Upon Wings of fire discussion

[Panzer]

I don't think that's a real decision tho. The turn 2 strike of reserves dropping in at 3" or 6" would be way too devastating.

[masterstrider]

I've been speaking with more people and RAW, Reinforcements and Tactical Reserves are two separate rules with separate effects. So if a unit is deployed on the table at the start of the battle and "teleports" to another position, it's not subject to tactical reserves. Tactical reserves is for units that DO NOT start on the table.

 

Hopefully this is the ruling, but we have to wait for GW to answer this.

 

Addendum: Now to cook your brains. Can you use Descent of Angels in combination with Upon Wings of Fury?

[LutherMax]

It is clear that the intention of this rules amendment is to reign in armies that use tactical reserves to alpha strike and decimate armies on turn 1.

 

Upon Wings of Fury is not that. It can only be used once per turn on one unit, and that unit does not get the benefit of being in reserve (I.e. protected from attack prior to being deployed).

 

I do not think it’s the intention for this to apply to Wings, but really they need to clarify it.

[Ushtarador]

Keep in mind that this is part of the Beta rules of the FAQ, and it is only to be expected that there are plenty of issues and imbalances with the current wording. :)

 

I think that the intention was only to restrict armies from setting up everything in reserves, and bringing all their firepower to bear turn 1. Things like UWOF or da jump are collateral damage and should be exempt from this, I'm confident they will adjust it if enough people suggest to them.

[Palwatch]

Keep in mind that this is part of the Beta rules of the FAQ, and it is only to be expected that there are plenty of issues and imbalances with the current wording.

 

I think that the intention was only to restrict armies from setting up everything in reserves, and bringing all their firepower to bear turn 1. Things like UWOF or da jump are collateral damage and should be exempt from this, I'm confident they will adjust it if enough people suggest to them.

Agreed.

 

Theres a post on WH 40k Facebook page from the team that says strats and psychic powers are still usable, but stops short of saying ...to move into enemy territory

 

For what its worth I have emailed the London GT organisers to see what their interpretation of the rule is as they will be employing the Beta in a tournament Im playing in May

 

I will let you know what they say

[Kappel]

http://www.runekappel.com/Filer/figurer/IMG_3457.PNG

That's the best birthday, I got today!

[Deadnaughty]

1) Thats not the rules writers but the community team

2) A facebook post is not accepted as official in many places.

3) The stratagem is usable, that was never in question. They don't actually answer if you can go outside your deployment zone.

4) GW needs to update their Faq.

[Deathwalker]

Are you saying the FAQ is Faqued? :P

[Calistarius]

Okay. I've been trying to put out fires in Facebook groups over this issue since Monday.  Originally, I thought this was a horribly worded and executed knee jerk reaction that took away something special from a of different armies.  I was disappointed and was resigned to us not being able to use UWoF effectively until turn 2.  Then I started actually reading through EVERYTHING they posted, and comparing it to the opinions of the masses.  I've come to my own decision on this, until they make an official change, which I don't think they actually need to do.  I'll tell you why.

 

First, we cannot apply the second paragraph of the Tactical Reserves entry without applying the first.  If we apply the first paragraph, we see that units already deployed before the game begins are not impacted whatsoever by the confines of the deployment zone.  This is aimed at reining in the countless units with rules like Jump Pack Assault and Teleport Strike.  If they start on the table they are free to use any ability, stratagem or psychic power to move anywhere that ability allows.

 

Second, this Tactical Reserve entry is meant to be used in conjunction with the Reinforcements entry on page 177 of the BRB.  This already established rule is where the limitations for firing heavy weapons and advancing are applied to units that are placed on the battlefield at any point during the game.  We need to look at these entries as if they are separate, because they are.  Units are capable of being labelled as "reinforcements" without arriving from reserves.  Therefore, if we use UWoF then yes they are counted as having moved and cannot advance etc.  They're still not limited to being placed solely in the owning players deployment zone.

 

Third, I've seen countless players referring to the section in the BRB FAQ where it states models once a model is removed from table they count as reinforcements.  This FAQ answer CANNOT be applied to the Tactical Reserves entry.  This separate FAQ answer is an answer from the previous FAQ that was referring to the Reinforcements section of the BRB, which is still in effect.  Also, they would not reference a beta rule when answering any FAQ, because that beta rule isn't official.

 

Final thoughts...it isn't as complicated as we are making it.  Tactical Reserves are ALWAYS considered the Reinforcements mentioned on page 177 (they even use the appropriate terminology), but Reinforcements are NOT the always Tactical Reserves.  I get what they're trying to do, and honestly I like it.  This is a good way of instituting limitations while not completely stripping an army's niche from them.  If your opponent gives you grief, read both paragraphs of the new beta rule with them, and then refer them to the BRB entry.  Explain that they're used simultaneously when they apply.  

[ERJAK]

Okay. I've been trying to put out fires in Facebook groups over this issue since Monday.  Originally, I thought this was a horribly worded and executed knee jerk reaction that took away something special from a of different armies.  I was disappointed and was resigned to us not being able to use UWoF effectively until turn 2.  Then I started actually reading through EVERYTHING they posted, and comparing it to the opinions of the masses.  I've come to my own decision on this, until they make an official change, which I don't think they actually need to do.  I'll tell you why.

 

First, we cannot apply the second paragraph of the Tactical Reserves entry without applying the first.  If we apply the first paragraph, we see that units already deployed before the game begins are not impacted whatsoever by the confines of the deployment zone.  This is aimed at reining in the countless units with rules like Jump Pack Assault and Teleport Strike.  If they start on the table they are free to use any ability, stratagem or psychic power to move anywhere that ability allows.

 

Second, this Tactical Reserve entry is meant to be used in conjunction with the Reinforcements entry on page 177 of the BRB.  This already established rule is where the limitations for firing heavy weapons and advancing are applied to units that are placed on the battlefield at any point during the game.  We need to look at these entries as if they are separate, because they are.  Units are capable of being labelled as "reinforcements" without arriving from reserves.  Therefore, if we use UWoF then yes they are counted as having moved and cannot advance etc.  They're still not limited to being placed solely in the owning players deployment zone.

 

Third, I've seen countless players referring to the section in the BRB FAQ where it states models once a model is removed from table they count as reinforcements.  This FAQ answer CANNOT be applied to the Tactical Reserves entry.  This separate FAQ answer is an answer from the previous FAQ that was referring to the Reinforcements section of the BRB, which is still in effect.  Also, they would not reference a beta rule when answering any FAQ, because that beta rule isn't official.

 

Final thoughts...it isn't as complicated as we are making it.  Tactical Reserves are ALWAYS considered the Reinforcements mentioned on page 177 (they even use the appropriate terminology), but Reinforcements are NOT the always Tactical Reserves.  I get what they're trying to do, and honestly I like it.  This is a good way of instituting limitations while not completely stripping an army's niche from them.  If your opponent gives you grief, read both paragraphs of the new beta rule with them, and then refer them to the BRB entry.  Explain that they're used simultaneously when they apply.  

That's an awful lot of words for 'not as complicated as we're making it'. 

[Calistarius]

 

Okay. I've been trying to put out fires in Facebook groups over this issue since Monday.  Originally, I thought this was a horribly worded and executed knee jerk reaction that took away something special from a of different armies.  I was disappointed and was resigned to us not being able to use UWoF effectively until turn 2.  Then I started actually reading through EVERYTHING they posted, and comparing it to the opinions of the masses.  I've come to my own decision on this, until they make an official change, which I don't think they actually need to do.  I'll tell you why.

 

First, we cannot apply the second paragraph of the Tactical Reserves entry without applying the first.  If we apply the first paragraph, we see that units already deployed before the game begins are not impacted whatsoever by the confines of the deployment zone.  This is aimed at reining in the countless units with rules like Jump Pack Assault and Teleport Strike.  If they start on the table they are free to use any ability, stratagem or psychic power to move anywhere that ability allows.

 

Second, this Tactical Reserve entry is meant to be used in conjunction with the Reinforcements entry on page 177 of the BRB.  This already established rule is where the limitations for firing heavy weapons and advancing are applied to units that are placed on the battlefield at any point during the game.  We need to look at these entries as if they are separate, because they are.  Units are capable of being labelled as "reinforcements" without arriving from reserves.  Therefore, if we use UWoF then yes they are counted as having moved and cannot advance etc.  They're still not limited to being placed solely in the owning players deployment zone.

 

Third, I've seen countless players referring to the section in the BRB FAQ where it states models once a model is removed from table they count as reinforcements.  This FAQ answer CANNOT be applied to the Tactical Reserves entry.  This separate FAQ answer is an answer from the previous FAQ that was referring to the Reinforcements section of the BRB, which is still in effect.  Also, they would not reference a beta rule when answering any FAQ, because that beta rule isn't official.

 

Final thoughts...it isn't as complicated as we are making it.  Tactical Reserves are ALWAYS considered the Reinforcements mentioned on page 177 (they even use the appropriate terminology), but Reinforcements are NOT the always Tactical Reserves.  I get what they're trying to do, and honestly I like it.  This is a good way of instituting limitations while not completely stripping an army's niche from them.  If your opponent gives you grief, read both paragraphs of the new beta rule with them, and then refer them to the BRB entry.  Explain that they're used simultaneously when they apply.  

That's an awful lot of words for 'not as complicated as we're making it'. 

 

That's constructive. TL;DR version for you then...apply both paragraphs of the beta rule, and use the BRB.

[Kappel]

I think your points are really good Calistarius. You put into words a lot of my thoughts.

 

I think it is essential that GW has begun to redefine that units that are re-deployed is not the same as having them arrive from tactical reserves. Therefore they are not restricted by rules that apply to units coming from tactical reserves.

[Palwatch]

We are getting clarification on it soon according to WH40k page. We will shortly be quite happy or very sad

[Deathwalker]

Okay. I've been trying to put out fires in Facebook groups over this issue since Monday.  Originally, I thought this was a horribly worded and executed knee jerk reaction that took away something special from a of different armies.  I was disappointed and was resigned to us not being able to use UWoF effectively until turn 2.  Then I started actually reading through EVERYTHING they posted, and comparing it to the opinions of the masses.  I've come to my own decision on this, until they make an official change, which I don't think they actually need to do.  I'll tell you why.

 

First, we cannot apply the second paragraph of the Tactical Reserves entry without applying the first.  If we apply the first paragraph, we see that units already deployed before the game begins are not impacted whatsoever by the confines of the deployment zone.  This is aimed at reining in the countless units with rules like Jump Pack Assault and Teleport Strike.  If they start on the table they are free to use any ability, stratagem or psychic power to move anywhere that ability allows.

 

Second, this Tactical Reserve entry is meant to be used in conjunction with the Reinforcements entry on page 177 of the BRB.  This already established rule is where the limitations for firing heavy weapons and advancing are applied to units that are placed on the battlefield at any point during the game.  We need to look at these entries as if they are separate, because they are.  Units are capable of being labelled as "reinforcements" without arriving from reserves.  Therefore, if we use UWoF then yes they are counted as having moved and cannot advance etc.  They're still not limited to being placed solely in the owning players deployment zone.

 

Third, I've seen countless players referring to the section in the BRB FAQ where it states models once a model is removed from table they count as reinforcements.  This FAQ answer CANNOT be applied to the Tactical Reserves entry.  This separate FAQ answer is an answer from the previous FAQ that was referring to the Reinforcements section of the BRB, which is still in effect.  Also, they would not reference a beta rule when answering any FAQ, because that beta rule isn't official.

 

Final thoughts...it isn't as complicated as we are making it.  Tactical Reserves are ALWAYS considered the Reinforcements mentioned on page 177 (they even use the appropriate terminology), but Reinforcements are NOT the always Tactical Reserves.  I get what they're trying to do, and honestly I like it.  This is a good way of instituting limitations while not completely stripping an army's niche from them.  If your opponent gives you grief, read both paragraphs of the new beta rule with them, and then refer them to the BRB entry.  Explain that they're used simultaneously when they apply.  

You know what that is brother?

1st to 5th ed rule lawyering

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but a game that prides itself on a 6 page rule book should not need rules lawyers, should it?

[H311fi5h]

The question is, what do you wish for; UWoF first turn, but no DoA OR second turn UWoF with DoA?

I have a feeling we can't have both.

[Calistarius]

It isn’t rule lawyering though. I’m trying to tell everyone to apply the whole dang rule to the units in question. I’m also saying to use the current rule that this one is updating. How is that lawyering anything?!

 

As for not using DoA afterwords, why would that change? They still count as reinforcements and are being set up somewhere else.

[toaae]

I hope this link works, but check it out.

"Like any ability that lets you move an already-deployed unit, it's unaffected by the new beta rule."

I love it, but we really need that directly in an FAQ, and not just from the community team (who can always make mistakes).

[Charlo]

Well that's good enough for me.

[Deadnaughty]

Indeed, its good enough for me but a cleared wording of the faq would be advised.

[roodie]

Yep, in the light of the picture, I stand corrected and now admit the quoted FAQ fragment might not apply to Upon Wings of Fire. Cheers :-D

[Jolemai]

Rather than merge, I'm going to close this and we can continue discussion on the updated thread:

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/346447-upon-wings-of-fire-new-ruling-from-gw/?p=5061533&do=findComment&comment=5061533