Deep strike and Combat squads

[Gravidian]

Can you deep strike a 10-man marine unit (assault marines, terminators etc) and then combat squad them? I know you can’t combat squad, leave one half on the table and leave one in reserve, but can you combat squad after deep striking??

[Duncndisorderly]

I think you have to declare combat squads at the beggining of the game and as such would only be able to deepstrike them as 5 man units but im sure those who know better can confirm or rebuff this as appropriate

[WillyRapier]

I think you have to declare combat squads at the beggining of the game and as such would only be able to deepstrike them as 5 man units but im sure those who know better can confirm or rebuff this as appropriate

Quite right; Squads can choose to split up before the game starts, but as of the beginning of the game, they are treated as separate entities. So Reserve role separately, deep strike separately, scatter (and mishap...) separately...

[Tynskel]

Quite right; Squads can choose to split up before the game starts, but as of the beginning of the game, they are treated as separate entities. So Reserve role separately, deep strike separately, scatter (and mishap...) separately...

actually, not any more.

The FAQ for Space Marines changed how combat squads work. You declare combat squads when they are actually placed onto the board.

Ex. roll reserves for BA 10 man Assault Squad. The successfully enter. Declare Combat Squad, deep strike each 5 man unit separately.



this method, screws razorback units. Because you cannot start in the Razorback as a 10 man unit, and so the 10 man unit and the razorback are rolled separately for reserves.

[Culven]

The FAQ for Space Marines changed how combat squads work.
That isn't a change, it is just a clarification. The Combat Squads rule states the Unit can split when it i Deployed. It has always been the case that a Unit Deployed before the first turn could split, and a Unit placed in Reserves couldn't split until it arrived on the battlefield since that is when it was Deployed.

[Foreigner]

When the unit arrives on the table via deepstrike they may combat squad. The unit is placed as a whole in reserves, rolled for as a single entity, and DEPLOYS via deepstrike, allowing them to split into combat squads (and even land in different places).

The FAQ clarifies the fact that you may not split a unit half in reserves and half on the board.

Tynskel has it.

[KingStuart]

How does this work with attached Characters? Presumably you can attach as many characters as possible and choose which of the combat squad they stay with.

[Mycroft Holmes]

How does this work with attached Characters? Presumably you can attach as many characters as possible and choose which of the combat squad they stay with.

Correct. The decision about what models go into which combat squad is made at deployment.


Attach two IC to a ten man SM unit and put it in reserves
roll for the whole group as a single unit
Succeed in a Reserves roll
Choose to combat squad the unit
Choose which models go into which combat squad
Attach ICs as you see fit
Deploy 2 units

[Tynskel]

That isn't a change, it is just a clarification. The Combat Squads rule states the Unit can split when it i Deployed. It has always been the case that a Unit Deployed before the first turn could split, and a Unit placed in Reserves couldn't split until it arrived on the battlefield since that is when it was Deployed.

In my mind it was a rules change. In your mind it was clarification. There's a long thread on that one.

There are plenty of people who consider the Deployment Phase of the game deploying all units, whether onto the board or into Reserves. This FAQ was a rules change for them, changing all tactics and uses of the units.

[bluesickboy]

straight out of the BA FAQ:
"Q: Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man squad and
then put a combat squad in it, deploying the other combat
squad on the table, or leave it in reserve but not in the
Drop Pod? (p32)
A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not
break down into combat squads."

[SeattleDV8]

In my mind it was a rules change. In your mind it was clarification. There's a long thread on that one.

There are plenty of people who consider the Deployment Phase of the game deploying all units, whether onto the board or into Reserves. This FAQ was a rules change for them, changing all tactics and uses of the units.

When placing models in reserve it was clearly stated they 'were not deployed'.
It's just a lot of people misread, or misunderstood the rules.
It was a clarification, because no rules were changed.

[Tynskel]

When placing models in reserve it was clearly stated they 'were not deployed'.
It's just a lot of people misread, or misunderstood the rules.
It was a clarification, because no rules were changed.

no, it was clearly stated they were not deployed onto the board. This is called context, something people often forget about when using 'RAW'. The view of 'RAW' sometimes forgets about all the previous rules. If you continue reading the section, and how the reserves are used, it is clear that units were deployed into reserves.

This was a rules change.

There was a whole thread on this. Something like 200 posts, most of them flame attacks (I may have been the flamer winner, oh wait...)

[Eusebius Rex]

The FAQ for Space Marines changed how combat squads work. You declare combat squads when they are actually placed onto the board.

Ex. roll reserves for BA 10 man Assault Squad. The successfully enter. Declare Combat Squad, deep strike each 5 man unit separately.


I loved reading this - how did the crow taste?

I win.

[Culven]

In my mind it was a rules change. In your mind it was clarification. There's a long thread on that one.
There are plenty of people who consider the Deployment Phase of the game deploying all units, whether onto the board or into Reserves. This FAQ was a rules change for them, changing all tactics and uses of the units.
I remember that thread. I still don't understand how one can claim that a Unit that isn't Deployed (" . . . players may choose not to deploy one or more of the units in their army . . .", rulebook, p. 94), has been Deployed. However, we don't need to get into it again. You have your interpretation, I have mine.

[Tynskel]

This had to do with:
1) the section's context. The reference frame being the board.
2) the wording for reserves
3) how the use of the word reserves changes between pre-game and in-game.

This is an interpretation of the rules, backed up by the rules themselves, hence RAW. To me, it is just another example that RAW is not a 'tight' as people believe it is.

[Tynskel]

I loved reading this - how did the crow taste?

I win.

bwahahah!
Someone likes to keep a grudge.

What did you win? +10 Internets?

Since that FAQ came out, I now ask my opponents if we want to play using the FAQ wording or not. When I am not playing at a tournament, most people I play with never even realized that the FAQ changed how they played the game. They just kept on playing the same way I have been playing.

[hisdudeness]

When placing models in reserve it was clearly stated they 'were not deployed'.
It's just a lot of people misread, or misunderstood the rules.
It was a clarification, because no rules were changed.

Don't get him started on this. We went around on this for a very long time a while back.

[Tynskel]

Don't get him started on this. We went around on this for a very long time a while back.

we don't need to get me started. People can search the forums and find the 200+ post thread. There are not too many that have that many posts.

In my own self inflated ego way, I like to think that GW singled me out and ruled specifically against me.

:)



However, it does go to show: GW would not have FAQed this if it weren't for a FAQ. Many many many people were playing the way I was playing, and in their minds, it was correct. GW decided that they play the game differently.

[Culven]

However, it does go to show: GW would not have FAQed this if it weren't for a FAQ. Many many many people were playing the way I was playing, and in their minds, it was correct. GW decided that they play the game differently.
To me, the FAQ seemed to only be intended to verify that a Unit could not be split with half Deployed and the other half placed in Reserve. It doesn't even address whether Units placed in Reserve counts as Deployed for the Combat Squad rule.

[bluesickboy]

To me, the FAQ seemed to only be intended to verify that a Unit could not be split with half Deployed and the other half placed in Reserve. It doesn't even address whether Units placed in Reserve counts as Deployed for the Combat Squad rule.

A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not
break down into combat squads.

[Tynskel]

A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not
break down into combat squads.

Yeah, that's the kicker right there. This means that they are one whole unit until they are called from reserves. Which is a shame, because that means the unit must be separated from their dedicated transport if you want to be able to combat squad them when they enter the board.

For example:

You have a 10 man Space Marine Tactical Squad and a dedicated transport Rhino. If you reserve both the 10 man squad and the Rhino, and declare that the squad is embarked in the Rhino, when you come in from reserves, you have automatically denied yourself the ability to use Combat Squads. The unit is embarked on the vehicle, and you cannot have 2 units in one vehicle.

The only way to be able to combat squad is if you Do Not embark in reserves. However, at this point, the rhino is a separate unit for reserve rolls, and you may not have your transport when you enter (or the opposite, may not have a unit to embark when entering from reserves).

I think this is a really dumb way to play, and defeats the purpose of Combat Squads: flexibility.
This is even worse for Razorbacks, and 10 Man Terminator squads with Land Raiders.

Then think about the restriction to movement. Assuming you managed to bring in both the squad and the transport in the same reserve roll: Blood Angel 10 Man Tactical squad and Razorback enters the board. The 10 man squad combat squads.
1) You cannot use your 18" move for the razorback if you want to embark half the squad.
2) You cannot use your 12" move if you want to embark half the squad.

So, now you have lost some of your movement, and, of course, you had to come from reserves, so you have lost turns.

[bluesickboy]

Yeah, that's the kicker right there. This means that they are one whole unit until they are called from reserves. Which is a shame, because that means the unit must be separated from their dedicated transport if you want to be able to combat squad them when they enter the board.

For example:

You have a 10 man Space Marine Tactical Squad and a dedicated transport Rhino. If you reserve both the 10 man squad and the Rhino, and declare that the squad is embarked in the Rhino, when you come in from reserves, you have automatically denied yourself the ability to use Combat Squads. The unit is embarked on the vehicle, and you cannot have 2 units in one vehicle.

The only way to be able to combat squad is if you Do Not embark in reserves. However, at this point, the rhino is a separate unit for reserve rolls, and you may not have your transport when you enter (or the opposite, may not have a unit to embark when entering from reserves).

I think this is a really dumb way to play, and defeats the purpose of Combat Squads: flexibility.

A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not
break down into combat squads.

i guess im missing the part that says if your in reserve you can come in from reserves and combat squad.
this all sounds pretty cut and dry with that answer from the BA FAQ.

[Tynskel]

A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not
break down into combat squads.

i guess im missing the part that says if your in reserve you can come in from reserves and combat squad.
this all sounds pretty cut and dry with that answer from the BA FAQ.

you are missing the point:
you cannot combat squad if you have already declared the unit embarked in a transport. You cannot have 2 units in one transport.

you cannot determine whether your transport will enter at the same time as your unit if you do not embark the unit. They are separate units for reserve rolls.

if you have 10 man terminator squad with land raider, you cannot have them embarked in the land raider, and worse, your terminators are forced to walk if you want to use the dedicated transport.

The point is that combat squads, with the FAQ ruling, makes no sense when you purchase a dedicated transport.

The only transport option for reserves that combat squads works for is the Drop Pod.

[SeattleDV8]

A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not
break down into combat squads.

i guess im missing the part that says if your in reserve you can come in from reserves and combat squad.
this all sounds pretty cut and dry with that answer from the BA FAQ.

A unit placed in reserve is 'not deployed', and as so may not combat squad at that point.
Once you roll for reserves and the unit comes on, at that point you may combat squad because that is when you deploy the unit.

It's simply a matter of timing.

[Brad]

Hmmm sounds like a RAW and RAI arguement all over again.... will watch with great enthusiasm to see which wins this time....NOT!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

[wkz]

A unit placed in reserve is 'not deployed', and as so may not combat squad at that point.
Once you roll for reserves and the unit comes on, at that point you may combat squad because that is when you deploy the unit.

It's simply a matter of timing.
And:
- A unit that has been declared to come in with a transport WILL come in with the transport. So at that point they're inside said transport (because they cannot combat squad beforehand).
- At that point they can combat squad to become 2 units. However at that point... they're both inside a transport. ONE transport.

You MUST be inside the transport (because you declared it), BUT 2 units cannot be in 1 transport.

Thus: combat squadding a unit in a transport becomes "making an illegal move", and thus is not allowed. Think of it as the reserved Space Marines emphasizing speed over tactics, as they're late to the party...

... At least that's how my gaming group plays it.



Note: The only reason why combat squad works for Droppods is because (from memory) the unit is DEPLOYED only after the droppod hits the table.

Via correct but weird rules interpretation the droppod has not actually carried/transported the unit it is bought for, but rather the droppod creates a one-use, "transport-like", immediate use, 100% accuracy deepstrike deployment zone for that dedicated unit only. As the unit is being "deployed" at that very moment, it can combat-squad.

[Tynskel]

this goes along with my previous interpretation that Drop pods are more like pre-game deployment mechanics, as opposed to in-game deployment mechanics.

[wkz]

this goes along with my previous interpretation that Drop pods are more like pre-game deployment mechanics, as opposed to in-game deployment mechanics.
It is actually still in-game deployment. Just that the "deployment into a vehicle" as with any other vehicle have been shifted/changed into "deployment after vehicle has appeared on the table" for the droppod

[Tynskel]

It is actually still in-game deployment. Just that the "deployment into a vehicle" as with any other vehicle have been shifted/changed into "deployment after vehicle has appeared on the table" for the droppod

Hah, but that is exactly the difference between in-game and Pre-game deployment.

[EnglishInquisition]

Well, if this one's doing the rounds again, this is what clarifies it for me; SM faq

Q. If I have two or more special characters that exchange
the rule Combat Tactics for another one, when must I
decide which to use? Does it have to be on the army list or
can I decide before each game? (p51)
A. Decide before each game starts. You will need to let
your opponent know once the mission and deployment
type have been decided but before any units have been
deployed.

Even GW think that deployment is done in the deployment phase.

[Tynskel]

Well, if this one's doing the rounds again, this is what clarifies it for me; SM faq

Q. If I have two or more special characters that exchange
the rule Combat Tactics for another one, when must I
decide which to use? Does it have to be on the army list or
can I decide before each game? (p51)
A. Decide before each game starts. You will need to let
your opponent know once the mission and deployment
type have been decided but before any units have been
deployed.

Even GW think that deployment is done in the deployment phase.

Agreed, but their FAQ for Combat Squads contradicts this.

[wkz]

Well, if this one's doing the rounds again, this is what clarifies it for me; SM faq

Q. If I have two or more special characters that exchange
the rule Combat Tactics for another one, when must I
decide which to use? Does it have to be on the army list or
can I decide before each game? (p51)
A. Decide before each game starts. You will need to let
your opponent know once the mission and deployment
type have been decided but before any units have been
deployed.

Even GW think that deployment is done in the deployment phase.

Note:
- Deploying units is different from deploying an army. But this note is moot, because...

- the bolded point in the quote above suggests that DEPLOYMENT TYPE and deployment of units are separate things. BUT it says nothing about the deployment of units itself... all it says is "before you put down any units, decide your chapter tactics"

- The above FAQ does not say ANYTHING about when you deploy after the deployment type is decided. i.e. I can argue that BOTH acts of (a) putting a unit on the table in pre-game AND (b) putting a unit at turn 5 are BOTH "units have been deployed", and both actually happens after deployment type have been decided.

Also, explain this:
Deepstrike, paragraph 1 last sentence, pg 95: "...Roll for arrival of these units as specified in the rules for reserves and then deploy them as follows."

If deployment is strictly done in "Turn 0", why such wording for deepstrike?

[Tynskel]

you should look up the previous forum post about combat squads.

My point of view is essentially such that deploy has two different meanings between in-game and pre-game.

Pre-game, deploy has the strategic meaning: there isn't movement, and everything is positions, on or off the board, for strategic purposes.

In-game, deploy has a tactical meaning: moving is directly involved. Everything is being redirected for immediate tactical advantage.

Completely different rules associated with the word deploy between in-game and pre-game.

[wkz]

Ah, I get it, you guys are arguing in a context I'm not in, using some conversation history I have no idea about...
...
??!??!??

"Deploy" is "deploy" dude, stop making it so complex. There's a reason why Combat Squads works the same when you put models in your deployment zone in "Turn Zero" and when you put models from the table edge in turn 5. True, you have to use the unit's "move" (or other movement skills/abilities, such as Deepstrike) in order to get onto the table in Turn 5, but the act of "deploying" (make a unit exist on the table) is the same in both cases.

And before we start, units in a transport exists in a "Schroedinger's funky existence" state (seriously, wtf? NOTHING can affect them?!?), but for all intents and purposes they're deployed into the game when their transport hits the table...

If there's such a big difference between both types of "deploy", Combat Squads as a rule will cease working in either one or the other. You either wouldn't be able to combat squad when you're deploying devastators in "Turn 0", or you wouldn't be able to combat squad a deepstriking Assault squad, for example... and that is clearly wrong.

[Tynskel]

you should look up the definition of deploy. There are tons. Split between tactical and strategic meanings.

The rulebook does not define 'deploy', therefore you would use the context of the situation to aide defining deploy.

Once again, (I say this, because I have said this on this topic a lot already) if you read the forums, combat squads the uses the strategic meaning of deploy, especially since the drop pods usage is similar to pre-game use (strategic), eg, pre-game.


This goes back to pointing out how the FAQ use of combat squads is basically dumb. The rule is to add flexibility to your squads, but the instant you take a transport, the flexibility becomes voided.

[wkz]

....
....
....
....
Ok. This I got to disagree with you Mr T (even when we used different paths to reach the same conclusion).

Basically, you're saying there's different meanings to "deploy", thus some things work for some rules, and other things don't work even with the same word?


So, I should kit out my Space Marines with miniaturized Nerf-gun bullets, because in most meanings of the word "Shoot", a projectile MUST be produced? Sure, there's all them dice rolling and all that, but unless those little plastic men can fling little plastic projectiles around, they're not shooting, so they can't shoot?

Similarly, when a unit is "destroyed" I should take those models and stomp on it until it is in pieces, otherwise they're not destroyed? I should remove from table and pack up every single model that is lost and "Not in Game" immediately back into its transport/storage immediately before continuing my game? Calling a WAAAGH actually consist of shouting WAAAGH!! At the Top Of Their LUNGS??

(Oh wait, all the ork players I know do that last bit anyways...)

Yes, there is the dictionary meaning of deploy. There are a LOT of meanings for deploy. But to use every single meaning of every single word, verb or noun when arguing the rules is approaching stupidness. YES, we move the models. NO we do not lose our homes when that happens (go from one place of residence to another (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/move)). YES, we declare shooting. NO we do insult the opposing player's poor grasp of rules for every single unit we have on the table (to disparage, reject, or expose as false or inadequate; debunk (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shoot)). YES units can fall back. NO we do not suddenly ask some random guy in the FLGS for help ("something or someone to turn or return to, especially for help or as an alternative (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fall+back)")

And YES we deploy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deploy) the models. No, deploy/deployment does not mean putting flying stands on your landspeeder ("to come into a position ready for use: the plane can't land unless the landing gear deploys"), nor does it mean changing the position of every single other unit/model on the table ("redistribute (forces) to or within a given area").

What a word ultimately means depends on its context: Deploy simply means what it does, but until the the context is derived I can simply say: "you're the first player, thus if you don't fly to Iraq to stand beside our troops you auto-lose in the deployment phase".

And the context is clear: The title of the entire bloody section is called "Deploy Forces". And we're playing a game with little plastic men, on a table full of cardboard and plastic. What "Deploy" means in the rulebook is clear: Deploy means "Put little plastic stuff onto the table". ANY action that "Puts little plastic stuff onto the table" is called "Deploying". There are no strategic, military or tactical meanings to this act. Just put your little plastic stuff ONTO the table.

After that, the restrictions of the word will make sense: You rolled "6" on turn 2. The act called "deploy" activates. Units declared inside transports need to be Deployed. They are Deployed on the table. Other Units enter via a rule called deepstrike. They too are Deployed on the table. Etc, etc etc...

Relax, Deployment is not that hard to understand, and you do not need to call up one of the real world Military/para-Military/mercenary organization to your FLGS and point guns at everyone just to play a game of 40k. It is, ultimately ONE single action game-wise, there is no strategic, millitary, etc... meaning to the word. When the game says "deploy" it really should only have one meaning unless specified otherwise (see: Game/player turns), and you really shouldn't read too many meanings into the word.

[SeattleDV8]

Yawn, your idea of what 'deploy' meant was incorrect, Tynskel.
You were, as you are prone to, overthinking it.
It really is very very simple.
You deploy when the unit hits the table,and all of the context in the rules back this up.
Most of the units will be deployed in the 'deployment phase' but the ones that have not are still waiting to be deployed.
The FAQ just makes it even clearer.

[hisdudeness]

SeattleDV8 and wkz....your going to get him started again. He has a different view of deploy that he will not change.

In the end I agree, a unit is deployed when it hits the table. This is the simplest way to look at it and causes the least disruption to the rules system.

I have seen his biggest reason for disagreement is that you cannot combat a squad if it is in a transport if placed in reserves. (i.e. a 10 man squad with a rhino in reserves.) [see post #35]

Even the the simple word of "instead" did not change his view. I would stop before this becomes another 200+ post thread.

:D

[Tynskel]

Deploy has changes in rules between in-game and pre-game, where as destroyed and shooting do not.

That's the point.
There are changes in context too.
Therefore you must interpret how to use deploy.

My choice is to use the context of the rules. It is RAW. I am using the situation that the rules describe to appropriately use the proper definition of deploy.

[wkz]

Deploy has changes in rules between in-game and pre-game, where as destroyed and shooting do not.

That's the point.
There are changes in context too.
Therefore you must interpret how to use deploy.

My choice is to use the context of the rules. It is RAW. I am using the situation that the rules describe to appropriately use the proper definition of deploy.
Yup, I've set him off. Just as planned...

Here's the thing, Mr T: WHERE is this change in context written?


(good) Rules Writing 101 states that keywords are important in any ruleset, and most if not all the words in a rulebook does is to (a) define the keyword, and (b) define where it is used.

For example, MOVE is a keyword. It refers to (in 40k's case pages 11 to 14), FIRE is another keyword (pages 15 to 26), etc...

Any (good) rules will also modifications to the rules, by acting on such keywords. For example RUN (page 16) acts on the keyword SHOOT by saying "... units may choose to RUN instead of FIRING..."

And we come to the keyword DEPLOY. This keyword appears in page 3, 7, 13, 18, 45, 64, 72~73, 76~77, 82~84, 86~90 and 93.

...


...
Alright, Mr T, given your irritating tendency to ask your argument opponents for page numbers and direct quotes as proof, can it HURT you to even PROVIDE a single example?? Its right in front of me, in BLACK AND WHITE SENTENCE FORM, and oh so easily quotable to instantly crush arguments.
...
You're a bloody lazy, poor, sad debater that's for sure.
...

I think Mr Lazy T's main point of argument lies in the fact that the keyword "Deploy" is used in 2 different major context:
- With regards to deploying the entire army: "Before/During deployment", "who deploys first", "Deploy forces", "Both sides have deployed" etc.

- Here's the painful part: "Deploy" is also used in regards to Transport Vehicles, in 2 cases. "Each model is Deployed within 2" of... access points,..." and "emergency disembarkation - the models are deployed..." (page 64).
There's another "deploy" in page 64, but given that it is used for the Transport vehicle itself, the earlier meaning of "Deploy" would be the one used.


Now here's the thing: Mr Lazy T stated there are "tactical" and "strategic" meanings to Deployment. I would say he's using big words in the absolute wrong way, and causing confusion up and down *...
...but he is correct in the fact there are 2 meanings to the keyword "Deploy" (thanks to GW and their reuse-abuse of rules keywords. That's NOT good rules writing). They have the meanings Army Deployment, and Model Disembarkation.

* Strategic actually means "Strategy", the big picture. Tactical refers to tactics used, the "how to" to perform strategic goals. You can refer to any deployment as Strategic or Tactical... but in reality each and every deployment, with regards to armed forces, is done with BOTH in mind at the same time (especially in 40k) : Each little plastic man you deploy on the table is strategically chosen and tactically placed to perform a goal.

As said before in one of my earlier posts:

...If there's such a big difference between both types of "deploy", Combat Squads as a rule will cease working in either one or the other. You either wouldn't be able to combat squad when you're deploying devastators in "Turn 0", or you wouldn't be able to combat squad a deepstriking Assault squad, for example... and that is clearly wrong.
And now there are 2 meanings, so we use any rule which affects "deploy" for only for one, or the other...

So basically, my stance is still unchanged: Combat Squads is quite clearly referring to Army Deployment instead of Model Disembarkation. So apply the codex rule Combat Squads to any Army Deployment, and everything settles itself...

... My understanding of the rules only changed in one case: Droppods uses the word "deploy", but it is clearly in the context of transport vehicles' Model Disembarkation. Thus, droppoded units hitting the table CANNOT use Combat Squads. (unless I missed an FAQ or sentence somewhere)

As for Mr Lazy T's complaint about losing versatility... well... to put it mildly, it is a TACTICAL choice to choose between versatility (Combat Squadding) or mobility (Vehicular Speed), so work your STRATEGY around this interesting choice (which other more advanced, more "experienced" armies would kill to have, just saying) and stop complaining.

[Tynskel]

any particular Mr weakz is using Mr Lazy T?

Oh, I know, because I am lazy. Go look up the 200 posts from last summer. I go through the entire section. Deploy is not a keyword the way 'move' is used. The rulebook defines 'move'. The rulebook does not define 'deploy'- hence again, you must use the context to define what version of the dictionary definition of deploy you are using.

[SeattleDV8]

Oh please, man up, you were wrong Mr. T .
GW even came out with a FAQ that proves you were wrong.
I don't care about your silly *** way of looking at 'context' because you are wrong.

Got it? Wrong, wrong ,wrong.

I thought I was correct only moving SM 6" after a ATSKNF regrouping.
I was wrong.
See , it not hard to admit you made a mistake.
Didn't matter how much 'RAW' i thought I had on my side, because I was wrong.
You have zero RAW on your side if GW tells us you are wrong.

[Tynskel]

oh, I already admitted I was wrong.

However, that doesn't stop me from arguing the syntax before the FAQ.


No, the GW FAQ does not fix the outstanding questions that the FAQ ruling makes no logical sense according to how they wrote their rules.

Like some laws in the record books: making talking on cellphones illegal, but talking on cellphones with bluetooth legal, even though they both cause the same amount of accidents.

[wkz]

any particular Mr weakz is using Mr Lazy T?

Oh, I know, because I am lazy. Go look up the 200 posts from last summer. I go through the entire section. Deploy is not a keyword the way 'move' is used. The rulebook defines 'move'. The rulebook does not define 'deploy'- hence again, you must use the context to define what version of the dictionary definition of deploy you are using.

A) For a person who has the strength to type "go look up an old thread" (and said thread being 200 posts long if the above is to be believed, which will require a significant time to read through and get the gist of... not to mention finding said thread in the first place), you can't even type out the ONE sentence in the rulebook which will explain your stance completely?? Especially seeing you keep asking people to type lengthy quotes, complete with page numbers, sentence location paragraph number and section title, from your argument opponents??

Mr Lazy T indeed.

B) Deploy IS a keyword, despite what you think. Its like "Firing" : it does not seem like a keyword at first, but when you notice the entire rulebook is using fire instead of shoot, firing instead of shooting, etc...

C) Rules 101: you do not use the dictionary to help you, EVER. And even if you do, you make sure to explain what you mean. Also, the rulebook does define the word, it is under the heading "Deploy forces" in the "Missions" section of the rulebook.

This is similar to all the other keywords: Move in "Movement phase" actually does appear out of the blue. But immediately afterwards, all sorts of meanings are stacked on top of Move (6" movement, when you enter this thing called Difficult Terrain, do this. Unit coherency, Etc...)

Similarly, Deploy appears out of the blue, immediately followed by the Rulebook stacking meaning and rules on top of the word. USE that meaning, instead of any other.

And even without that, the meaning YOU'RE using (strategic and tactical deployment) have ABSOLUTELY no differences as said in my previous post, and only serves to confuse.



oh, I already admitted I was wrong. Wait what?? Then why argue your OLD, WRONG point in this thread as if you're correct???


However, that doesn't stop me from arguing the syntax before the FAQ.

No, the GW FAQ does not fix the outstanding questions that the FAQ ruling makes no logical sense according to how they wrote their rules.
Ah... ... ... again: Then why argue your OLD, WRONG point in this thread as if you're correct???

That specific FAQ makes PERFECT sense, provided you're looking at deployment correctly (and "deployment" in this case meaning ARMY DEPLOYMENT and not VEHICLE DISEMBARK). It does show one thing: you're just refusing to get in line with the original meaning as corrected by the FAQ, and thus the FAQ goes against your grain...



Like some laws in the record books: making talking on cellphones illegal, but talking on cellphones with bluetooth legal, even though they both cause the same amount of accidents.
Before we start: better learned people from you AND me made those laws. Make a move to get the law changed and/or call it illogical, yes. BUT as long as it is written in black and white, respect the law. But I digress...

"both cause the same amount of accidents" . Where in what world did you get such a conclusive evidence of "the same amount of accidents"? Care to link us to your awesomesauce survey site's findings?

Lastly, IIRC, talking on cellphones with bluetooth is (a) freeing up the hands, so the person is able to react a LOT faster than one with a cellphone occupying one hand, and (b) for the police is a hell lot harder to catch offenders (aka: are you SURE talking on cellphones with bluetooth is legal?)

[Tynskel]

don't use a dictionary? eh? Really now? Then how do you know what the book is saying?

Any word that is not explicitly defined by the rulebook uses the dictionary definition. If the definition of the word is has multiple meanings, then you must use the context of the sentence to understand which definition to use.

the word fire could be 'to shoot' it could also mean 'to remove from a position'. In the case of the rulebook, it is directly related to shooting because the rules use fire and shoot in each other's place. Deploy is not used this way. It changes in almost every instance. You cannot tell me that deploy is the major keyword when the meaning changes every time.

How I define deploy, in the case of combat squads, is by looking at the wording of the rule, and looking at the wording for the drop pods. The way combat squads is worded is that it matches the most with the wording with pre-game use of deploy. In that case, I only apply combat squads to that use of deploy. Any other use of the word deploy is ignored in the case of combat squads.

[SeattleDV8]

Sigh.....
Anytime anyone starts using the dictionary in a GW rules debate they are generally on the wrong track.

[wkz]

don't use a dictionary? eh? Really now? Then how do you know what the book is saying?
I donno, because I can remember the BASE meanings of the word from memory, and does not need a dictionary as a crutch?

Also: Oh ouch, you're actually wanting combat squads from droppods and transports instead of denying?


Any word that is not explicitly defined by the rulebook uses the dictionary definition. If the definition of the word is has multiple meanings, then you must use the context of the sentence to understand which definition to use.

the word fire could be 'to shoot' it could also mean 'to remove from a position'. In the case of the rulebook, it is directly related to shooting because the rules use fire and shoot in each other's place. Deploy is not used this way. It changes in almost every instance. You cannot tell me that deploy is the major keyword when the meaning changes every time. And I call out your massive amounts of bull**** in this case: If the word "Deploy" changes in almost every instance... well, there are more than 15 occurrences of the word Deploy as used in describing rules. Give me 15 different meanings as used in those specific instances, or stop with the exaggeration (page numbers of those appearances can be obtained from a prior post of mine)

Deploy actually has one "master" meaning in the context of the rulebook: put models on the table. All the meanings for Deploy as used in the rules matches this. The context is quite clear in this case.

Also, there are 2 very specific sub-meanings:

Sub-meaning #1 - ARMY DEPLOYMENT
Sub-meaning #2 - VEHICLE DISEMBARK

EVERY SINGLE word "deploy" (as used in describing the rules) follow one or the other quite specifically. The context is so easy to derive its not even funny... I would like you to state how in the WORLD did you even manage to find a 3rd meaning from the sentences.

Also:

How I define deploy, in the case of combat squads, is by looking at the wording of the rule, and looking at the wording for the drop pods. The way combat squads is worded is that it matches the most with the wording with pre-game use of deploy. In that case, I only apply combat squads to that use of deploy. Any other use of the word deploy is ignored in the case of combat squads.I call out bull**** number #2: If you have eyes at all, the wording for deploy in the case of Droppods is the wording of deployment using transports. In fact, IIRC, the words "as if disembarking from a transport" is somewhere in there. Quote the passage if you want to, I'm sure this is the correct case.

Except for the fact it uses the letters D-E-P-L-O-Y to spell the word "deploy", the Droppod rules for deployment of its troops does not even closely resemble the pre-game use/context/meaning of deploy.

You DO NOT deploy 2 combat squads from a Rhino because they're stuck in the transport (and thus cannot combat squad at that moment). Thus, you cannot deploy 2 combat squads from a Droppod.

As said again: Versatility through Combat Squads, or Speed through Transports/Droppods. Stop trying to warp the rules... because if you continue, you're essentially saying: I can combat squad out of a transport, because it uses the word 'deploy' F@*# the FAQ, F@*# GW.
... which is clearly wrong.


PS: Of course, if you really want your space marines to be awesomesauce mc-sauce, simply find someone who agrees with your interpretation and play with him. I wonder if you can find someone willing to let you change major parts of the rules so your army can outperform his thou. Seriously.


Edit: And before anyone makes a note of it: yes, I have changed my position, starting from my prior post (#40) of this thread. My current position: Droppods AND transports cannot combat squad (Deepstriking units can combat squad thou)

It is ironic that I found my error and opposing viewpoint by AGREEING with Mr T in the (erroneous) end result, but disagreeing with his almost insane explanation on why the result is so...

[Tynskel]

Where I play, this is how everyone uses deploy.

Deploy in the setup and in the in-game have two different uses. I have already told you that one is dealing with tactics the other is dealing with strategic placement.

Drop pods use the strategic definition of deploy, which is in line with the Pre-game use of deploy. I suggest re-reading the game setup rules all the way through bringing in reserves. Turret deep strike rules are also similar to Pre-game use of rules, which is consistent with the dropped rules.

Your argument about deploying from vehicles is exactly my argument: that is a tactical use of deploy, and combat squads is a strategic use of deploy. This further supports that the drop pod deep strike is a strategic decision, because the only way to deploy the drop pod is into reserves.

[Culven]

Where I play, this is how everyone uses deploy. Deploy in the setup and in the in-game have two different uses.
Even if there are or are not two uses of "deploy" within the different contexts, why does it matter? The fact that the term "deploy" is used is sufficient to trigger the Combat Squad ability to split the Unit. So, all we need to do is determine whether the Unit has made use of "deploy" by refering to the rules which pertain to the situation at hand. Before the game, a Unit may deploy (and trigger Combat Squad) or be placed in Reserve. When a Unit enters play from Reserve, the Reserves rules state that the Unit is Deployed, thus triggers Combat Squads. Drop Pods and Disembarking also refer to Deploy. So, they would also trigger Combat Squads. Now, we need to determine if there are any specific rules which disallow the general rules of "deploy" .'. "combat squads". I honestly can't recall the rules which pertain to the restrictions, and I don't have them to hand, but it isn't really relevant since the debate is whether "deploy" = "deploy" as far as Combat Squads is concerned.

[hisdudeness]

Here is a link to the 24 page thread on the subject that Tynskel referred to.

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=6439

[Tynskel]

Even if there are or are not two uses of "deploy" within the different contexts, why does it matter? The fact that the term "deploy" is used is sufficient to trigger the Combat Squad ability to split the Unit. So, all we need to do is determine whether the Unit has made use of "deploy" by refering to the rules which pertain to the situation at hand. Before the game, a Unit may deploy (and trigger Combat Squad) or be placed in Reserve. When a Unit enters play from Reserve, the Reserves rules state that the Unit is Deployed, thus triggers Combat Squads. Drop Pods and Disembarking also refer to Deploy. So, they would also trigger Combat Squads. Now, we need to determine if there are any specific rules which disallow the general rules of "deploy" .'. "combat squads". I honestly can't recall the rules which pertain to the restrictions, and I don't have them to hand, but it isn't really relevant since the debate is whether "deploy" = "deploy" as far as Combat Squads is concerned.

that's a point of view statement. This depends on how strict or loose you use the rules.

The group I play with is strict with rules interpretations. The simple change of the use of the word 'deploy', in my group, changes rules mechanics.

Still RAW. This is why I think the 'RAW' argument is bunk in most cases, because you still have to define your terms when the rulebook does not define them for you.

[wkz]

I donno, your RAW seems to be a diseased, RAI-infected Nurgle spawnling who'd run around trying to hug "friends"... plus seriously, I have learnt the English language, so I know... but you need a dictionary everywhere you go? Just for simple words such as "Shoot", "Move" and "Deploy"?? o.0


Deploy in the setup and in the in-game have two different uses. I have already told you that one is dealing with tactics the other is dealing with strategic placement.
And once again those two words can be so meaningless in the context of a wargame that you're only confusing the HECK out of people.

Note: this is wrong. See below Also, you might want to read the droppod rules themselves. Yes, the droppod rules say "deepstrike", but the same cannot be said of the units pouring out of said droppod immediately after. The droppod and the units they carry uses the two very different meanings of "Deploy". Note: this is wrong. See below

Either you use one meaning of the word Deploy for Combat Squads, or the other. Or, as Culven said, you fix your use to BOTH cases, as both cases uses the word Deploy. If you strictly wants to use RAW with a dictionary, that's the way to go.

Note: this is wrong. See below What you're doing, Mr T, is using one variant of Vehicle Disembark deploy allowed under combat squads, and the other variant of Vehicle Disembark deploy NOT allowed under combat squads. This is so utterly wrong its not funny.Note: this is wrong. See below


(@Culven: You make a good point, but I disagree with you only because of one major point: Can a 10 men Tactical squad jump into a Rhino at turn 2, zoom forward... and then "deploy" out of said Rhino as two 5 men squads? Thus, I believe there are 2 major meanings to the word "Deploy")


Edit:... can someone reproduce the rules for droppods here? I am working with a lot of IIRC for the droppods themselves...
Edit #2: N'mind, found a source...
Edit #3: Well, I'll be damned... making a double post now.

[Nabterayl]

Culven, I think in this case that's the right way to think about it. In this particular case, the type of deployment we are talking about is irrelevant.

Here's how I see the results of various things players might want to do, using that rubric:


Can a ten-man squad be deployed in a Rhino held in Reserve and combat squad immediately upon entering the table? No, because the moment the embarked squad's Rhino hits the table, it has deployed, and must choose at that instant whether or not to split into combat squads. It cannot split at that point because to do so would be to have two units embarked on a transport, and splitting into combat squads does not permit movement, still less disembarkation. Hence, at the instant the squad must choose, the only valid option is to choose not to split into combat squads.
Can a ten-man squad be deployed in a drop pod and combat squad upon the drop pod's arrival on the table? No, for the same reason as above.
Can a ten-man squad be deployed in a drop pod and combat squad upon disembarking the drop pod? Yes, because the Combat Squads special rule permits a squad to decide whether or not to split upon disembarking from a drop pod.
Can a ten-man squad be split into combat squads, one combat squad embarked in the squad's Razorback and the other held in Reserve on foot or in another, non-dedicated transport? No, for the same reason a squad may not be split, one unit embarking on the squad's drop pod and the other being held in Reserve on foot or in another, non-dedicated transport.
Can a ten-man squad be split into combat squads, both units of which are held in Reserve? No, because a squad held in Reserve has not deployed.

I'm a little confused about what people are arguing about here, other than the meaning of "deploy." Is there an argument anybody would like to make that a ten-man squad can combat squad upon disembarking from a Rhino, or that a ten-man squad with a dedicated Razorback may place half the squad into a Razorback held in Reserve?

[Tynskel]

I am not arguing the FAQ.

I disagree with the FAQ, because the logic behind it makes no sense.

Does this mean that I don't play with that specific FAQ? Whenever I can, yeah. My gaming group does not agree with that particular ruling, so we don't use it. We instead just use how the rules are written in the rulebook.

[wkz]

Mr LAZY T!! Yet ANOTHER single sentence to ultimately KO your opponent in round 1 of a boxing match*, and you didn't take it!???

Combat Squads: The decision to splot the unit into combat squads... must be made when the unit is deployed .... The one exception ... unit that arrives by Drop pod. The player can choose to split... when it disembarks from the drop pod.

You can throw away your dictionary, Mr T. I doubt you need it to explain something this clear in clear black and white.

And good for you for ignoring the FAQ. After all, what the FAQ says IS stated in black and white above, in PURE RAW. Then again, if your gaming group agrees with you... go ahead, have fun. (no sarcasm intended here)

(*fun fact: yes, there were SEVERAL 1 round, KO'ed boxing matches. All of them were famous and awesome...)




... (block of rules)...
I'm a little confused about what people are arguing about here, other than the meaning of "deploy." Is there an argument anybody would like to make that a ten-man squad can combat squad upon disembarking from a Rhino, or that a ten-man squad with a dedicated Razorback may place half the squad into a Razorback held in Reserve?Nabterayl, your view is correct.

As with most threads, there are several parallel arguments going on here:

Mr T wants "ten-man squad with a dedicated Razorback may place half the squad into a Razorback held in Reserve" and other forms of combat-squadding while in reserves.

Culven is arguing "a ten-man squad can combat squad upon disembarking from a Rhino" by using "deploy" as "deploy" (Vehicle Disembark Deploy and Army Deployment Deploy

And I am apparently flip-flopping like a mofo high on something (with regards to Droppods, correct, wrong and then correct again... well, that's what I get if I base my arguement off IIRC, and I DON'T remember correctly...)

... although my general outlook on the rules IS exactly similar to your block of rules.

[Tynskel]

uh, what?

No, from our reading of the rulebook, which is justified from the rules, is that all deployment occurs in the deployment phase. This is in line with both how reserves and the forces on the board.

What I am pointing out is that the exception for the droppod is consistent with all units being deployed in the Deployment phase.

[Nabterayl]

Mr T wants "ten-man squad with a dedicated Razorback may place half the squad into a Razorback held in Reserve"

Culven is arguing "a ten-man squad can combat squad upon disembarking from a Rhino"

Ah yes, the old "holding a unit in Reserve is deploying it" argument. I remember it now. Sorry, been a while since I've been around.

Culven, if wkz is correct about your point of view, I think you're wrong for the reasons stated above. While it is true that disembarking from a unit is a species of deployment, by the time the unit can disembark it has already been deployed once, and thus had to make the call about whether to split or stay as one unit. Absent a special rule (such as the Combat Squads exception for drop pods) it cannot then change its mind, no matter how many times it is deployed during the course of a game. If it were otherwise the Combat Squads special rule would not need to make an exception for drop pods.

[Tynskel]

Ah yes, the old "holding a unit in Reserve is deploying it" argument. I remember it now. Sorry, been a while since I've been around.

Culven, if wkz is correct about your point of view, I think you're wrong for the reasons stated above. While it is true that disembarking from a unit is a species of deployment, by the time the unit can disembark it has already been deployed once, and thus had to make the call about whether to split or stay as one unit. Absent a special rule (such as the Combat Squads exception for drop pods) it cannot then change its mind, no matter how many times it is deployed during the course of a game. If it were otherwise the Combat Squads special rule would not need to make an exception for drop pods.

once again, this means that the unit has been inherently deployed already, in reserves. Which is completely consistent with the rulebook.

[Nabterayl]

once again, this means that the unit has been inherently deployed already, in reserves. Which is completely consistent with the rulebook.
You and I have been down that road before, so unless people want to spectate or something, I see no reason to revisit the argument. I understand what's being said now, though; thanks.

[wkz]

uh, what?

No, from our reading of the rulebook, which is justified from the rules, is that all deployment occurs in the deployment phase. This is in line with both how reserves and the forces on the board.

What I am pointing out is that the exception for the droppod is consistent with all units being deployed in the Deployment phase.


once again, this means that the unit has been inherently deployed already, in reserves. Which is completely consistent with the rulebook.
Ohhhh Kayyyyy... then explain this:

"...When deploying their army, players may choose NOT TO DEPLOY one or more of the units in their army and instead leave them in reserve...." - Preparing reserves, Reserves, Mission Special Rules, pg 94

So, in the deployment phase, when everything is deployed, things in reserve are NOT DEPLOYED, written in black and white.

And yes, Droppods are STILL consistent:
- Transport vehicle hits the table. It and passengers are considered deployed, thus combat squads activates. But passenger unit is in a transport, so no combat squad is allowed. Continue game.

- Droppods hits the table. It and passengers are considered deployed, thus combat squads activates. But passenger unit is in a transport, so no combat squad is allowed. Continue game... This is the EXACT REASON why Droppods NEED a special, overriding, black and white sentence to unlock Combat Squads on entering the table...

[Tynskel]

I have explained the not to deploy in the previous thread, too.. The entire reference frame of the entire section is related to the board, you are not deploying onto the board, but when you read the reserves section, the rules are setup such that you are deploying your units off board. This, once again, fits with the strategic definition of deploy, and that the units are being tactially repositioned during game. The drop pod is consistent because the unit has not actually been deployed, because they are still on cruiser. Same with turrets, and stationary guns. These are not redeploying sector units.

[SeattleDV8]

oh, I already admitted I was wrong.

However, that doesn't stop me from arguing the syntax before the FAQ.


No, the GW FAQ does not fix the outstanding questions that the FAQ ruling makes no logical sense according to how they wrote their rules.

This is the problem.
You admit you're wrong, but you still try to argue that you are somehow correct by RAW.
You are not.
The RAW does not back your interpreation, it never did.

You and your little group can play their own house rules if you wish but please stop pretending that you have any RAW backing.

You don't.

As most of the people in this thread and the other one were against your points, GW also ruled against you.

You were wrong then and you're still wrong.

[Nabterayl]

I have explained the not to deploy in the previous thread, too.. The entire reference frame of the entire section is related to the board, you are not deploying onto the board, but when you read the reserves section, the rules are setup such that you are deploying your units off board.
Oh, okay, we'll do it again. SeattleDV8, you are a bad influence :p

Tynskel, as I understand your argument, what you call "context" or the "reference frame" boils down to the fact that (i) the rules for placing units in Reserve can be described in vernacular English as deploying them and (ii) units are placed in Reserve during the Deploy Forces part of "Organising a Battle."

I don't think the first point provides the context you're looking for, because the word "deploy" is never used to describe placing units in Reserve. We can describe a great many actions in the game in vernacular English as "deploying" (e.g., a regular 6" move) - so many, that unless the rules actually use the word "deploy" to describe those actions, we had best refrain.

I don't think the second point does what you think it does, either. Units also move around the table, pop smoke, can lose models, and fall back during the Deploy Forces part of "Organising a Battle," but I don't think any of those actions can properly be described as "deployment" despite the fact that they take place during the Deploy Forces part of "Organising a Battle."

If we try to figure out what "deploy" means in the rules by looking at the actions it describes every time it is used, I submit that the common thread is that "deploy" describes a moment when a model that was previously not on the table is placed on the table.

[wkz]

...but when you read the reserves section, the rules are setup such that you are deploying your units off board...That is actually wrong: the rules are setup such that you are PREPARING for your unit's eventual deployment onto the board. You are saying how they are going to be deployed, BUT they have NOT been deployed at that moment in time.

You are preparing to have, for example, for that droppod to contain an IC together with your unit to arrive on turn 1. You are preparing these 3 dedicated transports to be carrying the units they are dedicated with. You are preparing the Razorback to be empty but entering from reserves, as its dedicated Devastator squad has already been deployed onto the table. But all of the above have NOT deployed. Yet.

Reserves = preparation for deployment. That's all.




And one more time: "Strategic and Tactical" with regards to this wargame means NOTHING. They are not described in the rules, they are not described as keywords, they are not described in ANYTHING.

And seriously now: Deepstriking Assault Marines are basically ferried from another battlefield by Thunderhawks, yet they can combat squad despite being obviously "tactially repositioned"? And teleportation stations can be located planet-side, shall I deny the defender's terminators from combat squadding because "Hey, it is obvious, as invader, I control SPACE!! You're only TACTICALLY deploying those terminators!!"? Or I am suicidally driving that convoy into the battle in a straight line, strategically punching a hole through the enemy via sheer grit and luck. I can combat squad the troops in those tanks??

Or, even better, I am dropping my BA Landraider from a Thunderhawk that has just re-entered atmosphere... or I can say it just came from the other side of the planet. Thus I am Strategically and/or Tactically inserting my landraider. So I can and/or cannot combat squad my landraider's unit the moment they hit the table? Wonderful. We seem to have Schrodinger's combat squadding Landraider right here...

There is a very large hole in your supposed "Strategic and Tactical" thinking here... mainly you're using Fluff (aka: location of the unit's starting point into the battle) to influence cold hard rules. That is NOT RAW. That is NOT RAI. That is NOT even in the rules in any form or purpose...



...
I don't think the first point provides the context you're looking for, because the word "deploy" is never used to describe placing units in Reserve. We can describe a great many actions in the game in vernacular English as "deploying" (e.g., a regular 6" move) - so many, that unless the rules actually use the word "deploy" to describe those actions, we had best refrain.
This, basically. Between this and the "units not deployed... goes into reserve" sentence I've quoted, units in reserve are not "deployed" yet, thus combat squads do not work there. RAW at its rawest.




...
But to be honest, I don't know why in the world are we arguing in the first place: The FAQ have defined when exactly Combat Squads can work (NOT in reserve, thus supporting the "reserve is NOT deployment" argument). And despite how finicky rules interpretation, RAI, RAW and internet egos can get sometimes, FAQ RAI > disputed RAW, especially if the FAQ'ed RAI conforms to one of the RAW interpretation in said dispute.

[hisdudeness]

............................................______ __........................
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,..................
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
.........................,/...............................................”:, ........
.....................,?........................... ...........................\,.....
.................../.................................................. .........,}....
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}....
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./.....
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../.....
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/...........
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`..... }............../.............
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\...................
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__...........
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,....
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\... .....................
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\............. ..........
................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__..
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\...............
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\..............

[Tynskel]

The point here is that you are interpreting the rules to say that you are 'preparing' to deploy. However, that's not what the rules state. The rules are stating that units off the board are being redeployed.

The description of reserves, and their mechanics follow the definition of deploy in the strategic sense, which is how all the rules for deployment Pre-game work. The interpretation is coherent with the rules.


This whole argument boils down to that GW did not explicitly define what deploy means. Furthermore, GW loosely used deploy, changing the context to the word deploy throughout the rulebook.

Ultimately, one has to interpret the rules, placing their limits onto the section. I am using the rules to justify the interpretation. You guys are using the rules to justify your interpretation. What people are failing to understand here is that both are legitimate interpretations. The FAQ, in this case, actually does not solve the issue of deploy.

All the FAQ does is explicitly state how combat squads cannot split their units in reserves. This, however, does not mean that you are not deploying in reserves. This actually adds more confusion, because this means that units are in transports while in reserves have been deployed, but are not deployed in reserves if they do not have a transport.

[Culven]

The point here is that you are interpreting the rules to say that you are 'preparing' to deploy. However, that's not what the rules state. The rules are stating that units off the board are being redeployed.
The rule from the Reserves section stating that units are placed into Reserves instead of being deployed has been cited repeatedly, yet I have not seen the citation that supports your claim. Where is the rule that states units held in Reserves are considered deployed?

All the FAQ does is explicitly state how combat squads cannot split their units in reserves.
Unfortunately, they didn't state why.

This, however, does not mean that you are not deploying in reserves.
True. The ". . . instead of Deploying . . ." portion of the Reserves rule is what states units in reserves aren't deployed.

This actually adds more confusion, because this means that units are in transports while in reserves have been deployed, . . .
Why would they be conssidered deployed when they were placed in reserves instead of being Deployed? Being declared as embarked doesn't constitute being deployed.

[Tynskel]

In the previous forum, I have explained that the reference frame of the section is the board, you are not deploying onto the board. However, the rulebook does not define deploy. And the rules for reserves follow exactly what deploying is in the strategic sense. On top of that, the deploying on the board during pre game is exactly that of the strategic decision making.

the use of deploy during in-game changes. The units are all moving (which move has explicit rules associated with it). Deploy out of a vehicle, deploy from reserves. The word in itself changes.

The point is that the use of deploy in the context of the rules is either strategic (Pre game) or tactical (in game). The decision to deploy your unit into reserves is a strategic use. Drop pods and stationary gun emplacements through their phrasing inherently use the strategic meaning because these are units that are not being redirected from another sector- ie they are not on patrol, nor can they be on patrol. Their initial deployment on the board during in-game is inherently a strategic decision.

Units in reserve have already been deployed. They are being redeployed during in game.

Combat squads is inherently a strategic decision, that by which you then use tactics to accomplish your immediate goals. This is why the FAQ answer does not make sense. Almost every rule in the book makes logical sense. LoS, wound allocation, assault, ect. However, army design, army deployment are strategic decisions. The act of choosing 10 man squads that break into two units is strategic thinking. The use of the units in game is tactical decisions. this is my issue with the FAQ, that the ruling is not consistent with the rules, (another example is that the prime cannot deploy in a spore pod with other warriors.).

My argument stems that because the rulebook does not explicitly define deploy, then it is subject to the readers interpretation, based upon the context that the word is used. The context that I see you guys are using is that 'deploy' is a key word. However, that does not work because deploy is used many many times in the rulebook, and you do not use combat squads every time the word is used. You are arbitrarily stating that combat squads only applies when the unit hits the board, yet there is no rule that this thought process is stemming from.. Furthermore, that is inconsistent because of transports, because the unit doesn't hit the board until it hops out of the transport.

Overall, deploying is completely subjective- which makes sense. The entire setup section of the game is subjective. eg, You debate how terrain will work, ect.

[Nabterayl]

In the previous forum, I have explained that the reference frame of the section is the board, you are not deploying onto the board. However, the rulebook does not define deploy. And the rules for reserves follow exactly what deploying is in the strategic sense.
Hang on a tick, Tynskel. As I'm sure you would be the first to admit, the rulebook doesn't define plenty of important words. For instance, it doesn't define the word "move," leaving us to deduce its meaning - as you yourself have pointed out elsewhere, if you pay attention to all the instances in which the word "move" is actually used, you can deduce that the term does have a fairly precise meaning and that the rulebook uses the word with care, even though its meaning is never explicitly laid out. The word "move" is used in the rulebook to refer to a particular subset of things done in the game that follow exactly what moving is in the strategic sense.

The same is true of the word "deploy." By paying close attention to the instances in which the rulebook actually uses the word "deploy," we can deduce that it has a specific meaning that is narrower than the vernacular meaning of "deploy," notwithstanding the fact that the rulebook does not define "deploy."


My argument stems that because the rulebook does not explicitly define deploy, then it is subject to the readers interpretation, based upon the context that the word is used. The context that I see you guys are using is that 'deploy' is a key word. However, that does not work because deploy is used many many times in the rulebook, and you do not use combat squads every time the word is used. You are arbitrarily stating that combat squads only applies when the unit hits the board, yet there is no rule that this thought process is stemming from.. Furthermore, that is inconsistent because of transports, because the unit doesn't hit the board until it hops out of the transport.
That's not the argument, no. The argument is as follows:

"Deploy" is consistently, and only, used to refer to the placement of models on the table that were previously not on the table. From this we deduce that this is the technical meaning of "deploy" within the meaning of the rulebook.

Combat Squads does not tell us that we can use the rule every time a unit is deployed. Rather, it says that the decision to split is made "when the unit is deployed," and then, "each combat squad is treated as a separate unit for all game purposes from that point." This tells us that every time a ten-man unit with the Combat Squads rule is deployed (i.e., placed on the table when it was previously not on the table) we must make the choice to split or not split, and if we choose to split, we cannot undo the choice even if the unit is subsequently deployed again.

If that was all the space marine codex said, then we would be justified in thinking that a ten-man squad could split upon deploying from a Rhino. After all, a unit embarked on a Rhino is not on the table and thus has not been "deployed" within the meaning of the rulebook. However, the space marine codex goes on to give the drop pod exception. If the space marine codex (as opposed to the main rulebook) understood "deploy" to mean "placed on the table," then this exception would be unnecessary. From the exception, we understand that a unit arriving on the board embarked on a drop pod is "deployed" at the instant of arrival, and that ordinarily, such a unit would not be allowed to split. The drop pod exception thus expands our understanding of Combat Squads to mean that a unit arriving on the board from Reserve embarked on a transport is "deployed," and ordinarily cannot split into combat squads even upon disembarking. From this we can deduce that the Combat Squads rule actually means that a ten-man unit with the Combat Squads rule must choose to split into combat squads the moment it is placed on the table or arrives on the table embarked on a transport, and the decision to split or not split is irrevocable from that point forward.

[Culven]

You are arbitrarily stating that combat squads only applies when the unit hits the board, yet there is no rule that this thought process is stemming from.
The rules basis for this position is that combat squads can be used when the Unit is deployed. By refering to the various rules, we can determine whether the unit has deployed by the use of the term "deploy". Granted, there are times when "deploy" is used that players don't make use of Combat Squads, and I don't know the reasoning behind this.

I support this interpretation over your position since it doesn't require infering a difference in deployment type (strategic vs. tactical, as you phrase it), and then claiming that Combat Squads can be used only when Deploy is in a strategic context. Your approach requires too many assumptions for my liking.

[Tynskel]

If that was all the space marine codex said, then we would be justified in thinking that a ten-man squad could split upon deploying from a Rhino. After all, a unit embarked on a Rhino is not on the table and thus has not been "deployed" within the meaning of the rulebook. However, the space marine codex goes on to give the drop pod exception. If the space marine codex (as opposed to the main rulebook) understood "deploy" to mean "placed on the table," then this exception would be unnecessary. From the exception, we understand that a unit arriving on the board embarked on a drop pod is "deployed" at the instant of arrival, and that ordinarily, such a unit would not be allowed to split. The drop pod exception thus expands our understanding of Combat Squads to mean that a unit arriving on the board from Reserve embarked on a transport is "deployed," and ordinarily cannot split into combat squads even upon disembarking. From this we can deduce that the Combat Squads rule actually means that a ten-man unit with the Combat Squads rule must choose to split into combat squads the moment it is placed on the table or arrives on the table embarked on a transport, and the decision to split or not split is irrevocable from that point forward.

This is a point of view. If you flip the argument you can reach the conclusion that the unit was already deployed into reserves, however, due to the nature of drop pods, the unit has not actually been deployed yet, and therefore can combat squad when disembarking the drop pod. The point is, for both of us, our arguments are built upon our assumptions that we make upon the rules, because of the non-defined words. Because of the fact that the argument can be easily flipped around and justified from the rules base means that both interpretations are fine. If we were to play together, the only way to solve this rules problem, within the context of the rulebook, would be to use the 50/50 dice rule.

The word 'move' is always in conjunction with an explicit maximum amount of inches. The meaning of move does not change throughout use in the game.


I disagree that I have to make too many assumptions. I believe I am making less assumptions that the other way is making.

The other way has a 'simpler' result, but uses a convoluted method of ignoring the contexts of the rule.
My way uses the context, but has a 'complicated' result.

Both are clearly not satisfying any party.

[Nabterayl]

The meaning of move does not change throughout use in the game.
To be sure. I have proposed a meaning of deploy whereby the meaning of deploy does not change throughout use in the game; you have proposed one where it does.

I do not disagree that we are arguing points of view, but I am curious why you prefer to take a point of view that requires you to believe that the meaning of deploy changes as opposed to one where it does not. Do you believe that there is a point in the rules whereby deploy means something other than to be placed on the table from off the table? I am aware that placing units in Reserve takes place during "Deploy Forces", but I cannot think of a time when the book actually says that a unit placed in reserve has been deployed. Making scout moves also happens during "Deploy Forces", but unless the book described making a scout move as deploying, I would not think to describe a scout move as deploying simply because of the "phase" of the game it occurs in.

[Tynskel]

the point is that deploy is undefined, and I just use the context to figure out what is happening. The rules for reserves follow the strategic definition of deploy. Actually declaring that deploy does not change meaning throughout the game causes a massive conundrum, by the way. Look at wkz post about how many times deploy is used and with all the situations that it used for.

The scout move does not occur during deploy forces. Scout moves occur at an explicitly described point in the game, which is after forces have been deployed, but before the game begins.

[Nabterayl]

I disagree that wkz has provided examples of deploy having different meanings. I count 17 sections of the rulebook that use the word "deploy":
Page 9, "Who Gets the First Turn?"
Page 48, "Independent Characters Joining & Leaving Units"
Page 67, "Disembarking"
Page 75, "Infiltrate"
Page 76, "Scouts"
Page 91, "Seize Ground"
Page 91, "Capture and Control"
Page 92, "A Note on Secrecy"
Page 92, "Infiltrators and Scouts"
Page 92, "Pitched Battle"
Page 93, "Spearhead"
Page 93, "Dawn of War"
Page 94, "Preparing reserves"
Page 94, "Rolling for reserves"
Page 94, "Arriving from reserve"
Page 95, "Deep Strike"
Page 95, "Deep Strike Mishap Table"
In each of these instances, the action described is a player voluntarily placing on the table one or more models that were previously not on the table. Moreover, this list covers all the situations in the main rulebook in which a player voluntarily places on the table one or more models that were previously not on the table, except for placing passengers where an exploded transport used to be (page 67), which is not a voluntary action (disembarking from a wrecked vehicle is not entirely a voluntary action, but the controlling player has a range of choices in which to place the ex-passenger models). Looking at this list, it seems natural to me to conclude that although deploy is not explicitly defined, it is consistently used in the rules to mean

Voluntarily placing on the table one or more models that were previously not on the table.
I submit that this definition correctly describes each and every use of the word "deploy" in the rulebook. Do you disagree?

We can contrast my proposed definition with other situations that might reasonably be described as deploying, but for which the word "deploy" is never used. For instance, "deploy" is never used in the rulebook as synonymous with "field" (i.e., the rulebook never makes a statement such as "monstrous creatures are normally deployed in units of a single model"). Neither is "deploy" ever used to describe the act of maneuvering on the tabletop (e.g., the rulebook never makes a statement such as "during the Movement Phase, units redeploy to meet emerging threats"). Nor is "deploy" ever used to describe the act of placing a unit in Reserve, declaring that a unit will Outflank, declaring that a unit will Deep Strike, or declaring that a unit will enter the table on Turn 1 in a Dawn of War deployment type, even though (as Tynskel has repeatedly pointed out) all four of those actions fit the vernacular meaning of "deploy." I find it more than coincidental that all four of those actions also fall outside my proposed definition, whereas the 17 other instances of "deploy" fall inside it.

Tynskel, I feel like you have used this methodology before to deduce the meaning of undefined terms in the rulebook (e.g., "move"). Why do you not use it now?

[Tynskel]

That is one interpretation. However, you forget to mention that half of the uses are in association with moving and the other half are in association with stationary. I choose to focus upon those uses. as I keep repeating, they are just as valid and use the rulebook for justification, and expand the scope and use of deploy to include rules that are deploy by definition.

Inherently, these are two different ways to play the same game. Neither are right nor wrong.

[Nabterayl]

That is one interpretation. However, you forget to mention that half of the uses are in association with moving and the other half are in association with stationary. I choose to focus upon those uses. as I keep repeating, they are just as valid and use the rulebook for justification, and expand the scope and use of deploy to include rules that are deploy by definition.

Inherently, these are two different ways to play the same game. Neither are right nor wrong.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that (well okay, I'm not sure what you mean by moving vs. stationary, but I'll stipulate for purposes of this reply). I'm just curious what the distinction is in your mind. To me, it looks like you say, "Deploy has a common thread running through all of its uses in the rulebook, but that is not enough to establish a core meaning of the word; it's more important to focus on the differences." At the same time, you (and I) look at a word like "move," which is applied to many different types of movement - voluntary and involuntary, fixed distance and random distance, etc. - and say, "Notwithstanding the various contexts in which the word move is used, there is a common thread that runs through all of its uses in the rulebook, which is enough to establish a core meaning of the word." Under what circumstances do you pick one approach over the other?

And on an unrelated note, what do you mean by "in association with moving?" When does the rulebook speak of deploying "in association with moving?"

[Tynskel]

Move is a poor choice here because in all circumstances you are moving. Deploy on the other hand either has a specific game rule associated with it (moving) or it doesn't. This, from certain points of view, would be considered a radical rules change.

The two uses are distinctly used in two settings. Non-movement deploy is only associated with Pre-game setup, and is follows the strategic use. Then the wording of reserves follows the same strategic use. Now comes in-game, and deploy is always associated with moving (you deploy out of a vehicle, , you move on from a board edge, you deep strike, all of the these count as moving). However, there is an exception in the reserve rules for certain units, and the exception is directly related back to the non-moving strategic use of deploy. the drop opd rules are also consistent with this exception. On top of this, the use of combat squads is strategic because it follows the strategic use of deploy- you use combat squads as a one time use, and the decision is permanent throughout the 'in-game' section, of which, using combat squads during in game would be inconsistent because of the dynamics inherent with moving.

[Nabterayl]

Now comes in-game, and deploy is always associated with moving.
Are you thinking of when units arrive from reserve normally? What about Deep Strike and disembarkation? Neither of them involves moving.

[Tynskel]

Are you thinking of when units arrive from reserve normally? What about Deep Strike and disembarkation? Neither of them involves moving.

I think you need to re-read the rules. You move you models when you come in from reserves.

For example, a storm raven counts as moving at cruising speed when deep striking.
Another example, when you disembark you count as moving.

[Nabterayl]

Deep Strike and disembarking do cause a unit to count as moving, it's true, but that's just it - the unit in question hasn't made a "move" in the sense that you earlier (correctly, I believe) defined "move."

[Tynskel]

Deep Strike and disembarking do cause a unit to count as moving, it's true, but that's just it - the unit in question hasn't made a "move" in the sense that you earlier (correctly, I believe) defined "move."

bwah? Count as moving means they have moved. For all intents and purposes. What's your point?

In relationship to my argument it means nothing--- the use of deploy is still tactical.

[Nabterayl]

If deployment was movement, they wouldn't need to "count as" moving; they'd be moving. But let's abandon that line of argument as it's not fruitful if the relationship is not intuitive to both of us.

Let's go back to the tactical vs. strategic distinction you feel compelled to draw. The way you see it, the decision to split into combat squads must be made when a unit is strategically deployed, and your definition of "strategic deployment" seems to be that it's a one-time thing. Since you further read page 94 as saying "Players may choose not to tactically deploy one or more units," you leave yourself room to infer that a unit placed in reserve has been strategically deployed, and thus may decide to split into combat squads at that point. But why is placing a unit on the table during deployment tactical, as opposed to strategic, deployment? Is it not a one-time decision, just like placing a unit in reserve? Is deciding that one unit should be in sector A (the tabletop) rather than nearby sector B (reserve) not a strategic decision, just as much as deciding that a unit should be in sector B rather than sector A is?

It seems to me that your interpretation of page 94 hinges on there being some principled distinction between placing a unit in reserve and deploying it on the tabletop during deployment, but I cannot see what that is. And if there is no such principled distinction, then your interpolation does not seem justified by the text.

[Tynskel]

no, placing a unit on the board is not tactical. Placing a unit on the board through movement is tactical.

The point is that both the units in reserve and on the board during the deployment phase are not moving.

[Nabterayl]

no, placing a unit on the board is not tactical. Placing a unit on the board through movement is tactical.

The point is that both the units in reserve and on the board during the deployment phase are not moving.
Okay, I'm with you that far. Then we run into page 94, which says that placing units in reserve is not "deploying" them. If you don't think that page 94 is referring to tactical deployment, then it seems you must think it refers to strategic deployment, since those are the two species of deployment you recognize. Does it not then follow that placing a unit in reserve is either (i) tactical deployment or (ii) not deployment at all, and does it not further follow that it cannot be tactical deployment because no movement is involved?

[Tynskel]

The reference frame of the section is on the board, you are not deploying them on the board. However, the rules for reserves follow exactly the description for the strategic use for deploy. You are deploying your units off board.

[Nabterayl]

Regardless of the reference frame in question, at no point in the text is a unit placed in reserve referred to as deployed, nor is the act of placing a unit in reserve ever described as deploying (in fact, it's always referred to as "placing"). Effectively, from your point of view, when somebody asks, "When is a unit deployed within the meaning of the 40K rules?" your answer is, "Look at the dictionary definition of deploy, and in all cases one or more dictionary definitions apply, the unit in question has been deployed."

You find that approach preferable to "Look at each instance the rules use deploy, and find the common thread or threads that link them?"

[Tynskel]

Regardless of the reference frame in question, at no point in the text is a unit placed in reserve referred to as deployed, nor is the act of placing a unit in reserve ever described as deploying (in fact, it's always referred to as "placing"). Effectively, from your point of view, when somebody asks, "When is a unit deployed within the meaning of the 40K rules?" your answer is, "Look at the dictionary definition of deploy, and in all cases one or more dictionary definitions apply, the unit in question has been deployed."

You find that approach preferable to "Look at each instance the rules use deploy, and find the common thread or threads that link them?"

Yes, this is appropriate, because in the english language we use context and dictionaries to describe what words mean in a sentence. If the rulebook had explicitly defined what deploy meant, this would be a different situation. The reserves section follows exactly what the definition of strategic deployment means, and the rulebook also uses the strategic use of deployment during the deployment phase. Reserves are also during the deployment phase. This is completely coherent and consistent use, and it is backed up by the rules within the rulebook.

[Nabterayl]

The movement phase also follows exactly what the definition of tactical deployment* means. It would seem to follow, from your point of view, that moving a unit of infantry six inches on the tabletop is therefore deploying them. Would you agree with that?

* Reserving the question of whether there is such a thing as strategic vs. tactical deployment in the general context

[Culven]

The reference frame of the section is on the board, you are not deploying them on the board. However, the rules for reserves follow exactly the description for the strategic use for deploy. You are deploying your units off board.
I still don't understand your logic. You seem to be inventing a distinction between uses of "deploy" (your claims of tactical versus strategic) based on your inference of the context in an attempt to convince us that units placed in Reserves have been deployed, despite the fact that the Reserves rules specifically state that placing, not deploying, Units into reserves can be done instead of deploying the Unit.

I'm sorry, but you aren't going to convince me that "instead of deploying" doesn't prevent the Unit from deploying unless you can cite a rule that states such. Until such time, I am going to maintain my position that units which Deploy (as stated in the rules for the action; i.e. placed on the table during "deploy Forces", arriving from Reserves, and (for whatever reason GW decided to include it) disembarking from a Transport) count as deployed as far as the Combat Squads rule is concerned, and Units which were placed in Reserves instead of deploying do not count as deployed.

[Nabterayl]

I must admit, Tynskel, in the absence of any citation that describes placing a unit in Reserve with the verb "deploy," your argument does seem to boil down to "Well no, the rulebook doesn't say you're deploying the unit, but come on, that's essentially what you're doing. Yes, they're assiduously careful to describe placing a unit in Reserve with a verb other than deploy every time it comes up, but the act they're describing is essentially deploying, so we should read the two verbs as synonyms." As a method of interpreting rules, that seems less than satisfactory, at least as a method of first resort.

[Tynskel]

You may disagree here, but everything I have said has been justified by the rules. Reserves matches exactly the strategic definition of deploy, which is what is used during the deployment phase of the game. It also occurs during deployment. Where you deploy your forces. All deployment occurs in that phase. The reference frame is the board, so you are not deploying onto the board but instead into reserves. There is no need to repeat the word deploy twice in the same sentence, that would be redundant.

I am using the context that the rulebook has presented to interpret the rules.
The word deploy is undefined by the rulebook, and its context changes between its uses.

[Nabterayl]

The context changes, yes, but I submit that the meaning does not. This is the point I was making about "move" - the context changes, but "move" always means the same thing (roughly, take a unit that has a position vis a vis the tabletop and place it somewhere else on the tabletop) whether the context is the movement, shooting, or assault phase, voluntary or involuntary, random or fixed distance, and so on.

When attempting to discover the meaning of a word in a rulebook, we start with the dictionary definition and then limit ourselves to the uses of the word that are actually used in the rulebook. Is that not an accepted canon of construction with regard to interpreting rules?

When a meaning that is consistent across various contexts can be discovered, that is the meaning we focus on. Is that not an accepted canon of construction with regard to interpreting rules?

Every time deploy is actually used by the rulebook it means, at a minimum, a model acquiring a presence on the table. Why does this not bound your understanding of the meaning of "deploy" as used by the rules?

[wkz]

I read the last 3 pages, and I got to say: Nabterayl, you can argue a point much less aggressive and much more patient than myself... Hat's off to you.

Now back to the topic:

You may disagree here, but everything I have said has been justified by the rules. Reserves matches exactly the strategic definition of deploy, which is what is used during the deployment phase of the game. It also occurs during deployment. Where you deploy your forces. All deployment occurs in that phase. The reference frame is the board, so you are not deploying onto the board but instead into reserves. There is no need to repeat the word deploy twice in the same sentence, that would be redundant.

I am using the context that the rulebook has presented to interpret the rules.
The word deploy is undefined by the rulebook, and its context changes between its uses.
The problem here is this:

You're stating 2 major differences of Deploy.

What you've said several times:
Deploy without movement = strategic. You can combat squad.
Deploy with movement = tactical. You cannot combat squad.

Point #1: The first big problem is this: the rulebook does not, at any single time, mention which is which. All of them means "put plastic on the table", but there's deploy from vehicles, there's deploy on turn zero, there's deploy by deepstrike... but there is absolutely no mention of deployment strategically, or deployment tactically. By forcing the words "strategic" and "tactical" into the rulebook, you're forcing interpretation, as below:

Point #2:
Deployment into reserves/ in turn zero
This is clearly a strategic deployment in your book. No movement is involved in this case. We'll get back to this one soon.

Deployment via walking onto the table
Combat squad is allowed, but this is clearly a tactical deployment. Is combat squad allowed or disallowed? After all, you've already deployed into reserves...

Deepstrike on foot
Deepstrike is, by your definition, a Strategic deployment... yet:

bwah? Count as moving means they have moved. For all intents and purposes. What's your point?
And this little gem in the rules

In that turn's shooting phase.... counts as having moved in the previous Movement Phase"
Thus, this is a tactical deployment by you definition... but it is not, apparently it is strategic. Your dictionary says so.

Deepstrike in a Droppod
This is simple: the special exception for Droppods in the Combat Squad rules allows combat squads.... but the whole scenario have been said multiple times as "strategic deployment"... well, between the Droppod having moved, and the unit inside having moved thanks to "disembarking as normal"... this is obviously a "Move into table" sort of deployment. This is your "tactical deployment", and combat squads should not be allowed? Or are they?


Alright, I'll give it to you for the last 2: both of them are obviously strategic, via the dictionary meaning of the term, instead of Tactical. Because they've already been deployed... into reserves. They obviously come from high command, from lord knows where... and thus all of them can combat squad.

And then we have these 2 gems:

Deployment via being transported onto the table
Now, let me note the points:
- This is a case of a vehicle carrying troops driving onto the table, similar to a droppod.
- This is a case of movement, with non-move deployment earlier, similar to a tactical squad walking onto the table.
- If we disembark the troops at that very "enter the table" ... we're allowed to combat squad, correct?

and
Combat squad states "each combat squad is essentially two separate units from now on"
So, IF you treat "deploying into reserves" as part of the combat squadding... wouldn't you have to declare your combat squads from Turn Zero? Wouldn't that mean you have to roll each half of the combat squads separately for reserves, having a scenario where Combat Squad A enters on turn 3, Combat Squad B enters on turn 5?


Please answer all of these points, separately, because I really want to know what exactly your interpretation is...

[Tynskel]

I believe you have misinterpreted what I have stated.

Ignoring the FAQ due to what me and my gaming group see as an unjustified use of the rules we play as follows:

Deployment occurs during the deployment phase. This is a strategic definition of deploy.
The reference frame is the board.
Units placed into reserves follow the deployment strategic rules.

In this case combat squads would occur at this point.
Drop pods are an exception that are coherent with the exception to reserves for strategic units that are forced to deploy by deep strike (turrets). These units are not being redeployed from reserves, this is their first deployment into operation.


We view deploy changes context between pre game stratic decisions to in game tactical decisions. Combat squads is inherently a strategic decision due to a permanent effect, and that also it's one exception is coherent with the strategic rules.


I have demonstrated how this fits within the rules, it is an entirely valid way to interpret the rules as RAW.

What's interestingly enough, we essentially follow the FAQ, because the unit is either deployed into reserves or deployed to the board. We do not allow a unit to be deployed to both reserves and the board, because you make the decision to combat squad after you deploy.

[Nabterayl]

Drop pods are an exception that are coherent with the exception to reserves for strategic units that are forced to deploy by deep strike (turrets). These units are not being redeployed from reserves, this is their first deployment into operation.
In your view, then, a unit whose rules stated that it must be placed in Reserve would not be deployed when so placed?

I appreciate your patience in answering multiple threads of questioning, Tynskel. If you have the time, I'd appreciate your thoughts to my question as to why your understanding of deploy does not seem to be bounded by its usage in the rulebook. Thanks!

[Tynskel]

Hmm, I am curious to why you say that its usage is not bound by the rulebook, when I have demonstrated that this is backed up rules in the rulebook. This is a more specific way to approach the rules. My group finds the general use of deploy has too many inconsistencies (ie placed onto the board).

Your question is confusing. are you saying that units that must be placed into reserves are not deployed in the strategic sense?
To that, No.
The exception to tactical movement from reserves is clearly laid out for specific units in the reserve rules, eg turrets.

[Nabterayl]

Hmm, I am curious to why you say that its usage is not bound by the rulebook, when I have demonstrated that this is backed up rules in the rulebook. This is a more specific way to approach the rules. My group finds the general use of deploy has too many inconsistencies (ie placed onto the board).
Perhaps we've been talking past each other all this time. I cannot come up with a single instance in which the rulebook actually uses the verb "deploy" to refer to placing a unit in Reserve. The best I can come up with - and the best I've seen anybody else come up with - is that placing a unit in Reserve arguably takes place during "deployment" (if by "deployment" we mean "everything that happens before the first turn is taken"). But lots of other things happen during "deployment" (always assuming that we're even willing to recognize such a creature) that are clearly not deploying, so that's not good enough.

In my forum hiatus I seem to have missed the latest epic thread on this, so if you can cite an instance in which a unit that is not given a tabletop presence is affirmatively said thereby to be "deployed," please correct my oversight. I've tried to comb through your posted thoughts on this matter, but you know how these things go. So far all I've been able to turn up is you pointing out that, while the rulebook never actually says that a unit placed in Reserve is deployed, doing so fits one dictionary definition of the word deploy. That much I freely admit, but since we are trying to construct a rules definition, I think we must start by limiting our universe of possible definitions to the rulebook's actual word choices.

I quite agree with your group that "deploy" is used to mean many different things. What I am saying is that no matter what else that verb means, in every instance that the rulebook uses the word it refers to giving a model a tabletop presence. Because "deploy" is used so consistently in this respect, it seems to me that any rules definition of "deploy" we construct must contain this feature - notwithstanding the fact that "giving a model a tabletop presence" is not part of the dictionary definition of deploy.

Placing a unit in Reserve is many things, but it is not giving a model a tabletop presence. Yet you propose a rules definition of "deploy" that, at a minimum, includes placing a unit in Reserve. Because your proposed definition does not have "giving a model a tabletop presence" as a limit, it seems to me to go beyond the bare context of the rulebook.

EDIT:
Your question is confusing. are you saying that units that must be placed into reserves are not deployed in the strategic sense?
To that, No.
The exception to tactical movement from reserves is clearly laid out for specific units in the reserve rules, eg turrets.
It occurs to me that I have been assuming something about why the tactical vs. strategic deployment distinction is important to you. The question we are trying to answer (I think) is, "When can a unit with the Combat Squads special rule split into combat squads, if otherwise eligible (i.e., if it consists of ten models)?"

The answer I think everybody agrees on is, "When it is deployed" (c.f. page 51 of the space marines codex). I think everybody else also agrees that, barring an explicit exception, the Combat Squads special rule requires a unit to make an irrevocable decision to split or not to split the first time it is deployed (i.e., nobody thinks that you can deploy a unit, choose not to split into combat squads at that point, and then, if you were to somehow deploy the unit later, choose to split at that point).

So the question boils down to, "When is a unit deployed for the first time?"

You and I seem to agree about most of this. We agree that Infiltrators are deployed when placed, that units are deployed when placed on the table during deployment, for instance. I think where we disagree is whether a unit placed in Reserve has been "deployed" within the meaning of the Combat Squads special rule, at the instant it is placed in Reserve (we both seem to agree that when it is deployed when it arrives from reserve).

My argument boils down to, "A unit placed in Reserve is not deployed at that instant because the rulebook never uses the word deploy to describe placing a unit in Reserve, and although the word deploy is used in many contexts, the common element to each of those contexts is something that placing a unit in Reserve is not" (i.e., deploy always at least refers to giving a unit a tabletop presence, and placing a unit in Reserve does not give a unit a tabletop presence - indeed, it's the very opposite).

Your counter to that is, as far as I can tell, that placing a unit in Reserve fits your definition of "strategic deployment" (or perhaps more generally, that the act represented by placing a unit in Reserve fits the general definition of deployment). Thus, you contend, because strategic deployment is by definition "deployment," a unit placed in Reserve has been deployed, and can (indeed, must) make the decision to split or not to split at that instant.

But a couple posts back you seemed to indicate that it is not merely the placing of a unit in Reserve that causes it to be "strategically deployed" in your mind, but rather that the player must have had a choice as to whether or not to place the unit in Reserve. Hence my question about a hypothetical unit with the Combat Squads special rule that also had a rule requiring it to be held in Reserve at the start of the game - my question is whether you would consider such a unit to be deployed (i.e., strategically deployed, because it is placed in Reserve) or not to be deployed (i.e., because the player had no choice about placing the unit in Reserve).

[wkz]

Mr T: 2 questions before I can understand your interpretation of the rules...

Strategic deployment occurs during the setup phase, aka during the deployment phase. Anything and everything that is put into reserves is being "deployed into reserves", and so follow the deployment strategic rules. And anything using the Strategic deployment method of "deploy" are allowed combat squads.

The reference frame is the board (or as I like to say, the Table)... huh?? More below.

The only exception to the strategic deployment into reserves rule appears to be everything that is forced into reserves. aka Droppods. As this is their first true choice on entering the table, the units inside get to combat squad.

Anything that uses the word Deployment afterwards is called tactical deployment, because it is in-game tactical decisions.

And combat squads is inherently a strategic decision due to a permanent effect.


...
...
...
a) is the above correct?

b)
The reference frame is the board

Currently there are so many meanings I can derive from this single sentence:
(1)Combat squad only activates when entering the table (1.1) during (strategic) deployment phase only? (1.2) during both deployment phase and in-game, strategically or tactically? (1.3) during all strategically affected units entering the table?

Or (2)combat squad does not work when deploying on the table during the deployment phase?

Or (3) combat squad does not work when deploying on the table during ANY strategic or tactical deployment?

Can you please elaborate further?

[SeattleDV8]

He can't, as there is no strategic or tactical deployment.
These are house rules that Tynskel has invented.
There is a pregame deployment but not all units have to be deployed then.
Instead you can (BRB pg. 94)"choose not to deploy" and leave the unit in reserve.
There in black and white are the rules, no silly logic or semantic games to somehow make 'not deploying' mean 'deploying'.
The latest FAQ only backs this up.
Units left in reserve may not combat squad because they are not deployed at that point.
Therefore Tynskels agrument fails.
It is very, very simple and has no twisted ideas to make it work.
Can he and his group house rule it to his idea, of course!
That said it is only a house rule and not the real rules.
I'm just sick and tired of him claiming RAW where his view is clearly not RAW.

[wkz]

He can't, as there is no strategic or tactical deployment.
These are house rules that Tynskel has invented.
There is a pregame deployment but not all units have to be deployed then.
Instead you can (BRB pg. 94)"choose not to deploy" and leave the unit in reserve.
There in black and white are the rules, no silly logic or semantic games to somehow make 'not deploying' mean 'deploying'.
The latest FAQ only backs this up.
Units left in reserve may not combat squad because they are not deployed at that point.
Therefore Tynskels agrument fails.
It is very, very simple and has no twisted ideas to make it work.
Can he and his group house rule it to his idea, of course!
That said it is only a house rule and not the real rules.
I'm just sick and tired of him claiming RAW where his view is clearly not RAW.
Shush you. I want to know exactly where he stands, every single nook and cranny, before I tear his viewpoint apart. He's too slippery otherwise...

[SeattleDV8]

Heh..okay, okay

We all know (including himself, post #43) that he is wrong, but will not stop pushing his silly idea.
I doubt any agrument will stop him.
If you're having fun I will step aside.

[hisdudeness]

Wkz and SeattleV8, I spent about a month and 25 pages trying to get him to see the truth. A majority of my 170ish posts are from that thread.

You can ask him all day long to show you were the BRB defines (or even mentions) his 2 levels of deploying and he points to the dictionary and his reference frame. Me and a few others got all but a few people to understand, he chooses not to.

Even if these levels exist (they don't) they are qualifiers to deploy. The combat squad rule does not in any way hint at which qualifier triggers CS. Thus (even if the 2 levels existed---again, they don't) both levels triggers CS because the BRB does not tell us one or the other is the trigger.

I would quit and not spend another post on the subject. Since the last thread I have seen that no one else plays the way he does. Frankly he needs to go back to playing Magic: TG with his view of rules sets.

[wkz]

Wkz and SeattleV8, I spent about a month and 25 pages trying to get him to see the truth. A majority of my 170ish posts are from that thread.

You can ask him all day long to show you were the BRB defines (or even mentions) his 2 levels of deploying and he points to the dictionary and his reference frame. Me and a few others got all but a few people to understand, he chooses not to.

Even if these levels exist (they don't) they are qualifiers to deploy. The combat squad rule does not in any way hint at which qualifier triggers CS. Thus (even if the 2 levels existed---again, they don't) both levels triggers CS because the BRB does not tell us one or the other is the trigger.

I would quit and not spend another post on the subject. Since the last thread I have seen that no one else plays the way he does. Frankly he needs to go back to playing Magic: TG with his view of rules sets.
Lets just say I'm patient (Case in point: that assault thread... you know which one) and leave it as that?

And yes, I get your viewpoint.

And just note that I already have an essay just waiting to be posted. Just need the clarification in my prior post to re-edit and launch that... ... but it seems Mr T has left the building... so saddening...

And lastly, despite the 30 special-rules pileup that is M:TG, the core rules for that game are actually quite robust. Case in point: given that every fourth card has a rules-breaking special rule, M:TG is still PLAYABLE with a general community-consensus on when, what and how each given special rule goes where (ignoring the fact said combo can be game-endingly broken)... given special rules in 3 or 4 models in 40k out of an army of 20~50 models + one or two armywide rules, we as a community instantly breaks down into a squabbling mess trying to figure out what goes where...
...
...
'tis a sad, sad day when M:TG's ruleset can be considered to be BETTER than GW's...

[hisdudeness]

LOL!! I was very patient also (25 page patient), but it is an exercise in futility trying to get him to show you were something in the book says what he claims. Since he can’t he falls back on an interpretation of the rules that fits his view and claims that interpretation is correct and is RAW.

All said, the “…place in reserves instead of deploying...” seals the deal for me. Nowhere in the English language, that I have found, does ‘instead’ mean you still are doing the original action. If you use true context we find that just about everywhere deploy is used it is referring to placing a model on the table. This does not need a ‘reference frame’ or qualifier to determine what the most likely meaning is.

Further, nowhere is ‘strategic’ and ‘tactical’ even mentioned in the rules for deploy. This is an added qualifier of Tynskel’s that is used to advance his view and has no basis in the rules beyond a personal interpretation.

[Tynskel]

But a couple posts back you seemed to indicate that it is not merely the placing of a unit in Reserve that causes it to be "strategically deployed" in your mind, but rather that the player must have had a choice as to whether or not to place the unit in Reserve. Hence my question about a hypothetical unit with the Combat Squads special rule that also had a rule requiring it to be held in Reserve at the start of the game - my question is whether you would consider such a unit to be deployed (i.e., strategically deployed, because it is placed in Reserve) or not to be deployed (i.e., because the player had no choice about placing the unit in Reserve).

I think you misinterpreted one thing of what I said:

"Your question is confusing. are you saying that units that must be placed into reserves are not deployed in the strategic sense?
To that, No. "

That means they are deployed. (there is a 'not' deployed, and the 'no', ie. double negative. I wasn't clear.)

The rulebook has a very specific situation where the unit is not deployed into reserves. That is under the reserve rules, second column near the end of the page.


As for combat squads, the ruling in the FAQ does not solve this problem, all this has done is made the rules more confusing. This is all dependent on how you approach the rules. The interpretation I have hear is backed up by the rules, hence RAW.

Your argument over the 'placed into reserves' is essentially what people would say is 'semantics'. I have demonstrated that the use of reserves follows the strategic definition of deploy, of which is used by everything during the pre-game. Placing units into Reserves does not use the tactical definition of deploy, but instead follows exactly the strategic definition of deploy, only the act of bringing in Reserves in-game activates the tactical definition of deploy.

As for the reference frame, read the entire section on setup of the game-- the reference frame is the board. There is no need to repeat the word 'deploy' twice in the same sentence, that is redundant and takes up space.

[Nabterayl]

EDIT: Made a bad point about strategic vs. tactical; revised below.

So, if I'm reading you right, Tynskel, the following would be true:

Situation 1: Tactical Squad has a Dedicated Razorback and Both Units are Placed in Reserve
You would say: the tac squad can split into combat squads (because it's been deployed by being placed in reserve), and one combat squad can embark upon the Razorback. The Razorback with passengers and the disembarked combat squad will be rolled for separately. The tac squad cannot remain a ten-man unit in Reserve and split upon arriving on the board, because that is the second time it has been deployed (the first time "strategically", the second time "tactically," but still the second time it has been deployed).

I would say: the tac squad cannot be split into combat squads (because it hasn't been deployed), and therefore cannot be embarked upon the Razorback in Reserve. The Razorback and the ten-man squad will be rolled for separately. The tac squad may split upon arriving on the board, because that is the first time it has been deployed.

Situation 2: Assault Squad is Placed in Reserve
You would say: the assault squad can split into combat squads upon being placed in reserve, in which case each combat squad will be rolled for separately. The assault squad cannot stay together in reserve and then choose to split upon arriving.

I would say: the assault squad cannot be split into combat squads upon being placed in reserve. The ten-man squad will all arrive from reserve together, and at that point must make the choice to split or not to split.

Did I get both of those right?


Your argument over the 'placed into reserves' is essentially what people would say is 'semantics'. I have demonstrated that the use of reserves follows the strategic definition of deploy, of which is used by everything during the pre-game.
So ... as others have asked as well as myself, why do you feel compelled to adduce "strategic" and "tactical" definitions at all? It's not as if those distinctions are made in a dictionary (at least, none that I can find). They certainly aren't defined in the rulebook. And it's not as if 40K is a strategic-level game. You could hold 100 models in Reserve and it would still be a "tactical" decision in the military sense.

To put it another way, when you ask yourself, "When, within the meaning of the 40K rules, is a unit deployed?" why is your first response, "Well, what actions in the game could I conceivably describe with the word 'deploy'?" rather than, "Well, what actions in the game does the rulebook describe with the word 'deploy'?"

Or did you ask the second question first and find it led to an unacceptable conclusion? You've suggested as much once or twice before, but if that's where you're coming from, what result is it you find so unacceptable?


As for combat squads, the ruling in the FAQ does not solve this problem, all this has done is made the rules more confusing. This is all dependent on how you approach the rules. The interpretation I have hear is backed up by the rules, hence RAW.
The implication here seems to be that the way I approach the rules is not backed up by the rules. If that is true, could you please lay out the case against me? I don't believe I've seen that yet.

If it isn't true, and in your view both of our approaches are consistent with the RAW, why do you choose the one that is inconsistent with the FAQ (your point of view) as opposed to the one that is consistent with the FAQ (my point of view)?

[Tynskel]

Yes, you hit the money shot exactly the way my group has played 5th Edition for years.

I was never implying that the way you are approaching the rules is not backed up by the rulebook.
All I am saying is that the way I am playing is backed up by the rules.
This is pointing out that there is more than one way to interpret the rules.

I am not sure what you are talking about strategic and tactical definition of deploy don't exist. They are in every dictionary.

Strategic-- static, large scale
to spread out strategically or in an extended front or line
to arrange in a position of readiness
place troops or weapons in battle formation
distribution of military forces prior to battle

Tactical-- movement, small scale.
to come into a position ready for use
to redistribute forces to or within a given area
Move troops into position for military action

[Nabterayl]

That's fair enough. Why do you view the FAQ as you do, then? If there are two ways to look at the rules, one of which is consistent with the FAQ and one of which is not ... all things being equal, does it not make sense to assume that the way that is consistent with the FAQ is the better interpretation of the author's intent? (I acknowledge, of course - as I assume everybody here does - that there is a world of difference between playing 40K "correctly" and playing 40K by the strict letter of every rule.)

Did I predict your responses correctly to the two hypotheticals?

[Nabterayl]

I am not sure what you are talking about strategic and tactical definition of deploy don't exist. They are in every dictionary.

Strategic-- static, large scale
to spread out strategically or in an extended front or line
to arrange in a position of readiness
place troops or weapons in battle formation
distribution of military forces prior to battle

Tactical-- movement, small scale.
to come into a position ready for use
to redistribute forces to or within a given area
Move troops into position for military action

Ah, I was unclear again. The definitions of strategic and tactical exist in every dictionary. What I I don't believe is that you can cite a dictionary that includes the terms "strategic deployment" or "tactical deployment," nor do I believe you can cite a dictionary definition of "deploy" that has one definition for strategic and another definition for tactical.

Two things seem extratextual to me about your use of the "strategic" vs. "tactical" scheme:

Thing the First
You can certainly apply the words "strategic" and "tactical" to the word "deploy." But you could as well apply the words "large" and "small," "near-term" and "long-term" ... the list is endless. Why pick strategic and tactical out of the hat?

Even if we do pick strategic and tactical out of the hat, placing a unit in Reserve is by no means clearly a strategic decision. In many ways it is tactical. The units placed in Reserve are always small, tactical-level units (never larger than company-level, rarely larger than platoon-level, frequently squad-level). The units clearly represent a tactical, rather than strategic, reserve - if it were otherwise they would never arrive in the space of a single 40K game. Indeed, if we are going to differentiate between "strategy" and "tactics" when discussing a game of 40K, I disagree that any portion of the game, with the possible exception of choosing one's list, is strategic in nature. By nature 40K is a small-scale, tactical game. I would say that players only make "strategic" decisions in 40K in the board-game sense (e.g., in a non-military sense, one could say that reserving one's army against a drop list is a "strategy," but in a military sense, it would be a tactic, and only in the military sense do the two words mean different things).

Thing the Second
The whole point of the strategic vs. tactical distinction is to find a way in which to justify describing "placing a unit in Reserve" as "deploying a unit," right? The infamous page 94 says, "When deploying their army, players may choose not to deploy one or more of the units in their army and instead leave them in reserve." The deployment in question does not involve movement, so by your scheme, it must be strategic, right? That being so, page 94 actually reads "When [strategically] deploying their army, players may choose not to [strategically] deploy one or more of the units in their army and instead leave them in reserve." This interpolation makes it clear that leaving a unit in Reserve is not strategic deployment. Yet it is not tactical deployment either, since there is no movement involved. Therefore, it seems that by your own scheme, leaving a unit in Reserve is not deployment.

Alternatively, it could be that the entire strategic vs. tactical deployment is something of a red herring, and you would actually interpolate page 94 to read "When deploying their army [on the table], players may choose not to deploy [on the table] one or more of the units in their army and instead leave them in reserve." But on what basis do we justify the interpolation? The rule is clear without it, and leads to consistent, predictable results without it. We do not interpolate words into the text of other rules when they are clear and lead to consistent, predictable results without the interpolation.

[Tynskel]

yeah you did hit them correctly.

Well, the FAQ in most cases makes logical sense and is coherent with the rules. There are only two times that I don't agree with how the FAQ rules. There are many times where I have thought I don't like it, but the FAQ makes sense (for example, no upgrades to Furioso Librarian).
1) is the combat squads, 2) Tyranid Primes cannot pod in. I can understand not having Primes pod with gaunts, but not being able to pod with warriors? I don't see any logic behind that rule. With the combat squads, it took them 4 years to rule the way they did, and with no explanation. And specifically, the FAQ is directly addressing setting up one combat squad on the board and one off the board, which I think we both agree was an incorrect interpretation (besides, I have never seen anyone have one squad in reserve and the other on the board--- this was clearly a Blood Angeles fix, because this issue never arose until after BA came out). You don't combat squad until *after* you have deployed.


Actually, you can cite the dictionary as strategic and tactical: the definitions are made up of words that have specific meanings. There are two main definitions which one is inherently strategic and the other is inherently tactical, then there are as series of other definitions that clearly do not apply to the rules (eg means the installation and configuration of software and/or hardware systems across an organisation). The context of how deploy is used is what I am concerned with, and there is clearly a strategic phase of the game (pre-game) and tactical phase of the game (in-game). These correspond to different uses of deploy.

[Nabterayl]

there is clearly a strategic phase of the game (pre-game) and tactical phase of the game (in-game). These correspond to different uses of deploy.
Well, there's clearly a pre-game and an in-game phase. In what sense, though, is the pre-game phase strategic? We are not talking about strategic levels of troops, nor strategic distances (the distances involved are, plainly, no more than 28", since even infantry arrive without fail by Turn 5), the forces in reserve cannot be available to reinforce more than one engagement, they are only placed in reserve after contact has been made with the enemy ... once the players have arrived at the table, the strategic- and operational/theater-level stuff is long since done.


There are two main definitions which one is inherently strategic and the other is inherently tactical
Just to be clear, could you cite the dictionary you're referencing?


1) is the combat squads, 2) Tyranid Primes cannot pod in. I can understand not having Primes pod with gaunts, but not being able to pod with warriors? I don't see any logic behind that rule.
I think it depends on what kind of logic you're looking for. I'm sure you can postulate game design reasons all day long why somebody might have thought that shouldn't be allowed (even if you don't agree with all the game design reasons you can think of). Same with combat squads in general. If I look at it from the perspective of space marine fluff, I see no logic in the entire rule. If I look at it from a game design standpoint I can postulate reasons why it might read the way it does, even if I don't necessarily agree with them.

[Tynskel]

The Pre-game phase involves setting up the battlefield, picking mission, defining terrain, designing army, and deploying units--- all of which are strategic decisions. The tactical decisions do not enter thane game until in-game, when you are constantly forced to modify you objectives-- all of your strategic planning goes out the window.

I used multiple dictionaries to make sure I was consistently using the word (to name a few Goggle, Webster, dictionary.com, ect.). Between the multiple definitions, there are strategic uses and tactical uses. Then there are uses which relate situations that are not appropriate to the game (I cited an example previously).

Tyranid Prime, not from a fluff point of view, but from the rules point of view, 1) is supposed to lead squads of warriors, 2) is the only non-monstrous/unique creature to allow the prime to deep strike with warriors.

[Nabterayl]

The Pre-game phase involves setting up the battlefield, picking mission, defining terrain, designing army, and deploying units--- all of which are strategic decisions. The tactical decisions do not enter thane game until in-game, when you are constantly forced to modify you objectives-- all of your strategic planning goes out the window.
Setting up the battlefield and defining terrain aren't strategic decisions; they're geological/topographical/architectural ones. Designing the army is arguably strategic, although since you're designing a sub-company level force, I think "arguable" is the best you can get there. And picking a mission and deploying units are definitely tactical decisions, or at best operational - the seizing of a particular hill or the deployment of a particular platoon to take it are far below the strategic level. Even if the particular hill happens to house a strategic asset, such as a defense laser, the choice to seize that asset is at best an operational level decision.

I'm overstating my case a bit, but only to make the point that there is no obvious distinction to be drawn between "strategic" and "tactical" as applied to 40K - which is why, without further guidance from the rules, I'm hesitant to impose any person's conception of which actions are strategic and which are tactical upon the text. The alternative point of view doesn't require us to make those kinds of judgment calls, which is why it hews closer to the text in my view.

[Tynskel]

Setting up the battlefield and defining terrain aren't strategic decisions; they're geological/topographical/architectural ones. Designing the army is arguably strategic, although since you're designing a sub-company level force, I think "arguable" is the best you can get there. And picking a mission and deploying units are definitely tactical decisions, or at best operational - the seizing of a particular hill or the deployment of a particular platoon to take it are far below the strategic level. Even if the particular hill happens to house a strategic asset, such as a defense laser, the choice to seize that asset is at best an operational level decision.

I'm overstating my case a bit, but only to make the point that there is no obvious distinction to be drawn between "strategic" and "tactical" as applied to 40K - which is why, without further guidance from the rules, I'm hesitant to impose any person's conception of which actions are strategic and which are tactical upon the text. The alternative point of view doesn't require us to make those kinds of judgment calls, which is why it hews closer to the text in my view.

I completely disagree.

Setting up the battlefield is intrinsically strategic. You don't fight wherever. You fight where you can apply the best advantage. Some of the best battles in the history of mankind have been one because of the initial strategic goals of the general. Your placement of the your objectives is strategic.

You could take, for example, the Battle of Trafalgar. Admiral Nelson's decision where to engage the enemy was more important than the engagement itself. He knew had won before the battle began, and decided to wear his dress uniform as such. He was shot when the battle began, but the strategic decisions made before the battle prevented the Franco-Spanish fleet from being able to use any tactics to defeat the British Navy. The Franco-Spanish fleet even outnumbered the British fleet 6 ships of the line-that equates to ~600 more cannons.

[Nabterayl]

I completely disagree.
You disagree with my characterization, or you disagree that my characterization is one that a reasonable, rational English-speaker could believe?


Setting up the battlefield is intrinsically strategic. You don't fight wherever. You fight where you can apply the best advantage. Some of the best battles in the history of mankind have been one because of the initial strategic goals of the general. Your placement of the your objectives is strategic.

You could take, for example, the Battle of Trafalgar. Admiral Nelson's decision where to engage the enemy was more important than the engagement itself. He knew had won before the battle began, and decided to wear his dress uniform as such. He was shot when the battle began, but the strategic decisions made before the battle prevented the Franco-Spanish fleet from being able to use any tactics to defeat the British Navy. The Franco-Spanish fleet even outnumbered the British fleet 6 ships of the line-that equates to ~600 more cannons.
All the points you make are true, but you're analogizing to the wrong scale. A game of 40K is not analogous to the Battle of Trafalgar. A very large game of 40K might involve 600 models. By comparison to Trafalgar, that is the action on a single gun deck on a ship of the line, or a single frigate.

40K is not a game of Lords Nelson, or even of the captains of His Majesty's Navy. 40K is a game of platoon and company commanders.

A company commander does indeed fight wherever. It is not for him to decide to deploy to this sector or that, nor for him to decide that the enemy's ability to wage war will be destroyed by removing his industrial capability rather than by removing his armed forces. Those are strategic decisions, made by the proverbial Admiral Nelson. Nor is it for him to decide, Lord Nelson having made the call to go for industrial capability, to attack this industrial complex or that one, or to capture rather than destroy it. That is an operational decision, made by his superiors - the proverbial Captain Blackwoods. Having been instructed to take rather than destroy such-and-such an industrial complex in such-and-such a timeframe, the company commander does indeed get to exercise his discretion. But his decision to attack at night rather than at day, to detach some of his forces in an outflanking maneuver rather than keeping them concentrated, and to attack from the north, over such-and-such terrain, rather than from the east, over such-and-such terrain ... all of those are tactical decisions, notwithstanding the fact that they occur before any triggers are pulled. And it is those decisions, and their consequences, that 40K is about.

[Jovian1]

What the battle of Trafalgar and whether something is Tactical or Strategic has to do with the OP in this thread is beyond me. I think you both just like to argue, which is fine.

In response to the OP: "Can you deep strike a 10-man marine unit (assault marines, terminators etc) and then combat squad them? I know you can’t combat squad, leave one half on the table and leave one in reserve, but can you combat squad after deep striking??"

The Blood Angels FAQ states: "Q: Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man squad and then put a combat squad in it, deploying the other combat squad on the table, or leave it in reserve but not in the Drop Pod? (p32) A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads."

While it may be listed only in the Blood Angels FAQ, the ruling clearly states squads placed in reserves may NOT break down into combat squads. While this may conflict with other rulings, I am just pointing it out here to show you that no matter how you read the rules, RAW, or FAQ'd or otherwise, the rules are NOT a tight set of rules, there are numerous abiguities and the only ruling which is certain is that of the referee at a tournament - right or wrong - at the time it is made during a game. And remember, it is only a game.

As for Trafalgar - I defer to both of your seemingly exhaustive reading on the subject and about how many guns a typical ship of the day had and the strategic and tactical considerations of both fleets.

[Tynskel]

Strategy and tactics can upscale and downscale.
The ship of the line acts as one object, just as a squad acts as one object- are you saying the actions of one ship of the line are only strategic, just as a game of Epic or Battle Fleet Gothic only involve strategy? No. The actions of one ship are made on a tactical level, just as the actions of one squad are made on a tactical level. The issue of being deployed onto the battlefield or in the sector are strategic decisions. The calling in your reserves, for example, is randomized, forcing you to make tactical decisions during the game while you are waiting four your reserves.

The company commanders do not fight wherever, you only fight wherever when you got caught with your pants down. They have very specific goals, and attempt to use their location to their advantage. blowing a factory is a strategic goal, your initial approachto the objective is strategic, but the once the engagement starts and the act of demolishing require tactical decisions.

[Nabterayl]

Strategy and tactics can upscale and downscale.
The ship of the line acts as one object, just as a squad acts as one object- are you saying the actions of one ship of the line are only strategic, just as a game of Epic or Battle Fleet Gothic only involve strategy? No.
I'm saying that you're incorrectly distinguishing tactics from strategy by limiting tactics to things you do once triggers are on the verge of being pulled. But let us leave this conversation, as the whole thing is a sidebar.

Did you get my earlier question about how you seem to not actually care about strategic vs. tactical deployment, and instead care about on-board vs. off-board deployment?

[Tynskel]

I disagree with incorrectly distinguishing tactics from strategy.

Tactics is the disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.
Strategy is the employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.

Deployment of your forces during pre-game is strategy. Everything during the setup of the game is strategy.
Once the game has begun, you are using tactics.

[Nabterayl]

I disagree with incorrectly distinguishing tactics from strategy.

Tactics is the disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.
Strategy is the employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.
Agreed. Hence, when a captain is given a specific objective and decides which of his forces will attack when, and which will be held in reserve, and when he will accomplish his objective within the timeframe given to him, and what his battle plan is to accomplish his assigned objective, he is disposing his forces for battle and making tactical decisions. He is not planning and directing large military movements or operations, so he is not making strategic decisions. Once the battle has begun and the captain must adapt to the circumstances of the battle, he will still be making tactical decisions.


Deployment of your forces during pre-game is strategy. Everything during the setup of the game is strategy.
Perhaps where we disagree is in how we conceive of what is going on before a 40K battle.

I quite agree with your stated definition that strategy, as distinct from tactics, by definition must involve large military movements and operations - and that tactics involves not just maneuvering forces in battle but disposing (i.e., choosing and maneuvering) forces before battle as well.

It is for this reason that the planning of a section or fireteam can never be strategic, no matter how far before a given battle they make their plans. And it is for this very reason that I believe everything to do with 40K is tactical, not strategic. The distances involved are very short - so short that even infantry on foot arrives from reserve, guaranteed, within five turns. The numbers involved are small - a company's worth, at most, and usually a platoon's. No commander gets to choose the nature of the mission. Neither commander gets to choose the terrain fought over. From top to bottom, the game is very far from large military movements and operations. You dispose forces for battle, yes, but as you yourself have noted, that is not a hallmark of the strategic level of operations.

[Tynskel]

This is where we both differ.

Everything to do with 40k is a balance between strategy and tactics.
Army design, board setup, discussion how the terrain works, objectives, and deployment are all strategic decisions.
How you complete your objective is tactics.

I completely disagree.
The distances are not to scale in 40k. Ranges of weapons are not to scale. ect.
Also, you left out that tactics and strategy can scale.
The selection of a fireteam is a strategic decision, you have to decide if you are using the right firepower for the job, and you are pulling firepower away from somewhere else. A company commander is not fighting one fight, they are fighting a dozen at a time--- they just so happen to be at the one that is on the board.
Also, commanders do choose what terrain they fight over--- this is why you get to set up the board. You are not blindly headed to an apparent objective. You are headed into a planned out operation.


What I am seeing here is that you are blurring the distinctions from an abstract board game into fluff. I like the fluff, and if we are going to go the 'fluff' route, you are supporting my argument even more: the deployment of forces in 'another sector' is direct from the rulebook. These are not nearby--- they are somewhere else, being called in.

[Nabterayl]

We do indeed disagree that strategy can scale to the extent you apparently think it can. I am certainly not prepared to concede that when a squad leader selects one of his two fireteams for a particular job, he is making a very small-scale strategic decision in any sense of the word "strategic" that an English-speaking military would recognize. Nor am I prepared to concede that any English-speaking military recognizes the company as a strategic-level unit, or that the decisions made by company commanders are strategic - as opposed to tactical or operational - in nature under any but the most extraordinary circumstances.

Since I expect we have reached an impasse on this particular thread, I propose that we leave it (for real this time) - and since we are rather far removed from the original point of this tangent, I propose starting a new line of discussion. If I may, I would like to propose:

The fact that your point of view is your point of view suggests that you believe it superior* to all other interpretations of the text of which you are presently aware, including mine. Granted that you believe both your point of view and mine are supported by the rules, why do you find my interpretation inferior* to yours?

I don't mean "superior" and "inferior" in a value-judgment sense - just as shorthand for "is preferable or less preferable to believe."

[Tynskel]

I don't know where you got the idea that a squad leader is making the decisions. The part of the captain is that they have to decide what to do with all of their arms. That's a strategic decision. The Lt picks who goes.


I am not sure where the superior argument comes from.
I have stated multiple times that both arguments have multiple flaws.

Your argument ignores the context that deployment has been written in.
My argument is flawed because according to some, I have to make more assumptions.

The point is that the setup rules are not cut clear n' dry. but they are not supposed to be: The board is treated subjectively, and the FoC is a modular construction (most people dare not change the holy rulebook!)

[wkz]

The point is this: "Leaders make tactical choices to fulfill strategic decisions".

In the dictionary meaning of BOTH words, any action can BOTH have a tactical choice, and a strategic goal. For example: Bombing certain targets is a strategic goal. Using a cruise missile to do the bombing instead of a Warthog A-10 Thunderbolt (ground attack plane) is a tactical choice... but that also means sending out the fighter loaded with the cruise missile is BOTH a tactical AND a strategic choice.

In fact, EVERY SINGLE UNIT has a strategic goal during a game (Kill points: kill stuff. Otherwise, capture stuff), while EVERY SINGLE UNIT's ACTIONS is a tactical decision. (Do this, in order to kill/capture stuff better. Do that, in order to allow other stuff to kill/capture stuff better)

The problem here is that you're trying to keep these 2 very mixed words apart in a very clear cut, rules compatible way (you were saying: Droppods are strategic, vehicles and passengers from table edge is tactical)... which utterly fails if your only fall back is a dictionary (just deciding to use a droppod is tactical decision, on top of strategic concerns. And deployment using a vehicle may be tactical, but re-deployment from another battlefield is strategic). And the rulebook is not helpful either: there is absolutely no mention of strategic or tactical.

Basically, by forcing such muddied words into the rulebook, it is no wonder you would think combat squad deployment (and GW's FAQ on combat squad) would make no sense... because ultimately, thanks to the usage of strategic or tactical and your muddied interpretation of when it can activate, your view on deployment is already very, very arbitrary and based on personal preference... I doubt no 2 person will be able to match"tactical or strategic deployment" similarly for all of the different cases of tabletop deployment of units, unless by the sheerest of chances.

Basically, Nabterayl said it best: there is an interpretation of deploy which works. And there is your version, which we have been arguing for a while now. AND your version goes against the grain of the BRB's language, and in fact contains phrases which are very, very NOT-mentioned in the rulebook... phrases which I explain above are very, VERY dependent on user opinon. WHY do you still think yours is better?



And I know how you're going to retort against my above argument: "Strategic and Tactical deployment is very clear cut", which you've already replied in this thread.

Well, my answer to you: No they're not clear cut. Please provide the DICTIONARY meaning of Strategic and Tactical deployment, and how they're VERY clear-cut and Exclusive from each other. And while you're at it, please provide the "Clear Cut"-ness of the meanings as applied to -a- Deepstrike, -b- Deepstrike in a droppod, -c- Deepstrike in a vehicle, -d- Outflanking, -e- Outflanking in a vehicle, -f- normal deployment, -g- normal deployment in a vehicle. And last but not least -h- "disembark from a vehicle type"-deployment and -i- "deepstrike from another part of the table"-deployment (teleport shunt + Gate of Infinity).

(The rest of my questions... were asked by Nabterayl in a way I could never approach. Once again, hat's off to you Nabterayl)

[Nabterayl]

Your argument ignores the context that deployment has been written in.
Can you elaborate on this? I don't think the context of deployment really has anything to do with my argument.

To elaborate on that: Regardless of context, by simply doing a word search of the rulebook, we can tell that every time the word "deploy" is printed in the rulebook, it refers to giving a unit with no tabletop presence a tabletop presence.

Now, this does not logically preclude the rulebook meaning of deploy going beyond the meanings it has when that word is printed in the rulebook. The question I would raise at this point, though, is what justification we have for adding a meaning to the word that it is never given in the printed rulebook.

If somebody were to ask me how I know that deploy covers, at a minimum, giving a unit with no tabletop presence a tabletop presence, I would say, "Do a word search of the rulebook, and you will find that every time the word is used in the rulebook, it has that meaning."

If somebody were to ask you how you know that deploy covers, in addition, placing a unit in Reserve, your answer seems to be, "Because placing a unit in Reserve is not inconsistent with the general meaning of deploy."

Now, this is a statement I quite agree with, although you and I would argue over whether placing units in Reserve is tactical or strategic deployment. The problem I have with the statement is not that it is untrue, but that I think it is bad rules construction. It is tantamount to saying that any time word A is not inconsistent with the general meaning of word B, word A and word B are equivalent for rules purposes absent an explicit statement printed in the rules to the contrary. I am not sure if that strikes you intuitively as a bad canon of construction; if it does not, perhaps we should discuss that.

[Tynskel]

Can you elaborate on this? I don't think the context of deployment really has anything to do with my argument.


You just elaborated for me.

The uses in the rulebook are tactical and strategic.

[Nabterayl]

You just elaborated for me.

The uses in the rulebook are tactical and strategic.
Which you know ... how? Those words are printed in the rulebook nowhere near the word "deploy."

Do you agree, then, that any time the general meaning of word A (e.g., "place") is not inconsistent with a general meaning of word B (e.g., "deploy"), word A and word B are equivalent for rules purposes absent an explicit statement printed in the rules to the contrary? That appears to be your argument.

[Tynskel]

Which you know ... how? Those words are printed in the rulebook nowhere near the word "deploy."

Do you agree, then, that any time the general meaning of word A (e.g., "place") is not inconsistent with a general meaning of word B (e.g., "deploy"), word A and word B are equivalent for rules purposes absent an explicit statement printed in the rules to the contrary? That appears to be your argument.

no, because half of the instances where you are indicating 'place' is also in association with 'move'. The other half of the use 'place' is in association with 'stationary'. This is what I am getting at. The two uses of deploy are different. One is consistently strategic, the other is consistently tactical.

I stated this a while ago.

[Nabterayl]

The two uses of deploy are different. One is consistently strategic, the other is consistently tactical.
Okay, hang on. Walk me through your argument really slowly here. Because right now, this is what it looks like to me:

"Ten-man units with the Combat Squads rule must choose to split into combat squads or not to split the first time they are deployed," you say.

"Agreed, my good Tynskel," say I. "Which is why units cannot make that choice when they are placed in Reserve."

"Ah, my dear Nabterayl," you reply, "but they are deployed when they are placed in Reserve!"

"How can that be?" I cry, astonished. "Does not page 94 say, plain as day, 'When deploying their army, players may choose not to deploy one or more of the units in their army and instead leave them in reserve?'"

"Indeed, my credulous friend," you explain. "But note that the context plainly indicates that the players are choosing not to deploy one or more of the units in their army to the board."

"True enough, I must concede," I say. "But what other kind of deployment can there be? Does not the rulebook always refer to deployment only with reference to the board?"

"Of course," you say. "But there are more meanings of deploy in heaven and earth, my dear Nab, than are printed in your rulebook. Attend: in the English language, is is not accurate to say that a military unit has been deployed into a strategic (or, as you will, a tactical) reserve?"

"To be sure it is," I say. "And so you believe that page 94 says, in essence, 'When deploying their army, players may choose not to deploy one or more of the units in their army [to the board] and instead [deploy] them [to] reserve?'"

"But of course, good sir," say you. "For they are not being deployed strategically to the board; they are being deployed strategically to reserve!"

"But how, Tynskel," I implore, "can you be so sure that the rulebook regards leaving a unit in reserve as a species of deployment?"

"Why, my dear Nabterayl," you say, "have we not just agreed that leaving a unit in reserve may be described as deployment in the English language? Why, have you no dictionary? Or are you so ignorant of the meaning of deploy?"

"Yes, yes," I say, "But while leaving a unit in reserve may be described as deployment in the English language, it is not so described in the rulebook. Not once! Do you mean to say that just because the English language permits us to describe something in the rulebook with one turn of phrase, we should assume for purposes of interpreting the rules that the rulebook has in fact used that turn of phrase?"

"Quite so," you say. "Now you begin to understand."

"Notwithstanding the evidence of our eyes that in fact that turn of phrase is not used in the rulebook?"

"Of course."

"But this is incredible!" I say. "Are we, in the name of paying attention to context, to say that one word may as well be another?"

"Well, in this case, the two do mean the same thing, do they not?" you ask.

"The same thing!" I cry. "Why, have we not earlier agreed that the meaning of the rule changes if we do as you suggest?"

"We have," you respond. "But my dear Nabterayl, surely we must pay attention to context. As you would have it, we ignore the context altogether!"

"Not at all," I argue. "I quite agree with you that page 94 refers to not deploying a unit to the board. What I cannot see is how you get 'leave them in reserve' to mean 'deploy' from context."

"I don't get it from context, my delightfully one-track fellow," you say. "I get it from the dictionary. You cannot mean to suggest that because the rulebook uses word A when it might have used word B, we should imagine that it meant only A and not B."

"But that is precisely what I mean to suggest," I say. "These are rules we are expounding, after all, my good man. Their diction is of the foremost importance."

And you say ... ?

[SeattleDV8]

Tynskel;Thats an arbitrary distinction that has no basis in the rules.
Stating it over and over doesn't change that.

[Tynskel]

You story was cute, but wrong.

The word deploy has multiple meanings, that's because the dictionary states so. The rulebook does not explicitly define deploy, therefore we must use the context of the word deploy to determine which meaning is being used.

Reserves follows the exact use of deploy in the strategic meaning. The deployment of forces during the deployment phase of the game is all strategic. Reserves also occurs during the deployment phase-- you are deploying your forces, all of them, during the deployment phase.

Deploy during the game is tactical.

That's it! Pretty darn simple--- and it does not ignore any of the context of the use of deploy.

[Nabterayl]

You story was cute, but wrong.

The word deploy has multiple meanings, that's because the dictionary states so. The rulebook does not explicitly define deploy, therefore we must use the context of the word deploy to determine which meaning is being used.
Okay. But that's not at issue. At issue is the meaning of the phrase "leave them in reserve." You claim that that phrase is, for rules purposes, equivalent to "deploy." Your warrant for this is that, while "leave them in reserve" doesn't have to be described as deployment, and is not described as deployment it could be described as deployment.

Can you come up with a stronger warrant than that?

[Tynskel]

Okay. But that's not at issue. At issue is the meaning of the phrase "leave them in reserve." You claim that that phrase is, for rules purposes, equivalent to "deploy." Your warrant for this is that, while "leave them in reserve" doesn't have to be described as deployment, and is not described as deployment it could be described as deployment.

Can you come up with a stronger warrant than that?

I have already explained that it is described as deployment. The rules for reserves follow exactly the strategic definition of deploy, which is exactly follows the deployment phase rules.

[Nabterayl]

I have already explained that it is described as deployment.
No, you haven't. You've said that "leave them in reserve" happens to occur prior to the start of turn 1. You even corrected me when I said that it occurs during "deployment of forces," pointing out - correctly - that the reserve rules don't even appear in that section. Please quote the rulebook describing leaving units in reserve as deployment.


The rules for reserves follow exactly the strategic definition of deploy
Do you see how this is the same as "doesn't have to be described as deployment, isn't described as deployment, but could be described as deployment?" In order to claim that the strategic definition of deploy governs the rules for reserves, you need to establish that that's what the rulebook says. Please quote the rulebook describing leaving units in reserve as deployment.

[wkz]

Apparently, Mr T is also ignoring my last post, or something, which basically says: BY THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION, strategic and tactical deployment can BOTH be applied to the deployment of any and every unit, whether or not in reserve, always.

Even if putting into reserves equals deployment, which context do we even begin to think of using? Especially since your personal context (strategic and tactical) is not even stated in any way, form and meaning in the BRB?

Your entire argument is based on Context of the word "deploy". The problem here is that your Context is so muddy, I can't even see the bottom of a 1/2 inch deep pool, and no amount of typing out "this is clearly in the context of", or "follow exactly the definition of" can fix that...

[Tynskel]

No, you haven't. You've said that "leave them in reserve" happens to occur prior to the start of turn 1. You even corrected me when I said that it occurs during "deployment of forces," pointing out - correctly - that the reserve rules don't even appear in that section. Please quote the rulebook describing leaving units in reserve as deployment.


Do you see how this is the same as "doesn't have to be described as deployment, isn't described as deployment, but could be described as deployment?" In order to claim that the strategic definition of deploy governs the rules for reserves, you need to establish that that's what the rulebook says. Please quote the rulebook describing leaving units in reserve as deployment.

I think you need to review the rules. Reserves occur during deployment, there isn't a 'reserves' phase during setup--- it is deploy forces.
I have already explained that the reserves rules follow exactly the strategic definition of deployment.

[wkz]

I think you need to review the rules. Reserves occur during deployment, there isn't a 'reserves' phase during setup--- it is deploy forces.
I have already explained that the reserves rules follow exactly the strategic definition of deployment.

Reserves occur during the deployment PHASE, which is a completely different beast from actual deployment of troops.

Just as movement phase can trigger shooting (mystics) and shooting is CLEARLY not moving, assault phase can trigger movement (jet packs) and movement is CLEARLY not assault, so non-"deploy forces" stuff can occur inside the deployment phase.

And again: "the reserves rules follow exactly the strategic definition of deployment". It also follows the tactical definition of deployment. Care to explain?

[Tynskel]

the reserves do not follow the tactical definition of deployment--- there is no movement associated with reserves pre-game, this is exactly the same with deploying your forces. It is when you call in your forces from reserves when reserves follow the tactical definition of deployment--- that is in-game.

[wkz]

the reserves do not follow the tactical definition of deployment--- there is no movement associated with reserves pre-game, this is exactly the same with deploying your forces. It is when you call in your forces from reserves when reserves follow the tactical definition of deployment--- that is in-game.Once again: since the rulebook does not explain tactical and strategic deployment, tell me WHY a certain thing is a tactical deployment, and another is a strategic deployment? Especially given that both of them overlap via the dictionary meaning of the words.

Also: as non-"deploy forces" stuff can occur inside the deployment phase... putting things into reserve is clearly not reserves because of the "instead of deploying" phase, correct?

[Nabterayl]

I think you need to review the rules. Reserves occur during deployment, there isn't a 'reserves' phase during setup--- it is deploy forces.
Are you referring to the lead-in to everybody's favorite sentence, "When deploying their army?" That's not in dispute, but are you arguing that everything that happens "when deploying [one's] army" must be deployment? That doesn't follow from that sentence structure. If I said, "When eating their dinner, players may choose not to eat one or more of their dishes and instead leave them at the buffet line," you would not argue that leaving dishes at the buffet line constitutes "eating " simply because it happens "when eating [one's] dinner," would you?

[SeattleDV8]

You story was cute, but wrong.
No . that would be you Tynskel.


The word deploy has multiple meanings, that's because the dictionary states so. The rulebook does not explicitly define deploy, therefore we must use the context of the word deploy to determine which meaning is being used.
Bull****, the context of deploy in the GW rules is when a model or unit is placed on the table.
Take your dictionary and stick it, as it as no real standing in a rules debate.



Reserves follows the exact use of deploy in the strategic meaning. The deployment of forces during the deployment phase of the game is all strategic. Reserves also occurs during the deployment phase-- you are deploying your forces, all of them, during the deployment phase.

Deploy during the game is tactical.
Bah,bah bah
Total and complete hogwash.
None of this crap is part of the rules, it is all made up by you.



That's it! Pretty darn simple--- and it does not ignore any of the context of the use of deploy.
Oh doesn't it??
By your idea not being deployed = being deployed.
Please just stop the BS .
You've already admitted you are wrong.
Stop debating it.
Your silly *** idea that somehow terms that are never mentioned in the rules should somehow magically effect the rules is sad, silly and just flat out pathetic.

You are wrong.
Deal with it, just stop pretending that your point had any standing because it never did.

[wkz]

< Stuff >

umad?

Calm down dude. Please. Seriously.

[SeattleDV8]

oh, I already admitted I was wrong.

However, that doesn't stop me from arguing the syntax before the FAQ.


This is why I'm irritated.
He knows he is wrong, but he will not stop debating a position that has been declared incorrect.
What is the point?
Tynskel seems like a fairly smart fellow, why waste his and our time on a position that has been proven wrong?

Please, Duke stop the insanity.

[Tynskel]

Deploying your forces occurs during the deployment phase. When looking at the sentence structure for deploying your forces, the use is strategic, ie it is during the setup section of the game where only strategic decisions are made, and there is no use of the word move during deploying. Reserves follow the exact same rules and sentence structure. They occur during the deployment phase, the sentence structure is strategic decisions, it is during the setup section of the game where only strategic decisions are made.

All of these uses are strategic.

The in-game use of deploy is always associated with the movement rules. There is no use of stationary when deploying forces during the in-game phase.

There is one exception laid out in the reserve rules. This is for units that are strategic units, ie turret emplacements. These units would have already been deployed, but due to the nature of the scenario, they have yet to be deployed. Drop Pods coincide with those rules, and their combat squad rules are coherent with this exception.

[Tynskel]

This is why I'm irritated.
He knows he is wrong, but he will not stop debating a position that has been declared incorrect.
What is the point?
Tynskel seems like a fairly smart fellow, why waste his and our time on a position that has been proven wrong?

Please, Duke stop the insanity.

I was wrong about the Combat Squads rule.
This does not mean I am wrong about deployment.

The Combat Squads rules do not make sense when you pay extra points for a transport. You lose your special rules, ie deep strike, outflank, even the ability to combat squad.

[hisdudeness]

http://i560.photobucket.com/albums/ss48/hisdudeness69/original.jpg

[wkz]

I was wrong about the Combat Squads rule.
This does not mean I am wrong about deployment.Unfortunately, a lot of other people think otherwise, which is why we're stacking up the page count.


The Combat Squads rules do not make sense when you pay extra points for a transport. You lose your special rules, ie deep strike, outflank, even the ability to combat squad.By that logic:

- Powerfists does not make sense!! We get initiative 1 even after we paid the points!! I don't care if we gain double strength, it still doesn't make sense!!

- Going to Ground does not make sense!! We cannot do anything in the next turn even after we paid the points!! I don't care if we gain a better cover save, it still doesn't make sense!!

- Buying Tau Stabilizers for my Broadsides doesn't make sense!! We get slow and purposeful even after we paid the points!! I don't care if we can now move and fire our heavy weapons, it still doesn't make sense!!

- Buying transports doesn't make sense!! We lose deepstrike, infiltrate and combat squad even after we paid the points!! I don't care if we now have an ARMORED BOX which will PROTECT OUR INFANTRY, not to mention being able to travel a LOT FASTER than on foot, it still doesn't make sense!!

(Oh, one more thing: You do lose deepstrike, infiltrate and combat squad, BUT you DO NOT lose outflank and scout)



Deploying your forces occurs during the deployment phase. When looking at the sentence structure for deploying your forces, the use is strategic, ie it is during the setup section of the game where only strategic decisions are made, and there is no use of the word move during deploying.

Reserves follow the exact same rules and sentence structure. They occur during the deployment phase, the sentence structure is strategic decisions, it is during the setup section of the game where only strategic decisions are made.

All of these uses are strategic. Wrong. On both counts.


- Deploying your forces does occur during the deployment phase. However, just as movement phase does not encompass only movement, shooting phase does not consist of only shooting and assault phase is not only for assault. the deployment phase is not exclusively FOR deployment of forces.


- While looking at the sentence structure for deploying your forces, the use is BOTH strategic and tactical: "Choose your unit and Deploy" consist of 2 meanings: strategical planning your forces, AND tactically choice of what/where/how. This also applies to Reserves, and also to "in-game deploy".

Why then, when both are applicable and can be used 100%, do we choose "strategic" over "tactical"? Just because it sounds nicer?

Especially note that Reserves are NOT part of the Deployment section. It affects that, but it is NOT a paragraph or a sub-section of Deployment. Instead it has its own section elsewhere and outside Deployment.



The in-game use of deploy is always associated with the movement rules. There is no use of stationary when deploying forces during the in-game phase.Truth... but



There is one exception laid out in the reserve rules. This is for units that are strategic units, ie turret emplacements. These units would have already been deployed, but due to the nature of the scenario, they have yet to be deployed. Drop Pods coincide with those rules, and their combat squad rules are coherent with this exception.These are still moved onto the table. BOTH the fluff and the rules conform to it:

- Fluff says they're air-dropped onto the battlefield... which means they're MOVED there.

- Rules say anything that deepstruck counts a MOVING, and according to you much earlier in this thread, "Counts as moving" = moved.

There is no exception except for a very skewered viewpoint... unless of course you can explain this (4th request) : WHY is a deployment Strategic (and ignoring Tactical) while another deployment Tactical (and ignoring Strategic), when BOTH dictionary meanings of the word can be gotten from the context of the SAME sentence?

[Jwolf]

Okay, hang on. Walk me through your argument really slowly here. Because right now, this is what it looks like to me:

"Ten-man units with the Combat Squads rule must choose to split into combat squads or not to split the first time they are deployed," you say.

"Agreed, my good Tynskel," say I. "Which is why units cannot make that choice when they are placed in Reserve."

"Ah, my dear Nabterayl," you reply, "but they are deployed when they are placed in Reserve!"

"How can that be?" I cry, astonished. "Does not page 94 say, plain as day, 'When deploying their army, players may choose not to deploy one or more of the units in their army and instead leave them in reserve?'"

"Indeed, my credulous friend," you explain. "But note that the context plainly indicates that the players are choosing not to deploy one or more of the units in their army to the board."

"True enough, I must concede," I say. "But what other kind of deployment can there be? Does not the rulebook always refer to deployment only with reference to the board?"

"Of course," you say. "But there are more meanings of deploy in heaven and earth, my dear Nab, than are printed in your rulebook. Attend: in the English language, is is not accurate to say that a military unit has been deployed into a strategic (or, as you will, a tactical) reserve?"

"To be sure it is," I say. "And so you believe that page 94 says, in essence, 'When deploying their army, players may choose not to deploy one or more of the units in their army [to the board] and instead [deploy] them [to] reserve?'"

"But of course, good sir," say you. "For they are not being deployed strategically to the board; they are being deployed strategically to reserve!"

"But how, Tynskel," I implore, "can you be so sure that the rulebook regards leaving a unit in reserve as a species of deployment?"

"Why, my dear Nabterayl," you say, "have we not just agreed that leaving a unit in reserve may be described as deployment in the English language? Why, have you no dictionary? Or are you so ignorant of the meaning of deploy?"

"Yes, yes," I say, "But while leaving a unit in reserve may be described as deployment in the English language, it is not so described in the rulebook. Not once! Do you mean to say that just because the English language permits us to describe something in the rulebook with one turn of phrase, we should assume for purposes of interpreting the rules that the rulebook has in fact used that turn of phrase?"

"Quite so," you say. "Now you begin to understand."

"Notwithstanding the evidence of our eyes that in fact that turn of phrase is not used in the rulebook?"

"Of course."

"But this is incredible!" I say. "Are we, in the name of paying attention to context, to say that one word may as well be another?"

"Well, in this case, the two do mean the same thing, do they not?" you ask.

"The same thing!" I cry. "Why, have we not earlier agreed that the meaning of the rule changes if we do as you suggest?"

"We have," you respond. "But my dear Nabterayl, surely we must pay attention to context. As you would have it, we ignore the context altogether!"

"Not at all," I argue. "I quite agree with you that page 94 refers to not deploying a unit to the board. What I cannot see is how you get 'leave them in reserve' to mean 'deploy' from context."

"I don't get it from context, my delightfully one-track fellow," you say. "I get it from the dictionary. You cannot mean to suggest that because the rulebook uses word A when it might have used word B, we should imagine that it meant only A and not B."

"But that is precisely what I mean to suggest," I say. "These are rules we are expounding, after all, my good man. Their diction is of the foremost importance."

And you say ... ?

Best rules argument ever. Seriously, this takes the rambling of many pages and condenses it to an enjoyable readable format, while preserving all the nuance and value of the orginal rambling.

Doesn't hurt that you're absolutely and unequivocably correct.

[Nabterayl]

Sorry if other folks are annoyed at the continuation of this thread. To be clear, my interest in continuing this discussion is not primarily to convince Tynskel he's wrong, but to drill down on what precisely his viewpoint is. Respectfully, dv8, I think at this point you're lowering the tone of the thread more than Tynskel is.


Deploying your forces occurs during the deployment phase. When looking at the sentence structure for deploying your forces, the use is strategic, ie it is during the setup section of the game where only strategic decisions are made, and there is no use of the word move during deploying. Reserves follow the exact same rules and sentence structure. They occur during the deployment phase, the sentence structure is strategic decisions, it is during the setup section of the game where only strategic decisions are made.

All of these uses are strategic.

Now, this is an interesting point, and one I don't believe has been brought up before. I still think Tynskel has a fundamentally incorrect understanding of the three levels of military planning, but I suspect that's not really important; "strategic" in this sense could as well read "shiny" and I don't think it would change his argument.

In response to my last post, Tynskel has now argued that it is not merely the fact that Reserves are decided during the deployment phase (or, if you prefer, the setup section of the game) that cause them to constitute deployment, nor merely the coincidence of language that an English-speaking rulebook could (but didn't) describe leaving a unit in Reserve as deploying, but instead that doing so shares certain characteristics with the action that we all agree constitutes "deployment:"

Namely, that both deploying units [on the board] during deployment and leaving units in Reserve (i) occur during the "deployment" (to use the rulebook's phrasing), (ii) do not involve movement (as the rulebook uses the word "move"), and (iii) both the decision to deploy [on the board] and the decision to leave units in Reserve constitute a "strategic" decision.

I think this is a contention worth examining.

Leaving aside the fact that I think both decisions in (iii) are actually tactical (which wouldn't change the argument, because I think Tynskel's movement-based definition of tactical is incorrect - we might both agree that the decisions are "pre-mission planning," which seems to be the gist of what Tynskel means by "strategic"), I agree that all three contentions correctly describe characteristics shared by both deploying [on the board] and leaving units in Reserve.

The question is, is this coincidence of characteristics enough to cause leaving units in Reserve to be the same thing as deploying units [on the board]?

In a general sense my answer is yes, though to this particular question my answer remains no. Let me explain:

While Tynskel has identified many similarities between deployment [on the board] and leaving units in Reserve, he has decided that two dissimilarities are immaterial: (i) that one of those things occurs on the board and the other does not, and (ii) never is the same word used to describe both of those things. Now, of course it could be that those dissimilarities are material. Perhaps GW would read this thread and say, "Why Nab, we merely forgot to use the word 'deploy' when describing leaving units in Reserve," although the wording of the FAQs suggests otherwise to me.

The real question here is, which set of coincidences is most important? In essence, the "coincidence" I propose is that of diction: every time an action is coincidentally described using a particular word (in this case, "deploy"), all subsequent references to that word count as referring to, among other things, that action. In a sense, this is arbitrary - we're choosing to believe that every time something is described as "deploying," subsequent references to "deploy" include that word. But I think this is an "arbitrariness" that is built into the language. If A = B, it must follow that B = A.

Which is why I think Tynskel's proposal skews farther from the text than mine. If these were not rules we are expounding, I would of course agree with him. In a vernacular sense, of course leaving units in Reserve is deploying them. But because these are rules we are expounding, the question at hand is whether the rules require us to believe that two actions which share three characteristics but not two are in fact the same action. If A = T, and B = T, and A = U, and B = U, and A = V, and B = V, and A = W, and B = X, and A = Y, and B = Z ... does it follow that B = A? No. Does it follow that B != A? No. We simply don't have enough information to tell for sure.

And that is the real crux of the argument, I think. Tynskel seems to be arguing that because it is possible that leaving units in Reserve constitutes "deploying" for rules purposes, the text "supports" him in doing so. And of course I don't disagree with that, really - I just think it's the wrong question. When expounding rules, I think the question to be asked is whether leaving units in Reserve must constitute "deploying" for rules purposes. My answer to that - and I think Tynskel's as well - is no.

[SeattleDV8]

Best rules argument ever. Seriously, this takes the rambling of many pages and condenses it to an enjoyable readable format, while preserving all the nuance and value of the orginal rambling.

Doesn't hurt that you're absolutely and unequivocably correct.

100% in agreement.

[Tynskel]

You got my point. (although, you should fix your example-- if things are equal to the same thing, they are equal to each other. You should use inequalities instead--- A<T, B<T, A<U, B<U, ect does not mean that A=B without more information.)

This is the way my group plays.
I do not consider it house rules, because we used these exact rules at 'Ard Boyz, both prelims and regionals, for 3 years straight-- the most rules **** competition I have ever been too.

interesting, I didn't know this, but the forums automatically censors naz*s

[Nabterayl]

Okay. I think that probably takes us to the end of the conversation. The last thing (I think) I'm curious about is to confirm whether you'd agree that the rules do not compel your result.

And, if I'm right about that, am I also right that your view of RAW is "rules that are could be consistent with the text?"

[Culven]

This is the way my group plays.
I do not consider it house rules, because we used these exact rules at 'Ard Boyz, both prelims and regionals, for 3 years straight-- the most rules **** competition I have ever been too.
I would think that your 'Ard Boyz example only illustrates that the meta-game in your area is different. I wouldn't consider it to support your interpretation as being correct. Rather, I would consider it to be an example of a house rule that the players don't realize is a house rule since "everyone in my group plays it that way". If ever I were to play against someone from your group, and the issue came up, I would still point to the Reserves rules where it states that Units can be placed in Reserves instead of being Deployed and ask them to show me where the rules state that Units placed in Reserves are considered, within the printed rules, to have been Deployed.

[Tynskel]

I would think that your 'Ard Boyz example only illustrates that the meta-game in your area is different. I wouldn't consider it to support your interpretation as being correct. Rather, I would consider it to be an example of a house rule that the players don't realize is a house rule since "everyone in my group plays it that way". If ever I were to play against someone from your group, and the issue came up, I would still point to the Reserves rules where it states that Units can be placed in Reserves instead of being Deployed and ask them to show me where the rules state that Units placed in Reserves are considered, within the printed rules, to have been Deployed.

But we have already gone through the entire discussion. You know what we (our meta) would reply and retort.

[Tynskel]

Okay. I think that probably takes us to the end of the conversation. The last thing (I think) I'm curious about is to confirm whether you'd agree that the rules do not compel your result.

And, if I'm right about that, am I also right that your view of RAW is "rules that are could be consistent with the text?"

I disagree. I think they are still a more compelling case than the deploy means place, by reasoning that my case fits more of the text.

[Nabterayl]

I disagree. I think they are still a more compelling case than the other viewpoint, by reasoning that they fit more of the text.
I'm not asking what you think of the other position. I'm asking if you think the text compel your result. I don't think you do, since you've previously said that you think my position has merit - just less than yours. If I'm right about that, as a follow-up, I'd be curious what your definition of RAW is, since it seems to be different from mine.

[Tynskel]

I'm not asking what you think of the other position. I'm asking if you think the text compel your result. I don't think you do, since you've previously said that you think my position has merit - just less than yours. If I'm right about that, as a follow-up, I'd be curious what your definition of RAW is, since it seems to be different from mine.

Just because your position has merit, does not mean that I am compelled to go with your position. I believe my position has more merit (in this case).

my general feeling of RAW is what fits the text.

Take, for example, Acid Blood. I believe it effects every model in the unit, because the only other unit based characteristic tests that are only taken by one model are 1) a test based around moving, which always effects the entire unit (Hit n' Run), and 2) Ld, of which explicitly states one test for the unit.

All other characteristic tests are directed at individual models. The Acid Blood states unit: which is made up of a series of models. And since this test is no different than all other characteristic checks (besides the explicit wording of Ld checks), every model takes the test.

[Nabterayl]

Just because your position has merit, does not mean that I am compelled to go with your position. I believe my position has more merit (in this case).
Neither the fact that my position has merit, nor the fact that your position has merit, would compel you to read the text either way. There is a difference between "your reading has merit, but I think mine is better" and "this text admits of only one reading." I am asking whether you think this is a case of the former or the latter.

It sounds like you are saying the former. I find this interesting, because you have stated before that you view your position as RAW. This suggests to me that you have a different definition of RAW than I do. I understand RAW to be what the text requires. You seem to understand RAW as what the text permits.

Thus, I view it as RAW that deployment occurs whenever a unit previously not on the table hits the board. I believe you view that as RAW too, although you make a distinction as to how the unit hits the board that I believe the rules do not care about (and I'm pretty certain that the distinction isn't as central to your argument as you think). In my view, there is simply no way a reasonable English speaker could say that deployment isn't a unit hitting the board.

You view reserves-as-deployment as RAW because you think the text permits that reading, but you don't seem to think the text can only be read that way. I view it as not RAW for precisely the same reason - the text could be read another way. In my view, the term "RAW" should only be applied to readings that the text requires, not to readings that the text permits but does not require.

Have I accurately deduced your position on this topic?

[wkz]

...This is the way my group plays.
I do not consider it house rules, because we used these exact rules at 'Ard Boyz, both prelims and regionals, for 3 years straight-- the most rules **** competition I have ever been too ....Citing you got crap past 'Ard Boyz doesn't mean anything: if you managed to break a rule and get away with it, it only says that your opponent has a poor grasp of rulebook and/or codex rules, and not that the rule is correct. (some guy even managed to bring THREE ORK HQs into 'Ard Boyz, and even made it past a few games before he was called out and disqualified)

Not to mention your rules interpretation is pretty much VERY close to what Nabterayl and myself (at least) sees the rules. Unless something VERY specific occurs, people would think you're still using our version/interpretation of the core rules.

And lastly, being deviant from the general consensus (and competition consensus, and GW's FAQ...) does mean your interpretation IS a house rule. BUT as I've said before, as long as your gaming group agrees... have fun.


Also, @Nabterayl's interpretation of Mr T's thinking :

In response to my last post, Tynskel has now argued that it is not merely the fact that Reserves are decided during the deployment phase (or, if you prefer, the setup section of the game) that cause them to constitute deployment, nor merely the coincidence of language that an English-speaking rulebook could (but didn't) describe leaving a unit in Reserve as deploying, but instead that doing so shares certain characteristics with the action that we all agree constitutes "deployment:"
<snip>

You got my point.

Firstly, leaving reserve does explicitly state "deploying". It seems Nabterayl just missed a single sentence buried inside the rules:

"Once all of the units have been rolled for, the player picks any one of the units arriving and DEPLOYS it, moving it onto the table as described later..." - Rolling for reserves, page 94


As everything from "moving in from table edge" to "deepstrike" comes later, they fall under this blanket ruling of being "described later". Thus, all such methods are all different methods of deploying, despite the mass usage of any other word (such as "moving onto the table") and the lack of the word deploy (as using the word deploy again and again is just redundant).


As there is a "Deploy" being used in Turn zero (the "pre-planning" deploy... I think I'll use pre-plan instead of his obviously wrong "Strategic" from now on), and Deploy is also used for in-game deployment, AND there is an exclusion written into the rules for reserves ("... instead of Deploying..."), we have a clear, definable "closed loop" that all units will adhere to:

a) Units that are put onto the table at turn 0 are DEPLOYED.
b) Units into reserves are not Deployed.
c) Units that are put onto the table from reserves are DEPLOYED on the turn they come in.

(a)+(c) = ALL units that are put onto the table are DEPLOYED on that turn.


This does throw a spanner into Nabterayl's interpretation of Mr T's thinking: as Nabterayl states:

While Tynskel has identified many similarities between deployment [on the board] and leaving units in Reserve, he has decided that two dissimilarities are immaterial: (i) that one of those things occurs on the board and the other does not, and (ii) never is the same word used to describe both of those things. Now, of course it could be that those dissimilarities are material. Perhaps GW would read this thread and say, "Why Nab, we merely forgot to use the word 'deploy' when describing leaving units in Reserve," although the wording of the FAQs suggests otherwise to me.

Well, GW did state the word 'deploy', they're just lazy to repeat it... .. *ahem*, sorry. GW is only guilty of NOT being redundant in the use of the word 'deploy'.

If and/or Once this core foundation of Mr T's argument is broken, the rest does not make sense:
- There is an exclusion sentence against "deploying into reserves", yet putting units into reserves constitute deployment?
- Putting units onto the table is a different beast from the usual "deploy" only because the actual text for "moving in from reserves", "outflank" and "deepstrike" uses "moves" instead of "deploy", despite the word "deploy" being used to describe the whole procedure?

So, am I correct in Mr T's interpretation Nabterayl? Or am I forgetting something in Mr T's viewpoint of the reserves rules?

And lastly:

interesting, I didn't know this, but the forums automatically censors naz*s
These forums censors a lot of words actually. And even some very mild ones such as Sh*t for example (although I can see how Sh*t can offend some people)

What I find laughable is that (because of the side effect of BOLS being an American website BUT is a game from England) "Bloody" and "Wanker" is not censored. From what I heard, those words are quite vile from GW's home country...

[Tynskel]

I don't believe the language in the rulebook is tight enough to only allow one interpretation for every instance. Hence why there are rules debates.

[Tynskel]

This is not a case that I got 'crap' past the judges. This was 1) multiple people, and 2) the judges agreeing with us.

Your statements do not detract from my argument, that the use of deploy changes between pre game and in game.

[wkz]

I don't believe the language in the rulebook is tight enough to only allow one interpretation for every instance. Hence why there are rules debates.
Here's the interesting thing, you acknowledge there's more than one interpretation of the rules.

YET you've fought to the (thread's) death on your (sometimes vastly) different interpretation on more than one occasion, on more than one ruleset, refusing to acknowledge that there might be another interpretation of the rules?


This is not a case that I got 'crap' past the judges. This was 1) multiple people, and 2) the judges agreeing with us.People, especially judges, are not infailable. See my earlier post's example case about the 3 HQ Ork army actually getting some games played in 'Ard Boyz before they got themselves disqualified: they apparently got the nod from judges to even FIELD such an illegal army... in 'Ard Boyz no less!


Your statements do not detract from my argument, that the use of deploy changes between pre game and in game.
Actually, they do. The only difference between pre-planning deploy and in-game deploy is the turn in which they're performed. One of your major core arguments is that because in-game deploy is not stated as "deploying", the TRUE deploy (pre-plan deploy) for units that are in reserve is the act of putting said units into reserves in turn 0.

Well, guess what? The word "deploy" is actually used for in-game deploy. AND the word "deploy" is absolutely denied on turn 0's "putting into reserves" ("... instead of deploying... put into reserve"). BOTH are stated in my statements in my earlier post... and yes, those two items does detract from your pre-planning/in-game deployment argument.

[Nabterayl]

I don't believe the language in the rulebook is tight enough to only allow one interpretation for every instance. Hence why there are rules debates.
In those instances where more than one interpretation is reasonable, I would say that there is no RAW, only a best answer. Do you draw this distinction as well?


Your statements do not detract from my argument, that the use of deploy changes between pre game and in game.
Hang on a tick, what has this got to do with anything? The overall meaning of deploy changes between pre-game and in-game. We all agree about that; even you make a distinction between strategic deployment to the board and strategic deployment to reserves. My argument is only that every time the word deploy is actually used, it refers to a unit hitting the table. Sometimes that involves movement (in game), sometimes it doesn't (pre-game), but every single instance of the word that is actually printed in the rulebook shares the meaning of a unit hitting the table. Do you agree with that statement?

If so, what is the significance, in your mind, that the use of deploy changes in other ways between pre-game and in-game?

[Tynskel]

In those instances where more than one interpretation is reasonable, I would say that there is no RAW, only a best answer. Do you draw this distinction as well?


Hang on a tick, what has this got to do with anything? The overall meaning of deploy changes between pre-game and in-game. We all agree about that; even you make a distinction between strategic deployment to the board and strategic deployment to reserves. My argument is only that every time the word deploy is actually used, it refers to a unit hitting the table. Sometimes that involves movement (in game), sometimes it doesn't (pre-game), but every single instance of the word that is actually printed in the rulebook shares the meaning of a unit hitting the table. Do you agree with that statement?

If so, what is the significance, in your mind, that the use of deploy changes in other ways between pre-game and in-game?

I disagree, RAW means rules as written. If there are more than one interpretation, and this is how the rules are written, then they are both RAW.

i have stated before, from my point of view, your interpretation of deploy is incomplete, due to the changing context of deploy. (btw, the statement 'hang on a tick' was about was not directed at you.)

[Tynskel]

Wkz I defend my position to the death because you never ever ever think to interpret the rules from a different point of view.

Your interpretation is supporting you, but it does not negate my argument.

[Culven]

I disagree, RAW means rules as written. If there are more than one interpretation, and this is how the rules are written, then they are both RAW.
So, you consider an interpretation of the rules to be the Rules as Written (RaW), and not an interpretation? That seems odd to me. If the RaW is imprecise or unclear and an interpretation is required, I would consider that to be a House Rule / Game as Played (GaP) situation. If an errata were to be issued to clarify, then we could get back to RaW. If an FAQ were to be issued, then we may be able to understand the Rules as Intended (RaI), but we would still technically be playing by GW's House Rules.

Due to this, I still view your interpretation as nothing more than a House Rule and GaP in your area.


i have stated before, from my point of view, your interpretation of deploy is incomplete, due to the changing context of deploy.
Again, why does context matter? The rules make no mention of context, only the keyword "deploy" which is used to describe Units placed on the table during "Deploy Forces", is specifically addressed as not happening for Units placed in Reserves (the ". . . instead of deploying. . .placed in Reserves . . ." bit), and is used to describe Units arriving from Reserves. I still don't see a need to try to apply additional criteria in an attempt to differentiate various types of deployment when there are none defined nor used in the rules. Your interpretation requires some convoluted interpretations be applied which, to me, seem to be outside the scope of the rules.

[Nabterayl]

Wkz I defend my position to the death because you never ever ever think to interpret the rules from a different point of view.

Your interpretation is supporting you, but it does not negate my argument.
Tynskel, it's good to know that you have a different definition of RAW than I (and apparently Culven) do. That should help avoid confusion in the future.

I understand you weren't talking to me when I wrote my "hang on a tick" addendum, but I'm still honestly not sure I get your point. The thing I am confused about - and many other people seem to be confused about - is that you view leaving a unit in Reserve as deployment. This is not a strategic vs. tactical distinction, since the deployment referred to on page 94 is clearly strategic by your definition. It's a distinction of deploy on the board vs. deploy off the board.

Let me take another stab at interpreting your position for the benefit of those, like myself, who are confused, and you can tell me where I get you wrong:

I get that "deployment" covers the period of time in which players leave units in Reserve ("during deployment ..."). I get that "deploy" as used on page 94, and previously in the description of different deployment types, refers only to deploying units to the board. Is this the change in context you refer to? The fact that "deployment" covers a period of time in which more things happen than placing units on the board, whereas "deploy" covers only placing units on the board?

It sounds like you are arguing thusly:

Deployment is used to describe a period of time in which units are left in reserve. All things that occur during deployment must perforce be species of deployment. Thus, leaving units in reserve is deploying them.

Did I get that right?

[Tynskel]

Seriously, the rules make no context? When you read a sentence, you are combining a series of words together that most likely have multiple definitions. Furthermore, you have paragraphs that link sentences together. You cannot read the rulebook one word at a time. In this case, deploy has multiple definitions. Therefore, you must use the context to determine which definition to use,


The same right back at ya, we would say you are using a house rule, as well.
Rules as intended = RAW--- you are interpreting the rules to mean something based upon the language that is written.

[Tynskel]

Tynskel, it's good to know that you have a different definition of RAW than I (and apparently Culven) do. That should help avoid confusion in the future.

I understand you weren't talking to me when I wrote my "hang on a tick" addendum, but I'm still honestly not sure I get your point. The thing I am confused about - and many other people seem to be confused about - is that you view leaving a unit in Reserve as deployment. This is not a strategic vs. tactical distinction, since the deployment referred to on page 94 is clearly strategic by your definition. It's a distinction of deploy on the board vs. deploy off the board.

Let me take another stab at interpreting your position for the benefit of those, like myself, who are confused, and you can tell me where I get you wrong:

I get that "deployment" covers the period of time in which players leave units in Reserve ("during deployment ..."). I get that "deploy" as used on page 94, and previously in the description of different deployment types, refers only to deploying units to the board. Is this the change in context you refer to? The fact that "deployment" covers a period of time in which more things happen than placing units on the board, whereas "deploy" covers only placing units on the board?

It sounds like you are arguing thusly:

Deployment is used to describe a period of time in which units are left in reserve. All things that occur during deployment must perforce be species of deployment. Thus, leaving units in reserve is deploying them.

Did I get that right?

I am not sure why you are confused, because I told you earlier you got my interpretation correct.
The thing is, our definitions of RAW are essentially the same- we use what is written to determine how to play. As I have stated earlier, not all the language is tight enough to mean that there is only one interpretation.

I am not sure what is the confusion here- deploying deployment deployed are all variations on the same word deploy.

[Nabterayl]

I am not sure why you are confused, because I told you earlier you got my interpretation correct.
The thing is, our definitions of RAW are essentially the same- we use what is written to determine how to play. As I have stated earlier, not all the language is tight enough to mean that there is only one interpretation.
We both use what is written to determine how to play, of course. But as you know (I think?), "RAW" is a term of art among 40K players. I do not give the imprimatur of that term to rules matters I consider reasonably open to debate.


I am not sure what is the confusion here- deploying deployment deployed are all variations on the same word deploy.
That's precisely the confusion. Combat Squads only allows you to split "when the unit is deployed." The fact that leaving a unit in Reserve occurs "during deployment" does not perforce mean that the unit so left has been "deployed."

[Tynskel]

Ah. Interesting, the RAW Rules As Written name actually does not mean rules as written. Well, that's dumb. It should be renamed :RWAO- rules we agree on.


but, we have already discussed this: placing your unit into reserves deploys them-- the FAQ states so, through the example of deploying into a transport in reserves.

[Nabterayl]

Ah. Interesting, the RAW Rules As Written name actually does not mean rules as written. Well, that's dumb. It should be renamed :RWAO- rules we agree on.
Sorry you feel that way. It makes sense to me for "as written" to refer to the unambiguous portion of the text. At any rate, that's cleared up.


but, we have already discussed this: placing your unit into reserves deploys them-- the FAQ states so, through the example of deploying into a transport in reserves.
Which FAQ are you referring to? I appear to have missed that one.

[Tynskel]

Space marine.
We went over this already.
If you put a unit into the transport in reserves, you have already deployed, because when you bring the transport onto the board, the unit has still not been 'placed' onto the board, but cannot combat squad when it gets out.

[wkz]

Seriously, the rules make no context? When you read a sentence, you are combining a series of words together that most likely have multiple definitions. Furthermore, you have paragraphs that link sentences together. You cannot read the rulebook one word at a time. In this case, deploy has multiple definitions. Therefore, you must use the context to determine which definition to use,


The same right back at ya, we would say you are using a house rule, as well.
Rules as intended = RAW--- you are interpreting the rules to mean something based upon the language that is written.Yes, we are stringing together a bunch of words with meanings. But we do that in the context of the sentence, and any other related sentences. We do not drag every single meaning of every single outside reference into the sentence.

This is also the same as any books ever written. Otherwise, "Give him some space" may refer to space monsters... in a fantasy epic! "Charge!!" will simply refer to putting a battery in a charger... in a book about Knights and Warriors! "Open fire" will suddenly be about forest fires inside a World War 2 history book!

Thing is, I've pointed out that GW has properly placed the word deploy. That's the keyword here: deploy. They have stated what it means to deploy something at turn 0. They have stated when deployment occurs during a game. They've stated that deployment does NOT happen when placing something into reserves...

But here you are talking about strategic and tactical deployment (or rather, pre-game/in-game, because "strategic and tactical" is outright wrong). You're dragging outside meanings into the context of a RULEBOOK, which is wrong.

Next thing we know, you might be saying the First Amendment to Free Speech will require every single American to stand on a pedestal in front of an audience ranting away forever, or you're violating the American Constitution. Because that's what the dictionary meaning, the OUTSIDE, UNRELATED meaning says.


This is the main reason why people are VERY confused at your version of rules interpretation, Mr T.



If you put a unit into the transport in reserves, you have already deployed, because when you bring the transport onto the board, the unit has still not been 'placed' onto the board, but cannot combat squad when it gets out.
He's referring to this:

Q: If I split a Space Marine squad into two combat squads, can both embark on the same dedicated transport?
A: No. They are no longer the same unit and a transport vehicle can only carry a single infantry squad

because I can't find any other FAQ regarding combat squads inside vehicles in the Space Marines FAQ... ... But all it says is that if you deploy at turn 0, you cannot squeeze 2 squads into one... You'll need better arguments than this, Mr T.

[Tynskel]

No, I am not I am using the context of the rulebook to determine what meaning deploy has.

Seriously, you are not helping- flinging insults at me won't make me go away.


Where do you come up with this 0 turn? Seriously, there is nothing in the setup that acts like a game turn at all.

[Nabterayl]

Space marine.
We went over this already.
If you put a unit into the transport in reserves, you have already deployed, because when you bring the transport onto the board, the unit has still not been 'placed' onto the board, but cannot combat squad when it gets out.
That ... isn't something the space marine FAQ says, as far as I can tell. Can you quote the section you're thinking of?

Early on in the thread I believe I went over my view of the drop pod exception. While I don't think that a unit embarked upon a transport placed in reserve whose transport arrives on the board from reserve has been deployed within the meaning of the 40K rules, I think we must conclude it has been deployed for purposes of the Combat Squads rule.

The drop pod exception, by itself, is consistent with both of our views (in my view it's necessary because the transported unit has been deployed the moment its transport arrives; in Tynskel's view it's necessary because the transport unit has been deployed the moment it is left in Reserve). All the space marine FAQ says on the subject, though, is that squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads. To the extent we care how GW's FAQs interpret the rules, I submit that the FAQ supports my view (where squads cannot break down into combat squads because they have not been deployed) more than yours (where the FAQ is just ... wrong?).

[wkz]

No, I am not I am using the context of the rulebook to determine what meaning deploy has. Good. Now please explain where "strategic" and "tactical" comes from, because the rulebook has NEVER mentioned Strategic deploy or tactical deploy...


Seriously, you are not helping- flinging insults at me won't make me go away.Where are you reading the insults from, Mr T? Please quote.



Where do you come up with this 0 turn? Seriously, there is nothing in the setup that acts like a game turn at all.Oh wow, you caught me!! The rulebook has never mentioned turn zero!! Now please explain where "strategic" and "tactical" comes from, because the rulebook has NEVER mentioned Strategic deploy or tactical deploy...

[Tynskel]

You cannot combat squad either from your view or from mine. If you place a unit into a transport in reserves, they have been deployed.

Reasoning: from your point of view, they could combat squad when they are placed onto the board. However the unit is in the transport when it enters the board. When they disembark they are placed onto the board, but you cannot combat squad them-- the only justification is that they have already been deployed, otherwise, codex trumps rulebook, and they could combat squad the turn they hop out of the vehicle.

[Tynskel]

Wiz, you need to look up the definition of deploy.

[wkz]

Wiz, you need to look up the definition of deploy.
Wiz? Ah well, fair mistake (i is close to k).

Anyways, since you mentioned the dictionary again, lets drag out the dictionary meaning again:


de·ploy   
–verb (used with object)
1.
Military . to spread out (troops) so as to form an extended front or line.
2.
to arrange in a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately: to deploy a battery of new missiles.

verb (used without object)
3.
to spread out strategically or in an extended front or line.
4.
to come into a position ready for use: the plane can't land unless the landing gear deploys.

Origin:
1470–80; < French déployer, equivalent to dé- dis-1 + ployer to fold; see ploy

— vb
1. to adopt or cause to adopt a battle formation, esp from a narrow front formation
2. ( tr ) to redistribute (forces) to or within a given area

[C18: from French déployer, from Latin displicāre to unfold; see display ]


Word Origin & History
deploy
1786 as a military word, from Fr. déployer "unroll, unfold," from O.Fr. desployer "unfold," from L. displicare "unfold, scatter," from dis- + plicare "to fold" see ply (v.)).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deploy


...
Now, please tell me WHERE, in that dictionary meaning, do the words "Strategic" or "Tactical" comes from? Please tell me WHERE, in that dictionary meaning, does the word change meanings depending on which turn (including deployment phase) any unit uses the word deploy? Please tell, because I am curious where this deviation from the dictionary meaning comes from...

[Tynskel]

Smile, the designing of the board, your army list, the discussion of how terrain effects your troops, and initial set up are all strategic decisions.

You do realize that Nab n I have already discussed this. You should read those posts.

[Nabterayl]

Wkz, you may not have offered direct insult, but if I were Tynskel, I would certainly construe your sarcasm as insult. Just something to consider.

Also, if I could chime in on the strategic and tactical question - I think it's irrelevant. When Tynskel reads page 94, I'm sure he reads "deploy" as the strategic type. The important thing about his claim that leaving a unit in reserve is deployment is that he's claiming that it is deploying a unit off the board, and that when page 94 uses the word deploy it (i) means deployment to the board only, and (ii) recognizes the concept of deploying off the board. The only reason strategic vs. tactical deployment is important is because Tynskel reads Combat Squads to refer to when a unit is strategically deployed. He could get the same result by using my reasoning about the first time a unit is deployed, though.

As to whether a unit is deloyed when its transporting vehicle arrives, I admit (and have admitted in the past; I hope it didn't get overlooked) that the codex and rulebook appear to have slightly different views of deployment (specifically, the codex considers a transported unit deployed when its transport deploys). However, the alternative requires us to believe that units in reserve can combat squad, which the FAQ says they can't, citing that as the reason you cannot split a squad into combat squads and place one in a drop pod and the other in reserve.

Now, I don't view FAQs as authoritative rules rulings (maybe you do or don't), but I do view them as "legislative history" that can be used to indicate which of multiple interpretations is closest to the author's intent (which maybe you do or don't, and even if you do, you might or might not care about). That's my reasoning. Depending on your view of what a FAQ is, YMMV.

According to the FAQ, units placed in reserve cannot break down into combat squads and thus you cannot "put a combat squad in [a drop pod], deploying the other combat squad on the table, or leav[ing] it in reserve but not in the Drop Pod." I think my interpretation accounts for this result, even if it does require an expansion of the codex meaning of deploy. I think that hews more closely to the text as elucidated by the FAQ than yours, which produces a result contrary to the FAQ and requires an expansion of the rulebook meaning of deploy.

Granted, the FAQ "ruling" causes Razorback-equipped ten-man squads to lose flexibility compared to your ruling. But we have only speculation to assure us that Razorback-equipped ten-man squads "should" have this flexibility.

[Tynskel]

I still don't believe the tactical and strategical decisions are irrelevant, though.

[wkz]

Then can you please tell him to stop using the word "Strategic" deploy? Because doing that is having the meaning as wrong as my apparently implied insult (which I still can't see by the way, sorry about that).

"Strategic" and "tactical", as well as Mr T's "go look up a dictionary!" (this can be an implied insult too by the way, although in this case I 100% know Mr T doesn't mean it, so I didn't pursue it) has caused confusion up and down this thread, and has consumed more posts than is necessary. One of my main arguments in this thread has been getting Mr T to use the PROPER terminology for his ideology...



Also, the main (and only) difference between deploying in reserves, and deploying on the moment you hit the table is the fact you can have a combat squadded squad hit the table IN a razorback, while the other half walks onto the table (at a later/earlier turn, dependent on how the dice rolls). Is this correct, Mr T?



And I view FAQs as "rulings of intent". The problem here is this: Given that said "Intent" came from the rule makers themselves, said intent should carry a lot of weight concerning rules interpretation on ambiguous rulings. If a ruling has 2 different meanings, and the FAQ, with its "Intent of the creator", chooses one of the meanings...

- correct way: Choose the FAQ meaning in the ambiguous rule dispute.
- wrong way: Deride GW for pushing out a crappy FAQ, and continue choosing the alternate meaning in the ambiguous rule dispute

Of course, this is my opinion. But that's why we're at page 19 now, isn't it?



Edit: ... ... ... ... ... Well, so much for stopping the use of "Strategic"

[Tynskel]

Yeah, uh, didn't you notice the definition that you used had the word strategic sprinkled throughout it?

[wkz]

Yeah, uh, didn't you notice the definition that you used had the word strategic sprinkled throughout it?
Yeah, uh, doesn't that mean that any and all "deploy" automatically means it is a strategic decision no matter what other meanings it has, and that there can be no "tactical but not strategic" deployments?

Please stop using the word "strategic", and start using another word a LOT closer to the actual meaning you're going for.

[Tynskel]

There are also many different dictionaries, and there are more than one definition.

What that means is that you must use the context to how the word is used to determine which definition fits appropriately. Half of the uses are strategic (setup) and the other half are tactical (ie non-strategic)

[wkz]

There are also many different dictionaries

And as said, it can seriously skewer the meanings of established, well known sentences written in history, very badly. Not to mention the rulebook

Edit: here are 2 other different online dictionaries, while you're at it.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deploy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deploy


Edit #2: quoted post has changed by quite a bit.
Actually, taken into context, ALL are both strategic and tactical at the same time. As said in a previous post of mine "A general makes tactical choices to fulfill a strategic decision".

All units are chosen tactically for a strategy. All units are placed just so tactically for a strategic next step. All units are tactically placed in reserve so they can fulfill a strategy of them coming out before/beside/behind the enemy...

Please choose a different word closer to your "deployment pre-planning" meaning than Strategic, because strategic has too many side meanings to actually convey what you mean to the other guy...

[Tynskel]

Yes, words do evolve throughout history.

[wkz]

Yes, words do evolve throughout history.Such as these? (http://www.cracked.com/article_19216_9-words-youve-used-today-with-bizarre-criminal-origins.html)

Indeed. But for the moment, right here in time, Strategic means what it does, right now. And what it means, right now, has too many side meanings that'll confuse the HELL out of everyone.

(Note: I've edited the post above)



In the meantime, lets get this topic back on track:

Now, I don't view FAQs as authoritative rules rulings (maybe you do or don't), but I do view them as "legislative history" that can be used to indicate which of multiple interpretations is closest to the author's intent (which maybe you do or don't, and even if you do, you might or might not care about). That's my reasoning. Depending on your view of what a FAQ is, YMMV.

According to the FAQ, units placed in reserve cannot break down into combat squads and thus you cannot "put a combat squad in [a drop pod], deploying the other combat squad on the table, or leav[ing] it in reserve but not in the Drop Pod." I think my interpretation accounts for this result, even if it does require an expansion of the codex meaning of deploy. I think that hews more closely to the text as elucidated by the FAQ than yours, which produces a result contrary to the FAQ and requires an expansion of the rulebook meaning of deploy.

Granted, the FAQ "ruling" causes Razorback-equipped ten-man squads to lose flexibility compared to your ruling. But we have only speculation to assure us that Razorback-equipped ten-man squads "should" have this flexibility.

Also, the main (and only) difference between deploying in reserves, and deploying on the moment you hit the table is the fact you can have a combat squadded squad hit the table IN a razorback, while the other half walks onto the table (at a later/earlier turn, dependent on how the dice rolls). Is this correct, Mr T?

And I view FAQs as "rulings of intent". The problem here is this: Given that said "Intent" came from the rule makers themselves, said intent should carry a lot of weight concerning rules interpretation on ambiguous rulings. If a ruling has 2 different meanings, and the FAQ, with its "Intent of the creator", chooses one of the meanings...

- correct way: Choose the FAQ meaning in the ambiguous rule dispute.
- wrong way: Deride GW for pushing out a crappy FAQ, and continue choosing the alternate meaning in the ambiguous rule dispute

Of course, this is my opinion. But that's why we're at page 19 now, isn't it?
What's your opinion on this again?

[Nabterayl]

I'd be happy to tell Tynskel to stop using particular words if I thought he would listen to me and it would be to the community's benefit. In my experience, though (and this is why I haven't been trying to change his mind or prove to him that he's wrong), the best you can hope for in an internet rules debate is to ask questions to understand what the other person actually means, and amend your understanding of their posts accordingly. I think Tynskel's on crack if he thinks that a company commander's decision to attack target X from this direction rather than that direction (which is what I think board set up represents) is "strategic" or a "strategy" in the recognized military sense, but that's not really the point. The point is that at least I know now what he thinks strategic means, which allows me to better understand what he means when he uses that word.

As best I can tell, Tynskel thinks "strategy" in the military sense is "pre-engagement planning," while "tactics" in the military sense is "in-engagement planning and execution," regardless of scale. Thus, if the "engagement" in question is "World War II," Tynskel might say that the entire strategic bombing campaign of 1943 (except for the planning before the bombing campaign began) was a "tactic," whereas if the "engagement" in question is "two squads hunting each other through a ruined building," one squad's plan to split into two teams before entering the building would be a "strategy." I hope that helps you make sense of what he's saying.

Tynskel, in the spirit of helping us understand, can you please interpolate page 94 as you read it? Here's how I think Tynskel would interpolate it, and why I think getting hung up on strategic vs. tactical deployment is kind of a red herring:


[i]Nabterayl thinks Tynskel would say ...
When deploying their army, players may choose not to [strategically] deploy one or more of the units in their army [to the board] and instead [strategically] [deploy] them [to] reserve.

Take out each instance of "strategically" in the above and you haven't altered the meaning of the interpolated sentence, for purposes of answering the question, "Has a unit in reserve been deployed within the meaning of the Combat Squads rule?" - which is, let us recall, the question being discussed.

[wkz]

I'd be happy to tell Tynskel to stop using particular words if I thought he would listen to me and it would be to the community's benefit. In my experience, though (and this is why I haven't been trying to change his mind or prove to him that he's wrong), the best you can hope for in an internet rules debate is to ask questions to understand what the other person actually means, and amend your understanding of their posts accordingly. I think Tynskel's on crack if he thinks that a company commander's decision to attack target X from this direction rather than that direction (which is what I think board set up represents) is "strategic" or a "strategy" in the recognized military sense, but that's not really the point. The point is that at least I know now what he thinks strategic means, which allows me to better understand what he means when he uses that word.

As best I can tell, Tynskel thinks "strategy" in the military sense is "pre-engagement planning," while "tactics" in the military sense is "in-engagement planning and execution," regardless of scale. Thus, if the "engagement" in question is "World War II," Tynskel might say that the entire strategic bombing campaign of 1943 (except for the planning before the bombing campaign began) was a "tactic," whereas if the "engagement" in question is "two squads hunting each other through a ruined building," one squad's plan to split into two teams before entering the building would be a "strategy." I hope that helps you make sense of what he's saying.I already knew what he's saying... thing is, I am trying to perform the (apparently impossible over the internet) task of changing Mr T's mind in his very obviously wrong word usage...

If you wish me to drop the word-choice argument, I can stop...



And... ... ...

Tynskel, in the spirit of helping us understand, can you please interpolate page 94 as you read it? Here's how I think Tynskel would interpolate it, and why I think getting hung up on strategic vs. tactical deployment is kind of a red herring:


[i]Nabterayl thinks Tynskel would say ...
When deploying their army, players may choose not to [strategically] deploy one or more of the units in their army [to the board] and instead [strategically] [deploy] them [to] reserve.

Take out each instance of "strategically" in the above and you haven't altered the meaning of the interpolated sentence, for purposes of answering the question, "Has a unit in reserve been deployed within the meaning of the Combat Squads rule?" - which is, let us recall, the question being discussed.

Please reply to this? I am very interested in your answer...


PS @Nabterayl: it doesn't alter the meaning of that specific quoted sentence, but:


wkz thinks Tynskel is thinking ...
It allows for some form of rules seperation: If you include [TACTICAL] and not [STRATEGIC] (Mr T's meaning of those words) in the other rules that have the word "deploy", it allows Mr T to justify disallowing the combat squad rule from things such as "deploy from vehicles" or "deploy when moving onto the table" from activating combat squads. Thus putting one type of deploy and the other type of deploy in neat packages... technically.

A bit overly complex, to be honest...

[hisdudeness]

Definition of INSTEAD
1: as a substitute or equivalent <was going to write but called instead>
2: as an alternative to something expressed or implied: rather <longed instead for a quiet country life>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instead?show=0&t=1306409911



as in "...choose not to deploy...and INSTEAD...leave them in reserve." (BRB 94)

There is no wiggle room for you to explain this sentence away with "reference frame", "context", and qualifiers. Although I assume you will try.

The fact that you think it sucks that a unit can buy a transport (razorback used most often) and not be allowed to combat squad in reserves so as to place half squad in transport and other half walking has no bearing on the rules.

[Tynskel]

You are substituting the equivalent- ie deploying off board.


1.
equal in value, measure, force, effect, significance, etc.: His silence is equivalent to an admission of guilt.
2.
corresponding in position, function, etc.: In some ways their prime minister is equivalent to our president.
3.
Geometry . having the*same extent, as a triangle and a square of equal area.


As I said earlier, RAW isn't looking at one sentence, like your definition above, but also looking at everything else, like the definition that I have put above.

[Tynskel]

You may think this is overly complex, but it is consistent as opposed to 'place on the board' because combat squads would work the instant you pop out of a vehicle.

Of which, by all means, that is how you should be playing. However, I don't think that is how anyone uses combat squads, so inherently this means they are using some variation of my use.

[Nabterayl]

You may think this is overly complex, but it is consistent as opposed to 'place on the board' because combat squads would work the instant you pop out of a vehicle.

Of which, by all means, that is how you should be playing. However, I don't think that is how anyone uses combat squads, so inherently this means they are using some variation of my use.
Not sure how far you extend "some variation." Here's my full analysis of the Combat Squads rule. Is this a variation of your use?


"The decision to split into combat squads ... must be made when the unit is deployed," says the codex.

"Okay," I say. "When is a unit deployed? Let's see when the rulebook uses 'deploy.' Hmmm ... okay ... so I must make the decision to split into combat squads every time I place a unit on the table during deployment, when I disembark a vehicle, and when I enter play from reserve."

"Of course," Tynskel puts in, "you wouldn't make that decision when an embarked unit arrives from reserve in its transport, right?"

"Well, I'm not so sure," I say. "Certainly 'arriving' from reserve is not necessarily 'deploying.' But as page 94 points out, the player 'picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it ... until all arriving units are on the table.' Surely the embarked unit is arriving from reserve. So it certainly seems that, notwithstanding the odd one-way tabletop presence of embarked units, for reserve purposes, it has been 'deployed.'"

"Hmmm," says the codex. "I'm not sure I buy that."

"Nor I," Tynskel adds.

"Well, let's leave that aside for the moment," I say. "At any rate, every time I deploy - whether that includes embarked units arriving or not - I must make the decision, assuming I have ten men in the squad at that point, right?"

"Wait, wait!" splutters the codex. "You can only make the decision once!"

"Well, no," I say. "According to you, 'If you decide to split into combat squads, then each combat squad is treated as a separate unit for all game purposes from that point.' What's to stop me from deciding not to split when I deploy during deployment, and not to split the first time I disembark a transport, only deciding to split the third time I disembark a transport - assuming I still have 10 men in the squad, of course."

"Ah, my too-clever Nabterayl," says the codex. "Do you not see that I also say, 'The one exception is a unit that arrives by Drop Pod. The player can choose to split such a unit into combat squads when it disembarks from the Drop Pod.'"

"Why, so you do, dear codex," I say.

"And can you see that if I meant every time a unit is deployed, this exception would be unnecessary? For it would be obvious that the squad could split upon disembarking, for we all agree that is a species of deployment."

"Why, dear codex," I exclaim, "you are quite correct! You should have said from the first, 'The decision to split into combat squads ... must be made when the unit is first deployed!'"

"Well," says the codex, "that's what I meant. Anyway, the drop pod exception makes it quite clear."

"Why, and do you not see, codex," I say, "this also makes it quite clear that an embarked unit whose transport is deployed is also deployed, at least in your view?"

"I'm not sure that I do," says the codex. "How do you mean?"

"Consider," I say, "if the embarked unit was not deployed the instant its transport arrived, disembarking would be the first time it deployed, and thus the exception would be unnecessary!"

"Well, maybe," says the codex. "Unless the unit had been deployed the instant it was placed in reserve."

"That is the other possibility," I admit. "But the rulebook at least uses the word 'deploy' with reference to an embarked unit arriving from reserve. It only says that placing that unit in reserve in the first place happens 'during deployment,' and the fact that one thing happens while another is going on hardly means that the first is the same as the second."

"Others might disagree with you," the codex says.

"To be sure," I say. "But that debate is being had elsewhere."

[wkz]

You are substituting the equivalent- ie deploying off board.

<dictionary stuff>

As I said earlier, RAW isn't looking at one sentence, like your definition above, but also looking at everything else, like the definition that I have put above.

Except for one major point: where is the WORD "equivalent" in the rulebook or FAQs, especially with regards to reserves and/or deploying?

"Instead" is there. "Equivalent" is not. I would think the meaning of the word that's there will supersede the word that's not there?



You may think this is overly complex, but it is consistent as opposed to 'place on the board' because combat squads would work the instant you pop out of a vehicle.

Of which, by all means, that is how you should be playing. However, I don't think that is how anyone uses combat squads, so inherently this means they are using some variation of my use.
Actually Mr T, as Nabterayl so delightfully said, "if the embarked unit was not deployed the instant its transport arrived, disembarking would be the first time it deployed, and thus the exception would be unnecessary!"

In fact, (I can't speak of the others, but) one of the reason why I am sticking around is because I am reading the words and sentences that are ONLY from the rulebook, and only the words/sentences... and my apparently direct, simple mind just cannot stop asking WHY you're introducing WORLDS of meaning from elsewhere into this interpretation of a rule.

I can understand the reasoning behind it. I just can't stop asking. Trying to insert all manners of words and meanings in between the lines really, REALLY does make it overly complex, in my opinion...

[hisdudeness]

Except for one major point: where is the WORD "equivalent" in the rulebook or FAQs, especially with regards to reserves and/or deploying?

"Instead" is there. "Equivalent" is not. I would think the meaning of the word that's there will supersede the word that's not there?


Thank you wkz, this is just more of him inserting stuff in to the rules text that is not there. Tynskel cannot prove his view with the BRB, so he inserts qualifiers and grabs sources were ever he can. In short, if you can’t prove a point with the BRB or Codex, you are most likely wrong. It is almost as bad as using fluff or proper grammar to prove a point.

Tynskel, I see nothing in the definition of ‘instead’ that even implies the replacement effect has to be ‘equivalent’. What is your basis for this idea?

[Tynskel]

Hey dude, you'epre the one that's posting definitions. Deploy to the board, do the equivalent to reserves. This is something you guys are forgetting about language-- you do not need to say equivalent with instead because equivalent is built into the definition of instead. Just as strategy is built into the definition of deploy. You would be redundant and using extra word- just like this sentence.

[Tynskel]

Here's the thing, the drop pod rules fit into my interpretation just as well as they fit into your interpretation-- thats the point, there is more than one way to interpret these rules.

Granted, I still see holes-
EX. if the unit has been deployed in reserves, you would need an exception for splitting a squad when entering the board, because the decision to split the unit is made when the unit has been deployed, not afterward.

Second, the tank is arriving from reserves, not the infantry unit. This is why, for example, your Descent of Angels rule does not apply to drop pods, land raiders, and storm ravens entering from reserves.

[wkz]

Hey dude, you'epre the one that's posting definitions. Deploy to the board, do the equivalent to reserves. This is something you guys are forgetting about language-- you do not need to say equivalent with instead because equivalent is built into the definition of instead. Just as strategy is built into the definition of deploy. You would be redundant and using extra word- just like this sentence.

Wha?

I maybe able to accept strategy built into the definition of deploy (except, you know, the point where you say deploying is tactical and not strategic)... but "equivalent" and "instead" used in this case are OPPOSITES. How can one word have the meaning of its opposite inside it, without adding the word "NOT"? Seriously?


...
Second, the tank is arriving from reserves, not the infantry unit. This is why, for example, your Descent of Angels rule does not apply to drop pods, land raiders, and storm ravens entering from reserves.

First, Descent of Angels affect deepstrike, and not reserves.


Secondly, Descent of Angels is specifically NOT granted to Droppods, Landraiders and Storm Ravens.


Third, and this is what you stated as correct, and I agree: the tank is arriving from reserves, not the infantry unit. THAT is the reason why Descent of Angels rule does not apply: because the infantry's special rule within does not affect the vehicle.


Lastly and However, coming in from reserves (temporarily ignoring whether or not this is the actual deploy) is different from using a special rule to enter from reserves.

- The method of entering the table may prevent a unit from using a special rule to enter the table. Terminators (with deepstrike) in a Landraider is the easiest example

- But if the unit have NOT came in from reserves together with its transport vehicle, it is not on the table period. And vice versa.

It doesn't matter if the unit is hiding inside a transport when this happens, if the transport has entered the table, the unit inside HAS entered the table too.

Otherwise we have the extremely weird case of a unit being destroyed at game's end because it has not yet entered the table... BUT YETthe unit is on the table in a transport!!



By the way Mr T, You still have not commented on Nabterayl's post. Please do so.

[Tynskel]

no, they are not opposites. I am not sure, but did you read the definition of instead that was posted? The definition has the word 'equivalent' in there.

Terminator deep strike in land raider doesn't work, because the reserves rules explicitly state you have to declare how your units are deployed.

By the way, I am only using the words that are used in the rulebook, too.

[Tynskel]

as for the story. No, not even close. That may be the variation you use, which is confusing and has to make up that bit about when the unit is 'first' deployed, and then has to make all sorts of assumptions about if a unit is deployed already in a tin can. This is what I am talking about when I say that I find this view point inconsistent. It starts off simple (deploy = placed on the board) but ends in a mess.

I look at it as a simplified model, for example, a free body diagram from physics. It is great when everything can be simplified. However, the real word isn't simple, so you use parsimony and add the minimum level of complexity to reach the right result.

I'll state again, from my point of view, all units are deployed in the deployment phase of the game.

So the discussion about when the unit is first deployed, which is half of what's being said in the story, does not even happen in my point of view. This is justified by the use of deploy and the rules, where half of the uses of the word deploy are tied directly to 'move', which is a specific set of rules in the game. The second use is not tied to move. Upon further investigation, those two uses of deploy coincide with strategic and tactical uses the word, which the rules for reserves follow, as well. Furthermore, the use of the word 'instead' is not defined by the rulebook, so back to the dictionary- which uses equivalent-- equal. And those of you that have taken logic or mathematics know that equal is the same.

In addition, with everything deployed in the deployment phase, the discussion of the drop pod exception in combat squads is consistent with the rules for units that are forced to deep strike-- that is pretty much as simple as it gets.

[Nabterayl]

as for the story. No, not even close. That may be the variation you use, which is confusing and has to make up that bit about when the unit is 'first' deployed, and then has to make all sorts of assumptions about if a unit is deployed already in a tin can. This is what I am talking about when I say that I find this view point inconsistent. It starts off simple (deploy = placed on the board) but ends in a mess.
I have to infer a requirement that the Combat Squads decision happens only when first deployed. You have to infer a requirement that the Combat Squads decision happens only when strategically deployed. What is the context in the Combat Squads rule that makes it obvious to you that the "deployed" being used is strategic?


I'll state again, from my point of view, all units are deployed in the deployment phase of the game.
So ... just to make this a little more explicit, from your point of view ...

All things that happen during deployment are deploying? That can't be right.

Not all things that happen during deployment are deploying, but all deploying happens during deployment? Pretty sure that's not what you mean either.

Not all things that happen during deployment are deploying, but all strategic deploying happens during deployment? Agreed (within your meaning of strategic), but that doesn't get us to leaving units in reserve being deploying, or to Combat Squads referring only to strategic deployment.

Can you walk me through your full analysis of the Combat Squads rule? What's your version of my story?

[Tynskel]

no, I did not say 'because the phase is deployment phase, all units are deployed'. We have been over this. What I said is that all units are deployed in the deployment phase.

As for the strategic use: drop pods exception. Which is consistent with the reserves exception, which is consistent with the strategic use of the word deploy.


::::::::::::::
My understanding of the view of the rules that the majority of the people on the forums take:

Deploy = Placed on the board.
Combat Squads occurs when the unit is deployed, ie when the unit is being placed onto the board, you may combat squad.

Problem 1) There is no mention of timing, except that when you make the decision to combat squad it becomes permanent.
Problem 2) Drop Pod rule. This is an exception, but you have no idea why there is an exception. For all intents and purposes a unit is 10 men until it is deployed and combat squads, and by which, there has never been 2 units in the vehicle at one time.
Problem 3) Deploy has two contextual uses by the rulebook. One is associated with Tactics, the other is associated with Strategy. This means that a rule changed, but this is the same rule? When does combat squad apply, to both?
Problem 4) Reserves matches deploy, and the language says instead, which the definition states equivalent [to deploy].

Essentially, one has to make lots of somethings up to get to the position how the game is played today. You have to make up a rule that states that when the unit is 'first' deployed, you may combat squad. You have to make up a rule that states you may not combat squad out of a vehicle, even though that may be the first time you are deployed (conflicting with your first made up rule). Then you have to make up a rule that states that even though there are two conflicting uses of deploy, they are somehow the same thing. Then you have to make up a rule for the drop pod exception, which is the first made up rule.

Granted, after that many shennanegens, the Combat Squads and deployment rules work.

Now for the Parsimony test:
If you change your viewpoint:
By using the separation of strategic and tactical uses of deploy, every unit becomes deployed strategically in the deployment phase. The drop pod combat squads exception is coherently matching the strategic use exception of deploy in the rulebook, therefore combat squads rule applies to strategic deployment.
And you are done.
At no point am I having to make up a rule to make Combat Squads work.
This solution is the simplest. Parsimony would dictate that this is a better choice for playing the game.
Additionally, this viewpoint is not in conflict with the FAQ. All the FAQ states is that you cannot combat squads in reserves, from which my view point means that reserved units may not combat squad.

I just think that the FAQ for this is stupid, because the idea of combat squads is to make your units more flexible, and somehow by being in reserves your units are now not flexible--- from either viewpoint the FAQ doesn't make sense. Just like the FAQ for the Tyranid Prime cannot be in a Spore Pods is stupid.

[SeattleDV8]

no, I did not say because the phase is deployment, therefore all things are deployed. We have been over this. What I said is that all units are deployed in the deployment phase.
.

Except for that little problem in your logic.
The part where the rules tell us that units placed in reserve are not deployed.
And the FAQ that tells us that units in reserve cannot combat squad, why? Because they have not been deployed.

It's a fatal flaw in your chain of overthought logic.

It really is very simple, when a unit first hits the table when they are deployed.

[Tynskel]

no, they are not deployed onto the board, but instead reserves. This isn't a fatal flaw in logic at all.

also, you have to make up the 'first' hits the table is when combat squads is used. And, that a unit in a vehicle is deployed, even though they haven't been placed onto the board. What's worse they might even be in reserves!

Not to mention, the FAQ language does not state that a unit in reserves has not been deployed.

[Nabterayl]

the idea of combat squads is to make your units more flexible
How do you know that? And even if the idea of combat squads is to make your units more flexible, how do you know it's to make them more flexible in the way you think (as opposed to, say, making them more flexible vis a vis heavy weapons, or increasing the versatility of Deep Striking units)? GW plainly thinks you cannot use Combat Squads to put half a squad in a Razorback in reserve and the other half on foot in reserve. Doesn't that argue that the idea of combat squads is not to make your units more flexible vis a vis transports?

I mean, if you were having a face-to-face with GW and they said, "Look, you can't split into combat squads in reserve," and you replied, "Well that's stupid, because I know that contravenes your intent," wouldn't an arched eyebrow suffice to show that up?


no, they are not deployed onto the board, but instead reserves.
We have indeed been over this, but so far your warrant for them being deployed into reserves is that leaving a unit in reserves could be described as deploying them into reserves (i.e., it fits one of the meanings of deploy). You haven't provided any logical reason why all units must be deployed during deployment.

[Kawauso]

How do you know that? And even if the idea of combat squads is to make your units more flexible, how do you know it's to make them more flexible in the way you think (as opposed to, say, making them more flexible vis a vis heavy weapons, or increasing the versatility of Deep Striking units)? GW plainly thinks you cannot use Combat Squads to put half a squad in a Razorback in reserve and the other half on foot in reserve. Doesn't that argue that the idea of combat squads is not to make your units more flexible vis a vis transports?

I mean, if you were having a face-to-face with GW and they said, "Look, you can't split into combat squads in reserve," and you replied, "Well that's stupid, because I know that contravenes your intent," wouldn't an arched eyebrow suffice to show that up?


We have indeed been over this, but so far your warrant for them being deployed into reserves is that leaving a unit in reserves could be described as deploying them into reserves (i.e., it fits one of the meanings of deploy). You haven't provided any logical reason why all units must be deployed during deployment.

Holy crap I can't believe how long this thread has been going on.

Yes, Combat Squads is intended to make units more flexible. Why? That's what it does! You really can't argue that. In increases a unit's flexibility.

You can't combat squad in reserve. Why? The unit hasn't deployed!

You can combat squad any time the unit enters from reserve. Why? Then you're deploying the unit, triggering the rule!

This is really simple. I can't believe people are still debating this. I wasn't going to reply to this thread, because reading it is like gazing into the Warp and having the Warp gaze back, but I just can't stand seeing this thread going on and on forever.

[Nabterayl]

Glad you agree. If the thread bothers you, I humbly submit that you don't need to read it. The point of these boards is not to come up with some sort of Officially Sanctioned BoLS Lounge Interpretation, after all. The OP's question has been answered, and now Tynskel and I and a few others are having a civilized discussion where people can spectate. Surely that's neither madness nor counter to the spirit or purpose of the forum.

Yes, Combat Squads is intended to make units more flexible. Why? That's what it does! You really can't argue that. In increases a unit's flexibility.
If somebody wants to argue that Combat Squads is intended to make units more flexible as to how they relate to their Dedicated Transports (which is what Tynskel is arguing), I think it can be argued. You yourself think (as do I) that a unit with Combat Squads is not much more flexible in how they relate to their DTs than a unit without Combat Squads. And in any case, as a logical matter, the fact that A does X hardly proves that A was intended to do X.

[SeattleDV8]

no, they are not deployed onto the board, but instead reserves. This isn't a fatal flaw in logic at all.

also, you have to make up the 'first' hits the table is when combat squads is used. And, that a unit in a vehicle is deployed, even though they haven't been placed onto the board. What's worse they might even be in reserves!

Not to mention, the FAQ language does not state that a unit in reserves has not been deployed.

Fair enough the FAQ does not mention deployed, but it rather obivious that is the case.

BRB. pg. 94 "...choose not to deploy"
"a dedicated transport can only be deployed, and consequently can only be kept in reserve,....."
Pg.93 Dawn of War
"Units that were not deployed, and were not declared to be in reserve...."
In all these cases units in reserve are treated seperately and not deployed.
You still have not even come close to proving a unit in reserve is deployed as per Rules As Written.

Deploy is also never used when describing units embarked in transports in reserve.
They are 'embarked' or 'transported'.

Deploy is always used in the context of a unit being placed on the table.

[Kawauso]

No, Nabterayl, that's not madness.

And I apologize for coming across a little abrasively. It's just that I can't see where the debate exists here.
The rules are pretty straightforward with regard to how deployment and Combat Squads both work. I don't see any leeway for interpretation, really. That's all. I know I could have continued to ignore this thread, it's just that it gets under my skin. ;) So I apologize if I had a bit of an outburst.

I don't really intend to be drawn into a protracted discussion, here, just needed to get something off my chest is all.

Once again, the arguments I've seen regarding 'interpretation' of this rule just don't hold any water. I just can't wrap my head around how the way these particular rules were written - especially in relation to one another - could possibly be interpreted in multiple ways. Frankly they just don't leave room for such interpretations.

[Nabterayl]

Well, I've certainly made it clear I agree with you, Kawauso. But Tynskel has made it clear he doesn't, so there we are. We can either assume he's a jerk, stupid, or sincere. I choose the latter.

[Tynskel]

Fair enough the FAQ does not mention deployed, but it rather obivious that is the case.

BRB. pg. 94 "...choose not to deploy"
"a dedicated transport can only be deployed, and consequently can only be kept in reserve,....."
Pg.93 Dawn of War
"Units that were not deployed, and were not declared to be in reserve...."
In all these cases units in reserve are treated seperately and not deployed.
You still have not even come close to proving a unit in reserve is deployed as per Rules As Written.

Deploy is also never used when describing units embarked in transports in reserve.
They are 'embarked' or 'transported'.

Deploy is always used in the context of a unit being placed on the table.

I have completely explained that reserves follows the same exact description.
I have also explained with the definition provided that deploying not on the board is still deploying.
I have explained that the reference frame of the 'set up the board section' of the rulebook is the board.

[Tynskel]

How do you know that? And even if the idea of combat squads is to make your units more flexible, how do you know it's to make them more flexible in the way you think (as opposed to, say, making them more flexible vis a vis heavy weapons, or increasing the versatility of Deep Striking units)? GW plainly thinks you cannot use Combat Squads to put half a squad in a Razorback in reserve and the other half on foot in reserve. Doesn't that argue that the idea of combat squads is not to make your units more flexible vis a vis transports?

I mean, if you were having a face-to-face with GW and they said, "Look, you can't split into combat squads in reserve," and you replied, "Well that's stupid, because I know that contravenes your intent," wouldn't an arched eyebrow suffice to show that up?


We have indeed been over this, but so far your warrant for them being deployed into reserves is that leaving a unit in reserves could be described as deploying them into reserves (i.e., it fits one of the meanings of deploy). You haven't provided any logical reason why all units must be deployed during deployment.

My opinion behind the FAQ is simply my opinion behind the FAQ. This does not detract from my argument.
Seriously, if I had a chance to have face-to-face with GW would be great. Then I would get to hear there reasoning behind their rules choices. If they had some dumb reasoning, wouldn't you raise an eyebrow at them?



The point is because the description could be described as deploying does not mean must?
I am not sure how much more do you need- seriously, I have gone through definitions of words--- if the description matches the definition, then it is the same thing.
I'll say it again: Deploy is NOT defined by the rulebook. The interpretation of the rules I have given has been derived by the Rules As Written. It is completely legitimate.

Not to mention, you had no comment on anything else?
Do you not agree that you have to make all those assumptions to make combat squads work?
Do you not agree that my method *is* simpler?
My method does not conflict with the rules, and it matches them.

[Tynskel]

No, Nabterayl, that's not madness.

And I apologize for coming across a little abrasively. It's just that I can't see where the debate exists here.
The rules are pretty straightforward with regard to how deployment and Combat Squads both work. I don't see any leeway for interpretation, really. That's all. I know I could have continued to ignore this thread, it's just that it gets under my skin. ;) So I apologize if I had a bit of an outburst.

I don't really intend to be drawn into a protracted discussion, here, just needed to get something off my chest is all.

Once again, the arguments I've seen regarding 'interpretation' of this rule just don't hold any water. I just can't wrap my head around how the way these particular rules were written - especially in relation to one another - could possibly be interpreted in multiple ways. Frankly they just don't leave room for such interpretations.

The thing is that there are plenty of people who do play the way I do, that do see more than one interpretation to the rulebook.

Also, it is the 'more than one' interpretation that actually drives the release of FAQs in the first place.

[Nabterayl]

The point is because the description could be described as deploying does not mean must?
Yes, that's precisely the point. The rulebook does not define deploy. You seem to view that as license to use any given definition that seems appropriate to you. I view it as reason not to adopt any construction of the rules that requires us to get behind any particular definition - or at least, not to say that any construction requiring any particular definition is anything more than one option.


I am not sure how much more do you need- seriously, I have gone through definitions of words--- if the description matches the definition, then it is the same thing.
This, I think, is the heart of our disagreement. As you've said, we don't have a precise definition of deploy. You've chosen one definition of deploy - the one you think fits best, but still one that you chose - said, "Well, that means essentially the same thing as "leaving a unit in reserve," and thus concluded, "deploy means the same as leaving a unit in reserve," which is not the correct conclusion. All that demonstrates is that "leaving a unit in reserve" means the same thing as the definition of deploy you have chosen. We're still missing a demonstration that the definition of deploy you have chosen must be the one the rulebook is using, and I don't see how that be demonstrated.


Do you not agree that you have to make all those assumptions to make combat squads work?
Do you not agree that my method *is* simpler?
My method does not conflict with the rules, and it matches them.
Well ... simpler, maybe. But simplicity is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for the solution that requires us to take as little as possible to the text. Your method doesn't conflict with the rules as long as key words in the rules mean what you think they mean. But it's unclear to me how anybody can demonstrate that the definitions you have chosen are the right ones.


Problem 1) There is no mention of timing, except that when you make the decision to combat squad it becomes permanent.
No, but the drop pod exception gives you all you need to demonstrate that the choice must be made the first time you deploy.

Problem 2) Drop Pod rule. This is an exception, but you have no idea why there is an exception. For all intents and purposes a unit is 10 men until it is deployed and combat squads, and by which, there has never been 2 units in the vehicle at one time.
Why do I need to know why it's an exception?

Problem 3) Deploy has two contextual uses by the rulebook. One is associated with [during the battle], the other is associated with [before the battle]. This means that a rule changed, but this is the same rule? When does combat squad apply, to both?
It doesn't necessarily mean that the rule has changed. Movement is also associated both with before the battle and during the battle, but the meaning of movement has not changed.

I don't need to care about the meaning of deploy, which I view as a virtue because, as you have said, we don't actually know what the meaning of deploy is. All I need to know is, every time I see the word "deploy," the combat squads rule applies - and then all I need to know is, the drop pod exception demonstrates that the rule must mean combat squads applies only to the first time a unit is deployed, notwithstanding the fact that the rule never says that.

Problem 4) Reserves matches deploy, and the language says instead, which the definition states equivalent [to deploy].
Reserves only matches deploy in the sense that the definition you have chosen for deploy matches the definition you have chosen for reserves. As you've noted, though, we have no way of knowing whether those are the right ones; you're just taking your best guess. Reserves does not match deploy in the only sure sense, in that they are not the same words.

"Instead" can mean equivalent, but it doesn't necessarily. Here is an example in which it means equivalent: "You can pay with a credit card instead of cash." Here is an example in which it does not: "You can run the red light instead of stopping at it."

Your way might be simpler, but to my mind, it requires us to assume that we know what the rulebook is thinking when it uses certain words, and I'm not comfortable doing that. My way may be more circuitous, but it seems more point-and-click to me - I don't need to know what deploy means, only that the word appears.

[Tynskel]

You haven't refuted anything I have said.
All you have stated is that there are multiple interpretations. Which I agree with that.

You are treating the word deploy as just a 'blank', or placeholder.
To me, I don't like to do that because every word has a meaning. The rulebook at no point defines keywords as blanks. Instead the rulebook defines keywords.


As for needing to know why there's an exception is important to decide how to apply the exception. For example: you are using it to imply that the choice is made the first time the unit is deployed

I never said we don't know what the meaning of deploy is: we have a dictionary and we have context of the rulebook which determine the meaning of deploy.

I don't understand where you get the idea of what the 'rulebook is thinking'. I have NO idea what the rulebook is thinking (actually I do, I know it does not think). All I have is the text of the rulebook.


One thing about instead--- you are correct, there are two uses. The point I am driving at is that the reserves wording matches deploy, therefore the definition of instead that you would use is the one that involves 'equivalent'.

[wkz]

...
Your way might be simpler, but to my mind, it requires us to assume that we know what the rulebook is thinking when it uses certain words, and I'm not comfortable doing that. My way may be more circuitous, but it seems more point-and-click to me - I don't need to know what deploy means, only that the word appears.

I think we've just summarized this entire argument...



You haven't refuted anything I have said.
All you have stated is that there are multiple interpretations. Which I agree with that.

You are treating the word deploy as just a 'blank', or placeholder.
To me, I don't like to do that because every word has a meaning.
The problem here is: WHICH meaning?

Note that by putting the word as nothing short of a "keyword" (a word almost devoid of meaning), we can make the rulebook make sense. We can even make the whole thing work without much tweaking too.

And yes, we can pile on everything from the Oxford dictionary to quantum science on that poor word and tweak the rulebook to hades and back, and can still make the rulebook making sense too! But isn't it piling on too much meaning into the rulebook in the first place?


As for needing to know why there's an exception is important to decide how to apply the exception. For example: you are using it to imply that the choice is made the first time the unit is deployed

I never said we don't know what the meaning of deploy is: we have a dictionary and we have context of the rulebook which determine the meaning of deploy.See above. Note that our version have LESS exceptions than yours... you actually need to split deploy into "strategic" and "tactical" in order for yours to work.


I don't understand where you get the idea of what the 'rulebook is thinking'. I have NO idea what the rulebook is thinking. All I have is the text of the rulebook.Indeed. Here's the problem: the rulebook does not need to think. it needs to say.

YET you're piling on WORLDS of thinking into the rulebook. Saying "Deploy = strategic deploy" IS making a case of 'rulebook is thinking' in the first place!

[Tynskel]

I think we've just summarized this entire argument...

Yes. We have.
And the answer is:

The baggage you bring with you to the table effects how the game is played.

[wkz]

Yes. We have.
And the answer is:

The baggage you bring with you to the table effects how the game is played.

See my edit of my post above. Baggage? I do believe you're the one piling on the baggage on the poor word "deploy".

[Tynskel]

See my edit of my post above. Baggage? I do believe you're the one piling on the baggage on the poor word "deploy".

hahaha

as I believe you are piling on baggage with all the special exceptions that have to be made to make combat squads work.


But the best part is, nothing you just wrote actually refutes anything I have said.
All you doing is complaining that I am making a choice how to interpret the rules as written--- but you do the same exact thing, interpret the rules as written.

[Nabterayl]

as I believe you are piling on baggage with all the special exceptions that have to be made to make combat squads work.
Wait, which exceptions are you thinking of? I can only think of one, which is that the combat squads rule applies only the first time a unit is deployed. Isn't that commensurate with yours, though, which is that combat squads only apply to one type of deployment ("strategic")?

[wkz]

hahaha

as I believe you are piling on baggage with all the special exceptions that have to be made to make combat squads work.


But the best part is, nothing you just wrote actually refutes anything I have said.
All you doing is complaining that I am making a choice how to interpret the rules as written--- but you do the same exact thing, interpret the rules as written.

As Nabterayl has so painstakenly tried to understand you, can you do him a favor? Can you list out the supposed Exceptions you think we're using? (While you're at it, please list your own Exceptions, put them side by side, and see who has more?)

And note that Nabterayl has been trying to match your point of view... but when it comes to the counter-argument there is NOTHING OTHER THAN points that are refuting your point. You just (apparently) choose not to even accept those points, rejecting them outright and repeat your point again and again and again. (while Nabterayl actually took the TIME to understand your points, to break down every single piece of your point, and to actually address each and every segment of your points... from YOUR point of view, not his, even. In the art of pure argument alone, he wins this thread)

And no, I am not complaining about the freedom of choice of interpretation the Rules as Written. I (since I can't speak for others) am only arguing that your interpretation is an over-excessive, over-thought-out, piled-with-too-many-outside-meanings version of interpretation, and thus is quite wrong.

Basically, something like "You can choose 1+1=2, you can choose 1+1=10 on a stretch (binary), but you just cannot choose 1+1=Blackhole, because that is just so very wrong in the scope of High-school maths".

[SeattleDV8]

I have completely explained that reserves follows the same exact description.
I have also explained with the definition provided that deploying not on the board is still deploying.
I have explained that the reference frame of the 'set up the board section' of the rulebook is the board.

Nonsense, you have taken a dictionary and ran amok.
Somehow coming up with 'not deploy'= 'deploy'.

Quit being silly, follow the rules as written, units in resevre are 'not deployed.
LOL, you really do need to stop over thinking things, this is a game and not rocket science.

Yes, I know you want it to work the way you think it does and feel it is somehow unfair.
Myself I find the way it works now to be very helpful as in 4th ed. I could not Combat squad anything that was in reserve.
DA codex pg. 23 "Units held in reserve cannot be split into combat squads and vice versa"
Thankfully this was removed by errata when 5th ed came around.

It could be (and was ) worse.

[Tynskel]

Uh, I did. Didn't you read the post a page or two back? Then I asked people to comment on it, and no one has yet to comment on it.


As for the drop pod exception, you may thinkn I am imposing a restriction, but did you notice that the viewpoint is entirely coherent with the rules in the rulebook-- the exception for the drop pod fits the exception to strategic deployment in the reserve rules.

The when deployed first is simply not there.

[Tynskel]

Nonsense, you have taken a dictionary and ran amok.
Somehow coming up with 'not deploy'= 'deploy'.

Quit being silly, follow the rules as written, units in resevre are 'not deployed.
LOL, you really do need to stop over thinking things, this is a game and not rocket science.

Yes, I know you want it to work the way you think it does and feel it is somehow unfair.
Myself I find the way it works now to be very helpful as in 4th ed. I could not Combat squad anything that was in reserve.
DA codex pg. 23 "Units held in reserve cannot be split into combat squads and vice versa"
Thankfully this was removed by errata when 5th ed came around.

It could be (and was ) worse.

Sure, just ignore the dictionary, the thing that we base what the words mean upon. Yeah, not deployed on the board but instead deployed in reserves.

Also I never said no combat squads in reserves is not fair, I said it was stupid.

[Tynskel]

As Nabterayl has so painstakenly tried to understand you, can you do him a favor? Can you list out the supposed Exceptions you think we're using? (While you're at it, please list your own Exceptions, put them side by side, and see who has more?)

aths".

I already did this about 4 posts ago. Then i asked people to comment. Then nab replied stating that my way was simpler, but he preferred his the round about argument.

Then i stated that the rules are determined by the baggage we bring to the table, then you made fun of my post then I pointed out that you have to make tons of exceptions. Then you wrote what I am quoting.

[SeattleDV8]

LOL, 99% of the time someone brings the dictionary into a rules debate they are wrong, silly or just full of crap.
In this case.... It's all of the above....heh

The rules tell us a unit placed in reserve is 'not deployed,' come on, explain again how the dictionary can make "not deployed' = 'deployed', I always get a big laugh out of that logical mismash.....heh

The rules are clear, units placed in reserve are not deployed, I can quote at least 4 places in the rules that back that.
You have....LOL...questionable bits from the dictionary, all of which are out of context.

Silly, are you going to next tell us that black is white? Not quite 'not deployed' = 'deployed' but close.

[Jwolf]

I really don't understand how a position in direct contradiction of the published GW FAQ is worth 23 pages of continued discussion, but I do appreciate that the discussion has been, by-and-large, civil. I cannot recall a discussion of this length on a contentious topic (even if only contentious to one party) that has stayed so largely civil and pleasant on any other forum that I've visited.

Tynskel and his local group (if he is any indication) are very happy playing with their own version of the Combat Squad and Deployment rules. These rules are unlikely to be used anywhere they might travel (as they are entirely unsupported by the text of the BRB, C:SM, or GW FAQs), but that doesn't really matter - players are free to play in any manner they see fit.

I applaud Nabterayl for his continuing reasonable efforts to understand how Tynskel can be committed to a nontextual interpretation of Deployment in this thread, and I applaud Tynskel for maintaining a civil tone in the face of entirely no agreement from any quarter. Both of you gentlemen meet the definition of the word.

[Tynskel]

I really don't understand how a position in direct contradiction of the published GW FAQ is worth 23 pages of continued discussion, but I do appreciate that the discussion has been, by-and-large, civil. I cannot recall a discussion of this length on a contentious topic (even if only contentious to one party) that has stayed so largely civil and pleasant on any other forum that I've visited.

Tynskel and his local group (if he is any indication) are very happy playing with their own version of the Combat Squad and Deployment rules. These rules are unlikely to be used anywhere they might travel (as they are entirely unsupported by the text of the BRB, C:SM, or GW FAQs), but that doesn't really matter - players are free to play in any manner they see fit.

I applaud Nabterayl for his continuing reasonable efforts to understand how Tynskel can be committed to a nontextual interpretation of Deployment in this thread, and I applaud Tynskel for maintaining a civil tone in the face of entirely no agreement from any quarter. Both of you gentlemen meet the definition of the word.

I am not a total @$$hole, just 99% @$$hole.

I don't understand where you think the FAQ directly contradicts my viewpoint. All the FAQ states is that you do cannot combat squad in reserves. There is nothing about deploying. I have stated that my viewpoint has no conflict with that FAQ.

As for the not deploying comment, The section is talking about deploying your units onto the board, and when you choose not to deploy onto the board, but instead place them into reserves, and the description of reserves are units already deployed, the only logical choice in the definitions is the one dealing with equivalency. Because you are not making an opposite.

[Tynskel]

Wait, which exceptions are you thinking of? I can only think of one, which is that the combat squads rule applies only the first time a unit is deployed. Isn't that commensurate with yours, though, which is that combat squads only apply to one type of deployment ("strategic")?

I reiterate here.

If you decide to go with deploy meaning place onto the board:
1) The rules only have time associated with combat squads when they have been combat squads. Hence units can be placed onto the board multiple times.

2) whether you even agree with strategic or tactical use of combat squads, the use of deploy still has two uses in the rulebook, one without moving and one with moving. Moving in 40k rulebook has explicit rules associated with it. This may seem like a minor point, but the fact of the matter is you still have to make a decision about it.

3) combat squads and units in vehicles, every person out there agrees not to combat squad when they disembark from a vehicle, but according to 'place' there is nothing saying cannot combat squad out of the vehicle. This is a restriction that people arbitrarily placing onto the rules that has no established precedent.

4) drop pod exception: why is this here? One has to use this to infer something that is not explicitly stated ANYWHERE in the rulebook.

If you decide to go with the strategic deployment viewpoint

1) units are only strategically deployed once. There are no more timing problems with combat squads. (ie no combat squads when you deploy out of a vehicle 4 turns into the game)

2) this takes into account the two uses of deploy in the rulebook.

3) vehicle issues disappear, because you are only deployed strategically once.

4) the drop pod exception is coherent with the exception that is made in the reserves for units that are immobile-- ie they have yet to be deployed strategically. The point about this being similar to point 4 for place method is not similar, due to the direct relationship to the rulebook-- I am using the rulebook to support this argument, where the other has NO rulebook support.

The strategic method removes all of the assumptions that have to be made to make combat squads work for the 'place' method. It is much simpler to apply. The strategic method is supported by rules within the rulebook, whereas many of the assumptions made for combat squads in the 'place' method do not have any rulebook support.

[Nabterayl]

dv8, I might point out that JWolf and I once had a debate wherein he attempted to demonstrate to me that "special type of tank shock" meant "not a type of tank shock" :p Granted GW ruled against him on that, but it was a good faith debate, in my view. Tynskel's not the only one in the history of the world, or these forums, who has honestly read "A != B" to mean "some of A != B." Just saying.


I don't understand where you think the FAQ directly contradicts my viewpoint. All the FAQ states is that you do cannot combat squad in reserves. There is nothing about deploying.
Maybe we're all confused about what the question under discussion is? I thought we were discussing the following question:


When are units deployed for purposes of the Combat Squads rule?

The FAQ does not state, "Units in Reserve are not deployed for purposes of the Combat Squads rule," true, but it does state, flat out, "squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads." Since the only situation in which a squad can break into combat squads is when it's deployed (check: you would agree with that, right?), it follows that a unit placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads. This is directly on point with respect to the question above - though granted, perhaps you thought we were discussing a different question - and granted, depending on your view of what a FAQ is, the FAQ may not definitively answer the question. For whatever it's worth, though, I do think the FAQ directly contradicts your viewpoint.


I reiterate here.

If you decide to go with deploy meaning place onto the board:
I appear to have overstated my case earlier in this thread by giving an example of what I think deploy means. However, strictly speaking, my view has nothing to do with the actual definition of deploy. My approach is to apply the Combat Squads rule every time, and only when, the rulebook explicitly says a unit is deployed, except for such situations as the Combat Squads rule itself rules out.

If we take this approach, then we would apply the Combat Squads rule (i) when a unit is placed on the board (or in a transport on the board; c.f. page 94) during deployment, (ii) when a unit (or the transport in which the unit is embarked; id.) arrives on the board from reserve, and (iii) when a unit disembarks from a transport. The Drop Pod exception pares back (iii) to "when a unit disembarks from a Drop Pod," since if (iii) were the real rule the Drop Pod exception would be a subset of (iii) and there would be no need to print it.

The only assumptions made are (i) when the Combat Squads rule says "deployed," without any further context, we should apply it to every time the rulebook uses the word "deploy," and (ii) rules should be construed in such a way as to render none of their text meaningless surplusage. I hesitate to call that latter an assumption, inasmuch as I believe it's an assumption that everybody brings to the table.

By contrast, the strategic viewpoint seems to me to assume the following: (i) rules should be construed in such a way as to render none of their text meaningless surplusage, (ii) when the Combat Squads rule says "deployed," without any further context, we should apply it only to strategic deployment, (iii) strategic deployment is a concept that the codex and rulebook recognize.

[Tynskel]

The point is that it is an assumption that people still make with no justification from any rule that is written. If you purely went off of what the rules were written, you could combat squad at any moment your unit appears onto the table. the point about the drop pod exception is that you have to add rules that are not there to make the exception fit.


The strategic/tactical method is based on only rules that are there, for example the drop pod exception fits with the immobile units that would normally be deployed strategically, but due to mission rules, are forced to deep strike deploying tactically. Since the drop pod exception is for that situation, combat squads is only applied to strategic deployment, because there is no other way to fit in the drop pod exception.

[Nabterayl]

If you accept the premise that "when the unit is deployed" means every time the unit is deployed, then the drop pod exception paring that back as I described is inescapable unless you don't hold to the "don't create meaningless surplusage" canon of construction. Granted, you have to accept that canon of construction (but who doesn't?), and you have to accept the premise that "when the unit is deployed" means every time the unit is deployed.

The strategic viewpoint also follows, but you still have to make assumptions. First you have to accept the meaningless surplusage canon, but that factors out of the "how many assumptions are we making" game, so I'll stop mentioning it after this. After that, you still have to accept the premise that "when the unit is deployed" means "when the unit is strategically deployed," and you have to accept that strategic deployment is a cognizable rules concept. That still counts as two assumptions by my count.

[Tynskel]

I disagree with the 'meaningless surplusage' (not to mention, it is redundant to say meaningless surplusage), unless you are talking about the 'fluff'.

The change in rules usage with deploy with moving and deploy without moving only occurs between pre-game and in-game. To have a rule that was once not associated with another rule, then all of the sudden be associated with a rule is a rules change. This is not irrelevant, or useless statement. This is a physical rules change. It would be like having a lightning claw that re-rolls to wound, then next page, the lightning claw doubles strength.

The point is that you still have to add a rule that does not exist. You have to twist around the codex and rulebook to create a function for the Combat Squad Drop Pod exception to be used. This may be 'inescapable', but there is nothing you can point to in the rulebook that states that deploying only happens once, especially when you consider that the word 'deploy' is sprinkled throughout the rulebook.

Second, you have imposed another restriction: "If we take this approach, then we would apply the Combat Squads rule (i) when a unit is placed on the board (or in a transport on the board; c.f. page 94) during deployment".
Once again, there is no rule that you are using to support this, you are using no implied meaning from the words.

Again, the drop pod exception, from the strategic point of view is reinforced by the actual rulebook exception for reserves. I am not making up a meaning, I am using a direct meaning with associated rules (immobile, deep strike) and the word choice for reserves.

[Nabterayl]

"Meaningless surplusage" is the accepted legal usage. I'm aware that it's literally redundant. So ... just to be clear, you don't think it's a problem if we end up interpreting a rule such that one or more of its clauses do no work?

You've adduced the immobile rule several times, but by doing so you seem to be implying that the only part of the Drop Pod assault rule that actually does anything is the part specifying that you have to split up half your pods and have one half Deep Strike on turn one. I suppose that's consistent with your stance on surplusage. Did I get all that right?

I'm not really sure why you find the fact that the meaning of deploy changes significant. Is there some part of "when the unit is deployed" that you think compels us to apply it only to one sort of deployment? When the Combat Squads rule says "deployed," what are you looking at that demonstrates to you that the rule means only some of the times that the unit is deployed?

As to my "second restriction," do you disagree that a unit embarked on a transport, which transport arrives from Reserve, has been "deployed" (albeit in your lexicon, tactically deployed)? I think that we must conclude such a unit has been "deployed:" page 94 says, "The player picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it ... until all arriving units are on the table." Since the embarked unit is definitely arriving, it follows that it must be deployed within the meaning of the "Rolling for reserves" rules, or we would never be able to move to the rest of the turn.

[Tynskel]

"You've adduced the immobile rule several times, but by doing so you seem to be implying that the only part of the Drop Pod assault rule that actually does anything is the part specifying that you have to split up half your pods and have one half Deep Strike on turn one. I suppose that's consistent with your stance on surplusage. Did I get all that right?"

The turn the pod enters has nothing to do with wether the unit counts as have been previously deployed.
As I said, the Drop Pod applies to the exception. The exception is there because those units would have been strategically deployed during the deployment phase, but due to mission rules, those units could not have been deployed.

"As to my "second restriction," do you disagree that a unit embarked on a transport, which transport arrives from Reserve, has been "deployed" (albeit in your lexicon, tactically deployed)? I think that we must conclude such a unit has been "deployed:" page 94 says, "The player picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it ... until all arriving units are on the table." Since the embarked unit is definitely arriving, it follows that it must be deployed within the meaning of the "Rolling for reserves" rules, or we would never be able to move to the rest of the turn."

No, you are rolling for the transport, not the embarked unit within the transport. They are not considered the same thing, otherwise their special rules would be shared. The unit has not been 'placed' onto the board. You are trying to argue your rules with my ruling? If you are using my rules, then you would know that you have already deployed into reserves, and cannot combat squad.

[Nabterayl]

No, you are rolling for the transport, not the embarked unit within the transport.
You're rolling for both, not one or the other. As page 94 says, "the unit and the transport will be rolled for together and will arrive together."

[Tynskel]

You're rolling for both, not one or the other. As page 94 says, "the unit and the transport will be rolled for together and will arrive together."

but the transport is the only unit that is 'placed' onto the board.
You will have to change what deploy means (becoming fuzzier) to make it work. Which is why I said that it is a justification that one has to impose without a rule to back it up. From this point of view, you would then have to allow that 'arrive' means deploy, but your entire argument revolves around the keyword 'deploy'.

At this point, you should start to understand that I don't believe this method fits the rules very well. It may be 'point and click', but the strategic/tactical uses of deploy fit the rules better, there isn't an unclear situation.

[Nabterayl]

Why do we need to know what deploy means at all?

[Tynskel]

Why do we need to know what deploy means at all?



Simple, because if you want anyone to communicate to each other, it helps to use words that have specific meanings. Otherwise, we get gibbly goop, or shiniggged, or even phisñys.

If the rulebook wanted to use a place holder word, they would have used one. ie, they would have defined one.

This goes back to the rulebook not defining deploy, which means this word is using the dictionary definition(s) determined from the context with which the words are used.



As an aside, that's like asking why do we need to know the meaning of any word. This is the foundation of language, words have meanings.

[jeffersonian000]

Simple, because if you want anyone to communicate to each other,

Speaking of communication, isn't it interesting that the last several pages are posts arguing over the structure of the arguement, and not that actual rule that is in question?

What's so difficult to graps?

Combat Squading is an option that can be take by specific units when that unit is placed on the table, but not while the unit is in Reserver nor while the unit is inside a transport (except for Drop Pods, which have a specific rule to cover it). Further, once a unit is divided into Combat Squads, each squad is treated as a separate unit from that point on, which means rolls for scatter are made by each squad, etc. Simple, supported by rules as written, and it avoids issues where one half of the squad is on the table while the other still hasn't arrived yet.

SJ

[Culven]

Simple, because if you want anyone to communicate to each other, it helps to use words that have specific meanings.
In the case of Combat Squads, the meaning of the word "deploy" doesn't really matter. We could replace the word "Deploy" with a variable, such as X, in the rulebook and Combat Squad rules and it would still work. Then we could simplify the logic to:

X=Deploy (tactical or strategic, it makes no difference)

and also:

If X (i.e if the rulebook states X), then Combat Squad

[Tynskel]

In the case of Combat Squads, the meaning of the word "deploy" doesn't really matter. We could replace the word "Deploy" with a variable, such as X, in the rulebook and Combat Squad rules and it would still work. Then we could simplify the logic to:

X=Deploy (tactical or strategic, it makes no difference)

and also:

If X (i.e if the rulebook states X), then Combat Squad

Deploy does not = x, because the book never defined deploy to equal x.

an example of y=x would be 'fearless USR (or any of the USRs).

[Tynskel]

Speaking of communication, isn't it interesting that the last several pages are posts arguing over the structure of the arguement, and not that actual rule that is in question?

What's so difficult to graps?

Combat Squading is an option that can be take by specific units when that unit is placed on the table, but not while the unit is in Reserver nor while the unit is inside a transport (except for Drop Pods, which have a specific rule to cover it). Further, once a unit is divided into Combat Squads, each squad is treated as a separate unit from that point on, which means rolls for scatter are made by each squad, etc. Simple, supported by rules as written, and it avoids issues where one half of the squad is on the table while the other still hasn't arrived yet.

SJ

This is not completely supported by rules as written: no where does the rules state that a unit inside a transport is deployed.

Also, the way I have described using combat squads is supported by the rules as written, and does not suffer from half a squad on the table and the other has not arrived.

[Nabterayl]

This is not completely supported by rules as written: no where does the rules state that a unit inside a transport is deployed.
Wait, of course it is. A unit inside a transport is "arriving" just as the transport is, according to page 94, and according to page 94, when a unit arrives from reserve, it's deployed.

[SeattleDV8]

Ahem.. Dawn of war pg. 93 (diagram text) "...then deployed a unit of troops, already embarked into their dedicated transport..."

Again, the unit is not deployed until it reaches the table( it this case embarked)

[Culven]

Deploy does not = x, because the book never defined deploy to equal x.

OK. Then, X = Strategically Deploy (using your interpretation)

That doesn't change the fact that the Combat Squad rules still use the logic of "If X, then Combat Squad". I assume that you have no issue with this hypothesis since you didn't address it as being incorrect.

To simplify:

X = Y AND X = Z

X = "Deploy" (the word, since the meaning seems to still be a variable)
Y = the meaning of "Deploy"
Z = Combat Squad

In my opinion, Tynskel, you are trying to debate the value of Y, but it doesn't even factor into the X = Z equation. This is why I think you are trying to hard in your defense. You are trying to create the equation Y = Z, when it has no bearing on the Z issue.

[Tynskel]

no, that's not the equation.

x = z(y). z is a function of y.