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.

I raise you this

https://m.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2013246645662631/?type=3

Facebook also said that anyone who's name starts with B automatically wins their game. Prove me wrong.

Facebook is not the rules. The rules don't support what they are saying. Make an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ, then fine. Until then, what "facebook" claims is both irrelevant and wrong.

Bit more from fb community team
"Well Anthony, we stand by the fact that we here in the Community Team have no influence over the rules. But luckily, this post has been written in collaboration with the studio and reviewed by the rules writers. As such, it's legit. We are not the same team... but we talk to each other. A lot."

There are 3 or more threads about this already.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Facebook also said that anyone who's name starts with B automatically wins their game. Prove me wrong.

Facebook is not the rules. The rules don't support what they are saying. Make an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ, then fine. Until then, what "facebook" claims is both irrelevant and wrong.

Bye, Felicia.

Why isn't Alpha Legion Khorne Berzerkers with "Forward Operatives" on that list?

 Wibe wrote:
Why isn't Alpha Legion Khorne Berzerkers with "Forward Operatives" on that list?

Because the Big FAQ already covered that: "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)."

 Cadian16th wrote:

 Wibe wrote:
Why isn't Alpha Legion Khorne Berzerkers with "Forward Operatives" on that list?

Because the Big FAQ already covered that: "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)."

ohh, I read that part to fast..Of course it affects them as well.t Well, I won't complain about not getting Berzerkers in my face turn one

.. bezerkers will still be in your face. Read it again lol

 Wibe wrote:

 Cadian16th wrote:

 Wibe wrote:
Why isn't Alpha Legion Khorne Berzerkers with "Forward Operatives" on that list?

Because the Big FAQ already covered that: "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)."

ohh, I read that part to fast..Of course it affects them as well.t Well, I won't complain about not getting Berzerkers in my face turn one

Yeah sorry, it looks like it's still valid. Besides even if it did affect them, these are beta rules.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
I raise you this

https://m.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2013246645662631/?type=3

There's already a thread on the first page about this.

They also contradicted it in the comments to that VERY post. RAI seems clear, RAW still broke. See other thread.

Audustum wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
I raise you this

https://m.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2013246645662631/?type=3

There's already a thread on the first page about this.

They also contradicted it in the comments to that VERY post. RAI seems clear, RAW still broke. See other thread.

Both are incredibly clear to everyone.

Read the graphic again.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Audustum wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
I raise you this

https://m.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2013246645662631/?type=3

There's already a thread on the first page about this.

They also contradicted it in the comments to that VERY post. RAI seems clear, RAW still broke. See other thread.

Both are incredibly clear to everyone.

Read the graphic again.

Read the comment they made in the comment chain following the graphic. They literally contradict the graphic.

And there seem to be just as many on both sides so I wouldn't say 'everyone'.

Audustum wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Audustum wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
I raise you this

https://m.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2013246645662631/?type=3

There's already a thread on the first page about this.

They also contradicted it in the comments to that VERY post. RAI seems clear, RAW still broke. See other thread.

Both are incredibly clear to everyone.

Read the graphic again.

Read the comment they made in the comment chain following the graphic. They literally contradict the graphic.

And there seem to be just as many on both sides so I wouldn't say 'everyone'.

K. GW couldn't be more clear on this. Give up. It doesn't matter what you believe to be correct. GW have straight up told you. Da Jump outside of deployment zone turn 1 is legal. Same with any other ability that moves an already placed unit.

I don't need to read any more comments or look at the minutae, the ruling here as far as GW are concerned is clear. End of story.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Audustum wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
I raise you this

https://m.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2013246645662631/?type=3

There's already a thread on the first page about this.

They also contradicted it in the comments to that VERY post. RAI seems clear, RAW still broke. See other thread.

Both are incredibly clear to everyone.

Read the graphic again.

Read the comment they made in the comment chain following the graphic. They literally contradict the graphic.

And there seem to be just as many on both sides so I wouldn't say 'everyone'.

K. GW couldn't be more clear on this. Give up. It doesn't matter what you believe to be correct. GW have straight up told you. Da Jump outside of deployment zone turn 1 is legal. Same with any other ability that moves an already placed unit.

I don't need to read any more comments or look at the minutae, the ruling here as far as GW are concerned is clear. End of story.

"When GW says something I like that's the end of the argument. When they say something I don't like, ignore it, we don't need to read it"

^Your argument^

Audustum wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Audustum wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
I raise you this

https://m.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2013246645662631/?type=3

There's already a thread on the first page about this.

They also contradicted it in the comments to that VERY post. RAI seems clear, RAW still broke. See other thread.

Both are incredibly clear to everyone.

Read the graphic again.

Read the comment they made in the comment chain following the graphic. They literally contradict the graphic.

And there seem to be just as many on both sides so I wouldn't say 'everyone'.

Care to post it so everyone doesn’t have to load FB and filter through things to see if you have a point?

Ive been through a lot of the 736 comments there now are and can’t see any literal direct contradictions. Can you share what you think is?

Audustum wrote:

"When GW says something I like that's the end of the argument. When they say something I don't like, ignore it, we don't need to read it"

^Your argument^

Are you serious? You just described exactly what you are doing. This couldn't be a better representation of your own argument if you tried. The irony here is strong.

I'm not ignoring anything, here's the facts on this matter -
1. GW release FAQ and confusion around a previous FAQ response to something completely different makes some people believe (wrongly) that you can't use psychic powers/stratagems to move a unit outside of the deployment zone turn 1.
2. There's a lot of focus on this issue and people from both sides of the discussion become heated. GW have their attention drawn to it.
3. GW state that units can use these abilities to move around the board turn 1 in a Facebook comment in response to a question.
4. Because the response 'isn't official enough' some people still don't believe it to be correct RAI. This is brought to the attention of GW.
5. GW release a graphic, through official channels, explaining exactly why some psychic powers and stratagems can indeed be used to move units around the board. In the graphic they provide examples and give specific reasons as to why this is the case RAW.
6. A few people still disagree with this because.... reasons? And try to dress it up that 'they understand the rules better' or 'GW can't write a good rule set/are incompetent' etc
7. People move on with their lives, hopefully forgetting that this embarrassing spectacle was ever part of the hobby.

The game is supposed to be fun people. Fun. If you find it fun to argue the minutae about rules and their meaning I suggest you join a debate club or political party or something. Its really sad, if I were interested in the hobby for the first time and ever stumbled across this forum it would put me off big time. This place should encourage new people to join the hobby, not be an opportunity to fight over who can interpret the English language best (hint - An Actual Englishman will always win jk). I'm 99% convinced that many of you would be a lot less aggressive and argumentative IRL. Be like that on here.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Care to post it so everyone doesn’t have to load FB and filter through things to see if you have a point?

Ive been through a lot of the 736 comments there now are and can’t see any literal direct contradictions. Can you share what you think is?

+1 would be useful if we knew the specifics of what he's on about.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Audustum wrote:

"When GW says something I like that's the end of the argument. When they say something I don't like, ignore it, we don't need to read it"

^Your argument^

Are you serious? You just described exactly what you are doing. This couldn't be a better representation of your own argument if you tried. The irony here is strong.

I'm not ignoring anything, here's the facts on this matter -
1. GW release FAQ and confusion around a previous FAQ response to something completely different makes some people believe (wrongly) that you can't use psychic powers/stratagems to move a unit outside of the deployment zone turn 1.
2. There's a lot of focus on this issue and people from both sides of the discussion become heated. GW have their attention drawn to it.
3. GW state that units can use these abilities to move around the board turn 1 in a Facebook comment in response to a question.
4. Because the response 'isn't official enough' some people still don't believe it to be correct RAI. This is brought to the attention of GW.
5. GW release a graphic, through official channels, explaining exactly why some psychic powers and stratagems can indeed be used to move units around the board. In the graphic they provide examples and give specific reasons as to why this is the case RAW.
6. A few people still disagree with this because.... reasons? And try to dress it up that 'they understand the rules better' or 'GW can't write a good rule set/are incompetent' etc
7. People move on with their lives, hopefully forgetting that this embarrassing spectacle was ever part of the hobby.

The game is supposed to be fun people. Fun. If you find it fun to argue the minutae about rules and their meaning I suggest you join a debate club or political party or something. Its really sad, if I were interested in the hobby for the first time and ever stumbled across this forum it would put me off big time. This place should encourage new people to join the hobby, not be an opportunity to fight over who can interpret the English language best (hint - An Actual Englishman will always win jk). I'm 99% convinced that many of you would be a lot less aggressive and argumentative IRL. Be like that on here.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Care to post it so everyone doesn’t have to load FB and filter through things to see if you have a point?

Ive been through a lot of the 736 comments there now are and can’t see any literal direct contradictions. Can you share what you think is?

+1 would be useful if we knew the specifics of what he's on about.

Your summary is cometely off. Most of the people arguing now recognize what the RAI is but are pointing out the RAW is still wrong and/or that GW shouldn't be posting updates through Facebook for an assortment of reasons. Perhaps you wouldn't be so upset about it all if you took the time to actually recognize the other side's stance?

Your request is a good example as well as to why Facebook shouldn't be used for rules updates, yes?

But no, you press on and my summary of your position is as accurate as ever. You yourself said you don't need to delve into minutiae, it wasn't important. By contrast, I was saying you should be willing to read everything.

I'm in the car now but I'll quote it later. The quote I'm referring to IS in my post history, however, because I posted it in General or Tactics. If you really can't wait you can always pull it out from there. Shouldn't be earlier than yesterday so small amount of posts to search.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Audustum wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:
I raise you this

https://m.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/2013246645662631/?type=3

There's already a thread on the first page about this.

They also contradicted it in the comments to that VERY post. RAI seems clear, RAW still broke. See other thread.

Both are incredibly clear to everyone.

Read the graphic again.

Read the comment they made in the comment chain following the graphic. They literally contradict the graphic.

And there seem to be just as many on both sides so I wouldn't say 'everyone'.

Care to post it so everyone doesn’t have to load FB and filter through things to see if you have a point?

Ive been through a lot of the 736 comments there now are and can’t see any literal direct contradictions. Can you share what you think is?

When I get back to a PC yeah, otherwise you can find it in my post history for yesterday.

The gist of it is that they say these units are still arriving.

The rule causing our problems was always Reinforcements, NOT Tactical Reserves, which is why that matters. As I've said in numerous threads, their RAI seems clear but they still haven't actually fixed the RAW problem. We shouldn't expect players to look for FAQ and Errata on Facebook so they need to fix the RAW problem.

Would just be helpful to have the info here for everyone, I don’t fancy searching a post history any more than I do a FB post, tbh. Post up and we can discuss.

This bit?

Here is a thought, why not write rules properly, instead of using "shorthand" that is never defined anywhere?

So far I've seen nothing to indicate that these rules are not RAW nor have I seen anything to suggest that GW have contradicted themselves.

What I have seen is a load of people blowing smoke and overreacting to a rules change.

As has been said by many on here and now GW themselves, a FAQ response regarding one thing does not confer information about another. You should use a FAQ response about moving and firing heavy weapons as exactly that and not try to use it for a dubious argument against something that's clear.

Or maybe don't take an answer out of context?
That would also fix a lot of people's issues. Context matters people.

Here lemme speed things up a bit. Person who thinks RAI and RAW will keep saying that it matches GW's intent and is obvious so only malicious intent can let people misinterpret it. RAW not matching RAI person will then cite the rule and any remotely associated FAQs. Random people will come in and chime to both sides with the most common theme being "its just a beta rule." As the arguments go on longer and longer both sides insinuate more and more things about the other person. RAI won't compromise any fixes because they think the rule is clear to them and for some reason thinks clarifying it is unacceptable. RAW won't compromise since it either matches or it does not with no real in between possible and for some reason is ignoring the fact that GW has stated that they only want data on rules as intended here. Bonus points if the RAI guy will keep stating that the intention is clear and even though the RAW guy does not care if their interpretation matches GWs. Same goes for the other way where the RAW guy will keep citing the rules despite the RAI guy not caring beyond what GW has said in their most recent clarification.The bigger problem is that large tournaments, have already adopted these rules on day 1. GW's RAI would be more than acceptable if it wasn't for that fact.

Audustum wrote:Your summary is cometely off. Most of the people arguing now recognize what the RAI is but are pointing out the RAW is still wrong and/or that GW shouldn't be posting updates through Facebook for an assortment of reasons. Perhaps you wouldn't be so upset about it all if you took the time to actually recognize the other side's stance?

BaconCatBug wrote:Facebook also said that anyone who's name starts with B automatically wins their game. Prove me wrong.

Facebook is not the rules. The rules don't support what they are saying. Make an errata or Special Snowflake FAQ, then fine. Until then, what "facebook" claims is both irrelevant and wrong.

The thing is that we now live in a age where companies can use facebook to answer our questions and since GW clearly wants to do that then they have full rights to do it and, as fans, there is really nothing you can do about it. While I wish they would do it slightly better( an official subreddit or forum), This is just the long and short of it.

BaconCatBug wrote:Here is a thought, why not write rules properly, instead of using "shorthand" that is never defined anywhere?

This is something I actually fully agree with, it would take no time at all to make a glossary of the various terms they use in their FAQS and rules and it would solve a huge percentage of the problems they are having. I honestly get the feeling that when they put out these rules they expect their player base to use common sense and just understand the rules, but if they are going to attach certain definitions to words and use slightly similar words in other FAQS , then a glossary is needed.

DominayTrix wrote:The bigger problem is that large tournaments, have already adopted these rules on day 1. GW's RAI would be more than acceptable if it wasn't for that fact.

This is also something I have issue with, coming from being an MTG player, Wizards had a lot of control over the tournament scene, and GW seems to have almost 0, hell even in their "fix" for the unit spam they label it as a suggestion and say you don't actually have to use it. A major tournament should not be using an untested beta rule end of story. I also find it odd that everyone is so focused on these beta rules, when I saw very little discussion about the smite rule when it was in beta.

Further adding to this I really don't understand what the end goal of the RAI arguments is trying to accomplish. Let's say the RAW guy is correct that it does not match, what happens? GW adds in a line or two of clarification to the rule. What happens if the RAI guy is correct? The rule stays the same without clarification. Now lets look at it if the person who gets their desired outcome was actually wrong. If the RAW guy is wrong but we clarify the rule anyway, we have an extra line or two of unnecessary clarification. If the RAI guy is wrong, we have a rule that does not match the way it is meant to be played on release. What is so bad about having an extra clarification?

Sure. Whatever one thinks about the rule and it's clarity, the amount of discussion makes it obvious, that not everyone interpreted it in the same way, and thus it makes sense to make the wording clearer. But GW has this system and schedule for FAQ's now, so this will not happen until it is time for the next big FAQ or CA. (Assuming that the rule even stays in it's current state. That is not given, the Smite rule was altered from its beta state.)

So I really don't understand what else there is to discuss. We now know how it works, and I'm sure GW knows that the rule lacked some clarity and will update it accordingly in due time. The End.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
This bit?

This is a VERY similar one, but the one I saw said "reinforcements" not "reserves" and was addressed to a different person. I don't think either of those make a difference so thanks Bob! I can't even get screenshots like that.

So the reason this is contradictory is because in this comment the Community Team says you should "treat these units as having arrived from reinforcements/reserves". RAW, that makes them reinforcements regardless of which word you use. Reinforcements are setup on the battlefield sometimes at any part of a turn.

Our new beta rule says that anything which sets up during the first turn can't leave the deployment zone. The beta reserve rule says any unit even though it's under the heading tactical reserves.

Since our Da Jump'ers are removed and setup on the first turn, they are reinforcements which means they can't leave the deployment zone. Thus, the comment contradicts the graphic.

Like I've said, RAI seems pretty clear how they want it to work, but because GW doesn't seem to understand WHERE they're running afoul of their RAW they keep failing to actually fix it. The problem is reinforcements.

Audustum wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
This bit?

This is a VERY similar one, but the one I saw said "reinforcements" not "reserves" and was addressed to a different person. I don't think either of those make a difference so thanks Bob! I can't even get screenshots like that.

So the reason this is contradictory is because in this comment the Community Team says you should "treat these units as having arrived from reinforcements/reserves". RAW, that makes them reinforcements regardless of which word you use. Reinforcements are setup on the battlefield sometimes at any part of a turn.

Our new beta rule says that anything which sets up during the first turn can't leave the deployment zone. The beta reserve rule says any unit even though it's under the heading tactical reserves.

Since our Da Jump'ers are removed and setup on the first turn, they are reinforcements which means they can't leave the deployment zone. Thus, the comment contradicts the graphic.

Like I've said, RAI seems pretty clear how they want it to work, but because GW doesn't seem to understand WHERE they're running afoul of their RAW they keep failing to actually fix it. The problem is reinforcements.

The problem is some people took the:

"treat them as arriving from reserves/reinforcements for the purpose of shooting weapons" to mean "these units are arriving from reinforcements"
[url]
https://m.facebook.com/comment/replies/?ctoken=2013246815662614_2013329708987658&p=9&ft_ent_identifier=2013246815662614&gfid=AQAsEpiuVff-jvcN&refid=13&ref=104&__tn__=R[/url]

Warhammer 40,000
Axel Johnson as we've said above, they are only counted as reinforcements in terms of movement, which the FAQ itself asks. They count as having moved, they cannot be targetted by abilities like Warptime and they will suffer a -1 to Hit penalty with Heavy weapons. It does not preclude them from using abilities like 'Da Jump'. If it did, we would not have included it in the post above.

blaktoof wrote:
The problem is some people took the:

"treat them as arriving from reserves/reinforcements for the purpose of shooting weapons" to mean "these units are arriving from reinforcements"

Warhammer 40,000
Axel Johnson as we've said above, they are only counted as reinforcements in terms of movement, which the FAQ itself asks. They count as having moved, they cannot be targetted by abilities like Warptime and they will suffer a -1 to Hit penalty with Heavy weapons. It does not preclude them from using abilities like 'Da Jump'. If it did, we would not have included it in the post above.

Well since it says "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."

they answer the question of "does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons" with a yes. then go on to say "Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements."

"Such units"? Which units? well "a unit [that] 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"

Any unit that uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again is subject to the restriction. not just " for the purpose of shooting weapons" as you said, because it says "a unit that" which = any unit that...