforcements. It is, again, literally explicitly stated. It could not be more clear without GW making an FAQ saying "Are units that are set up mid phase reinforcements? Yes"
Here is the entire sidebar from the core rules, yellow for emphasis.
BRB Page 177 wrote:REINFORCEMENTS
Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn, sometimes by using teleporters, grav chutes or other, more esoteric means. Typically, this happens at the end of the Movement phase, but it can also happen during other phases. Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive – their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield – but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.) for the rest of their turn. Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons (pg 180). Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed.
Every single teleport effect in 8th instructs you to set up the unit. You are setting up the unit mid phase. That is what Reinforcements are.
Now, do we have a problem where FAQs contradict the rules of what Reinforcements can do later that turn? Yes and it's well known how I feel about those FAQs. But this particular FAQ does not change anything.
Unfortunately you're now making things up to reinforce your opinion. The word literally doesn't mean what you think it means; at no point do the rules state "units that are set up mid phase are reinforcements" It is, therefore, not literally explicitly stated that this is the case as you claim, otherwise you would have been able to apply your yellow highlight to this text.
Again, this particular section was written before things like the DMC existed and so doesn't offer much clarity on this situation. Hence the need for the FAQ.
Tonberry7 wrote: Changes to FAQs are definitely changing what the rules say. Prior to 1.3 these units were treated as reinforcements as explicitly stated. Removal of this statement in 1.3 demonstrates that they are henceforth not to be treated as reinforcements and nowhere else in the rules say that they are. It really is that simple.
That logic is totally backward. The FAQ now doesn't say one way or the other whether they are reinforcements or not, thus we default to the rules in the rulebook, which say they are.
Therefore, they are.
No, the logic is sound. If removing an FAQ statement that defines them as reinforcements is of no relevance or consequence, why deliberately do it? It's a shaky argument, however, to stick your head in the sand and pretend that ruling never existed rather it than having been demonstrably rescinded. In any event, as it stands, the rules now don't say anywhere that they are treated as reinforcements.
Therefore, they aren't.
To be fair, while you have asserted that the FAQ has been changed, you have not demonstrated it.
This is why it's considered bad form to rely on publications which are no longer available as proof; otherwise I could make up a sentence that has been "removed" from the FAQ and post a quote as "obvious proof" of RAI.
Also, I suspect that the sentence in question may have been removed to reduce possible confusion over reinforcement points. We don't know why the designers removed it, so it's potentially misleading to assume it was removed for any given reason and use that as support of one specific position.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/18 07:39:07
Tonberry7 wrote: ...at no point do the rules state "units that are set up mid phase are reinforcements" It is, therefore, not literally explicitly stated that this is the case as you claim, otherwise you would have been able to apply your yellow highlight to this text.
Again, this particular section was written before things like the DMC existed and so doesn't offer much clarity on this situation. Hence the need for the FAQ.
Umm they may not say that exact sentence, but it literally is the case that units that are set up mid phase are reinforcements... Read the whole reinforcements rule.
Battle Primer Page 3 wrote:Reinforcements
Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn, sometimes by using teleporters, grav chutes or other, more esoteric means. Typically, this happens at the end of the Movement phase, but it can also happen during other phases. Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive – their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield – but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.) for the rest of their turn. Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons. Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed.
They say "Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes" What "units" are the talking about here???
Could it be "units [that] have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn"?
A: Yes as the context of the rules literally tell us that they are referring to units that have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn when they mention reinforcements...
The rule is under the "Reinforcements" section of the rules. Therefore any unit that is "set up on the battlefield mid-turn" are "Reinforcements".
Anyone that says otherwise is not making a valid argument as I have a clear rules citation to back up what I have stated.
"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.
Tonberry7 wrote: Changes to FAQs are definitely changing what the rules say. Prior to 1.3 these units were treated as reinforcements as explicitly stated. Removal of this statement in 1.3 demonstrates that they are henceforth not to be treated as reinforcements and nowhere else in the rules say that they are. It really is that simple.
That logic is totally backward. The FAQ now doesn't say one way or the other whether they are reinforcements or not, thus we default to the rules in the rulebook, which say they are.
Therefore, they are.
No, the logic is sound. If removing an FAQ statement that defines them as reinforcements is of no relevance or consequence, why deliberately do it? It's a shaky argument, however, to stick your head in the sand and pretend that ruling never existed rather it than having been demonstrably rescinded. In any event, as it stands, the rules now don't say anywhere that they are treated as reinforcements.
Therefore, they aren't.
To be fair, while you have asserted that the FAQ has been changed, you have not demonstrated it.
This is why it's considered bad form to rely on publications which are no longer available as proof; otherwise I could make up a sentence that has been "removed" from the FAQ and post a quote as "obvious proof" of RAI.
The two different FAQ were kindly posted above, demonstrating the changes. I can only assume you've overlooked that. Agreed, making up sentences and claiming they had been removed would be very bad form.
Hi DeathReaper. Without regard to the FAQs that others have mentioned, I don't think it's certain that you can interpret all units being set up in this way as reinforcements, nor do I think it's certain that you can't. While it's a fair point that sometimes the nature of a rule requires it to be read in full to provide some context, rather than by relying on precise but incomplete individual components of said rule, it seems to me that for this rule in particular, Tonberry is correct to point out that
Tonberry7 wrote: ...at no point do the rules state "units that are set up mid phase are reinforcements"
I think it's unfortunate that the statements you have highlighted
Battle Primer Page 3 wrote:
Spoiler:
Reinforcements
Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn, sometimes by using teleporters, grav chutes or other, more esoteric means. Typically, this happens at the end of the Movement phase, but it can also happen during other phases. Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive – their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield – but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.) for the rest of their turn. Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons. Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed.
serve to confuse the issue further, because although they do all contain the language necessary to define reinforcements as you are interpreting it, those phrases are not constructed together in way that explicitly defines reinforcements in that way.
Anyone that says otherwise is not making a valid argument as I have a clear rules citation to back up what I have stated.
I don't think it's fair to say that the citation is clear. I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong. If anything the depth to which people are arguing here shows that the rule is ambiguous at best. I don't think it would be fair to assume that those who think it's not clear are just not as adept at interpreting rules as others. Nor do I agree with those who would claim that the FAQs put that ambiguity to rest. I think what is required here is a clear FAQ on the precise definition of what constitutes reinforcements.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/10/18 09:41:08
Reinforcements
Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn, sometimes by using teleporters, grav chutes or other, more esoteric means. Typically, this happens at the end of the Movement phase, but it can also happen during other phases. Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive – their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield – but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.) for the rest of their turn. Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons. Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed.
The red line tells us that units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons.
And here is the confirmation by the latest FAQ :
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes.
A unit that is removed from the battlefield and is set up again count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons. Thus, these units are reinforcements.
To be fair, while you have asserted that the FAQ has been changed, you have not demonstrated it.
This is why it's considered bad form to rely on publications which are no longer available as proof; otherwise I could make up a sentence that has been "removed" from the FAQ and post a quote as "obvious proof" of RAI.
The two different FAQ were kindly posted above, demonstrating the changes. I can only assume you've overlooked that. Agreed, making up sentences and claiming they had been removed would be very bad form.
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes.
Previous:
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements.
These aren't links to the FAQs - they're quotes. Importantly, there's no way to verify that the claimed text of the previous FAQ is correct. For example, I could just as easily claim the following as the previous version:
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes. Note that such units do not count as arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements.
This is why I was saying that you had asserted the text instead of demonstrating it. (Admittedly I had missed that the "previous text" was posted by someone else, but the point stands.)
Reinforcements
Many units have the ability to be set up on the battlefield mid-turn, sometimes by using teleporters, grav chutes or other, more esoteric means. Typically, this happens at the end of the Movement phase, but it can also happen during other phases. Units that are set up in this manner cannot move or Advance further during the turn they arrive – their entire Movement phase is used in deploying to the battlefield – but they can otherwise act normally (shoot, charge, etc.) for the rest of their turn. Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved in their Movement phase for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons. Any unit that has not arrived on the battlefield by the end of the battle counts as having been destroyed.
The red line tells us that units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons.
And here is the confirmation by the latest FAQ :
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes.
A unit that is removed from the battlefield and is set up again count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons. Thus, these units are reinforcements.
A crow is a bird, and a pigeon is a bird. Thus, a crow is a pigeon.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/18 10:04:10
A crow is a bird, and a pigeon is a bird. Thus, a crow is a pigeon.
That's a false equivalence I'm afraid.
If the first sentence of the Reinforcements rule isn't defining reinforcements then nothing does. There is nothing else that the sentence "Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having move" can be referring to.
A crow is a bird, and a pigeon is a bird. Thus, a crow is a pigeon.
That's a false equivalence I'm afraid.
If the first sentence of the Reinforcements rule isn't defining reinforcements then nothing does. There is nothing else that the sentence "Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having move" can be referring to.
A crow is a bird, and a pigeon is a bird. Thus, a crow is a pigeon.
That's a false equivalence I'm afraid.
If the first sentence of the Reinforcements rule isn't defining reinforcements then nothing does. There is nothing else that the sentence "Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having move" can be referring to.
Reinforcements is self-defining.
What does that mean? What exactly are Reinforcements then?
A crow is a bird, and a pigeon is a bird. Thus, a crow is a pigeon.
That's a false equivalence I'm afraid.
If the first sentence of the Reinforcements rule isn't defining reinforcements then nothing does. There is nothing else that the sentence "Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having move" can be referring to.
But a unit that is teleporting from one point on the table isn't arriving, is it? It was already on the battlefield. The part about moving and firing heavy weapons only applies to units that are actually arriving through those means, according to a strict reading of the rules.
The issue is that the rules appear to have been written on the assumption that "reinforcements" are units which are not on the table at the start of the game, and are using special rules to join the battle (hence the use of words like "arrive".) Similar language was then used for other abilities which allow units to do short-range teleports mid-battle, and it's not clear whether these are supposed to use the same rules or not.
I personally feel that units teleporting from one point of the battlefield to another mid-battle should be treated in the same way as reinforcements for the purpose of moving, shooting etc, but I don't think the rules as written are incontrovertible. There's definitely some vague language and undefined terminology going on here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/18 10:34:28
A crow is a bird, and a pigeon is a bird. Thus, a crow is a pigeon.
That's a false equivalence I'm afraid.
If the first sentence of the Reinforcements rule isn't defining reinforcements then nothing does. There is nothing else that the sentence "Units that arrive as reinforcements count as having move" can be referring to.
But a unit that is teleporting from one point on the table isn't arriving, is it? It was already on the battlefield. The part about moving and firing heavy weapons only applies to units that are actually arriving through those means.
The issue is that the rules appear to have been written on the assumption that "reinforcements" are units which are not on the table at the start of the game, and are using special rules to join the battle (hence the use of words like "arrive".) Similar language was then used for other abilities which allow units to do short-range teleports mid-battle, and it's not clear whether these are supposed to use the same rules or not.
That's the crux of the issue. I don't have a bias in this, I'm just trying to understand it.
I've not seen a convincing argument that teleported units aren't arriving though. Because they've been taken off the battlefield.
My position is that it needs more clarification, but the default interpretation should be that they are Reinforcements because that fits best with the RAW.
The red line tells us that units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons.
Yes, it does, but it only tell us this. It does not explicitly tell us that they are reinforcements.
And here is the confirmation by the latest FAQ :
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes.
And this statement reaffirms it, but it reaffirms only that they have moved. It does not explicitly tell us that they are reinforcements.
A unit that is removed from the battlefield and is set up again count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons.
Yes.
Thus, these units are reinforcements.
No. Perhaps this is implied, but it is not explicit. The only source I can find that makes this statement explicitly, is you.
Again, I'm not saying that this interpretation is wrong. You're interpretation is supported by the fact that these behaviors (removed and set up) are described in a rule called Reinforcements, but again, nowhere in this rule is it explicitly stated that all units removed and set up this way are reinforcements.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/10/18 10:44:09
The red line tells us that units that arrive as reinforcements count as having moved for all rules purposes, such as shooting Heavy weapons.
Yes, it does, but it only tell us this. It does not explicitly tell us that they are reinforcements.
And here is the confirmation by the latest FAQ :
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes.
And this statement reaffirms it, but it reaffirms only that they have moved. It does not explicitly tell us that they are reinforcements.
A unit that is removed from the battlefield and is set up again count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons.
Yes.
Thus, these units are reinforcements.
No. Perhaps this is implied, but it is not explicit. The only source I can find that makes this statement explicitly, is you.
Again, I'm not saying that this interpretation is wrong. You're interpretation is supported by the fact that these behaviors (removed and set up) are described in a rule called Reinforcements, but again, nowhere in this rule is it explicitly stated that all units removed and set up this way are reinforcements.
That's all well and good, but I don't see any workable definition of Reinforcements presented with rules precedence other than a unit that is set up mid turn.
Unless GW gives further clarification that is what we have to work with.
That's all well and good, but I don't see any workable definition of Reinforcements presented with rules precedence other than a unit that is set up mid turn.
Unless GW gives further clarification that is what we have to work with.
We also have the general understanding of the word reinforcements, which would apply only to units that arrived on the battlefield from somewhere else, as opposed to units that move from one part of the battlefield to another, and we absolutely need further clarification; I don't think anyone disputes that. But what we have to work with, still does not explicitly apply to units moved using Da Jump etc. We can argue that it does by implication, and I'd like to reiterate that I am in favor of that interpretation, but it is not explicit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/18 11:23:55
That's all well and good, but I don't see any workable definition of Reinforcements presented with rules precedence other than a unit that is set up mid turn.
Unless GW gives further clarification that is what we have to work with.
We also have the general understanding of the word reinforcements, which would apply only to units that arrived on the battlefield from somewhere else, as opposed to units that move from one part of the battlefield to another, and we absolutely need further clarification; I don't think anyone disputes that. But what we have to work with, still does not explicitly apply to units moved using Da Jump etc. We can argue that it does by implication, and I'd like to reiterate that I am in favor of that interpretation, but it is not explicit.
Common English interpretation of Reinforcements isn't particularly relevant when we have a passage describing what reinforcements are.
It might not be intuitive, but there are lots of unintuitive things that are clearly how you are supposed to play the game.
Common English interpretation of Reinforcements isn't particularly relevant when we have a passage describing what reinforcements are.
It might not be intuitive, but there are lots of unintuitive things that are clearly how you are supposed to play the game.
Yes, the passage describes Reinforcements, but again, it does not explicitly say that all units removed and set up again are considered reinforcements. It may be implied, it may be unintuitive, it may even be how we are supposed to play, but it is absolutely not clear.
