Shrike and Infiltration

[Sir Biscuit]

Some of you may be aware of the "Can Shrike actually infiltrate" issue. For those of you that aren't, a quick summary:

Side 1: It's clearly intended that Shrike be allowed to deploy with a unit of infantry using the infiltration rules.

Side 2: That's impossible, because Shrike can't join a unit until he is deployed, and after he is deployed he can no longer infiltrate with his unit because they are already on the field.

My question is no which way RAW runs, my interest is: how do/would you play it in your games? By the RAW, or the obvious RAI?

[Mobious]

The real question comes down to, "If he cannot, then what is the ability used to do?" Once we realize that the power would be useless, then we just ignore the fools who are actually debating this. I am all for RAW, except for when it is obvious to EVERYONE--by everyone I mean players with brains--what is implied.

I heard something ridiculous like this earlier. Supposedly some people believe that the Doom of Malan'tai does not get a 3+ Invulnerable save since Warp Field only grants the save to Zoanthropes. Lol Well that's just funny and it has the same validity as me saying Lucius the Eternal is and Eternal Warrior.

[Lerra]

I'm on side #1. This is clearly a case of poor wording in the codex. The intention is that Shrike can infiltrate with his squad, and every FAQ that I've come across interprets it this way, too.

[Bean]

Honestly, it hasn't come up, but (though as you say, the RAW is clear opposed to this) I wouldn't object to my opponent infiltrating Shrike with a non-infiltrating. I think I'd give such an opponent a (well-deserved) ribbing if he (or she) did it without broaching the issue and getting an okay first, but I would let it slide (or give it the okay if asked).

No matter how obvious the intent might seem, you should really never violate the rules as written without bringing it up in advance. It's an understandable slip in some cases (like this one) but always bad form.

[Nabterayl]

The one time it's come up in our group Shrike was allowed to infiltrate with his squad. It wasn't my game, but that's the approach I would advocate if it did come up against me.

[sangrail777]

wow, haven't heard this was a problem. I'd let him infiltrate with a squad. don't see any reason why not.

[DarkLink]

wow, haven't heard this was a problem. I'd let him infiltrate with a squad. don't see any reason why not.

The problem is that Shrike doesn't give a squad infiltrate until he joins them. Yet he doesn't count as joining them until AFTER they infiltrate. Meaning, technically, he can't infiltrate with a squad unless the squad already has infiltrate. Yeah...

[Polonius]

I'd allow it. I'd certainly respect an opponent who mentioned it before the game, to make sure I was aware of the problem, but it's one of the clearer cases of RAI conflicting with RAW in the game.

The more interesting question is how to handle a player that refuses to allow it.

[The Dinosaur]

side 2 need a good slap, they were probably gonna loose anyway...

bet it wouldnt matter if shrike was joining a techmarine.

[Bean]

I'd allow it. I'd certainly respect an opponent who mentioned it before the game, to make sure I was aware of the problem, but it's one of the clearer cases of RAI conflicting with RAW in the game.

The more interesting question is how to handle a player that refuses to allow it.

Give it up or find another game. Insisting that a opponent play by a house rule, even if it's the most obvious expression of the intent of the rules you can imagine, is much poorer sportsmanship than insisting on playing by the actual rules.

[Polonius]

Give it up or find another game. Insisting that a opponent play by a house rule, even if it's the most obvious expression of the intent of the rules you can imagine, is much poorer sportsmanship than insisting on playing by the actual rules.

I'm glad you brought this up, as it gets bandied about a lot as if it were gospel truth. I'm not directly attacking you, but rather the idea, so I hope not to offend.

The idea raised here is that RAW are the RULES, the laws of the game, and any deviation from them is a "house rule." These are all aberations from the true rules, and thus rely on opponents' permisison.

The immediate rebuttal given is usually TMIR, the most important rule, which states that the most important rule is to insure that everybody have fun, not to follow any black letter rules.

The counter is clear: what if following RAW exactly is how you have fun? Aside from the obvious self serving nature of the position, it's a little silly, to think that the main way a player has fun is to follow the rules, not to actually have a good game.

So, you end up dead locked. If you refuse to allow shrike to infiltrate, the RAW player is having the time of his life while the other player is pretty bummed he can't use his units in the most obvious way. If you do allow Shrike to infiltrate, then the RAW player is bummed because rules are broken, while the player is having fun with his cool unit. A lot of people would state that because you can't quantify TMIR, it's not relevent for rules discussions.

Well, TMIR has no basis on RAW, but it has everything to do with how the game is actually played. It's not poor sportsmanship to want to use your units in the way the codex intends. It's not good sportsmanship to insist on playing by the rules when they're ridiculous. It might be against the technical rules, but it's not poor sport. Sportsmanship is about gentlemanly play, and that entails ceding things to your opponent.

So why should the RAW player that knows he's right cede, while the Shrike player gets a free pass? Rule of Cool. Shrike isn't broken. He's not an unstoppable unit that will easily win games. It's a cool, fun, fluffy rule that allows one unit to act in a way that the background describes. Simply put, whats more fun? Allowing a unit to act the way it was intended, or dryly enforcing a technical rule?

I contend that the argument "I have fun playing by the rules" is really code for "I have fun telling people they're wrong, and correcting them on rules." And that's fine, you can do that. But it's not sporting. Sportsmen don't just follow the RAW, or even the RAI. They follow the unwritten rules of competition, things like "keep it fair," and most importantly, "don't be a dick."

[Jwolf]

I've always been curious as to how people get to Shrike cannot infiltrate with a squad. The rules require that for an Independent Character to be part of a squad, he must be deployed in coherency with them. Nothing makes the squad deploy first. At the time of their deployment on the board, Shrike, and any squad he is joined to (signified by deploying them in coherency) have the Infiltrate USR. Imagining that at some point prior to deployment the squad and Shrike exist independently is sort of immaterial; the deployment of Shrike and a Squad via Infiltrate is 100% RAW and valid.

[Polonius]

I've always been curious as to how people get to Shrike cannot infiltrate with a squad. The rules require that for an Independent Character to be part of a squad, he must be deployed in coherency with them. Nothing makes the squad deploy first. At the time of their deployment on the board, Shrike, and any squad he is joined to (signified by deploying them in coherency) have the Infiltrate USR. Imagining that at some point prior to deployment the squad and Shrike exist independently is sort of immaterial; the deployment of Shrike and a Squad via Infiltrate is 100% RAW and valid.

The rule states that Shrike (and his squad) have infiltration. There's no real mechanism for an IC to have a squad absent being deployed in coherency (p48 of the main rule book). A hyper technical read is that an IC must be deployed to join the unit, as in actually on the table. Essentially, it turns on the idea that IC's must literally join a unit, they can't deploy together. So, since the squad doesn't infiltrate until shrike joins, and shrike can't join until the squad is deployed, the squad can't deploy with infiltrate.

It's a lesson in why RAW analysis is merely the most useful tool, not the only tool, in rules discussions.

[Lerra]

I think the idea is that deployment is the actual physical placing of models on the table, and not just a phase. If Shrike doesn't join the unit until he is physically placed next to them, then they are already deployed and are not eligible to use infiltrate later in deployment because they are already on the table.

The problem I see with this is that it is possible to join a unit before deployment. What about all of those ICs who join squads in drop pods or other dedicated transports in reserve? They are considered to be joined to the squad before that squad deploys.

Personally, I consider RAW and "The Rules" to be different things. RAW informs The Rules, but it's not the sole determinant, especially considering the heavy use of FAQs and situations like this where RAW is flawed. RAW is not inerrant.

[Jwolf]

I understand the argument, Polonious. I just don't understand how the "making up non-existant timeframes and calling it strict RAW" argument is anything like a RAW argument. I know inventing sequences is important for many people; I am of the school of thought that the chicken and the egg can, and indeed must, come into being at the same time.

[Nabterayl]

Particularly since independent characters can be attached to units in all forms of Reserve.

[Bean]

I've always been curious as to how people get to Shrike cannot infiltrate with a squad. The rules require that for an Independent Character to be part of a squad, he must be deployed in coherency with them. Nothing makes the squad deploy first. At the time of their deployment on the board, Shrike, and any squad he is joined to (signified by deploying them in coherency) have the Infiltrate USR. Imagining that at some point prior to deployment the squad and Shrike exist independently is sort of immaterial; the deployment of Shrike and a Squad via Infiltrate is 100% RAW and valid.

It's a matter of timing. All units without infiltrate have to be deployed or put into reserve before any infiltrators are deployed. The unit to which you intend to join Shrike doesn't have Infiltrate until he joins it--which can't happen until both are deployed.

You're right. If they deployed at the same time, it would be reasonable to say that it would work. However, the unit has to be deployed before Shrike, since it doesn't have infiltrate until he joins it. It basically goes down like this:

You deploy your army. Everything either goes into reserve or goes on the table, except units with Infiltrate, which you can hold back to deploy later as infiltrators.

You can't hold back any unit which doesn't have infiltrate.

The unit that Shrike is going to join doesn't have infiltrate, so you can't hold it back.

Therefor, you must either deploy it or put it into reserve. When you deploy it, it can't use the infiltrate rules, even if you deploy Shrike with it at the same time. This is because you're deploying it (and Shrike, if you deploy him at the same time) not as infiltrators but with the normal, non-infiltrating portion of your army.

In order to deploy Shrike as an infiltrator, using the infiltrator rules, you have to hold him back and deploy him in a separate step after you (and your opponent) have deployed the non-infiltrating portions of your armies. Since he can't join a squad before he and it deploy, the squad he would have joined won't have the infiltrators rule, won't be able to be held back, and will be required to be deployed (or put in reserve).

So, no. You're basically 100% wrong. It is, actually, strictly against the rules to hold back a non-infiltrating unit when deploying the non-infiltrating portion of your army, even if you have a mechanism by which that unit could later gain the infiltrators rule.

edit:

I understand the argument, Polonious. I just don't understand how the "making up non-existant timeframes and calling it strict RAW" argument is anything like a RAW argument. I know inventing sequences is important for many people; I am of the school of thought that the chicken and the egg can, and indeed must, come into being at the same time.

The timing sequence which creates this result is not an invention--it's spelled out clearly and explicitly in the rules in multiple places.

Look at page 75, BRB:

"Units with this special rule are deployed last, after all other units (friends and foe) have been deployed."

(note that "this special rule" is the Infiltrate USR.

Or pages 92 and 93, where it discusses deployment:

"The players roll of, and the winner chooses to go first or second. The player that goes first then chooses one of the long table edges to be his own table edge. He then deploys his force in his half of hte table, with all models more than 12" away from the table's middle line (this is his 'deployment zone'). His opponent then deploys in the opposite half.

Deploy any infiltrators and make any scout moves."

That's from the rules for the Pitched Battle deployment type, but the rules for the other two are functionally identical, as far as this issue is concerned.

Infiltrators go after everything else. The unit would have to be deployed (or put in reserve) before Shrike is allowed to be deployed--they're required to be on the table (or in reserve) before Shrike has a chance to join them. They can't re-deploy after Shrike joins them, so they effectively cannot infiltrate (though they can outflank.)





I'm glad you brought this up, as it gets bandied about a lot as if it were gospel truth. I'm not directly attacking you, but rather the idea, so I hope not to offend.

The idea raised here is that RAW are the RULES, the laws of the game, and any deviation from them is a "house rule." These are all aberations from the true rules, and thus rely on opponents' permisison.


The game--any game--relies on what is essentially an agreement between the players of the game to follow the rules of the game.

If a game has no written or established rules, or has multiple, different, widely accepted sets of written or established rules, it is critical that players discuss what rules they're going to be using before the game. For example, Go has three different scoring systems, each of which is widely considered to be completely legitimate. (Two actually produce identical results, every time, despite using different formulas. The third is just wacky.) You can't really play a game of Go without first establishing which scoring system you're going to use.

However, when there is a single set of rules, established and written, it is reasonable to say that these rules form a default set of rules to which players agree to say. Barring some other specific agreement, an agreement to play by these written rules is the only reasonable assumption one can make regarding that issue. 40k has such only one written set of rules which is widely accepted as legitimate (the only competitor would be the INAT FAQ, really, but it fails to hit the "widely accepted" mark.)

So, yes. I think that it is only fair to say that the RAW, the rules as written, are the rules: the rules which, by default, players agree to follow unless they specifically agree to do otherwise. This basically means that, yes: any deviation from the rules (house rules, essentially) are aberrations from the true rules and rely on an opponent's permission--not because they are worse or undesirable or in need of oversight, but because the only unspoken agreement you can reasonably presume is the one which says you will play by the rules as written.

Any other agreement would have to be brokered ahead of time, which basically requires an opponent's consent.

Of course, you require your opponent's consent to play by the rules as written, too. The difference is that if your opponent shows up to play a specific game and fails to suggest alterations to the rules of that game ahead of time, it is reasonable to presume that he or she agrees to play by the written rules. It is not reasonable to presume that he or she agrees to play by any other set of rules.



The immediate rebuttal given is usually TMIR, the most important rule, which states that the most important rule is to insure that everybody have fun, not to follow any black letter rules.

The counter is clear: what if following RAW exactly is how you have fun? Aside from the obvious self serving nature of the position, it's a little silly, to think that the main way a player has fun is to follow the rules, not to actually have a good game.


I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone suggest that following the RAW is exactly how they have fun. Rather, the argument (as I've presented it th past) asserts that it makes the game less fun when your reasonable expectations regarding the rules you've agreed to use are violated by your opponent.

If you sit down to play a game with an opponent, and no specific agreement is made regarding the rules, the only reasonable presumption (as I said) is that you have a tacit agreement to play by the rules as written.

When your opponent decides to violate one of those rules, it certainly does have the potential to make the game less fun for you.

Let's take the Shrike issue, for instance. You deploy your forces, presuming that the rules as written will be followed, and that Shrike will not be able to infiltrate a squad along with him. You set up to deal with the possibility that he will be attached to a unit in reserve and use his infiltrate-granting ability to make that unit outflank, but you don't set up to deal with Shrike infiltrating with a unit of Assault Marines, because you (reasonably) presumed that, given the lack of any agreement to the contrary, your opponent agrees to play by the rules as written.

If your opponent then infiltrates Shrike and some Assault Marines in a manner that takes advantage of your deployment in a manner you had every reason to expect would be impossible, that would make the game less fun for you, right? It certainly would make the game less fun for me, and even if it wouldn't make the game less fun for you, I would certainly expect you to recognize the legitimacy of my position on that particular issue.




So, you end up dead locked. If you refuse to allow shrike to infiltrate, the RAW player is having the time of his life while the other player is pretty bummed he can't use his units in the most obvious way. If you do allow Shrike to infiltrate, then the RAW player is bummed because rules are broken, while the player is having fun with his cool unit. A lot of people would state that because you can't quantify TMIR, it's not relevent for rules discussions.


The most important rule is always relevant, it's just not always decisive. In the situation you've presented, it certainly applies--it just supports both positions equally. It says that you should strive to make the game fun for both players. If changing a rule way would make the game less fun for one person and more fun for another, the most important rule fails to state whether the rule should be changed, barring some quantitative mechanism for describing the amount of aggregate fun each option would create or destroy.

I have yet to hear of such a mechanism, so I'll presume that you agree that the most important rule would fail to arbitrate the situation you describe succesfully. Again, that's not to say it's irrelevant or should be ignored, just to say that it's not always sufficient.

What I can say, though, is that a player who wants to change a rule in the middle of the game has no legitimate ground on which to stand. As I asserted before, barring a specific pre-game agreement, players should presume that they are agreeing to play by the rules as written. Any other presumption is unreasonable.

Because of that, a player who wants to play by a rule which is contrary to the rules as written is either violating the tacit agreement or had some unreasonable presumption about the nature of the tacit agreement. Either way, the position is illegitimate.

It's not unreasonable to ask for a concession on such an issue during the middle of the game, but to feel entitled to such a concession without a specific pre-game agreement certainly is unreasonable.




Well, TMIR has no basis on RAW, but it has everything to do with how the game is actually played. It's not poor sportsmanship to want to use your units in the way the codex intends. It's not good sportsmanship to insist on playing by the rules when they're ridiculous. It might be against the technical rules, but it's not poor sport. Sportsmanship is about gentlemanly play, and that entails ceding things to your opponent.


Sportsmanship, above all, means honoring the agreement with your opponent about how the game will be played.

That might involve giving your opponent concessions. It might involve calling your opponent names and throwing models across the table.

If there is no specific agreement to the contrary, it means playing by the rules as written, because that agreement should be presumed to be tacit.



So why should the RAW player that knows he's right cede, while the Shrike player gets a free pass? Rule of Cool. Shrike isn't broken. He's not an unstoppable unit that will easily win games. It's a cool, fun, fluffy rule that allows one unit to act in a way that the background describes. Simply put, whats more fun? Allowing a unit to act the way it was intended, or dryly enforcing a technical rule?


It depends on the situation. Consider the situation I posited before: Shrike being allowed to Infiltrate will (for whatever reason) basically allow him to walk all over the opposing army because its controller deployed with the (reasonable) presumption that the game would be played according to the rules as written.

Does it make the game more "cool" to let Shrike violate a rule in a manner which will let him walk all over the enemy army? More cool than, say, putting him into reserve and letting him and the unit Outflank (which is completely legal?)

If I were that opponent, I certainly wouldn't think so. I think we've already agreed that we're not going to be able to quantify the aggregate gains or losses of fun from each option. The same is certainly true for "coolness," an even more vaguely-defined measurement. The rule of cool might also be relevant, but it too is often going to simply be indecisive. Invoking it as a way to support your position doesn't really work any better than invoking the most important rule.



I contend that the argument "I have fun playing by the rules" is really code for "I have fun telling people they're wrong, and correcting them on rules."


I contend that this is really nothing more than you being ignorant. =P

When I play a game, I have fun because it is competitive. Because I am trying to make decisions that will result in my victory over my opponent. Thinking through the options, deciding on the best courses of action, and deciding how to deal with the results is the part of this game--or any game--that I find enjoyable.

I think this is a perfectly legitimate mechanism for gleaning fun from a game. If you don't agree, then we don't have anything more to talk about.

If you do agree, then consider: gleaning fun from the game in this way requires a consistent, established set of rules which will be followed by both players. The merit of every possible options is dictated almost exclusively by the rules. You can't identify the best decision without knowing what rules are going to be used.

When an opponent wants to implement a house rule in the middle of a game which invalidates some decision I've made previously, that destroys some of the fun I would otherwise glean from the game.

It has nothing to do with me being right or telling other people that they're wrong. It has to do with the manner in which I enjoy the game--and the manner in which I enjoy the game is entirely legitimate.





And that's fine, you can do that. But it's not sporting. Sportsmen don't just follow the RAW, or even the RAI. They follow the unwritten rules of competition, things like "keep it fair," and most importantly, "don't be a dick."

I contend that it is not fair--and that it is quite dickish--to insist on the implementation of a house rule in the middle of a game. I will have made the decisions I've made up until that point based on the presumption that we will be following whatever rules we agreed to follow prior to the game, and that in the absence of a specific agreement to the contrary, we will have agreed to follow the rules as they are written in the rulebook. I contend that these assumptions are entirely reasonable and justified, and that an opponent's insistence on violating them in the middle of the game, despite the fact that it will almost certainly destroy some of the fun I might otherwise have, is unsportsmanlike.

I further contend that the most important attribute of sportsmanship is adhering to your agreement with your opponent. If that agreement is tacit, it involves following the rules of the game as written. It is not unsportsmanlike to hold your opponent to that agreement, even if the agreement was tacit.

I understand that it might destroy some of my opponent's fun when I refuse to implement a house-rule mid-game. However, I contend that this loss is not my fault, but rather entirely the fault of my opponent. It was entirely my opponent's responsibility to suggest that house rule prior to the game (and I am almost always willing to agree to such suggestions when they are put forward. ) Any loss of fun my opponent experiences as a result of this situation is attributable entirely to his or her unreasonable expectation that we would be playing by a house rule despite our failure to agree to that rule prior to the game. Again, such an unreasonable expectation would be entirely his or her own fault.

Anyway, that's how I look at it. Thoughts?

[Jwolf]

Your issue of timing is made up, Bean. I declare that a unit will be deployed via Infiltrate, and the unit deploys via Infiltrate. Infiltrators, Outflankers, and Deep Strikers are all declared during deployment, not afterwards. There is only one deployment phase, with an order of action, but not subphases.

So, if I go first, I deploy the units I am going to deploy normally, declare which will Infiltrate, Deep Strike, Outflank, and be held in Reserve. Then my opponent does the same. The semantics argument that "by being deployed in coherency with them" ignores "an independent character may begin the game already with a unit" is logically unsound - the declaration is made prior to the descriptive mechanism being given.

[Bean]

And that would be cheating.

You can't declare that a unit will be infiltrating and refrain from deploying it if it doesn't actually have the Infiltrate USR. It's strictly and obviously against the rules.

It doesn't matter if it's going to get the rule later on. If it doesn't have the rule when you say that it's going to be held back, you can't actually hold it back--and there is nothing in the rules anywhere that suggests that it gains the rule before it deploys.

You can pretend that there's no timing, but you definitely have to say, "I'm going to hold this back and deploy it later" before you deploy it. Those're just the constraints of reality.

Further, of course, there is the fact that the rules specifically spell out a sequence of events when they say,

"Units with this special rule are deployed last, after all other units (friends and foe) have been deployed."

(note, again, that "this special rule" is the Infiltrate USR.)

Maybe in magical Jwolf land, "after" means "at the same time as" but it certainly doesn't mean that in the real world. After means after, and the fact that the word after is used means, quite concretely, that there is a sequence to the deployment events.

Of course, that'd be obvious if you actually read the rules for deployment, where it describes one thing happening, then another thing happening, using the actual word, "then," another concrete signifier of sequence.

Deploying infiltrators is just another step in the deployment sequence, and it's one which happens after units without the Infiltrate USR are required to be deployed.

This, in turn, means that Shrike is, necessarily, deployed after units without infiltrate. He can join one and give it infiltrate, but, at that point, he and it are already deployed--and there is no rule which allows it to be redeployed.

[Jwolf]

I understand your position. I disagree with it. There is not a normal deployment phase followed by a deploy infiltrators phase. There is a deployment phase, and all deployment is declared simultaneously - that is RAW. The order that the models are laid on the table must, of necessity, have a sequence, but the actual declaration of deployment mode is simultaneous. It seems you're reading the Infiltrate USR, but not the Deployment and Reserves sections of the rules, which provide the context and full information required to make accurate assessments of the rules of deployment. The decision of how to deploy units is made at one time, not in steps.

Though I do appreciate the irony of a person who actually isn't reading the full range of the rules required to make a comprehensive asseessment of the rules in question accusing me of ignoring or not reading the rules, I find your tone offensive. This Rules forum is "magical Jwolf land," and you are here as my guest; if you can't keep your tone civil all the time, when addressing comments towards me is probably the single most important time to do so.

[Bean]

I understand your position. I disagree with it. There is not a normal deployment phase followed by a deploy infiltrators phase. There is a deployment phase, and all deployment is declared simultaneously - that is RAW. The order that the models are laid on the table must, of necessity, have a sequence, but the actual declaration of deployment mode is simultaneous. It seems you're reading the Infiltrate USR, but not the Deployment and Reserves sections of the rules, which provide the context and full information required to make accurate assessments of the rules of deployment. The decision of how to deploy units is made at one time, not in steps.


Again you can't decide to deploy a unit as if it had the Infiltrate rule when it doesn't actually have the infiltrate rule.

1.) At the time at which you must decide how the unit to which you intend to attach Shrike will be deployed, it does not have the infiltrate rule.

2.) Therefor, you cannot decide to deploy it as if it did have the Infiltrate rule.

3.) Therefor, it cannot deploy as if it did have the Infiltrate rule.


If you want to object to my position, find a flaw in that.





Though I do appreciate the irony of a person who actually isn't reading the full range of the rules required to make a comprehensive asseessment of the rules in question accusing me of ignoring or not reading the rules, I find your tone offensive.

I read those rules. I quoted some of them two posts ago. I referenced them in my last post. The fully support my position, and I've already demonstrated beyond any reasonable measure why that is the case. You might find my tone offensive, but all I've posted is a light hearted jest.

You, on the other hand have actually lied about my research and thoroughness (of if you made your error out of ignorance, it is an inexcusable ignorance).

I find that offensive. I realize that you're basically a tyrant, here, and can do very nearly whatever you want to do, but at least you could refrain from behaving hypocritically, as you have here.



This Rules forum is "magical Jwolf land," and you are here as my guest; if you can't keep your tone civil all the time, when addressing comments towards me is probably the single most important time to do so.

This is merely one more indication that you are not the right person for this job.

[Jwolf]

So you insist that there is a legal predeployment requirement that exists independent of the decision on how to deploy a unit. I understand your position. I do not agree with it.

I believe the rules of deployment indicate that the decision of Infiltrate takes place simultaneous with the decision to deploy normally, outflank, deep strike, or be held in normal reserves. Certainly the 'preparing reserves' (p.94) section indicates that the deployment decisions for all of these except infiltrate happen at the same time in the deployment phase(and it wouldn't make sense to discuss infiltrate in a section on reserves). Since units that infiltrate must either infiltrate or do one of the others, the decision to infiltrate MUST occur at the same time - if only because all other choices must occur at the same time (not choosing A,B,C,D means chosing E, if there are only 5 choices and one must be selected). Do you follow me this far? Do you agree that the decision of how to deploy must, strictly by RAW, all happen simultaneously?

And if I were half the tyrant you accuse me of being, we wouldn't ever discuss our disagreements.

[Nabterayl]

You might find my tone offensive, but all I've posted is a light hearted jest.
If that's what you think you've been posting, please allow me to corroborate the way JWolf received it. On this and other threads in which you and I have participated I also have been offended by your tone. I believe you that you haven't intended that way, but this is not the first time I've read one of your posts and wondered if you meant to insult the people you're speaking with. I'm very glad to hear that you didn't, but I hope you can accept as constructive critique that I, at least, frequently find your tone insulting.

In other news, can I point out that this thread was started to poll people as to how they played, and specifically excluded from its scope a discussion of the related RAW? I'm guilty of breaking that boundary too, but perhaps this discussion would be best moved to another thread.

[Culven]

I agree with Bean on this issue. By the rules, there are timing issues with trying to use Shrike to grant Infiltrate to another unit. The first timing issue Bean mentioned. A unit cannot be held back to be Deployed as Infiltrators if it doesn't have the Infiltrate USR. At the time this is decided, Shrike is not part of that unit and they do not have Infiltrate from him. The second timing issue was mentioned by Jwolf. An IC can begin the game already with a unit by being deployed in coherency with that unit. It doesn't matter if the unit was placed on the table before the IC, after it, or at the same time. The IC isn't defined as being part of the unit until the start of the game, which all missions identify as occouring after deployment and Scout moves, as indicated by the phrase "Start the Game!". So, Shrike will not be part of the unit until after units using Infiltrate have already been placed. The only exception would be if Shrike is joined to the unit in Reserves, but the Reserves rules specifically mention this.

By RaW, Shrike cannot grant Infiltrate to a unit and allow them to deploy as Infiltrators. However, this doesn't mean that Shrike's ability is useless (as some would claim). He is still able to make use of Infiltrate himself, which could allow him to join a unit of the player's choosing after the enemy has deployed. Alternately, he could join a unit in Reserves, allowing them to Outflank together.

By GaP, I would pobably not mind if my opponent wants to use Shrike to grant Infiltrate to his unit and deploy as Infiltrators. However, if they deploy Super Sneaky Terminators, it will earn them a raised eyebrow.

Personally, I think that ICs should be joined to units before Deployment to avoid problems like this.

[Bean]

So you insist that there is a legal predeployment requirement that exists independent of the decision on how to deploy a unit. I understand your position. I do not agree with it.


You're of the opinion that you can declare a unit to be deploying as Infiltrators when it doesn't have the Infiltrate rule?

Curious. How do you support that belief?



I believe the rules of deployment indicate that the decision of Infiltrate takes place simultaneous with the decision to deploy normally, outflank, deep strike, or be held in normal reserves. Certainly the 'preparing reserves' (p.94) section indicates that the deployment decisions for all of these except infiltrate happen at the same time in the deployment phase(and it wouldn't make sense to discuss infiltrate in a section on reserves).

Sure, I tentatively agree.



Since units that infiltrate must either infiltrate or do one of the others, the decision to infiltrate MUST occur at the same time - if only because all other choices must occur at the same time (not choosing A,B,C,D means chosing E, if there are only 5 choices and one must be selected). Do you follow me this far? Do you agree that the decision of how to deploy must, strictly by RAW, all happen simultaneously?


Again, tentatively, yes. I don't see any flaws in the reasoning, here. However, there's still a sequence of events during deployment.

First, Choose how each unit will be deployed.

Second, deploy units that are deploying normally and place into reserve those unit which are going into reserve.

Third, deploy infiltrators.



The assertions you've made above are not sufficient to support your position. The fact that you choose how you're going to deploy each unit, in effect, simultaneously with choosing how to deploy each other unit doesn't give you permission to choose to deploy a unit in a manner in which it's not legally allowed to deploy.

The fact that you choose how to deploy your Predator at the same time as you choose how to deploy your Terminators doesn't mean that you can choose to deploy your Predator via the Deep Strike rules. It'd need to have the Deep Strike rule in order for you to be able to choose that option, and it does not.

You can only choose for a unit one of its legal deployment options. Prior to being deployed in coherency with Shrike, the unit in question won't have the Infiltrate rule. Infiltrating won't be one of its legal deployment options. You aren't able to legally choose to deploy it as if it had the Infiltrate rule, because it does not.

Your only options are to choose to leave the Assault Squad (or whatever) in reserve or deploy it normally. If you deploy it normally, it deploys before Shrike (presuming you choose to deploy him as an infiltrator) and it must be deployed in your deployment zone.


How can you support the assertion that you can choose to deploy a unit as an infiltrator when it doesn't have the Infiltrate rule?

That assertion is absurd--as absurd as choosing to deploy your Predator via Deep Strike. Nothing in the rules gives you permission to choose deployment as infiltrators as an option for a unit without the Infiltrate rule.

[Shavnir]

Just as an aside the strict RAW does lead to a different rule than the RAI so it is possible (however unlikely) that they intended the following :

1 ) Shrike may infiltrate by himself
2 ) Shrike may outflank by himself
3 ) Shrike may outflank with a squad.

That is a unique combination of rules that the strict RAW allows. I guess my point is that the RAW could have been the RAI (thus dredging up the eternal RAW v RAI case though :\ )

Personally I'd let a squad infiltrate with Shrike while mentioning it in the way I mention a lot of of the odd rules...in passing before the game but never during the game.

Anyways Bean nobody locally plays Shrike do they?

[Jwolf]

Ah, I take "may begin the game already with a unit" to be the rule, and "by being deployed in coherency with them" as the method for demonstrating that you are following the rule. I do not take "by being deployed in coherency with them" as anything other than a description of how we indicate that an Independent Character is part of the squad if the squad is on the table.

Would you allow an Independent character to begin the game in a non-dedicated transport with an infantry squad? Reading the phrase "by being deployed in coherency with them" as a restrictive rule, rather than a descriptive phrase, I see no RAW allowance for such deployment.

[Nabterayl]

Okay, fine, we'll do it here :p

Bean, I'm curious: how do you gloss page 48?


For example, if an independent character without the 'infiltrate' special rule joins a unit of infiltrators during deployment, the unit cannot infiltrate (see the Universal Special Rules section for more details).

The way you construe the rules, is it not impossible for an independent character without the infiltrate special rule to join a unit of infiltrators during deployment?

[Bean]

No, Shav, I don't think anyone does. I don't think I've ever seen him played actually.

Another note, you don't actually decide to infiltrate a unit. A unit with the Infiltrate rule must be deployed after all other units. You can't decide to deploy it normally--it's just not an option. You can tell because the rule on page 75 says,

"Units with this special rule are deployed last, after all other units (friends and foe) have been deployed."

There's no "may" in there. It's not permissive. It's instructive. It tells you when they get deployed, and no rule anywhere gives you an option to do otherwise.

So, there isn't really even a "decide whether to deploy a unit as infiltrators" option at all, for infiltrators or non-infiltrators.

All units without the Infiltrate rule always deploy (or go into reserve) before any units with the Infiltrate rule are deployed. It doesn't matter when or how you "decide" how to deploy them because, as far as the Infiltrate rule is concerned, there is no decision to make. You either have it or you don't, and if you have it you deploy after everyone that doesn't. The only decision to make regards what goes into reserve, and whether, if it does go into reserve, it's going to Outflank or Deepstrike.

[Bean]

Ah, I take "may begin the game already with a unit" to be the rule, and "by being deployed in coherency with them" as the method for demonstrating that you are following the rule. I do not take "by being deployed in coherency with them" as anything other than a description of how we indicate that an Independent Character is part of the squad if the squad is on the table.

Sure. That's an understandable error.

Still, it is undeniably an error. "By being deployed in coherency with them" is a criteria which needs to be met in order for the IC to begin the game attached to a unit. That's what the "by" means--it means that the following condition produces the former condition, not that the following condition describes the former condition.

To say the latter, you'd have to say, "which can be described by," or something similar--a statement which is not, in any way, equivalent to a "by" by itself.




Would you allow an Independent character to begin the game in a non-dedicated transport with an infantry squad? Reading the phrase "by being deployed in coherency with them" as a restrictive rule, rather than a descriptive phrase, I see no RAW allowance for such deployment.


Of course, and it is definitely allowed by the RAW, even if "by being deployed in coherency with them" is read as a restrictive rule.

You put the transport down. You state that the unit and the IC are being deployed as embarked in the transport. The IC is part of the unit because you have deployed it in coherency with the unit.

Unless, of course, you want to contend that models inside a transport are not in coherency with each other.

Even if you did, of course, it could be easily overcome by situating the models in the unit--including the IC--in a coherent formation somewhere off the table. I doubt most players would deem that step necessary, but it's certainly both possible and legitimate, in the instance where one is confronted about it.





Okay, fine, we'll do it here :p

Bean, I'm curious: how do you gloss page 48?


For example, if an independent character without the 'infiltrate' special rule joins a unit of infiltrators during deployment, the unit cannot infiltrate (see the Universal Special Rules section for more details).

The way you construe the rules, is it not impossible for an independent character without the infiltrate special rule to join a unit of infiltrators during deployment?

No, it is not impossible. He can deploy, and they can deploy so that he is in coherency with them.

This rule does seem to be poorly written, since there isn't actually any way the independent character can prevent them from infiltrating. The IC would have to be deployed first, and they would have to be deployed later. He could begin the game attached to their unit if they deploy so that he is in coherency with them, but they'd have to do it after he (and all other non-infiltrators) deploy.

That alone, though, isn't nearly sufficient to give a unit permission to deploy as infiltrators when it doesn't have the infiltrators rule.


edit:

Culven brings up an interesting point, namely that, during deployment, the game hasn't actually started. The IC can start the game attached to a unit by deploying in coherency with it, but no rules anywhere state that it can be part of a unit before the game starts, which means that it couldn't be part of a unit during deployment.

This might raise some issues for the IC attached to an embarked, unit (I'm not sure, I'll have to do a little digging) but it is undeniably true. As he points out, the rules tell you when to start the game, and it is clearly after deployment.

That, really, should lay the issue to rest. During deployment, the game hasn't started. There are no rules which allow an IC to be attached to a unit prior to the start of the game. Shrike only gives Infiltrate to units to which he is attached. Therefor, Shrike can never give a unit Infiltrate during deployment.

[Nabterayl]

No, it is not impossible. He can deploy, and they can deploy so that he is in coherency with them.

This rule does seem to be poorly written, since there isn't actually any way the independent character can prevent them from infiltrating. The IC would have to be deployed first, and they would have to be deployed later. He could begin the game attached to their unit if they deploy so that he is in coherency with them, but they'd have to do it after he (and all other non-infiltrators) deploy.
If the way we construe a rule makes an example meant to illustrate the workings of the rules no longer illustrate the rule, then I think we have excellent reason to think that we're construing the rule incorrectly.

Page 48 clearly contemplates independent characters being joined to units before they are placed on the table - otherwise the example makes no sense. Consequently it must be true that "by being deployed in coherency with them" is not as restrictive as you read it.

[Bean]

Even if that reasoning were sound (it is not) it is irrelevant.

There are no rules at all which allow an IC to be joined to a unit during deployment. This isn't a matter of construing anything, it's a matter of fact. No such rules exist.

So, the quote on page 48 is an error. It's a shame, but it's not the only bit of text from the rulebook which appears to be a rule but is, in fact, non-functional. Bad writing is one of GW's defining features.

There is no way you can construe any rule to allow for an IC to be attached to a unit before the start of the game, and deployment occurs before the start of the game.

[Culven]

The exception given on page 48 which refers to ICs attempting to join Infiltrating units as well as the rules allowing an IC to deploy inside a Transport with another unit both imply that the IC is supposed to be part of the unit during deployment. If not, then the former would make no sense, and the latter wouldn't work since only one unit may be in a Transport. However, the only explicit rules refer to the IC starting the game with the unit. Nothing is mentioned about prior to the start of the game. So, it seems plausible that the GW writers (once again) couldn't manage to write a cohesive set of rules and seemed to forget or just glossed over the fact that the rules don't actually work the way they "think" they do. Unfortunately, this leaves us with the RaW vs. RaI vs. GaP debate, and possible tripping hazards when playing a tournament game.

[Bean]

True enough, and I definitely agree: the rules should be written to allow an IC to join a unit during or prior to deployment.

However, as you say, they do not. This is unfortunate, and it may, indeed, not have been the designers' intent, but it is the truth.

[Nabterayl]

Even if that reasoning were sound (it is not) it is irrelevant.

There are no rules at all which allow an IC to be joined to a unit during deployment. This isn't a matter of construing anything, it's a matter of fact. No such rules exist.

So, the quote on page 48 is an error. It's a shame, but it's not the only bit of text from the rulebook which appears to be a rule but is, in fact, non-functional. Bad writing is one of GW's defining features.

There is no way you can construe any rule to allow for an IC to be attached to a unit before the start of the game, and deployment occurs before the start of the game.

It's never unsound reasoning to construe a set of restrictions in a way that makes the least amount of text meaningless surplusage. In this case the options are:

To read "by being deployed in coherency with them" as a reminder that units that start the game with a unit must begin the game in coherency with the unit they deploy with, and to read "For example ..." as a back-handed way of confirming the way we should read "An independent character may begin the game already with a unit, by being deployed in coherency with them," or
To read "by being deployed in coherency with them" as the mechanism by which an independent character may begin the game already with a unit, and to read "For example ..." as not only of no effect but an incorrect description of the rules it purports to illustrate.

The first of these options does much less violence to the text than the other. It's not unsound reasoning to choose it on that basis given that we must do violence to the text either way.

[Jwolf]

I'm content to disagree, as the entire argument is based on the phrase "by being deployed in coherency with them" being a limiting rule as opposed to an indicator, which reading I do not agree with and for which reading there is no compelling case.

My reading, which takes the phrase "an independent character may begin the game already with a unit" as the rule, and "by being deployed in coherency with them" as strictly a descriptor of how one demonstrates application of the rule (and only in the case that the unit is deployed outside of a transport or building) is simple, removes wierd rules issues, and is as valid a reading as the supposedly strict RAW reading. Add in the benefit of following what even Bean admits appears to be the clear intention (else Shrike's rule actually makes no sense) to an equally valid reading of the pure text, and enjoy the harmony.

[Bean]

Nabteryal:

I disagree, but I'm a little surprised you decided to object to the unsound part rather than the irrelevant part.

As long as you agree that it's irrelevant, I don't care whether you think it's sound or not.

Jwolf:


I'm content to disagree, as the entire argument is based on the phrase "by being deployed in coherency with them" being a limiting rule as opposed to an indicator, which reading I do not agree with and for which reading there is no compelling case.

I'm not sure how you can so consistently fail to read simple English correctly, but in this case, as I said to Nabterayal, it's actually irrelevant.



Add in the benefit of following what even Bean admits appears to be the clear intention (else Shrike's rule actually makes no sense) to an equally valid reading of the pure text, and enjoy the harmony.

I made no concrete assertions about the intent of the authors. I merely stated that I think the rules should be different than they are.

Also, as Shav pointed out, it is not accurate to assert that Shrikes rules make no sense if you play them as written: they still produce a particular set of effects in an efficient manner. It could be that the designers intended that exact set of effects, and there certainly isn't any conclusive evidence to the contrary.

All of that, though, is still irrelevant. How can you respond to Culven's point?

Can you find any rule anywhere which allows an Independent Character to be joined to a unit during deployment?

If not, then your position is obviously wrong.

[Nabterayl]

If the reasoning is sound then relevancy follows, in this case. If my reasoning is sound, then the example on page 48 is not disregarded as meaningless surplusage, but has the effect of informing the way we read the second bullet point on page 48. Since that is the bullet point under discussion, if my reasoning is sound, then the example is relevant.

If my reasoning is sound, then the rule is simply that an independent character may begin the game already with a unit, but if an independent character does so, it must begin the game in coherency with the unit it begins with.

[Bean]

Again, beginning the game attached to a unit is not sufficient.

The game starts after deployment. You need a rule which says that an IC can be attached to a unit during deployment, which is before the game begins.



Thanks to Culven, we're well beyond "interpreting" the rule on page 48. Regardless of how it allows an IC to start the game as part of a unit, it certainly does not let the IC be part of the unit before the game starts.

Relevancy does not follow soundness. Your suggestion to the contrary is obviously absurd.
I could say: "all humans are mammals, you are a human, therefor you are a mammal." It would be a sound argument, but it would not be relevant to the issue at hand.

Whether or not you're right on that particular argument doesn't matter if you don't have a response to this other one.



Also, sorry Polonius. Your discussion was much more interesting. This one, frankly, is lame. I don't like having to say the same thing over and over again to people who don't take the time to actually read what I'm writing, but I'm not sure there's any other appropriate response.

[Shavnir]

(else Shrike's rule actually makes no sense)

To play devil's advocate it could be intended that Shrike is able to outflank with a squad, outflank by himself or infiltrate by himself. I don't particularly see that as likely but I'd be lying if I thought GW was any good about getting their intentions on paper :p

[The Hivemind]

I was under the impression that an IC could effectively 'join' a squad before that battle, to save on those annoying times where your IC and his squad would come in from reserve at different times. I'm sure i have read this somewhere...i shall look for it in the rulebook in a bit...

[Bean]

Hey, if you can find one, great. I've looked, though, and I haven't found one.

To be fair, I also thought there was one until Culven pointed out that the one I thought worked doesn't.

[Nabterayl]

You can absolutely do that for Reserves. See page 94. The question is whether you can do so for infiltrators as well. The only explicit authorization is page 48, which says that independent characters may "begin the game" with a unit. That's an ambiguous phrase - does "begin the game" refer to prior to deployment, or to the instant before the first Movement phase? I think there's good reason elsewhere on page 48 to say that it cannot mean the instant before the first Movement phase (which is what Bean and Culven think). Bean and Culven, obviously, disagree.

EDIT: Aside from the meaning of "begin the game," there is also the issue of what is meant by "by being deployed in coherency with them," but where you stand on the meaning of "begin the game" largely answers the question of how you construe "by being deployed in coherency with them," so while they're logically distinct questions, as a practical matter, they tend to get bundled together.

[Bean]

"an independent character may begin the game already with a unit"

means exactly what it says: no more and no less.

"an independent character may join a unit before the game begins" definitely, indisputably, falls into the "more" category.

The assertion that this rule allows characters to join units during deployment is pure fabrication. Nothing in its wording or any other rules supports that conclusion at all.

Page 48 contains no explicit authorization for ICs joining units before the beginning of the game. It doesn't contain anything that could be legitimately construed as that sort of authorization.

The rules on page 92 and 93 make it clear when the game starts, and it is after deployment.

[Sir Biscuit]

Well crap, waita explode my thread out of control guys. :P

I don't have much to add to this debate, I've done the same dance a million times before. I think however, you will enjoy this anecdote.

During a game at my local store, I had an opponent who refused to let Shrike infiltrate with a squad, due to the same restrictive ruling we keep going over and over. To counter, I came up with this argument:

1.) Shrike infiltrates with his squad. Notice it says "his squad", not a squad he is attached to, not a squad he is in coherency with.
2.) Definition of "his": "Belonging to him".
3.) All squads in the Raven Guard 3rd belong to Shrike, as he is the captain and thus in charge.
3.) Thus, the entirety of the Raven Guard 3rd (or whatever portion he brought to fight) is "his squad", and may infiltrate.
4.) Fight me now.

This was greeted by a thoughtful silence, than an admission that I could infiltrate Shrike with a squad.

Perhaps a weak argument, I know, especially as "squad" is singular. However, it's never defined who exactly is in Shrike's squad. Again, it doesn't say a squad he is attached to, or a squad he is in coherency with. Just "his squad". So why can't I declare which squad is his before the game and infiltrate them with Shrike?

Oh, and one more thing. The argument that "we can't know RAI because you can outflank with Shrike and a squad and that may have been the intent" is, frankly, so much bull****. If that was the intent of the rule, it would have been written that any squad Shrike joins may outflank, and shrike would have been given infiltrate. People mistake the way games are written, and assume it's for efficiency. It's not. Rules for games are written so that the players understand what is happening and exactly how things word, and while conciseness is appreciated, it is hardly the goal. The intent of Shrike's rule is so obvious it's absurd, and to claim otherwise is just to be contrary.

[Bean]

Frankly, all that argument does is demonstrate that Shrike can't allow any squad to infiltrate.

No unit belongs to him. There are no rules which say that he has ownership. He doesn't have legal ownership in reality (not being an entity which is capable of owning things) and he doesn't have ownership in the fluff (captains don't own their companies).

So, if you wanted to go that way, it would be obvious that Shrike's rule doesn't work at all.

However, "his" can be used to denote membership rather than ownership, and that clearly seems to be the case, here, since neither a plastic model nor a fictional character can own anything.

It's talking about the squad of which he is a member, and that is entirely consistent the language used.

[Nabterayl]

The assertion that this rule allows characters to join units during deployment is pure fabrication. Nothing in its wording or any other rules supports that conclusion at all.

Page 48 contains no explicit authorization for ICs joining units before the beginning of the game. It doesn't contain anything that could be legitimately construed as that sort of authorization.

For the record, this is the sort of thing you do, apparently inadvertently, that causes offense. "Fabrication," "nothing at all," and "legitimately" didn't need to be brought into this.

I'm going to bow out of Sir Biscuit's thread. I'd be happy to continue this elsewhere.

[Dark_Templar]

I'd allow it. I'd certainly respect an opponent who mentioned it before the game, to make sure I was aware of the problem, but it's one of the clearer cases of RAI conflicting with RAW in the game.

The more interesting question is how to handle a player that refuses to allow it.

I am pretty sure Shrike has a few claws that would enter eye sockets quite convincingly.


Nabteryal:

I disagree, but I'm a little surprised you decided to object to the unsound part rather than the irrelevant part.

As long as you agree that it's irrelevant, I don't care whether you think it's sound or not.

Jwolf:



I'm not sure how you can so consistently fail to read simple English correctly, but in this case, as I said to Nabterayal, it's actually irrelevant.


...

If not, then your position is obviously wrong.


For the record, this is the sort of thing you do, apparently inadvertently, that causes offense. "Fabrication," "nothing at all," and "legitimately" didn't need to be brought into this.

I'm going to bow out of Sir Biscuit's thread. I'd be happy to continue this elsewhere.

I have to say I agree. Bean, you say you do not intend to offend, but your posts seem to indicate otherwise.

[Jwolf]

Bean - Do you contend that deployment happens before the game begins? I do not agree with that assertion. I believe the game begins when we get to the table and roll dice, and dice are rolled before any deployment exists (in fact, before legal deployment is even established). So before we even have the information necessary to determine deployment, the game has begun, and as we know, an IC may begin the game as part of a squad.

[Jwolf]

Well crap, waita explode my thread out of control guys. :P

I don't have much to add to this debate, I've done the same dance a million times before. I think however, you will enjoy this anecdote.

During a game at my local store, I had an opponent who refused to let Shrike infiltrate with a squad, due to the same restrictive ruling we keep going over and over. To counter, I came up with this argument:

1.) Shrike infiltrates with his squad. Notice it says "his squad", not a squad he is attached to, not a squad he is in coherency with.
2.) Definition of "his": "Belonging to him".
3.) All squads in the Raven Guard 3rd belong to Shrike, as he is the captain and thus in charge.
3.) Thus, the entirety of the Raven Guard 3rd (or whatever portion he brought to fight) is "his squad", and may infiltrate.
4.) Fight me now.

This was greeted by a thoughtful silence, than an admission that I could infiltrate Shrike with a squad.


I enjoy the anecdote, and I certainly find this application of RAW madness highly entertaining.

[Culven]

Jwolf. I understand your interpretation that the game begins before it starts, but I think it is at odds with the "Start the Game!" phrase in the mission rules.

[Bean]

Bean - Do you contend that deployment happens before the game begins? I do not agree with that assertion. I believe the game begins when we get to the table and roll dice, and dice are rolled before any deployment exists (in fact, before legal deployment is even established). So before we even have the information necessary to determine deployment, the game has begun, and as we know, an IC may begin the game as part of a squad.

Yes. I would say that the game begins when the rules say it begins--which is after deployment. Thus, I would certainly contend that deployment happens before the game begins.

You can believe that the game begins before deployment all you want, but that belief is directly and specifically contradicted by the actual rules. It is, therefore, wrong.

Also, for the record, "begin" is a direct synonym of "start." Saying that the game "starts" at a certain point is identical to saying that it "begins" at that certain point.


edit:
To look at it another way, are you really suggesting that you must have decided whether Shrike will be starting the game as part of a unit--and of which unit he will be a part at the start of the game--when you get to the table? You have to tell your opponent, right then, "now that we're starting the game, Shrike will be joined to this unit, here?"

Or is it when you roll the first dice?

Either way, even if the game really begins when you say it does, you still doesn't support your earlier assertions. Shrike would have to be a part of the unit in those earliest moments--you couldn't choose to attach him to a squad during deployment.

[Lerra]

I've always played that the beginning of the game happens before you roll for mission and deployment type (from the colloquial use of "hey guys, I'm going to grab food before we begin the game" = food before any dice are rolled). There were a few piece of old wargear (space marine rocket launchers, I think) where you had to choose your missile type at the beginning of the game, and we played as if that happened before you knew mission type.

YMMV.

[Jwolf]

Jwolf. I understand your interpretation that the game begins before it starts, but I think it is at odds with the "Start the Game!" phrase in the mission rules.

It is, I agree. Considering how important to the play of the game the occurances that happen before we get to the Start the Game point are, it's hard for me to consider that they are not important parts of the game itself. I'd go so far as to say that many games are just going through the motions by the time we get to Start the Game.

Regardless, I haven't the interest to continue the theoretical argument, so I'll bow out.

[Culven]

I have a different take on the "before the first turn" events. Since the mission rules define the "Start of the Game", anything prior to that is just set-up, much the same way that removing models from the table and packing them away is clean up after the end of the game.

[karandras]

Wow! Guess I am too late for the party, but I just read this whole thread and found it interesting.

Here in North Florida we have a particular player who routinely comes to tournaments with a Shrike + another named character (usually Calgar or Sicarius) all scout army list. Not only does he deploy Shrike via infiltrate attached to a Tactical Squad, but he then insists on attaching the other named special character. I have called him on it both times we played and prohibited him from attaching the additional IC as I feel it is pretty much in direct violation of the USR and specifically spelled out. His overly liberal assertion of "his squad" under Shrike's rules in the SM Codex is that the other IC joins the squad and then Shrike joins the squad. What makes it even worse, is he always immediately jumps Shrike away from the Tactical Squad at the top of his first turn. An real slap in the face to the fluff and the intent of the rule.

That being said, I never would have interpreted Shrike's entry as anything other than he allows whatever squad he joins to deploy via infiltrate (or they may choose to outflank). All of this sequential banter seems to be completely ridiculous. It is rules lawyering and detracts from the fun of the game. While I appreciate the point of Bean's literal interpretation of the RAW and agree that GWs rules would often benefit from greater consistancy, I cannot conceed the logic of Shrike's special rules being useless and illegal. They may be useless and illegal as written, but unlike the Doom of Malanthai, most players I think would interpret their intent pretty clearly. Just my proverbial two cents. Interesting thread though!

On a side note Bean, I am curious how you feel about the use of Valkyrie/Vendettas. Many players use them to outflank while transporting units that do not themselves have the ability to outflank. I feel that this is a very clear and very direct violation of the Outflank rules, yet I seem to be in the minority.

[Shavnir]

I cannot conceed the logic of Shrike's special rules being useless and illegal. They may be useless and illegal as written...

As a point even if you went with the strict raw it would still allow Shrike to infiltrate or Shrike and a squad to outflank. Not completely useless, but close.

[Culven]

I am curious how you feel about the use of Valkyrie/Vendettas. Many players use them to outflank while transporting units that do not themselves have the ability to outflank. I feel that this is a very clear and very direct violation of the Outflank rules, yet I seem to be in the minority.
This is off topic for this thread, but I will answer if this doesn't go too far. If it does, then there should be another thread for it.

When using a Transport, the Transport's rules govern. If this were not the case, then a Transport could never move more than 6" (max move for Infantry) and Drop Pods would be rather pointless (why would one use a Drop Pod if the unit inside could simply Deep Strike?).