Deep striking combat squads

[synack]

With the introduction of Blood Angels, I think this is going to come up more often.

Combat squads allow you to break up a 10 man squad into two 5 man squads and deploy them in seperate locations. For all purposes they count as a seperate units from that point on.

Now the only exception to this is when they deploy via a drop pod. You declare before hand that you are combat squading them, but then both squads enter play via the drop pod, but when they exit the pod, they are seperate units.

Now, how does this work with units in reserve or units deep striking? My first thoughts was that you can declare the combat squading of the unit before, then deploy 1 5 man squad and then deep strike another 5 man squad. But after pondering about it, I was wondering why you wouldn't be able to do that with the drop pod then.

So my current thought is, that you can combat squad them, but you follow the Drop pod rules. You treat the unit as one. You hold them in reserve, roll once for reserves and when the unit enters play, from that point you they are treated as seperate units and can have them land in seperate locations and they scatter individually.

There is a third train of thought, that they can't combat squad at all when deep striking, but I don't think that holds true, because cause the rules state that the only exception to the rule is for drop pods.

I've read people saying that units count as deployed when the hit the table, so my idea that they both have to deep strike, but can in seperate locations with seperate scatter would be correct, but I'd really like someone to point me to a rule/faq backing this up?

Thanks/Thoughts

Syn

[Angelus Mortifer]

Roll one die for the Reserve of the whole squad. State they are Combat Squaded or not when they are DEPLOYED. Roll scatter and distance separately for each combat squad after you know they are in from Reserve - they can deploy in separate locations.

Essentially, the decision to Combat Squad from Reserve (Deep Strike or otherwise) is made as you deploy the unit, not before. Under this mechanic though, it means Combat Squads can't arrive differently from eachother, i.e. you couldn't have one arrive from normal Reserve and one Deep Strike, because you have to specify what the whole squad will do at deployment at the beginning of the game. You can, however, have two combat squads arrive at different locations from Outflank etc (on the same flank only and unit rules permitting).

It's worth noting that you only have to declare that a squad arriving by Drop Pod is combat squadding AFTER the Pod has landed and they disembark, not at deployment (p.51 C:SM - "Combat Squads").

[synack]

Thats totally the way I would play it, but I'm having a hard time finding rules to back it up :(

[Eusebius Rex]

Thats totally the way I would play it, but I'm having a hard time finding rules to back it up :(

Actually, I think you were really close in your initial post in finding the rules to back it up. P.51 of the C:SM says that the decision to combat squad is made when the unit (singular, cause it hasn't divided yet) deploys and that both combat squads can be deployed in seperate locations. So, since something in reserve is not deployed yet, the unit makes one roll for entry because it has not divided yet. Pods are an exception to this only that a podded unit can be deployed and then units disembarking can combat squad (effectively allowing 2 units to share the transport past deployment when the pod landed).

Deep Strike is just a method of deploying the reserve. There is no such thing as a Deep Strike roll to see if something enters the game - there is a reserve roll and then deep strike scatter die are the mechanic that a reserve'd unit uses to enter the game if it was called out as a deep striker.

Point being - you can combat squad a deep striking unit just like you can combat squad a unit outflanking or walking on. Deep strike is the mechanic of delivery for the reserve, but reserve is thier pre-deployment status, and once they are activated to be deployed, they can combat squad whether from deep strike, outflank, walk on, just like if they were deployed seperately initially in the game.

So, should work like this:

Pregame:
Unit was declared as a reserve via deep strike

Round 2+:
Unit is rolled to see if it can deploy from reserve

Deployment (round 2+):
upon successful reserve roll, the unit is out of reserve for deployment, declared entry as combat squads and then deep strike'd.

Shooting phase:
two Chimera's die when they are melta'd from 2 different 5x man combat squads :)

[Culven]

It's worth noting that you only have to declare that a squad arriving by Drop Pod is combat squadding AFTER the Pod has landed and they disembark, not at deployment (p.51 C:SM - "Combat Squads").
When the Drop Pod enters play and teh unit Disembarks, that is when the Unit is Deployed, which is why they can split.

[Lord Azaghul]

I've heard people say you can't combat squad in DOW and I'm been trying to figure out why?

I'm not sure if this is because 'deployment' is only pre-game, or if each unit arriving from reserves counts as 'deployment' when it shows up? Thoughts?

[Culven]

I've heard people say you can't combat squad in DOW and I'm been trying to figure out why?
I have no idea why they would say that. The only thing I think of is if they are refering to placing two Troops squads and then splitting them since that would exceed the 2 Troops Units limit.

[Tynskel]

You guys are doing it wrong.

You declare Combat Squad at deployment, EXCEPT for Drop Pods.

Example:
I am declaring my assault squad is going to Combat Squad and Deep Strike- That's their deployment. Now you have 2 separate squads, and you make a roll for each one.

I am declaring combat squads for my assault squad, 1 will start on the board, the other in reserve.

I am declaring combat squads for my assault squad, 1 will start on the board, the other will deep strike.

I am declaring combat squads for my Scouts- one will start on the board according to the rules of Infiltrate, the other will be mounted in the Land Speeder Storm. The Storm is deploying by Outflank.

I am declaring Combat Squads for my Terminators. One squad will be mounted in their dedicated transport: Land Raider, and the other squad will Teleport Deep Strike. The Land Raider will start on the board.

ect. ect. ect.

The ONLY time you make one reserve roll for a squad, THEN combat squad later, is for the Drop Pod.

Ex:
I deploy my Tactical Squad inside the Drop Pod. (I did NOT announce my intention to Combat Squad.) I roll 1 reserves roll, the Drop Pod comes in- after Scattering has been completed, the doors open, squad disembarks. I now declare Combat Squads.


Lastly: Dawn of War deployment

You declare Combat squads, Place 5 Marines in the Dedicated Transport on the board (2 units), keep the other 5 off the board.
You declare ALL of the deployments of squads before placing models on the board: Outflank, Combat Squads, Infiltrate, Deep Strike, Reserves, and Dawn of War specialty placement.

[hisdudeness]

I believe Angelus Mortifer has it correct. We can not combat squad a unit and they enter with different mechanics. I thought this was wrong also until I re-read the sections again.

Tynskel, I believe you partialy correct, combat squading is triggered by deployment. But, to deep stike the unit must be in reserve, and as below, we do not deploy into reserves. Your next 2 examples are incorrect, to delare combat squads you must deploy. The next example, IMO, not possible either. The scout have already deployed and thus one squad cannot 'undeploy' and go to reserves.

Your DOW example is incorrect.


We do not deploy into reserves, they are placed in reserves. Here is why.

Look at the first line under Preparing reserves (p94, BRB): “When deploying their army, players may choose NOT to deploy one or more units…”.

And the combat squad rules state (p51, C:SM): “The decision to split…,must be made when the unit is DEPLOYED.”

And Rolling for Reserves section second paragraph (p94, BRB) “Once all of the units have been rolled for, the player picks any one of the arriving units and DEPLOYS it,…”

And further, for Deep Strike (p95, BRB) first paragraph: “Roll for arrival of these units as specified in the rules for reserves and then DEPLOY them as follows.”

[Culven]

As his(royal?)dudeness said, units placed in Reserves have not yet been Deployed, thus the unit has not had the opportunity to use the Combat Squad rule. So, no splitting a unit with one Combat Squad in Reserves and another Deployed. "Deploying" is the act of placing a unit into play, either before the game during "Deploy Forces" or during the game when the unit enters play from Reserves.

[Tynskel]

p. 94
During Deployment, when declaring which units are left in reserve, the player must clearly explain the organization of his reserves to the opponent.

This means: declare what all of your units are doing-- If you read the entire section: the units in reserve DO NOT DEPLOY, they MOVE. There is a difference.

This makes complete sense that you would have Terminators embarked in a Land Raider, with the other combat squad ready to Teleport to reinforce the rest of the Terminators.

Scout Squads would want to encircle and Trap enemy units: Hence one combat squad of Snipers is deployed onto the board, while the combat squad deep strikes/outflanks by Land Speeder Storm.

The act of announcing your reserves is declaring their type of Deployment.

[hisdudeness]

I agree, you must declare which units are doing what and in what manner. This declaration being which units are deployed on table and which are held in reserve. This is differrent than deploying, as the rules I quoted show.

To combat squad, the unit must deploy (a key word). If you deploy the termie squad they go to the table (entire unit). So we may combat squad the termie unit. 5 of them can then be deployed in a transport, but the other 5 cannot 'undeploy' to go into reserves. They have already deployed or else they could not have Combat Squaded.

It does make sense to have a 2nd termie squad deep strike to help the embarked squad. But to this in game, you must have 2 squads bought with seperate FOC slots. This is the limitation of combat squading.

Quote me a rule that says going to reserves is deploying. If the line would have been, "When deploying in reserves.." or something to that effect I would give it to you. I quoted you one that clearly states reserves are not deployment. But it is done during deployment 'phase'. Which tells us when we declare reserves, not that reserves are a form of deployment.

As I said, I thought going to reserves was a deployment, but this is not the case.

[EnglishInquisition]

I'm with Tynskel on this one.
The advantage of the drop pod IS the ability to combat squad as they disembark, thus allowing the most tactical flexibility for the Marine squads. Every other combat squad split is done pre-game.

[Tynskel]

Oi!

p. 86
1 Agree Points
2 Prepare Battlefield
3 Select Mission
::4 DEPLOY FORCES::
5 Start the game
You don't deploy forces after the game begins--- when you read the specifics of p. 94, the units move onto the board- not deploy.

under 4: Deploy Forces is where Declare Combat Squads. p. 94 has the descriptor that every for unit NOT on the board, the player must explain the organization of such unit. Hence, combat squads, ect. Once one combat squads a unit, they remain two separate units for the rest of the game. That means, for example, 2 distinct reserve rolls for an Assault Squad that has combat squads and reserved all the 'new' units.

Drop Pod has the exception--- the only case where you do not have to declare combat squads during deployment- specifically, you declare combat squads when disembarking the Drop Pod. This gives the player a significant advantage: The opponent does not know if they are facing one or two units!

By having to declare all organization before the game begins, there are no 'dirty' tricks.

Another example: Imperial Guard Codex. p.37 'Combined Squad'.

If you did the 'declaring' when they enter the board, you have to make 5 Successful reserve rolls to bring the 5 Infantry Squads on as one unit. That's redonkulous, and defeats the purpose of 'Combined Squad'

This is how deployment works: you declare that the 5 squads are forming a single unit, that will be held in reserves (as per the rules on p.94 Main rulebook). Then the game begins- then on turn 2+ you roll for your reserve.

[hisdudeness]

I disagree; the advantage of drop poding is a safer ride dirt side. The combat squad part is a clarification to a possible gray area in the combat squad rules.

Deep striking is a form of deployment and as such the squad could combat squad when it disembarks the pod. Even a squad of termies could deep strike and combat squad as they teleport in.

[Tynskel]

Read the entire game setup section. you are parsing up the section too much.

Deployment is section 4. Once completed, game begins.

You run into all sorts of Dumb Problems if you do not allow separation during 4: DEPLOY.

Your Razorback can no longer carry men!

Your Land Raider Dedicated Transport arrives--- EMPTY???

Combat Squads is declared when you make the decision, before the game begins, how to 'organize' your forces.

[hisdudeness]

As I said this a note on timing, not that being held in reserves equals deployment. We can use psychic powers in the movement phase, but that does not make the use of the power movement does it? You are incorrect, we only declare combat squads when the unit deploys.

Yes all kinds of ‘problems’ happen when we follow RAW. Your examples are flawed; both the razorback and LR can have embarked units, just not a unit that has more members than its transport limit. This is no different than normal.

Your IG example is also flawed as the Infantry platoon rules (p96, C:IG) tell us what to do: each platoon counts as one FOC slot and rolled as one unit for reserves. And since an infantry squad is part of an infantry platoon (and can only be bought as part of an infantry platoon) we follow the infantry platoon rules.

Neither of these examples counters my claim that being held in reserves is not considered deploying.

[Culven]

Another example: Imperial Guard Codex. p.37 'Combined Squad'.
If you did the 'declaring' when they enter the board, you have to make 5 Successful reserve rolls to bring the 5 Infantry Squads on as one unit.
I would like to point out that the Infantry Squads get around this issue anyway throught the Infantry Platoon rules which state a single Reserve roll is made.

Regarding page 86, it includes "Deploy Forces" in the list, which is a step of playing, but it doesn't mean that all units are considered Deployed just because the player did something with them. Per the Deploy Forces rules, a unit can be Deployed or placed in Reserves (or neither in DoW). Per the Reserves rules, , refer to page 94, "Preparing reserves", first paragraph, first sentence, ". . . players may choose not to deploy one or more units . . . instead leave them in reserve." So, units placed in Reserves are not yet Deployed. When brining in Reserves, if you refer to page 94, "Rolling for reserves", second paragraph, first sentence, ". . . the player picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it. . .", it is apparent that Units coming in from reserves are considered "Deployed". Since Units can only make use of the Combat Squads rule when Deployed (which doesn't necessarily occour during Deploy Forces, as demonstrated above) they will only be able to do so when Deployed pre-game or when they come in from Reserves. The is no option that would allow a unit to split whilst in Reserves (making two separate Reserves Rolls), nor is there an option to split a unit with part of ir Deploying and part of it not Deploying (being placed into Reserves instead).

[Tynskel]

As I said this a note on timing, not that being held in reserves equals deployment. We can use psychic powers in the movement phase, but that does not make the use of the power movement does it? You are incorrect, we only declare combat squads when the unit deploys.

Yes all kinds of ‘problems’ happen when we follow RAW. Your examples are flawed; both the razorback and LR can have embarked units, just not a unit that has more members than its transport limit. This is no different than normal.

Your IG example is also flawed as the Infantry platoon rules (p96, C:IG) tell us what to do: each platoon counts as one FOC slot and rolled as one unit for reserves. And since an infantry squad is part of an infantry platoon (and can only be bought as part of an infantry platoon) we follow the infantry platoon rules.

Neither of these examples counters my claim that being held in reserves is not considered deploying.

As I said before: You need to read the ENTIRE section on playing a game.

You are incorrect: The infantry platoon is one Force Org Chart, BUT every unit deploys separately according to p. 92.

The Act of using reserves is 'Deploying'. You ONLY decide what will be reserved during Section 4: Deploy Forces.

If you do not read individual sentences, the ONLY sentences that support your argument, you'll find out that Deployment happens AFTER Mission Selection, BEFORE game begins. You are picking and choosing phrases--- that is an incorrect use of quotations. Quotations need context, and the entire context includes the whole process on p. 86.

Even the individual missions describe that you DEPLOY everything during the deployment, BEFORE the game begins.

Combat Squads occurs during Section 4: Deploy Forces.

Drop Pod Combat Squads is the EXCEPTION to Section 4: Deploy Forces.

No matter how you cut the whole pie from edge to edge once, you end up with two pieces.

[lobster-overlord]

Just a quick interjection, as I have no opinion yet on this rule, but is there a WD with a battle report that can show how it can be done to support Tynskel's way (A GW use of the rules)? One would think these are possible, but I've only ever seen it done as hisdudeness is saying, with the unit as a whole until actual "deployment" and not by DEPLOY section.

John M>

[hisdudeness]

I have read the entire section, hence the quote of multiple lines of rules supporting my claim. You have quoted a few that have been disproven. This is a simple discussion, I make a claim with supporting rules. You support you claim with supporting rules and discredit my interpretation of the rules. I then return the favor. Can you quote me a rule the supports “The Act of using reserves is ‘Deploying’.” I have read the section 3 times today and cannot find it.

You my friend are partially correct, INF PLT is one FOC. But if you read all of the rules on p96 C:IG after ‘Composition’ you will see that: “…,and is rolled collectively when rolling for reserves.” And since Codex trumps BRB, we make one roll for reserves for the entire platoon. After that, each unit can be placed where ever it is legal to do so, be it together or spread all over the board.

Context? Deploying Forces and Mission special rules sections are the only sections we need out of the BRB. They give us all the context we need as we are only discussing deployment and reserves interaction. The quotes I have used support my claim, so I do not see how I am using them incorrectly. That is what rules quotes do, support a claim on how the game is played. This is not a petty grammar claim, the rules are pretty clear multiple times, as shown in post #9. Unless the BRB or codex does not say something to the effect that units held in reserves are deployed, then units held in reserves are not deployed.

You have yet to quote a line in the BRB or a codex that changes the fact that “ …,player may choose NOT TO DEPLOY one or more units in their army and INSTEAD leave them in reserves.” Seems pretty clear to me.

The fact that deployment is between 2 other phases/steps/etc means nothing besides a note on when something happens, not that everything in that phase/step/etc is counted as the name of the phase/step/etc. Again I state, we can use psychic powers in the movement phase, but that does not (generally) mean that the unit using the power cannot move or the power counts as movement. The same with reserves, we declare reserves during deployment but that does not make it deployment.

Drop pods are clarified because I could claim, without such a clarification, that when I combat squad out of a drop pod the squads could deploy anywhere on the board as per “Both combat squads can be deployed in separate locations.” (p51, C:SM). As the next line is the “one exception” to the afore mentioned rule.

Combat squading occurs during a units deployment, this is the only requirement for when it may happen. This is normally done during the deployment phase/step/etc but is not limited to this phase/step/etc by the rules that I see.

Lobster-overlord, I too have seem WD battle reports do fishing things. But some of these battle reports are months (years?) old or are part of a play testing of early rules. They also make mistakes (or use house rules) just like everyone else. At least that is what I have been told by the interwebz.

[EnglishInquisition]

"Drop pods are clarified because I could claim, without such a clarification, that when I combat squad out of a drop pod the squads could deploy anywhere on the board as per “Both combat squads can be deployed in separate locations.” (p51, C:SM). As the next line is the “one exception” to the afore mentioned rule."

Except having to deploy within 2" of an access point of the vehicle you disembark from!!

Really can't understand the confusion on this one, it is stated clearly that combat squads are split pre game (or when you put your little men on the table top, doesn't really matter as long as your opponent knows what they have done and how they are made up) and rolled for seperately for reserves, except the drop pod which allows a unit to disembark and then seperate. Otherwise when the game runs against you, unscrupulous players will say that squads held in reserve were/weren't combat squadded as they need, making less reserve rolls to get more troops on the table, or trying to take more reserve rolls to delay parts of their army.
It not only says that they combat squad pre-game, it just naturally feels right to do it this way.
Think we are definately straying into Rules Lawyers vs Spirit of the Game here.

[hisdudeness]

The question from synack is simple, does being held in reserves count as/equal deployed. Synack has asked for a rule that backs up one of the 3 claims he has heard.

So far, no one has supported any other claim with a rule. All I see are flimsy unsupported arguments and claims of intent or spirit. When has doing as the rules say ‘rules lawyering’? I cannot understand the confusion of “…, player may choose NOT TO DEPLOY one or more units in their army and INSTEAD leave them in reserves.”

“choose not to deploy” is clearly stated. Whereas the claim the squads are spilt pregame is in no way supported by anything other than an interpretation. The combat squad rules clearly state that the ability is triggered “…when the unit is deployed.” I see nothing supporting the claim that a unit can only be deployed and thus limited to pregame, in fact (see post #9) I see numerous times where the opposite is shown.

EnglishInuisition, you claim the rules state we combat squad pregame. Could you give us a location to this rule? That is what synack has asked for, rules to back up each of the ‘options’ on how to play the situation.

The point of contention is if being held in reserves is counted as deployed. Can any one point us to a rule that supports any other claims?

[Tynskel]

You are getting really crazy with your interpretation of the rules. 'choose not to deploy' ON THE BOARD... you are choosing to deploy through reserves!

These 'reserve' rules are part of the a whole group of rules-- not independent rules- these rules are dependent on each other. They begin with setup of the board, choosing a mission, deploying, then playing the game. All of deployment happens BEFORE the game begins, NOT during.

you are going off into the deep end with your Drop Pod rule interpretation. Choosing to Omit rules to support your case-- you have to disembark the drop pod, you don't deep strike out of the drop pod.

I made a mistake with the imperial guard codex, leaving out a rule--- but you are leaving out rules allllll over the entire game section.

[synack]

I have to agree with hisdudeness.

*EDIT*
Infact, lets explore Tynskels argument first that deployment happens in the deployment phase. So we read through the section on page 92, the Secition Headed "DEPLOY FORCES", sub heading "Mission Special Rules", which says the following: "All standard missions and deployment types use the following special rules, detailed on pages 94 and 95: 'reserves' and 'deep strikes'."

So to find out how we handle reserves in terms of deployment, we follow the rules out lined below
*/EDIT*

First, there is a difference between the deployment phase and acutally deploying a unit.

So lets look at the rules for reserves and what it says about how the unit is deployed.

On page 94, first sentence under Preparing reserves. "When deploying their army, players chose not to deploy one or more of the units in their army and instead leave them in reserve"

Then again, on page 94, under Rolling for reserves, 2nd paragraph "One all the units have been rolled for, the player picks any one unit arriving and deploys it on to the table described later".

Once more on page 95, last sentence, 1st paragraph "Roll for reserves, then deploy them as follows"

From those three lines, we now know that we can deploy a unit from reserve, be it outflanking, table edge or deep strike. The unit is deployed when it comes into play when coming from reserves.

Now lets look at the combat squads rule.

"The decision to split the unit into combat squads, as well as which models go into each combat squad, must be made when the unit is deployed"

Okay, so the decision to combat squad them is made when the unit is deployed, which doesn't have to acutally be in the deployment phase, if the units are in reserve.

This seems pretty clear cut to me.

[hisdudeness]

I do not see ‘on the board’ anywhere on page 92, BRB. I also do not see any place that states held in reserves equals deployed. But I do see, in numerous places, where we are told what is considered deployed. These as cited in post 9. To sum it up, entering by reserves (p94) and deep strike (p95), both tell us that the unit DEPLOYS at that time. This also disproves your claim that “All of deployment happens before the games begins, not during.” as we area clearly told otherwise.

Yes the mission special rules are part of the deploying force section, but we are not told that reserves equal deployed which is the issue. I see a change for the normal action of deploying (do not deploy) and a replacement if we take the change (instead hold in reserves). I also see a “During deployment,…” that gives us a note on when we declare reserves (during the deploying forces step) and tells us that we must explain how the units in reserves are organized. We are still not told reserves equal deployed.

I fail to see how any of this is omitting/cherry picking rules to support my claim. I have quoted rules from the entire section in question. I have yet to see a quoted rule supporting any claim you have made.

The drop pod example has gotten crazy, so let me clarify. When a squad enters play by drop pod, it is not deployed, the drop pod is. So the squad would be unable to combat squad at that time. The ‘one exception’ is that the squad that disembarks from a drop pod can now combat squad. And without this exception we could make a case that they could be deployed separately because the combat squad rules state “both combat squads can be deployed in separate locations.” But the exception replaces all the normal combat squad rules (when and how) with the squad can combat squad as it disembarks (in which we must follow normal rules for disembarking).

To simplify: Combat squad= a squad may split in to 2 squads and those squads may deploy separately. But the exception replaces all of this if the squad disembarks from a drop pod.

My statement about drop pods in post 21, was a failed attempt to illustrate what could be claimed without the ‘one exception’ rule.

Synack has summed it up as I see it. Until a rule is found the makes held in reserves mean the unit is deployed, we are at an impasse. Combat squad is not triggered until the unit is deployed

[EnglishInquisition]

Ok here we go.

Page 86 big rule book (brb?)ORGANISING A BATTLE
1. agree points limit & choose scenario
2. Prepare the battlefield
3. Select a Mission
4. DEPLOY FORCES
5. Start the game

P94 brb "preparing reserves"
Paragraph 1 When DEPLOYING their armies.........
Paragraph 2 During DEPLOYMENT, when declaring which units are left in reserve, the player must clearly explain the organisation of his reserves to his opponent.

Also see "outflank" - During deployment, players may declare.........

Space Marine Codex P51 Combat Squads:
The decision to split the unit into combat squads, as well as which models go into each combat squad, must be made when the unit is DEPLOYED........ so on.


If deployment is step 4 in the order of battle and starting the game is step 5 then surely it makes sense that combat squads are done before the start of the game?

[synack]

Its like everyone just ignores the rules in the deployment section saying that you should got the reserve sections to find out how to deploy units from reserve.

Quite amusing really.

[hisdudeness]

Both instances tell us when we declare reserves, not that units are deployed in to reserves. It also tells we must declare organization at this time. It may make sense, but that is not what the rules tell us.

All the quotes synack and I have made clearly state that the action in the quote causes the unit to be deployed. You are asking us to infer that since declaring reserves is in the deploy forces step it must be a form of deployment. This is not the case, as we are not clearly told we deploy in to reserves.

EnglishInquistion along with Tynskel, are implying that any action that happens during the deploying forces step is a deployment. You are also claiming that deployment can only happen during deploying forces step, which is completely incorrect. Quote a rule that supports these claims. Claiming, correctly, that declaring reserves is part of deploying force step does not prove anything besides that we declare reserves during the deploying forces step. I do not see how one can get any more out of it besides what we are told.

I agree synack, those arguments have not even been answered.

[EnglishInquisition]

[QUOTE=hisdudeness;68070]Both instances tell us when we declare reserves, not that units are deployed in to reserves. It also tells we must declare organization at this time. It may make sense, but that is not what the rules tell us. QUOTE]

WOW! It may make sense, but that is not what the rules tells us! That isn't rules lawyer-ing?

The very fact that all the rules being quoted come from the "Deploy Forces" section of the rulebook should give you a big hint here too.

Even if you go back to the "Select a Miision" section p90-91 brb.in the 3 missions available, 2 of them actually state ""after positioning of the objectives, DEPLOYMENT of the forces begins, as described in the type of deployment being used."

If we then turn the page we come to the "Deploy forces" section and then we get clarifications on preparing and rolling for those units that are placed (deployed) in reserve.

[EnglishInquisition]

Its like everyone just ignores the rules in the deployment section saying that you should got the reserve sections to find out how to deploy units from reserve.

Quite amusing really.

Maybe thats due to the fact that the reserve rules are in the "Deploy Forces" section of the rulebook, because you need to know how to bring on the forces you have deployed into reserve/deepstrike

Have you read the final paragraph of the Pitched battle and Spearhead deployments:

"Start the game! Once deployment has finished..........."

I think you guys are getting confused because when units arrive onto the table, the guy who wrote the book has used "deploy" instead of arrive, or turn up, or become available, or or or.... all for the sake of a different word being used!

[hisdudeness]

No, it is playing by the rules. What should that hint be? I take it that the rules pertain to deploying my army. Not everything that happens in the step triggers rules keyed off ‘deployed’.

Yes, deploying of the forces begins but this is not proof that every action in the deploying forces step equates to a unit being deployed. I take this as move to the next step and follow those rules.

Being placed in reserves is not the same as deploying in reserves, just like being placed on the table (disembarking) in not the same as deploying on the table. The combat squad rule is keyed off deploying, not placing. This is per the rules of the game as written in the BRB and Codex. We cannot add rules/wording and still be playing by the rules. I do not see this clarification you claim is there.

Actually, Reserves are part of the Mission Special rules section, not the deploying forces section. Notice how the heading is the same for each?
The final paragraph reminds us that once the deploying forces step is complete we can move on to the next step (state the game!). I am not seeing where reserves are mentioned at all. I think you are confused. The rules tell us that he unit is deployed from reserves and deep strike. If 'deployed' was not a key word I could see your point, but it is so the choice of wording is relevant. The rules do not say placed, arrives, or any other word. They say deploy(ed). So any mechanic that is keyed on the word 'deploy(ed)' can be triggered.

Whereas being placed in reserves does not use the 'deployed' wording, thus any mechanic that is keyed on 'deployed' cannot be triggered.

[Culven]

I agree with Synack and Hisdudeness. Placing units in Reserves is an alternative to "Deploying the Unit". Just because the unit is declared to be in Reserves during the "Deploy Forces" step doesn't mean that one has "Deployed the Unit" any more than Running is considered Shooting just because it happens in the Shooting Phase. The problem is that the writers are too lazy to use specific terms for the "Deploy Forces" step and the act of actaully "Deploying the Unit". Because of this, EnglishInquisitor and Tynskel are inferring that anything done with a unit in the "Deploy Forces" means that one has "Deployed the Unit" despite the evidence that one can only "Deploy the Unit" when it is placed on teh table into play (either pre-game during the "Deploy Forces" step or when the unit arrives from Reserves.

[addamsfamily36]

I got my rulebook out for this one lol

under preparing reserves, it clearly states that


players may choose not to deploy one or more of the units in their army

ok so the units not deployed HOWEVER, carry on reading and it says


during deployment, when declaring which units are left in reserve, the player must clearly explain the organisation of his reserves to the opponent

All on page 94

now in the combat squad entry in the blood angels codex, it states that you must declare when deploying if your unit will use the combat squad special rule, and if so they can deepstrike in different locations uness using a drop pod then they must land then disembark as seperate units.

Ok so rules as written and taking into consideration both the RULEBOOK and the Codex BLOOD ANGELS, the rulebook clearly states a player may choose not to deploy a unit.

it then goes on to state that a uni must declare its organisation once put into reserves.

the decision to combat squad can be made when you deploy a reserve which is during the game.

Out of decency, it would be fair to declare during the declaration of your reserves whether or not they are in combat squads, although by legal games rules you do not have to do this.

[EnglishInquisition]

I totally agree that the writer has been lazy with the wording of the rules, but the very fact that the drop pod is the exception screams as to how the rule should be interpreted! GW games developers are not lawyers and unfortunately(gladly!) don't write 1000page rulebooks clarifying every single eventuality that can occur during a game. Or for every possible mis-interpretation of the rules.

[addamsfamily36]

the drop pod is the only exception because a unit of 10 tactical marines coming down seperetly in different locations would require two drops pods. deepstriking assault marines dont need drop pods so could split up in the air *in theory* and come down as two combat squads.

i personally will declare during reserves as i think thats fair but rules as written doesn't make me do that.

apologies if you was saying what i was saying was correct as i was a little bit unsure if u was for or against

[EnglishInquisition]

Not sure if I'm agreeing or not yet addamsfamily36.

Still looking for a rules reference for "decency" in the BRB!
Anyone got a page number? lol

Nah, still sticking to my argument on this one. Combat squads are declared pre-start, except for drop-podders!

[hisdudeness]

I have explained why I believe the drop pod ‘exception’ is irrelevant. It is not proof that held in reserves equals deployed which is the issue. You said it addamsfam, units are not deployed thus they do not trigger the combat squad ability. So at the time of placing units in reserve they cannot combat squad, so we do not have to declare such.

I am looking at C:BA and the combat squad rule is worded exactly as the C:SM, minus the list of units that can be split. But you have the idea that I (we) are trying to get across. I started this discussion by looking for quote to refute Angelus Mortifer (post 2) and found that I had been playing it wrong. I pushed the argument to try and draw out anything I may have missed to prove my claim wrong.

Multiple examples have been given on when a unit is counted as deployed and that all actions in the deploying forces step do not cause a unit to be ‘deployed’. Whatever the intent/spirit the rules are pretty clear.

I agree in 'fairness' we could declare combat squads during reserves. But i don't really like the full disclosure as it leaves no surprises, and war is full of surprises.

[addamsfamily36]

page 94

under reserve sections u choose not to deploy them.

and i jsut re read the blood angels bit on combat squads.

To me it reads that you must declare when the unit is deployed, so if a player deepstriked 10 assault marines then combat squadded them thats a no no unless he deepstriked them using a drop pod as they have to come down in the same location whereas assault squads in 5 man combat squads can split up as they enter play.

[hisdudeness]

Reading through the thread again, I am not seeing any new information being presented. Synack also found and answer that he agrees with and rules to back it up. Unless anything new comes up I do not see the discussion advancing any further. This has been one of the better debates as not one got really ‘testy’ and everything was kept civil. If something new is found I will gladly continue to prove it wrong. ;)

That being said, both sides have presented its case and other readers can make the call on how they will play it. I would suggest that synack edit his first post by adding both sides of the issue for ease of use.

To me it comes down to the keyword ‘deployed’ and treating it much the same as a USR. We see ‘deployed’ and actions/abilities can be triggered by that word. This narrows down to are units being held in reserves equal to that unit being deployed. I do not see held in reserves = deployed anywhere, but do see that arriving from reserves = deployed and arriving by deep strike = deployed.

[Eusebius Rex]

Man... I thought I had this down back on post 4...


P.51 of the C:SM says that the decision to combat squad is made when the unit (singular, cause it hasn't divided yet) deploys and that both combat squads can be deployed in seperate locations. So, since something in reserve is not deployed yet, the unit makes one roll for entry because it has not divided yet.

Pods are an exception to this only that a podded unit can be deployed and then units disembarking can combat squad (effectively allowing 2 units to share the transport past deployment when the pod landed).

Deep Strike is just a method of deploying the reserve. There is no such thing as a Deep Strike roll to see if something enters the game - there is a reserve roll and then deep strike scatter die are the mechanic that a reserve'd unit uses to enter the game if it was called out as a deep striker.

Point being - you can combat squad a deep striking unit just like you can combat squad a unit outflanking or walking on. Deep strike is the mechanic of delivery for the reserve, but reserve is thier pre-deployment status, and once they are activated to be deployed, they can combat squad whether from deep strike, outflank, walk on, just like if they were deployed seperately initially in the game.

So, should work like this:

Pregame:
Unit was declared as a reserve via deep strike

Round 2+:
Unit is rolled to see if it can deploy from reserve

Deployment (round 2+):
upon successful reserve roll, the unit is out of reserve for deployment, declared entry as combat squads and then deep strike'd.

Shooting phase:
two Chimera's die when they are melta'd from 2 different 5x man combat squads

[addamsfamily36]

You did lol

but people are just voicing their views, and i can see where they are coming from on certain aspects of the rule.

[Culven]

I agree with Eusebius Rex's assessment of why Drop Pods have an exception. If they didn't while deploying the unit from Reserves, the player would be unable to use Combat Squads as it would result in two units in the Transport before it lands, which isn't allowed. By having the unit split after they have deployed (i.e. after the Drop Pod lands) it resolves the problem.

[EnglishInquisition]

Phone this number: 01159140000
This is GW customer service number in the uk.

I have had clarification today from them that all combat squad decisions are done before the start of turn one, ie in the DEPLOYMENT PHASE, except squads in a drop pod which combat squad as they disembark from their drop pod when it arrives on the board.

[Lord Azaghul]

Phone this number: 01159140000
This is GW customer service number in the uk.

I have had clarification today from them that all combat squad decisions are done before the start of turn one, ie in the DEPLOYMENT PHASE, except squads in a drop pod which combat squad as they disembark from their drop pod when it arrives on the board.

Make sure you call 3 times to get the best answer!
But
This is exactly why I heard you can't combat squad in Dawn of War.

[synack]

Make sure you call 3 times to get the best answer!
But
This is exactly why I heard you can't combat squad in Dawn of War.

I prefer to just follow the rules in the BRB and codex. These fantastic rules allow you to combat squad when you deply, be it from reserves or the begining of the game.

[Lord Azaghul]

I prefer to just follow the rules in the BRB and codex. These fantastic rules allow you to combat squad when you deply, be it from reserves or the begining of the game.

And I have to agree with you on that. The rules say 'when the unit is deployed'. The phrase 'deployment phase' is never used. However I don't think you can comabt squad and place half the squad in reserve, the rule doesn't even imply that that is a possiblilty.

[EnglishInquisition]

Oh, so clarification is only wanted when it supports your argument!

Quite amusing really!

[hisdudeness]

I agree Lord Azaghul; Combat squads rules say you may deploy each demi-squad separately but you still must deploy both of them (combat squading is a modification to deployment not a replacement). And placing in reserves is still not deploying.

EnglishInquisition, GW customer service is notorious for giving a different answer to the same rules question each time you call. Check out Dakka, Bolter&Chainsword, Warseer for entire threads on this fact. Customer service is not a dedicated rules hotline (I believe that was done away with years ago) and is most likely staffed by someone with the same knowledge as any other player (if they even play the game).

[EnglishInquisition]

Guys, I've worked for GW, have freinds who work for GW (not just shop staff, guys that work in studio etc), this is how we/they play, this is how GW have clarified. Just because it isn't what you want to hear, don't disregard it.

If you want to play the game to the mis-interpreted letter of the rule book then thats your perogative, I'll play to the intent and spirit of the rules.

[Lord Azaghul]

The rules for combat squading say:

‘The decision to split the unit into combat squads, as well as which models go into each squad must be made when the unit is deployed. Both combat squads can be deployed in separate locations. The one exception to this 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.

If you decide to split a unit into combat squads, then each combat squad is treated as a separate unit for all game puposes from that point on.’


People are claiming you can put 1 combat squad on the table and place the other in reserve (this sounds dead wrong to me as only half the unit would be ‘deploying’)

I’ve also heard that you can’t combat squad in dawn of war ( I think this is also wrong, as DoW simply says the unit arrive ‘as if from reserves’; the reserves rules use the word ‘deploy’ to describe what you do with aunit once it allowed to be on the table)

Some are even claiming that the GW rules boys are saying its only at the start of game (which seems to go against the ‘combat squading’ wording, and they have been know be very wrong before!!)

The way I read the rule is that when I deploy the unit, be it from reserves or at the start of the game I can choose to combat squad when I deploy.
If the unit is in reserved only 1 roll is made, because the unit hasn’t had the opportunity to combat squad, since it has not yet deployed.
The reason drop pods are the exception has nothing to do with reserves but rather to do with the unit being deployed on the game IN a transport that requires immediate disembarking.

Keeping in mind that there is no ‘deployment’ phase in this game.
Deployment seems to be that nice little roll that determines set up. Each individual unit will then ‘deploy’ be it pregame, or coming in from reserves. Then one player sets up his units, then the other player sets up his units!


And that was me 'talking' myself through that one!

[Culven]

Oh, so clarification is only wanted when it supports your argument!

No, but clarification from an official source, distributed in an official way would be nice. The phone monkey telling a player how they think it works qualifies as neither.

Guys, I've worked for GW, have freinds who work for GW (not just shop staff, guys that work in studio etc), this is how we/they play, this is how GW have clarified.
Excellent. Could you suggest that they take some technical writing courses so that they can write rules that match their intent? Until they manage to do so, we are left with playing by the rules they wrote instead of what they intended to write.

Oh, and a glossary that they follow for key terms would be useful too.

Just because it isn't what you want to hear, don't disregard it.
It can be taken as an interesting bit of information, but it is still hearsay. Only an errata will change RaW.

If you want to play the game to the mis-interpreted letter of the rule book then thats your perogative. . .
How is it the mis-interpreted letter of the rules when it is by the letter of the rules?

. . . I'll play to the intent and spirit of the rules.
Everyone is entitled to use any house-rules they see fit, provided that their opponents agree. My opponets seem to approach the game with the understanding that we will use the Rules as Written unless something doesn't work correctly (not when they work differently than the writer intended), in which case we cas use some house rule.

[EnglishInquisition]

Then i suggest you phone GW yourselves as it is the only way you'll take it as "not hearsay"!
GW only update their FAQ's periodically, so guess we'll have to put up with rules lawyers until then, but i'm sure by then that they will have moved onto a misplaced comma or semi-colon . LOL

I'm a huge supporter of playing by the rules, but not of twisting them so you can do something that wasn't intended.

I'm more than happy with the way the rules are written and the way the pre-game set up is layed out. Seems a structured and logical way to me, with all the rules under main headings so you know what they pertain to. But ....... its only a game!

[hisdudeness]

@ EnglishInquisition: I believe that is exactly what I said in post 40, we will each play as we see fit based on how we each read the rules. You (and others) can choose to play one way while others (me) will play how we see the rules. Playing by the rules leads to fewer issues, it is harder to claim someone is interpreting for an advantage.

I really fail to see how this is a game breaking issue. IG can make a single reserve roll for over 130 models that land as 14 squads and each can deploy seperatly. While a Tac Squad can break in to 2-5 man teams.

As far as how it is played in studio really doesn’t mean much, I have seen a good few battle reports from studio games that do not match the rules as published. And these even include some of the designers and authors.

Lord Azaghul nailed it.

[EnglishInquisition]

Lord Azaghul nailed it for you. Thats all.

I thought the point was to have a discussion and come to a real conclusion as to the real meaning of the rule.
Obviously not if people then just go and play it how they want to play it, rather than have a common rule. What happens when you play someone with my interpretation of it? Dice for it? Have a 40minute argument? Or just not play the game?

Or...... phone GW and get a rules clarification? Oh hang on didn't someone just do that?
:D

[hisdudeness]

First of all, I am under no illusion that we are setting a standard. We can do nothing besides present our case for our option to help others make an informed decision. Nothing decided here rarely fits everyone’s way to game or is it equal to a published ruling. I have played all over the world, and the ‘local’ game is normally different everywhere you go. So in reality people do play the game how they want to play it.

How do I play? If an issue comes up, we dig in the rule book for 5 mins or while the rest of the turn continues, then argue a few more mins. If still no agreement, roll off and keep playing. Look up the rules after the game. I (we) have explained the phone call issue.

[Culven]

What happens when you play someone with my interpretation of it? Dice for it?
It has never come up in the years since Combat Squads was introduced. I think that most Marine Players would be happy to go along with the way it is written since it gives them more tactical flexibility by waiting to see if they want to split the unit based upon the current situation.

[Tynskel]

Somebody said there is no 'deployment' phase...

it is called 'step 4: Deploy Forces' on the 'how to play a game'- p. 86, main rulebook.

Everyone is quoting p. 94 and 95-- but are forgetting the 8 pages that occur before.



As for the Imperial Guard: There was a real problem in both 4th and 5th edition, before the 5th Edition Codex came out, with platoons coming in all over the place. The rules did not make sense that a platoon would not show up together, considering they are supposed to act like one big super unit with individual parts. There was real difficulty pulling off the abilities that one would expect from a platoon: Command giving orders (or using special abilities, like 4 flamers), special weapon squads popping a transport, and the infantry swarming the unit that disembarked. The rule in the current Imperial Guard Codex with one reserve roll for an entire platoon, makes sense, and allows for these tactical decisions.

Codex Space Marines- Combat Squads and Combat Tactics rules are to create a very flexible force. A space marine squad that has split, acts independently to be able to pull of ambushes and maneuvers that a normal army cannot pull off. During the Deployment Phase (step 4) is where the player makes the decision to combat squad; and deploy each squad independently-- reserves, deep strike, infiltrate, outflank, in transports, out of transports- the two squads are permanently independent of each other. Once again, the advantage of the Drop Pod is to allow a full squad to board the vehicle and come out as two squads when they disembark-- adhering to the idea of flexibility within the a single space marine squad.

[EnglishInquisition]

It has never come up in the years since Combat Squads was introduced. I think that most Marine Players would be happy to go along with the way it is written since it gives them more tactical flexibility by waiting to see if they want to split the unit based upon the current situation.

Really?! So what you are saying is that most Marine players would gladly ignore a rules clarification to deliberately gain an advantage over their opponent?

Glad I don't game with your group!

I play Marines, and will play the rule the way it is intended to be used. Fluff wise, yes, Marines should be able to combat squad when disembarking from any transport, or split and reform at any point during the game, but that would make them too overpowered in the game, hence, choose in the deployment phase and stick with it!

If your winning by breaking a rule, then you're not really winning.

[EnglishInquisition]

C'mon Lord Azaghul:

Page 86 big rule book (brb?)ORGANISING A BATTLE
1. agree points limit & choose scenario
2. Prepare the battlefield
3. Select a Mission
4. DEPLOY FORCES
5. Start the game

If that isn't a deployment phase then I don't know what is. How clear do you need it to be?

Everything else we've discussed here has been under the Deploy Forces heading. Since combat squads are done when units are deployed, then this is the point at which you deploy (on the table or into reserves).

Think some of you guys are deluding yourselves so you can play the rule to your own advantage.

[hisdudeness]

I believe just about everyone agrees that there is a deploying forces step. But Combat squading is pretty clear: units may combat squad when it deploys. This is completely different than may combat squad during the deploying force step (or some similar wording).

I have read the 8 pages before and did not see anything that was relevant to the issue. My guess is that no one else has either or we would have seen a quoted rule from those pages. If there is something that is relevant, please share.

I agree the current way of IG platoon deployment is better. Can you back-up the claim that combat squading is (only) done during step 4? The entire premise is flawed and does not follow the flow set down by the rules. ‘Declaring’ is not the same as ‘deploying’ when we have a mechanic that relies on one or the other. Some may think this is so, but the rules do not support this view. We are told that we declare reserves, not deploy them. Massive difference.

Drop pod is an exception only because the squad disembarking is not ‘deploying’ (or at least a point of possible disagreement), the drop pod is and the squad would be unable to use the combat squad ability. Disembarking is not the same as deploying either.

@EnglishInquisition: Calls of cheating (or insinuation) in a rules discussion does nothing to advance the debate. I ask that we please do not continue along that track.

Further, please do not take it personal when ‘name dropping’ (using: I work[ed] for, know somebody, called the batline, etc) is ignored or disregarded in a forum rules discussion. These are little more than hearsay and are hard to backup. We do not see players in tournaments running around saying that ‘insert name here’ or ‘the batline’ told me how to play the game. To advance a view and be useful to everyone else, we need a line to point to. For all you know I am a Senior Account Manager out of Houston and talk to the studio design team on a monthly basis and have College Station, Texas as my location because I graduated from Texas A&M(which in College Station) with an Industrial Distribution degree. Does that change anything I have said in the forum thus far?

Back to the rules: I reject the claim that everything that happens in the deploying forces step is deployment. This is not supported in the rules. Continuing to push this without something to point to is an exercise in futility. You can say it all you want, but minus proof it has little weight. As above, declaring/placing is not deploying.
How is breaking a 10 man squad up into 2-5 man squads a game breaking advantage? This is no more game breaking than assaulting out of deep strike. Of course we are playing a rule to our advantage; I personally play all the rules to my advantage. If you mean we are interpreting a rule to our advantage, I would have to disagree. I am (and others are) interpreting the rules as they are written.

Backup your claim that being held in reserves is the same as deploying. And actually, all the rules we are quoting are from the Special Mission Rules section which is set equal (notice how the headings look the same) to the deploying forces section. Not that this has any bearing on the discussion, but since others keep pointing out the sections I figured I can point this out also.

[Tynskel]

C'mon Lord Azaghul:

Page 86 big rule book (brb?)ORGANISING A BATTLE
1. agree points limit & choose scenario
2. Prepare the battlefield
3. Select a Mission
4. DEPLOY FORCES
5. Start the game

If that isn't a deployment phase then I don't know what is. How clear do you need it to be?

Everything else we've discussed here has been under the Deploy Forces heading. Since combat squads are done when units are deployed, then this is the point at which you deploy (on the table or into reserves).

Think some of you guys are deluding yourselves so you can play the rule to your own advantage.

I am glad someone else has recognized that there is a nice organized description of how setting up and playing game works.

[Tynskel]

I am really finding this discussion hilarious.

People are now stating that the Deployment Phase is NOT deployment?

Hahahahahahah!

[hisdudeness]

Answering points refuting your claim with statements of ‘intent’, ‘interpreting of advantage’, or any other unsupported point does nothing to help the community. I cannot go to a tournament and claim the intent of a rule is to what I want and expect the judge to side with me. That is the idea behind a rules forum, a place to house proof that can be used to resolve a rules disagreement. Placing a unit in reserves is the same deploying a unit is not supported in any way that can be used to resolve a dispute at a game.

Intent, fairness, and ‘it happen during the deploy forces step’ just do not sway my option and I do not believe it would sway a judge.

An action during a phase does not guarantee that the action results in a status. Just because declaring reserves in done during the deploy forces step does not mean that it is a form of deployment. Or that a unit can only deploy during the deploy forces step. Using a psychic power during the movement phase does not guarantee the action causes the unit to count as moving. Nor does any other action in a phase/step guarantee the status change of the unit.

The Combat Squad ability is activated by one thing, the unit being deployed. This means having its status changed to ‘deployed’. Look at it this way; it is the same as you saying that a unit in the assault phase is ‘assaulting/assaulted’ just because the unit is active during the assault phase. I can no more use abilities triggered by assaults when not in an ‘assaulting/assaulted’ status just because the unit is in the assault phase than I can use combat squad ability when being placed in reserves just because the unit is active in the deploy forces step.

[EnglishInquisition]

Tynskel, hilarity has turned to frustration for me.

If an action in the "Deploy Forces" section doesn't count as deploying , then I think the discussion will never find a resolution and we will continue to circle argue.

The most annoying thing is that there are probably 5 "active participants" in the discussion and none of them want to actually contact the GW head office to hear it from the source themselves to confirm/refute said hearsay. The reason things get FAQ'd is because of people needing clarification of rules. The more we ask, the faster they will clarify!

Having been accused of insinuating cheating, and apparently passing on a rules query clarification from the rules source is hearsay, I'm going to drop out of the "discussion" at this point.

I'll await the FAQ and follow the thread from the sidelines from now on.

[hisdudeness]

If your winning by breaking a rule, then you're not really winning.

This is not insinuating that Culven was cheating? My original point still stands, it does not advance the discussion. I was not ‘attacking’ you personally, just pointing out something I saw that could lead to distractions. I was trying to head off a problem that normally occurs with long frustrating rules debates, when people resort to (semi-)personal attacks or off hand remarks.

I am not saying that what you were told by calling the GW batline is not what they said or that you are lying about the response (I apologize if you took it as such). I am a saying that it has no real effect on the discussion as no one here can use it at a game to resolve a disagreement.

Did you record the conversion? Did you call a second and third time on different days/times to verify that you do get the same answer? I have read quite a few rule debates where multiple people have called around the same time to get a clarification only to post completely different answers from the ‘same’ batline. So most people take anything from the customer service line with a grain of salt, if they don’t just ignore it altogether.

Here is my problem: The ‘reserves=deployment’ side posts a claim and rules are found to disprove or at least question the claim. The ‘reserves =/=deployment’ side post a claim with supporting rules quotes and the other side (IMO) restates the original claim but with caps lock. I try and refute point by point, where the other side seems to restate the same thing. I try to give an example, and the other side just ignores it. So the discussion breaks down in to both sides restating the same points over and over again just with added caps locks and bolding.

I get it, you believe reserves=deployment (I think we all get it). Prove it with rules, that is all I ask. I have supported my view with rules (which I have not seen refuted in any real way), is it so bad to ask that the other side do the same. Otherwise, even if you are correct in your interpretation it cannot be used by others when it matters (at a game/tournament).

[karandras]

I have been playing for many moons and I have played in many tournaments all over the USA. In all of my games, I have never had any dispute arise over this. I personally haven't played marines since early 3rd Edition when Combat Tactics and Drop Pods weren't around, but I have played against plenty of Marine opponents since. This is my opinion for what it's worth.

My humble interpretation of the rule based primarily on experience and to a lesser degree the wording for the Drop Pod is that the embarked squad (because they are in a Drop Pod) are an exception to the norm in that they may choose to split after they enter play by disembarking in seperate directions. Thus, a marine squad not in a Drop Pod would normally be declared at the beginning of the game if they were splitting or not, irregardless of if they are in reserve or not, deep strike or not, etc.

I have never had anyone try to reserve half a squad and deploy the other half, nor have I had anyone reserve a squad and then split them upon entry outside of the aforementioned Drop Pod. If they wanted to split a squad in reserve, it again in my experience, has been declared at the beginning of the game and naturally resulted in seperate reserve rolls for the seperate units.

While it may not normally be an overpowering gamebreaker, it still just seems kind of wrong to make a single reserve roll for a single unit and then try and immediately turn them into two seperate units.

Just my $0.02.

[Culven]

Really?! So what you are saying is that most Marine players would gladly ignore a rules clarification to deliberately gain an advantage over their opponent?
What calrification? I do not recall anything in the Rulebook FAQ stating that a Unit counts as being Deployed when placed in Reserves, nor have I seen anything in the Space Marine FAQ which states that Combat Squads could be used when the Unit is placed in Reserves. If I have overlooked this FAQ, please point it out to me. Otherwise, I will be forced to follow the rules as written in the rulebook and codex.
I play Marines, and will play the rule the way it is intended to be used.
You are free to play by any rules that your opponent agrees to, but your interpretation, even if informed by conversations with GW HQ, that doesn't mean that everyone will follow what is essentially a house rule.

If your winning by breaking a rule, then you're not really winning.
How is playing by the rules as written breaking the rules? Isn't that a contradiction? :confused:
Also, I don't care for the implication that I am breaking the rules and doing so to gain an advantage. I play by the rules as written unless there is something that needs to be clarified with a house rule. In this case, playing by the rules means that Space Marine squads can split when the unit deploys which does not include being placed into Reserves as the Reserves rules specifically state "instead of being Deployed . . .".

[addamsfamily36]

Ok i rang gamesworkshop yesterday regarding a few of the points disscussed in this thread. here what i was told:

1- A unit (for example a 10 man assault squad) may be kept in reserves. if it does this the unit does not count as being deployed. when the unit arrives from reserves you roll one dice for the entire unit for the reserve roll. That unit may then enter the game in combat formation, if you so wish, allowing it to split into the two 5 man units that can come down in different locations and count as 5 man units from then on in.

2- A drop podding unit can deep strike and then split into two 5 man units as it disembarks.

3- as for splitting the unit so that one half is in reserve and one half was on the table, was a bit vague, but got a can't be done answer.


I doubt this will end the discussion, but i thought that making some enquiries might add some new insight.

whats peoples thoughts?

[hisdudeness]

Thank you addamsfamily36, you have just illustrated the issue with answers from the customer service line.

[Tynskel]

Yeah, so I called the customer service line too


They told me that Section 4: Deploy Forces is where all declarations of intentions for all squads is completed.



OH WAIT-- GW DOESN'T TAKE RULES QUESTIONS ANYMORE--- THEY HAVEN'T SINCE 2007.

[EnglishInquisition]

Final comment here from me.
Culven- no offence intended, stepped over a line by the way i wrote that comment, so apologies given.

"OH WAIT-- GW DOESN'T TAKE RULES QUESTIONS ANYMORE--- THEY HAVEN'T SINCE 2007." Tynskel, not sure about this, I spoke to someone on the customer service number and asked for a rules clarification, obviously you know the answer given.

I guess the game will be played the world over by a series of house rules until an FAQ on the Combat Squad rule!

[hisdudeness]

I believe that GW stopped with a dedicated rules hotline a while ago, but still answers rules questions on the customer service line.

Unfortunately, playing how we each interpret the rule is about all we can do. That is why I push to just present the supporting information for each view and let the reader make their own decision. I have been in maybe one discussion where everyone walked away with a consensus.

[Tynskel]

which I presented my relevant information, and counter arguments to your statements.

[EnglishInquisition]

Yeah yeah, I know, for someone who said they'd dropped out of this thread, I sure am doing a lot of posting! lol

So just to muddy the waters a little further, an extract from the DA faq, the originator of combat squad rules. (And I know some of you will automatically refute it because its DA NOT SM!), but I beleive it shows the intent and meaning of the way combat squads should be played and when they meant to be split.

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

This would suggest that once in reserve, the decision to combat squad has been made, and further splitting is not allowed

OK poo-poo this as required, but I knew I'd read something on this before!

[hisdudeness]

Glad you stayed. This a good find.

I don’t like it. With that answer we cannot even combat squad and put both demi-squads into reserves, regardless of how we roll for them to arrive by reserves. This implies to me that placing in reserves is in fact not deployment, but neither is arriving from reserves.

Here is the kicker, most of the wording for DA Combat Squads is the same as in C:SM and C:BA with a few added lines. I see two glaring differences.

First, C:DA has the addition “Both Combat squads are deployed at the same time,…” (C:DA, 23), where this is left out of the 2 newer books. This means one of two things to me, either the restriction was removed for later books or the main rules changed in a way to make the line un-needed. I do not know which.

Second, the last line of the same paragraph the restriction is given that DA may not place combat squads in to reserves. I believe the FAQ is a clarification of this line. This is a line that was also removed from newer books. This has one of the same to meanings to as in the first difference.

I do not think it will sway any minds, but it does show the evolution of combat squading.

[karandras]

That's a great find by EnglishInquisition!

Once again, I think this reinforces the view that rules should be interpreted in the most restrictive view (i.e. - if it doesn't say I can do it, then I cannot) as opposed to the ever popular most permissive view (i.e. - it doesn't say I can't do it, so I can).

It is a little harsh that squads placed in reserve lose their ability to combat squad, but there it is in an FAQ and that alleviates all of these other issues.

The fact that the FAQ is for the Dark Angels whose Ravenwing would potentially be hurt the most from the ruling, really screws any other marine player from quibbling about it not being fair.

[hisdudeness]

Tynskel, your argument centers around ‘it happens during the deploy forces step so it must all units are deployed only during this step’ just does not cut it for me. I have yet to find a rule that supports this idea, but I have found rules that state units deploy when arriving from reserves. This completely contradicts your point of view.

I agree karandras; I have not seen anyone combat squad a deep striking unit. But this does not mean it cannot be done. I do believe placing one demi-squad in reserves and the other on table is a no/go. As far as single reserve roll, just look at the IG INF Platoon. The main difference (besides unit size/composition) is that the SM player can 'spring’ it on an opponent where the IG player’s opponent knows it is coming. Hardly game breaking, just another thing people need to be aware of.

The problem is the rules do say we can combat squad when arriving from reserves. Both arriving from normal reserves and deep striking say the unit is deployed when arriving. And combat squading happens when unit is deployed. What the rules do not tell us that being placed in reserves is the same as deploying the unit, thus a grey area if combat squading is triggered by being placed in reserves.

As far as the FAQ, being a DA specific FAQ really limits its use. Much the same as all the other rule differences between chapters. And the C: DA specifically states the loss of the combat squad ability when being placed in reserve, where the 2 current codices do not have this restriction. Was there a fundamental rules change that makes the stated restriction un-needed between 4th and 5th or was the restriction removed for a more tactical Space marine force? I missed 4th altogether, so I have no idea.

[addamsfamily36]

OH WAIT-- GW DOESN'T TAKE RULES QUESTIONS ANYMORE--- THEY HAVEN'T SINCE 2007.

I have found it really depends who you get on the end of the customer service line. Certain staff members are more than happy to try and help out where they can whether that ranges from a customer complaint to a rules query. others are not so helpful.

This doesn't mean that what i was told one the phone is a 100 percent rules clarification far from it, only a GW released FAQ or if they had one a dedicated rules phone line would be able to give you a definite answer, but its nice to know that you can get some help from GW HQ.




As for other matters regarding, C: DA FAQ's deployment etc, i think Hisdudeness makes some excellent points.


And remember folks, the best rule in the rulebook is have fun:D, if you play an opponent that has a different view on a rule, use the role off method it speeds up arguments, allows you to get on with the game and have a more fun :)

[Culven]

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

This would suggest that once in reserve, the decision to combat squad has been made, and further splitting is not allowed
Unfortunately, there seem to be different interpretations drawn from that answer, especially when taken out of context of the question. It could be inferred that a unit placed in Reserves may never spilt using Combat Squads. It could also be interpreted to mean that units cannot be split up and placed into Reserves. Unfortunately, the answer doesn't even clearly explain the reasons why the two situations presented in the question (1. Drop Pod with Combat Squad in it and other Combat Squad deploying ad 2. Drop Pod with combat Squad in it and the other Combat Squad in Reserves.), which only serves to muddy the waters.

[SeattleDV8]

And to add to the problem that was a answer that was left over from 4th ed. FAQ where the DA had this rule.
Codex: DA pg. 23 "Units held in reserve cannot be split into combat squads and vice versa"
This line (and rule ) was removed by errata in 5th.
Although the FAQ answer is correct for the drop pod question the reason given is no longer correct.

[hisdudeness]

You are correct, so my guess is a fundamental rule/mechanic changed. Not having a 4th edition book I really have no idea what it could be.

Here is more to think on. On p93 in the Dawn of War box, second to last paragraph, “All units that were not deployed, and were not declared reserves during deployment,…” I read 2 separate actions, one being deployed and one being declared in reserves. If held in reserves meant a unit was deployed why not just stop with the first part?

I have read through the Organizing a battle chapter a few times and can find nothing to even hint that we deploy a unit into reserves. I just find more to support that it is not. I cannot find any reason that a unit arriving by reserves could not combat squad when it hits the table.

[Tynskel]

I have already said this: Declaring reserves is a type of deployment--- they were deployed off board. As for Dawn of War, the mission forces ONLY 2 troops and an HQ on the board. The have the qualifier in the rules due to not stating that everyone else is in reserves. These units are declared to be coming in on turn 1. You are making the conscious decision how you are going to use a unit in the Deployment Phase of the game setup/game play.

Deployment:
to spread out so as to form an extended front or line.
to arrange in a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately
to spread out strategically or in an extended front or line.
to come into a position ready for use.

In all these cases, declaring reserves is deployment: the unit is spread out strategically in an extended front, come into position ready for use, move strategically, ect. ect. ect.

That's why I have issue with not being able to combat squad in reserve- the act of reserve is a strategic decision- positioning troops in different ways-- it makes verbal sense that reserve is deployment.

[Culven]

I have already said this: Declaring reserves is a type of deployment
Where is this stated in the rulebook?

Deployment:
to spread out so as to form an extended front or line.
to arrange in a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately
to spread out strategically or in an extended front or line.
to come into a position ready for use.
Where is this in the rulebook? I can't find where "deploy" is explicitly defined. The best I can find are the references to placing a unit into play, which seem to imply that a unit is only considered to have been "deployed" when placed on the table, either during "Deploy Forces" or when coming in from Reserves.

In all these cases, declaring reserves is deployment. . .
Even though the Reserves rules specifially state "players may choose not to deploy one or more units . . ."? I still don;t follow your logic relating to this.

. . . it makes verbal sense that reserve is deployment.
But it doesn't make sense by the rules as written. In fact, it contradicts what the rules state.

[Tynskel]

Read the definition of Deploy!! Why does the book have to define the word deploy--- you only Redefine a word to clarify. In this case, GW uses the dictionary definition of Deploy--- this means that those definitions I wrote apply to the Step 4: Deploy Phase

then read the p. 86, lists the order of playing a game: Step 4 Deployment.

players may choose not to deploy [on the board] one or more units. When you apply the definition of deploy and deployment, you'll find that not deploying on the board is still deploying a unit. You are deploying them 'somewhere else'.

your last statement makes no sense--- they don't contradict what the rules state-- they are rules as written.

[Culven]

Why does the book have to define the word deploy. . .
Because GW uses "deploy" as a keyword, so we need to know what that word means within the context of the rules.

then read the p. 86, lists the order of playing a game: Step 4 Deployment.
Spet 4 isn't "Deployment". It is "Deploy Forces". During this step, a player is allowed to Deploy Units or not Deploy them and instead place them into Reserves.

players may choose not to deploy [on the board] one or more units. When you apply the definition of deploy and deployment, you'll find that not deploying on the board is still deploying a unit.
your last statement makes no sense--- they don't contradict what the rules state-- they are rules as written.
The rules clearly state that placing units in Reserves is done instead of Deploying them. How can you interpret "instead of Deploying" as meaning "deploy them"? This is where your interpretation contradicts the rules as written. For your interpretation to work, one must ignore the "instead of deploying" phrase in the Reserves rules and assume that any action done during the "Deploy Forces" step constitutes Deploying that unit (Which is equivalent to claiming that a model Running has shot or a Tau Battlesuit which has moved in the Assult Phase counts as assaulting, simply because the action took place in that phase). I see nothing in the rules that support these assumptions. Hence, your premise seems flawed.

[Tynskel]

Tynskel, your argument centers around ‘it happens during the deploy forces step so it must all units are deployed only during this step’ just does not cut it for me. I have yet to find a rule that supports this idea, but I have found rules that state units deploy when arriving from reserves. This completely contradicts your point of view.

I agree karandras; I have not seen anyone combat squad a deep striking unit. But this does not mean it cannot be done. I do believe placing one demi-squad in reserves and the other on table is a no/go. As far as single reserve roll, just look at the IG INF Platoon. The main difference (besides unit size/composition) is that the SM player can 'spring’ it on an opponent where the IG player’s opponent knows it is coming. Hardly game breaking, just another thing people need to be aware of.

The problem is the rules do say we can combat squad when arriving from reserves. Both arriving from normal reserves and deep striking say the unit is deployed when arriving. And combat squading happens when unit is deployed. What the rules do not tell us that being placed in reserves is the same as deploying the unit, thus a grey area if combat squading is triggered by being placed in reserves.

As far as the FAQ, being a DA specific FAQ really limits its use. Much the same as all the other rule differences between chapters. And the C: DA specifically states the loss of the combat squad ability when being placed in reserve, where the 2 current codices do not have this restriction. Was there a fundamental rules change that makes the stated restriction un-needed between 4th and 5th or was the restriction removed for a more tactical Space marine force? I missed 4th altogether, so I have no idea.


Seriously, you need to look up the definition of deploy. Once you read all of the definitions, you'll find that how GW applies the word 'deploy' works for every use that is found in the setup section of the rulebook. This looseness in the use of the word deploy implies that Step 4 is when ALL Deployment happens. When DECLARING: reserves, deep strike, outflank, unit on the board, unit off the board (in the case of Dawn of War), you are using the 'Strategic' use of the word 'Deploy'.

When your reserves are actually coming onto the board, after the game begins, the Rulebook 'reserves', 'deep strike', are limited scope uses of the word 'deploy' -- note the words 'move' and 'deploy' are linked-- they are losing their 'strategic' meaning and switch to the singular meaning 'setting up in a line' (ie the difference between tactics and strategy). The limited scope means no more strategic planning is involved.

The decision to Combat Squad is a Strategic component to the game, and therefore follows under the Deployment Phase of the setup of a game, not the active progression during a game.

Combat Squads (strategy) = before game
Combat Tactics (tactics) = during game

Strategic decisions are not made during a battle- the battle has already started. Tactical decisions are made during a battle.

There is also a VERY important distinction to remember too:
The Dark Angels FAQ has errata the SPECIFICALLY removes the rule denying the ability to combat squad while in reserves, and SPECIFICALLY states that both units are separate for ALL purposes of the game.
This is a major adjustment to the tactics of Dark Angels, and brings the Combat Squads Rule inline with Codex Space Marines.

Also, your application of the IG Reserve roll is not the correct use of 'deploy' in this situation. The IG reserve roll, which I discussed earlier, was to address a long standing problem with Platoons in 3rd, 4th, and 5th Edition- the squads ALWAYS came in piecemeal, and never together, in the case for Outflank (4th edition codex could buy infiltration for infantry squads). There was NO strategic benefit to having the Platoon in reserves. With the onset of the 5th edition codex, there is now a STRATEGIC Benefit to reserving the platoon. Once the platoon has entered the board, the platoon reverts to separate squads, fulfilling TACTICAL roles.

You have to apply the correct definition of 'deploy' to the situations in the 40k Rulebook.

[SeattleDV8]

[QUOTE=Tynskel;68935You have to apply the correct definition of 'deploy' to the situations in the 40k Rulebook.[/QUOTE]

Okay , where in the BRB is the glossary of terms?
Opps , there isn't one is there ?
The only thing we can go by is how the term is used in the rules.
As has been pointed out any time a unit is bought onto the table it is 'deployed' .
Just because there is a deployment phase does not mean that it is the only time you may 'deploy'.

[Tynskel]

Okay , where in the BRB is the glossary of terms?
Opps , there isn't one is there ?
The only thing we can go by is how the term is used in the rules.
As has been pointed out any time a unit is bought onto the table it is 'deployed' .
Just because there is a deployment phase does not mean that it is the only time you may 'deploy'.


You are also incorrect--- there is a glossary of terms---- the book does Define words at certain points in the book---- look at 'within' p.3, 'unit', 'model', unit types, leadership-- the list goes on and on.

Deploy is NOT in that glossary of terms--
Uh, that's silly--- then there is no definition of the word deploy---

No, when you read the word deploy, if the rulebook has not defined the word 'deploy', which it hasn't, you switch to the dictionary definition of the word 'deploy'.

When using dictionary definitions, there are often multiple definitions for one word (in the case for Deploy, there are multiple). When this happens, you have to look at the context of the word and apply the correct definition to the context.

I have already stated:
Before the game starts-- Step 4 Deploy Phase--- strategic use of the word deploy--- combat squads is a strategic decision. Reserves, on the board, off the board, Deep strike, infiltrate, scouts, outflank at this point have Strategic connotations of the word deploy.

After the game has started: Tactical decisions-- different use of the word 'deploy'. Deploying Reserves takes on a different form of the word 'deploy'.

[SeattleDV8]

Sorry Tynskel, there is no glossary of terms.
There are definitions of some units. ....thats it.
You still have not come up with a soild defintion of the term "deploy"

[Tynskel]

Sorry Tynskel, there is no glossary of terms.
There are definitions of some units. ....thats it.
You still have not come up with a soild defintion of the term "deploy"

not units--- the word within-is defined-- it even has PICTURES--- a very SPECIFIC definition-- if the tangent line of a base of one model and the tangent line of a base of another model are parallel and two inches away, the models are 'WITHIN' 2 inches!, model, unit, characteristics--such as strength, wounds, leadership--- that is the glossary on page 3! Read your silly rulebook!

Deploy is not in that section of definitions and glossary terms.


I told you:

The rulebook does not use one specific definition of the word 'deploy'. You have to take the contextual use of the word 'deploy'.

Read the word, use in a sentence, replace word with definition. Which one sounds correct? The word 'deploy' has two basic meanings-- one with a 'strategic' sense, and the other with a 'tactical' sense. Within both of those two meanings there are sub category meanings.

[hisdudeness]

Tynskel, you may have already said it, but the rules have not. Reserves are none of the definitions you stated. By the BRB “Reserves are forces in the same sector as the units on the battlefield who can be called in to reinforce them at a relatively short notice.” This is the closest thing to a definition that I can find.

How can we ignore the 2 places that state arriving by reserves is deploying, and the lack of ‘deployed’ in the statement about declaring reserves? A ‘poor choice of words’ does not sway me when it is clear as day that arriving by reserves is deploying the unit.

The BRB needs to define any word that can trigger a game mechanic. That is one of the biggest problem I have with GW rules. How many rules issues do we have because the rules tell us ‘X’ happens when ‘Y’ happens but we are never told what ‘Y’ means. Common sense does not always work with 40K, my drop pod suffers a mishap when I land on units? Even a parachutist causes people (even enemy troops shooting at it) to move out of the way and he is only going 10-15 meters/sec and weights around a few hundred pounds, but a (guess) a few tons of a drop pod and most likely higher landing force does not. It is also common sense that I should be able to shoot at the drop pod as it makes planetfall, but we cannot not do this in 40k either. I could go on.

You can view ‘deploying’ as any of the definitions you state, but in game terms what does ‘deploy’ mean? The models on the table do not ‘spread out’, ‘move strategically’, or ‘come into positions’. They are placed on the table and sit there. Using the definitions is a mental story telling mechanic used to add ‘realism’ and understanding but do not have an in game effect. I can just as easily say that placing my army on my display board when I get the models out of the case pregame is ‘arranged in a position of readiness’ this does not mean they are deployed.

Either way how can you ignore this simple concept: the word ‘instead’. I have always thought instead meant ‘a replacement for’ or ‘alternate to’. We do X instead of Y. We replace the action of Y with the action of X. That is the context ‘instead’ is used in the rest of the book.

Where are we told combat squading is a strategy or that strategies are only used before game? Have you never changed your strategy midgame because of change of situation on the board? I can just as easily use combat squading as a tactic by splitting the squad as they enter the board.

Why did The DA FAQ remove the line? My guess it was an unneeded line because the rules changed.

[EnglishInquisition]

FREE with every copy of the next edition 40k- a dictionary, so people can look up the words so GW doesn't have to clarify every word they use in the rulebook!!

Guys Tynskel has nailed this completely.

Its all ablout context and people are arguing semantics so they can read the rules their own way.

One big change from 4th editin to 5th edition is an actual list of how to play a game rather than just a set of missions, and suprise suprise, a deployment phase was introduced. By definition making a decision in the deploy forces section, means the unit has been "deployed", the line peolpe are quoting about not "deploying and instead may be placed in reserve", is intended to mean "units not placed on the board may instead be placed in reserve." Both versions work, but in the spirit and context and previous rulings listed, which one reads as the most viable?

Do GW really have to stick to a rigid use of the English language in every rule written? And never use that word again anywhere in the book?
(Worryingly, I'm starting to think yes)

Hisdudeness asks what the word "deploy" means in game terms, and the answer is simple: It means any of the definitions it has depending on how it is used in the sentence it is being used in!
" The models on the table do not ‘spread out’, ‘move strategically’, or ‘come into positions’." he writes.
Could they also not "arrive", "advance", or "take up positions"? Its all about context to derive meaning.

To my mind one side of the arguement has proven precedence, intent, and context! The other side relies on the rigid use of only one of the meanings the word "deploy" , and refuse to use the word in the context of the sentence/paragraph in which it is used.

[addamsfamily36]

Its all ablout context and people are arguing semantics so they can read the rules their own way.


Ok so under the reserve section it clearly states a player may choose NOT to DEPLOY.

*Grabs my dictionary*

not (nt)
adv.
In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition: I will not go. You may not have any.

de·ploy (d-ploi)
v. de·ployed, de·ploy·ing, de·ploys
v.tr.
1.
a. To position (troops) in readiness for combat, as along a front or line.
b. To bring (forces or material) into action.
c. To base (a weapons system) in the field.

So based on this i have looked up the meanings of both words, and im not reading the rules my own way im reading the rules how you've suggested and oh look - placing into Reserves Does Not count as deploying, as by the definition i am in no way able to if i choose to do this.

Even if you use a dictionary/break the words down into meanings doesn't mean your side of the argument is correct, neither does it justify the other side of the argument, it has nothing to do with people trying to read the rules their own way.

[EnglishInquisition]

a player may choose NOT to DEPLOY
Ok, now read that as;
a player may choose NOT to "position troops in readiness for combat, as along a front or line",or "to bring (forces or material) into action", or "to base (a weapons system) in the field", but instead may place them into reserves.

"Man, thats a stupidly long sentence" says rules writer( as he is writing the Deploy Forces section of the rulebook), "what other word could I use? Hmmmm?"
Totally works.
Any decision made in the Deploy Forces section, inherrently means that the unit has been "deployed".

Context context context.

[Tynskel]

That is not all of the definitions of deploy---

the ones you have cited deal with tactical arrangements of forces.

In an earlier post I cited BOTH the ones you guys have cited, AND the definitions that involve strategic planning. You are citing ONLY the example that supports your argument--- I am Citing ALL of the examples. My case is stronger, because I am using every definition and picking the best definition for the current context in the book.

The book clearly uses two forms of deploy--- a strategic form and a tactical form. Combat Squads occurs during strategic planning.

Then I use the IG example--- the previous editions of the guard made reserving the Platoon worthless for strategic planning. The specific change was to correct this situation, not to prevent splitting reserves.

Then I cited the Dark Angels book--- where they SPECIFICALLY edited the book to match the Space Marines, and removed all references to not being able to split while reserved, AND specifically mentioning (as combat squads does) that for ALL game purposes, the unit is split---ALL game purposes means: reserve rolls, deep strike, outflank, infiltrate, on the board, off the board.

Not to deploy---- you guys are too narrow--- NOT to DEPLOY [ON THE BOARD]. The sentence referring to the specific case deploying on the board.

[addamsfamily36]

a player may choose NOT to DEPLOY
Ok, now read that as;
a player may choose NOT to "position troops in readiness for combat, as along a front or line",or "to bring (forces or material) into action", or "to base (a weapons system) in the field", but instead may place them into reserves.

"Man, thats a stupidly long sentence" says rules writer( as he is writing the Deploy Forces section of the rulebook), "what other word could I use? Hmmmm?"
Totally works. Context context context.


Thats a stupidly long sentence? did i say thats what should be written? No. I was proving that by using the dictionary and defining words or semantics (if you want to get fancy), you still don't resolve the argument, if anything it adds more problems that to start with.

The entry under reserves doesn't say :

"if in reserves the unit is deployed but brought on at a given moment"

it says

A player may choose NOT to deploy. even if this rule is put in place during the Deploy forces phase it clearly tells us *and please give me another definition of the word not and i'll happily back down* that You are not deploying that unit.

[EnglishInquisition]

Thats a stupidly long sentence? did i say thats what should be written? No. I was proving that by using the dictionary and defining words or semantics (if you want to get fancy), you still don't resolve the argument, if anything it adds more problems that to start with.



NO, I was showing context of the word deploy, which is what some people don't want to see!

[hisdudeness]

They do need to clarify a word that is used to trigger an ability/mechanic. In games terms, can you tell me what the rule book tells us deployment means? I sure can’t, but I can look at the entire section and see examples of when a unit is deployed.

Context? How is “choose not to deploy” and “instead leave them in reserve.” taken out of context or arguing semantics? I fail to see this as interpreting for an advantage. I do not even see how this is even a misinterpretation. We do not deploy and instead leave in reserves. I guess we have different contexts; mine has to do with the game 40k how we start a game. Maybe you should explain what your context is.

Again, the models on the table do not ‘spread out’, ‘move strategically’, or ‘come into positions’. They are placed on the table and sit there. Using the definitions is a mental story telling mechanic used to add ‘realism’ and understanding but do not have an in game effect. They may arrive (which we are told is deploying), but they do not advance or take up positions. The last 2 are an analog for what a real world unit would do, not what the model on the table does in game terms.

So, when I move a unit up against a wall for cover I am ‘coming in to position’ and ‘spreading out’ (which means I deployed the unit by your use of context) and can at that time also Combat Squad? The combat squad rule does say when the unit deploys it may combat squad. Or do we get to pick and choose when the use of the word ‘deploy’ means combat squad can be triggered? Seems like a crappy way to write rules when any player can choose the meaning of wording with no definite ‘correct’ answer.

I can certainly say that my squad entering by deep strike is ‘coming in to position’ and ‘moved strategically’. That fits your definition of ‘deploy’ and is used in correct context, so as such the unit can combat squad. Get my point, rules cannot leave interpretation up to the player, which is how these things start.

We cannot also argue intent; you are not the designers and cannot even pretend to know what they intend the rule to be. I just as easily say the intent is to allow a squad to split anytime they enter the board. My claim of intent is just as valid as yours. What precedence is that, because I missed it. You have to explain this context you are talking about in the ‘questionable’ sentence, because I just do not get it.

IGNORED POINT :
An action during a step/phase does not equate to a unit preforming an action. Numerous examples are given and ignored. Using a psychic power during the movement phase does not mean the unit has moved. A unit running does not mean the unit has shot. Stop ignoring this point and explain where you arrive at your interpretation, it just might advance your view. A please support it with a rule/wording that can be taken to a game to prove it. Without such, even if correct, it is worthless to everyone here.

[addamsfamily36]

But the deploy forces section is in regards of game set up. if you want to play a basic game(say for beginners) you just follow the simple guidelines of step
1
2
3
4

The following rules about reserves etc are additions to the main basics of the game due to the abilities of certain units. These rules are in essence a rule within another rule, and can override the previous rule. just like a codex over rules the main rule book, a statement that says "allows the player not to deploy" after the deploy forces section is an example of a rule that is dependant on another rule being stated first.

if the order was reversed you would read about not deploying forces in the reserves section then reading about deploying forces and you would be like but wait do i have to deploy my forces now? whereas they way it is written at the moment and the order it is in, the rulebook gives you a deployment phase/stage, followed by rules that explain certain exceptions to this stage.

Its a prime example for beginners. most new players won't be able to take in all the rues at once and then as they play more and more armies and rules come up and tactics become known then other rules come into play.

Reserves is a rule that is an exception to deploy forces, its an option to not deploy forces. otherwise it would read "a unit may choose to deploy in reserve. this type of deployment allows you to do this .....etc etc.

Instead it gives an option a choice to deploy or not.

[addamsfamily36]

IGNORED POINT :
An action during a step/phase does not equate to a unit preforming an action. Numerous examples are given and ignored. Using a psychic power during the movement phase does not mean the unit has moved. A unit running does not mean the unit has shot. Stop ignoring this point and explain where you arrive at your interpretation, it just might advance your view. A please support it with a rule/wording that can be taken to a game to prove it. Without such, even if correct, it is worthless to everyone here.

Beautiful this is in essence what i was saying above, but hisdudeness has provided some great examples to prove my point.

[Tynskel]

This is not equable situation with reserves and deployment vs psychic powers and movement. In fact, they are not even similar at all-- that's a horrible example.

You guys are, once again, not addressing the context of the situation--- you are reading a singular sentence to support your argument.

Here's an example:
Taxes
the bible says not to covet your neighbor's wealth
the same bible says to pay your taxes.

People will quote one section, but purposefully leave out the other section--- this is an improper quotation-- all quotations have to take into effect the context of the situation of the quotation- otherwise one is just saying a sentence that has no meaning.

By stating 'Not to Deploy' quote to support your argument, you are leaving out the entire context of the situation. The 'not to deploy' occurs during the Deployment Phase, AND the 'not to deploy' is SPECIFICALLY referring to deploying of forces on the board. You are choosing not to deploy the forces on the board--- you are deploying them in reserve.

Deploy
to spread out so as to form an extended front or line
to arrange in a position of readiness
to move strategically or appropriately
to spread out strategically
to spread an extended front or line
to come into a position ready for use

not to deploy- not to spread out so as to form an extended front or line--- does Makes sense
not to deploy- not to arrange in a position of readiness--- does makes sense
not to deploy- not to move strategically or appropriately--- does not make sense
not to deploy- not to spread out strategically--- does not make sense
not to deploy- not to spread an extended front or line--- does make sense
not to deploy- not to come into a position ready for use---- does not make sense

Not to deploy is only referring to the board--- the other definitions apply to the reserves.
By choosing not to deploy on the board, you are choosing to deploy 'into a position ready for use'
by choosing not to deploy on the board, you are choosing to deploy by a 'spread out strategically' used formation.
by choosing not to deploy on the board, you are choosing to deploy by a 'strategical, appropriate move'

Quoting a direct sentence NEVER has meaning. Quoting a sentence with contextual background has meaning. By using the background you are able to find out how the sentence is being used- and finding the appropriate use of the words in such a sentence.

Not Deploying on the board means you are deploying in another method-- you are still deploying your troops.

Combat Squads is for strategic planning setup of the game- combat squads does not occur during game play-- your squads have already been separated for and are 'separate units for ALL game purposes'.

[addamsfamily36]

Well i'm still going to play it the way i read it as i am entitled to do so.

Im sure you will play it the way you already do as well.

and until a FAQ is released this thread will just go round and round and round and round......


...and round


and if i play someone who disputes how i play the rule and i dispute theirs, i will use the roll off rule. as having fun is more important than arguing.

[Tynskel]

that's why the 'roll off' rule is in the book---

to break the Star Trek time loop!


However, the internets does not have the roll off rule!!


Bwawhahahahahahahahahah!!!

[addamsfamily36]

However, the internets does not have the roll off rule!!

No but its does have the turn my computer off or jsut simply ignore the thread rule :D. btw did anyone ever comment on the death company tycho issue? i recall you and me talking in another thread and i just wondered.

[hisdudeness]

And how is this horrible example? They are pretty much the same. An ability being used during a phase/step.

OK, what section am I leaving out or ignoring? I agree deploying is placing a unit on the board. But I do not agree that we deploy a unit into reserves. If it was so, the rules would have said “instead deploy them in reserve.” It even says ‘leave them is reserve.’ Which tells me all units start in reserve, as in all units are deployed from reserves not deploy into it. Did you leave out that little bit of context?

Here is how I see it (or my context):

“When deploying their army,…” :
Gives us a timing reference. Reserves is not part of deploying forces any more that any USR is part one phase. This lets us know we can only do the following actions during the deploy forces step as we only deploy armies (forces) during this step.

“…,players may choose not to deploy one or more of the units in their army and instead..” :
Explains the normal action of the step and starts to give us an alternate.




“…leave them in reserve.”
Gives us the starting state and alternate action for the normal action. As in all units are forces in the same battlefield that can be called on in relatively short notice.

Later we are even told, "units left in reserve,..." further implying that all units start in reserves and thus deployed from ,not to, reserves.

Are you going to try and say that the word ‘deploy’ means something different in these two instances and does not trigger combat squads? I see nothing that limits combat squads to pre-game only. I see one trigger for combat squads the unit deploying.


That was funny, Tynskel.<<<<EDIT reference to post 104>>>>

[Tynskel]

And how is this horrible example? They are pretty much the same. An ability being used during a phase/step.

OK, what section am I leaving out or ignoring? I agree deploying is placing a unit on the board. But I do not agree that we deploy a unit into reserves. If it was so, the rules would have said “instead deploy them in reserve.” It even says ‘leave them is reserve.’ Which tells me all units start in reserve, as in all units are deployed from reserves not deploy into it. Did you leave out that little bit of context?

Here is how I see it (or my context):

“When deploying their army,…” :
Gives us a timing reference. Reserves is not part of deploying forces any more that any USR is part one phase. This lets us know we can only do the following actions during the deploy forces step as we only deploy armies (forces) during this step.

“…,players may choose not to deploy one or more of the units in their army and instead..” :
Explains the normal action of the step and starts to give us an alternate.


“…leave them in reserve.”
Gives us the starting state and alternate action for the normal action. As in all units are forces in the same battlefield that can be called on in relatively short notice.

Later we are even told, "units left in reserve,..." further implying that all units start in reserves and thus deployed from ,not to, reserves.

Are you going to try and say that the word ‘deploy’ means something different in these two instances and does not trigger combat squads? I see nothing that limits combat squads to pre-game only. I see one trigger for combat squads the unit deploying.


That was funny, Tynskel.

Ooooh! Now you are making fun of me--- your argument has lost its meaning, so you try to poke me.

Look, your references are very poor. You only quote half sentences-- and then state your own words.

I have gone through and shown examples of the definitions, and I have given examples of the context through out the entire game setup section--- by saying 'Are you going to try and say that the word ‘deploy’ means something different in these two instances and does not trigger combat squads?' this makes this all silly. Did you even read the definitions of deploy? Did you try to apply the different definitions with the context of what the rules are trying to accomplish?

The pre-game decisions have completely different contextual meanings than in game decisions-- you apply the definition of the word that works best for the contextual meaning.

Yes I am saying that Deploy means multiple things--- Read the definitions!

Pre-game, deploy has connotations for things on and off the board.

During a game, there is a limited scope of the meaning.

All of this has been considered with the context of the passages in the book.

Reading comprehension is sometimes difficult-- knowing where and how to apply definitions to specific words in passages requires more than looking at the word in a sentence.

[hisdudeness]

Um, you misunderstood. Post 104 was funny, not your explanation of your view. My bad, forgot someone posted between then and my post. Rereading my post it does come off as a butt, sorry.

I do not believe my argument has lost meaning, if anything I can see where you get your view. But I still think it is wrong. You have shown definitions, but who can say they are the correct ones of the game? Deployment is a game mechanic and mean whatever the designers want. The meaning of ‘deploy’ is the center of the problem. Without a GW ‘sanctioned’ meaning we will forever be at an impasse.

None of the dictionary definitions have much bearing on the mechanic use in game as models do none of those things. They just sit there until we move them. Us moving them is an analog for what they might do if real. We can mentally justify what happens all we want, but it does not change the fact that it is a game with little models. You can say they have different means all day long, but the rules do not function that way. Assault has one meaning for the game of 40k, it just so happens to be clearly defined. Assault does not mean “a sudden, violent attack; onslaught” or “the stage of close combat in an attack.” In game terms, it means follow the assault rules in the assault phase chapter. With deploy we are not so lucky. These are game mechanics we are talking about, not real actions.

[Tynskel]

Ack, I guess we would have to roll off then...

[hisdudeness]

I rolled a 5, what did you get?

[Tynskel]

that's why the 'roll off' rule is in the book---

to break the Star Trek time loop!


However, the internets does not have the roll off rule!!


Bwawhahahahahahahahahah!!!


I rolled a D20 and got a 19.

Add in my charisma bonus and skill ability...

comes to 2.876x10^16

I win!

[addamsfamily36]

lol

im loving the latest comments on this thread. :D

[hisdudeness]

SONOFA...now I'm playing the wrong game!!! COME ON!!!! :)

[Tynskel]

lol

im loving the latest comments on this thread. :D

I guess we are getting a tiny bit off topic...

[addamsfamily36]

No i actually meant i loved them lol. its nice to see humor and friendly banter mixed in. especially after a long heated thread.

[hisdudeness]

It's the intermission of the show. Gives everyone playing at home a chance to get a drink before part two.

[addamsfamily36]

I'll go get the popcorn ready :)

[hisdudeness]

Adding threads/arguements from other sites. Will add links as I find them.

Warseer (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251672)

DakkaDakka (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/288867.page#1479932)

Bolter & Chainsword (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/288867.page#1479932) from about post 10




Added 4/22/2010

[Tynskel]

Adding threads/arguements from other sites. Will add links as I find them.

Warseer (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251672)

DakkaDakka (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/288867.page#1479932)

Bolter & Chainsword (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/288867.page#1479932) from about post 10




Added 4/22/2010

These arguments are not any different, or adding anything new to our discussion.

Once again, most people do not know their vocabulary very well, or how to read an entire passage for context.


If you look at these forums, all of the arguments always involve direct quotation of singular sentences.

This is all incorrect citing.

Correct citing always refers to passages, never using singular sentences. If one quotes a sentence, there is always a reference to what is going on around the sentence--- the sentence is never independently read.


That's why the interpretation takes on a completely different meaning--- like how 'not to deploy'--- when in singular sentence form means to not do the action, however, when you include the passage, not to deploy changes meaning-- referring to the board, and that this is a strategic decision. Furthermore, deploy in the reserves section, in the singular sentence means a strategic application a singular meaning, where as, when you include the context of the situation, the word deploy changes to the tactical application.


You cannot quote a singular sentence--- you must always have the context of the situation around it.

[hisdudeness]

I'm not trying to add anything new, just passing on more information to the community. I think the discussion is dead and all we will do is to continue to talk in circles.

My original intent of joining this discussion was to draw out as much information/views as possible so the reader can make their own informed decision. The idea behind adding links so we can see how the 40k community (at least the forum active part) views the issue and possible answers. With more threads in other boards we can get an idea of what the ‘norm’ is and what to expect at other locations. If you have a large part of the board agreeing one way or the other we can expect that is the way most people play it and thus we can plan for it.

Nothing sucks more than to be beat down at a game or tournament because you built a list off a mechanic you had no idea was an issue or your local area plays it differently. Some people may want to try a tournament for the first time but are fearful/curious of rules differences. I’m just adding context to the issue.

[Tynskel]

I'm not trying to add anything new, just passing on more information to the community. I think the discussion is dead and all we will do is to continue to talk in circles.

My original intent of joining this discussion was to draw out as much information/views as possible so the reader can make their own informed decision. The idea behind adding links so we can see how the 40k community (at least the forum active part) views the issue and possible answers. With more threads in other boards we can get an idea of what the ‘norm’ is and what to expect at other locations. If you have a large part of the board agreeing one way or the other we can expect that is the way most people play it and thus we can plan for it.

Nothing sucks more than to be beat down at a game or tournament because you built a list off a mechanic you had no idea was an issue or your local area plays it differently. Some people may want to try a tournament for the first time but are fearful/curious of rules differences. I’m just adding context to the issue.



well--- too much theory hammer goes a short way.
The best way to try out a gimmic is to use it.
If you sit at home all day coming up with 'tricks' you'll find that the army doesn't work so well.

If you don't know that your local group does, then you don't actually play with them.

Everywhere I have played splits up combat squads left right n' center- so technically I have been playing a 'tested' mechanic. Realistically, the game doesn't change too much-- what ends up happening is that your transports that you paid for actually work- transporting your combat squad.

Not that I am against you posting extra links--- but they actually are not providing anymore information. I read through these links, and what I found was the same problem I saw on this forum-- people aren't citing rules properly.

It is too bad that the education system has failed to show how to cite properly.

[hisdudeness]

Completely agree, all the ‘training’ in the world is no substitute for the ‘real’ thing. But not everyone lives near a large group of gamers, and only go to the 'big town' every few months. It might be helpful for them to have an heads up on how people outside of their small group plays.

The boards are a good place to check if you have a valid ‘gimmick’ or ‘trick’. The point of the links is to show a consensus of options. And if a consensus is good enough for climate change it should be good enough for a game.

Which way would you like us to cite sources? MLA, APA, Blue Book legal? Personal attacks on those that do not share your view will just end up having others ignore what you have to say. More so when it is the tactic you fall back on when most people do not share your view on the issue. I'm just sayin'.

[Tynskel]

Completely agree, all the ‘training’ in the world is no substitute for the ‘real’ thing. But not everyone lives near a large group of gamers, and only go to the 'big town' every few months. It might be helpful for them to have an heads up on how people outside of their small group plays.

The boards are a good place to check if you have a valid ‘gimmick’ or ‘trick’. The point of the links is to show a consensus of options. And if a consensus is good enough for climate change it should be good enough for a game.

Which way would you like us to cite sources? MLA, APA, Blue Book legal? Personal attacks on those that do not share your view will just end up having others ignore what you have to say. More so when it is the tactic you fall back on when most people do not share your view on the issue. I'm just sayin'.

Was I direct attacking others- nope-- just pointing out what was wrong with arguments-- stating that you 'quoted' something wrong is, by no means, a personal attack-- just a statement of facts.

hahahahahah

You could use MLA, APA, Blue Book legal-- all you want--- if you actually read those books, they all state the same thing-- you cannot just quote a sentence, you have to have context to the situation that is being quoted.

I didn't know that this was a forum on consensus on climate change--- I guess I have been in the right spot all along!
That's what I am getting my PhD in :) attending: http://www.urbinossp.it/ in july!

[hisdudeness]

Grab a seat, grab some popcorn. Round TWO!!!

You were not directly attacking a specific poster, you were pretty much telling everyone else that does not agree with you that they cannot even read the rules and we are all taking the rules out of context. I was commenting on the fact (from reading other threads you have posted in) that you fall back on ‘context’ quite a bit. But I still do not agree with this context argument you are using. Just because I am quoting one part of the rule and focusing on it, does not mean I have lost the context.

Your idea of context is that everything that happens to a unit in the deploy forces step is equal to the unit being deployed and deployment only happens in the deploy forces step. Which means any reference to units ‘deploying’ outside of the deploy forces step means nothing in terms of the rules. I reject that notion on the basis of crappy game design. The idea that the same word (that triggers a game mechanic) triggers it in one place but not the other is just asking for a rules argument. For a stable rule set we cannot have a word that has multiply meanings/effects without a clear definition of what those differences are. We are also never told that 1) deployment is only during deploy forces step and 2) ‘deployment’ can only happen during the deploy forces step. That is missing part of your argument, nothing in the rules state anything close to what you claim.

We are not told deploy(ed) has different meanings at different times of the game, so it does not. Deploy has the same meaning at all times. But without a clear definition of ‘deploy’ we do not even truly know what that is. I take it as the unit is physically placed on the game table, but anyone else’s idea (generally) is just as valid as mine.


Congrats on the degree. After 8yrs in the military, I got out and I’m about 3/4 way through with my BS in Industrial Distribution at TAMU in College Station. Frankly I just want to graduate and get on with my life.

[Tynskel]

Grab a seat, grab some popcorn. Round TWO!!!

You were not directly attacking a specific poster, you were pretty much telling everyone else that does not agree with you that they cannot even read the rules and we are all taking the rules out of context. I was commenting on the fact (from reading other threads you have posted in) that you fall back on ‘context’ quite a bit. But I still do not agree with this context argument you are using. Just because I am quoting one part of the rule and focusing on it, does not mean I have lost the context.

Your idea of context is that everything that happens to a unit in the deploy forces step is equal to the unit being deployed and deployment only happens in the deploy forces step. Which means any reference to units ‘deploying’ outside of the deploy forces step means nothing in terms of the rules. I reject that notion on the basis of crappy game design. The idea that the same word (that triggers a game mechanic) triggers it in one place but not the other is just asking for a rules argument. For a stable rule set we cannot have a word that has multiply meanings/effects without a clear definition of what those differences are. We are also never told that 1) deployment is only during deploy forces step and 2) ‘deployment’ can only happen during the deploy forces step. That is missing part of your argument, nothing in the rules state anything close to what you claim.

We are not told deploy(ed) has different meanings at different times of the game, so it does not. Deploy has the same meaning at all times. But without a clear definition of ‘deploy’ we do not even truly know what that is. I take it as the unit is physically placed on the game table, but anyone else’s idea (generally) is just as valid as mine.


Congrats on the degree. After 8yrs in the military, I got out and I’m about 3/4 way through with my BS in Industrial Distribution at TAMU in College Station. Frankly I just want to graduate and get on with my life.

Ohhh oh oh oooooh

I don't have the degree yet---- I start in june at Purdue... The next 70-100 years (I am assuming med tech will keep advancing) will be spent as a slave in a lab...

Good work--- it's tough going through 8 yrs of military then to hang around a bunch of spoiled brats running around in college. I didn't get my BS until 10 years after High School.

As for the reading context: being not told deploy has different meanings means it does not have different meanings is, for a lack of a better word, dumb. The word has multiple meanings. The only time the rulebook focuses on one meaning for a word is when the rulebook defines the word to specifically mean what the rulebook wants it to mean: p.3.

I am not 'picking and choosing' meanings that fit my paradigm. I am reading the whole section and taking the context of the situation involved, and using the definition that fits MOST. That's how vocabulary works.

[Tynskel]

Another note:

I have been at 'Ard Boyz last 2 years.

I have been up n' down the state of CA at this tournament (went to semis both times) and everyone is a stickler about the rules--- but not one single time did anyone question my list and my deployment--- they had questions about other things-- we all do-- but deployment: splitting combat squads, deep striking one, reserve the other in a transport = no problem.

Other space marine players at this RAW tournament (most people were space marines) did the exact same thing.


Sacramento, LA, San Diego, SF. That's where I went--- that's a lot of ground to cover, and not once did I run into a group that ever had a problem with deployment.


I have noticed that the Midwest has some very different views on the Rulebook---- just look at the INAT FAQ--- that thing is a piece of garbage, but from whom I have been talking to, that seems to be the norm. That FAQ is so poorly constructed, that I can see where these views come from. Most of the rulings that are quite dumb in that FAQ are due to the authors generating no context for their adjustment to the rules--- a lot of times the FAQ goes against the precedents set up in the Rulebook and other Codexes.

[hisdudeness]

Either way, congrats on getting into a PhD program, not an easy task either. I hate the academic world, I like efficiency and there is very little of it in colleges. I also have a family, and the 2 often compete for time.

We are talking about a game with a set of rules. The out of game meaning of a word does not really matter. GW could have called the placing of units anything they wanted, but choose to use a known word. And the word ‘deploy’ has a game meaning that is tied to the rules of a game of moving plastic pieces on a board that has nothing to do with the dictionary definition. The little plastic men do none of the dictionary defined actions. They just sit there. We mentally assign one of those definitions to add to the enjoyment of the game, but it does not change the fact that the model just sits there.

You are picking and choosing. To say that deploy has one meaning in the deploy forces step and another in the movement phase is cherry-picking. The word can have all the meanings we want it to have, but the only one that matters is the one used in the game. And without a definition from GW, it is left up to the players, which leads us to these debates.

Riddle me this: does a unit held in reserves deploy twice? As in once when placed in reserves (when it is not clear that it is deployment) and the second when they arrive (clearly states unit deploys).

[Tynskel]

Either way, congrats on getting into a PhD program, not an easy task either. I hate the academic world, I like efficiency and there is very little of it in colleges. I also have a family, and the 2 often compete for time.

We are talking about a game with a set of rules. The out of game meaning of a word does not really matter. GW could have called the placing of units anything they wanted, but choose to use a known word. And the word ‘deploy’ has a game meaning that is tied to the rules of a game of moving plastic pieces on a board that has nothing to do with the dictionary definition. The little plastic men do none of the dictionary defined actions. They just sit there. We mentally assign one of those definitions to add to the enjoyment of the game, but it does not change the fact that the model just sits there.

You are picking and choosing. To say that deploy has one meaning in the deploy forces step and another in the movement phase is cherry-picking. The word can have all the meanings we want it to have, but the only one that matters is the one used in the game. And without a definition from GW, it is left up to the players, which leads us to these debates.

Riddle me this: does a unit held in reserves deploy twice? As in once when placed in reserves (when it is not clear that it is deployment) and the second when they arrive (clearly states unit deploys).


Funny you are saying this-- in a way you are helping my argument --- there is a difference between the Academic World and College World. Graduate studies is a completely different ball game-- experimentation requires one to be efficient-- you must find every accountable process that can occur, and set up a controlled environment for them. IF we didn't do it this way, Science would be horribly inefficient. However- College is inefficient, but it isn't designed to be efficient-- it is designed to allow one person to do whatever they want- no one makes the decisions for you.


we are playing a Strategy/Tactical Game with a set of rules. Deploy has both Stategic and Tactical definitions.

I am not picking and choosing--- I taking the context into the situation----

Pre-game: Stategic Decisions are made-- army design, terrain placement, placement of objectives, which side I choose.
During game: Tactical Decisions are made- where do I move my guys, who do I shoot, how do I take the objective.

There is a major difference between the two- just as there is a major difference between the definitions of Deploy. Just as there is a major difference between academia and college. (okay so the college/academia thing isn't exactly the best example.)


As for your riddle: what makes it a riddle is because the word Deploy has multiple meanings. No, you are not deploying twice, using the same definition. You are deploying strategicly, then you deploy tactically. Two different things.

[Tynskel]

I am surprised that you do not agree with my assessment of 'Deploy', you just mentioned you were in the military for 8 years.


After the game has begun, you decide to move a unit--- forming a new line.
wait, you can't do that- you are deploying them again---- according to your use of the word, you cannot deploy twice!

This is why the word deploy is used loosely--using a word with multiple definitions-- to prevent some shenanigans!

You have to take the context of the situation into account for using the correct definition of a word.

[hisdudeness]

Actually, ‘deploy’ has no game definitions (which is the problem). We can only do what the rules tell us we can and cannot do, nothing more. You can infer whatever you want from the rules, and sometimes we need to when the rules are not clear; but printed rules trump interpretation otherwise the printed rules mean nothing and we have chaos. Add in the fact that we are told combat squading is done when the unit ‘deploys’ and we are told that a unit ‘deploys’ from reserves.

Weather ‘deploy’ is strategic or tactical makes no difference, the game makes no distinction between the two and has no bearing on the issue. We can replace the word ‘deploy’ with the word ‘cheese’ and still play the game. “The decision to split the unit…must be made when the unit is <cheesed>.” And “…,the player picks any one of the units and <cheeses> it,…” *NOTE: In this case the term ‘cheese’ must be defined as only Space Wolves and Blood Angels are cheese.:D

I agree deploy has multiple meanings, but that also has no bearing. The word gives us an idea on what the unit is representing when place them on the table, kinda like fluff. ‘Deploy’ (in relation to the game) is a term that triggers a game mechanic and as such does not change in meaning unless we are told it does.

Rephrase the riddle: Can I Combat Squad a unit when they enter reserves and (if not already done so) when they arrive from reserves? My use of the word is as a game mechanic, not as an analog for what the word represents a plastic model would do if it were real.

[Tynskel]

Actually, ‘deploy’ has no game definitions (which is the problem). We can only do what the rules tell us we can and cannot do, nothing more. You can infer whatever you want from the rules, and sometimes we need to when the rules are not clear; but printed rules trump interpretation otherwise the printed rules mean nothing and we have chaos. Add in the fact that we are told combat squading is done when the unit ‘deploys’ and we are told that a unit ‘deploys’ from reserves.

Weather ‘deploy’ is strategic or tactical makes no difference, the game makes no distinction between the two and has no bearing on the issue. We can replace the word ‘deploy’ with the word ‘cheese’ and still play the game. “The decision to split the unit…must be made when the unit is <cheesed>.” And “…,the player picks any one of the units and <cheeses> it,…” *NOTE: In this case the term ‘cheese’ must be defined as only Space Wolves and Blood Angels are cheese.:D

I agree deploy has multiple meanings, but that also has no bearing. The word gives us an idea on what the unit is representing when place them on the table, kinda like fluff. ‘Deploy’ (in relation to the game) is a term that triggers a game mechanic and as such does not change in meaning unless we are told it does.

Rephrase the riddle: Can I Combat Squad a unit when they enter reserves and (if not already done so) when they arrive from reserves? My use of the word is as a game mechanic, not as an analog for what the word represents a plastic model would do if it were real.

As I said--- deploy is undefined in the game rules--- that's why you default to the dictionary definition-- of which there are multiple- which definition applies depends on the context of the situation. The definition of deployment changes between pre-game and during game.

To say that has no bearing makes no sense.

The rest of your argument is very confusing and makes no sense, too. Are we having chaos by my Terminators using combat squad: one squad setting up in a dedicated transport-for which only the terminators can use pre-game, on the board, and deep striking the second combat squad? I think not- there is not chaos in this description--- in fact, this clearly describes what I intend to do with each unit- something the rulebook is distinctly clear about.


Uh, you already know my answer to your fake riddle:
Declaring Reserve is an act of deployment. The only unit(s) that can combat squad when they arrive from reserve is a unit disembarking from a drop pod.



I am repeating myself over and over.

It is clear that you want to read the rulebook as discrete individual parts that do not interact with each other. The problem is that the rulebook isn't designed that way- the rulebook is designed as a narrative, to aid two (or more) players in creating tales about their respective armies.

[hisdudeness]

I did say that we would end up arguing in circles at the end of round 1.

We do not default to the dictionary definition. The dictionary definition has no more standing than fluff; we do not need a dictionary to play the game. GW could have used any real or made up word in place of ‘deploy’ and the rules would still function (as long as that word is defined in game terms). That was the point from the ‘cheese’ example.

Where are we told the definition changes between pre-game and during game? That is my point; you are adding an interpretation of the rules not supported by the rules. We are told base-to-base has 3 meanings/mechanics (one for non-vehicle unit vs. non-vehicle unit, one for non-vehicle unit vs. vehicle and one for vehicle vs. vehicle) based on the situation. This distinction is never made for the term ‘deploy’.

It is a simple fact; the rules tell us what we can and cannot do. We are not told the term ‘deploy’ has different meanings based on situation. We are not told any unit action in the deploy forces step is equal to the unit being deployed.

Your Terminator example does not work, even if your claim of reserves is deployment were true. You would have to ‘deploy’ the entire unit to reserves and then (if you were correct) combat squad them. You could not then take one squad out of reserves (the only normal way to leave reserves is by reserves roll) and deploy it on the table. You cannot just say you are ‘deploying’ a unit and place the 2 demi-squads where ever you want, the unit must still deploy someplace (be it table, reserves, etc) and once there cannot change without effecting the decision to combat squad. Otherwise the ‘Shrike Incident’ would be a moot point. But none of this matters because held in reserves is not deployment.

The drop pod exception is flimsy at best. I have already explained why I believe it is a stated exception. A unit cannot not combat squad when it ‘disembarks’ (a defined game term) only when it ‘deploys’. A unit in a transport does not ‘deploy’ when the transport enters the table, the unit is just along for the ride. Reserves (or the mode of arrival in general) has nothing to do with the need for the exception. The exception is so the unit can combat squad when it ‘disembarks’ (a change from the limit of only if ‘deployed’) from the drop pod as that is the only rule modified.

It not just me, the more I read the more I see my view as the common view (at least on the forums). As far as if this is how it is commonly played; no idea, I mostly play the same group and only venture out of my local area when I have the time between school and family.

[Tynskel]

You are getting redonkulous....
How do we define deploy WITHOUT a dictionary.

You can't.

You would be making stuff up.
Without the word DEFINED by the rulebook, you HAVE to use the dictionary.

My terminator example works perfectly fine--- the Deployment Phase is when I declare Combat Squads- then I explicitly state what EACH unit does.

[hisdudeness]

Easy, we look at the rule book. Even without a clear definition, the use of the term triggers the mechanic. Until someone shows us a rule that states otherwise most minds will not be changed. With nothing in the rules to the contrary, that is how it is played. I do not see a general statement telling us to go to an outside source for help with the rules. I can just as easily look in the fantasy or necromunda rules for a definition.

I believe the combat squad rules clearly state when the unit is ‘deployed’, not during the ‘deployment phase’, it can be combat squaded. You have to deploy the entire unit to combat squad it. Again, you are trying to use ‘an action during deploying forces is equal to deploying’. I and a good number of others completely reject this claim and you have shown nothing to prove such a claim. Context is completely subjective and not a good basis for a rules view and is just another word for interpretation. My context is no more valid than yours, but I back up my view with rules.

As far as your ‘clearly explain’ point. We are told what ‘clearly explain’ means. We must state what IC’s are doing, we must state if a transport in reserves is carrying a unit, and must declare if a unit is using the ‘deep strike’, ‘scout’, or ‘infiltrate’ special rules. None of which can be changed later. I do not even see combat squading listed or a general statement of inclusion of other rules used during the deployment step.

[Tynskel]

This because you do not know the definition of the word 'deploy'.

Because I KNEW the definition of the word deploy BEFORE I opened the rulebook, I saw that the use of deploy changes through out the game setup and playing the game sections.



Because the word use CHANGES between the sections, you have to apply DIFFERENT definitions.


you are making less and less sense with your use of deploy----

If I follow your logic, you have to deploy the unit BEFORE combat squad--- oh crap. I cannot Combat Squad because the unit was ALREADY deployed as a single unit.

[hisdudeness]

You are missing my point; we do not need to know the definition for the mechanic triggered by the term to work. We want to combat squad a unit. We wait until we do something with the unit that triggers (i.e. we see the term deploy[ed] in the rules for that action) the mechanic.

We are told X (term ‘deploy’) triggers Y (the mechanic ‘combat squad’). When the unit preforms an action that has X in the rules, Y is triggered. At no point in the rules are we told that X has multiple means, let alone deferent meanings based on a situation, and that some meanings of X do not trigger Y.

Where in the rules are we told the term ‘deploy’ has different meanings? Strange, I cannot seem to find such a rule.

The mechanic seems to make perfect sense to me and a good number of people.

[Tynskel]

I am glad you realize that these are mechanics. However, there is a set-up section and a in-game section. The word deploy changes between the two. The mechanics of the way I interpret the rule make perfect sense to a good number of people I play with too.

You cannot beat around the bush-- 'deploy' does not use the same definition throughout the section. I have shown that it doesn't, given examples how it doesn't, even played many games where the word deploy doesn't have the same definition throughout the section.

However, I am consistent- I use the context of the situation to apply the correct definition. This has not changed once between games.

OMG--"Where in the rules are we told the term ‘deploy’ has different meanings? Strange, I cannot seem to find such a rule."
You will never find such a rule in the 40k Rulebook, because this is inherent within ALL WRITING--- you will find such a rules in 'Writing with Style'- sistrunk. I suggest you pick it up.

I keep telling you--- deploy has multiple definitions, and must be treated that way--- the rulebook does not define deploy in a specified way. You are not told what Deploy means, and you have to use the context of the situation to describe which definition applies.

We are a broken record here--
We are a broken record here--
We are a broken record here--
We are a broken record here--

[Tynskel]

We are also talking about the most flexible army in the game... Space Marines.

Your 'deploy' means:

Razorbacks and Tactical Squads are worthless.
Land Raiders and Terminator Squads are worthless.

In a game type, like Dawn of War, all of the sudden, every marine cannot be in their transports! If we are playing standard missions, 1/3 times the transport that is dedicated to a unit cannot be used by the unit. This is the most redonkulous thing I have heard.

My 10 marines are stuck in auto reserve, along with the transport-- because I cannot split up, the squad cannot fit inside. Dumb Dumb Dumb.

MOVE
1.
to pass from one place or position to another.
2.
to go from one place of residence to another: They moved from Tennessee to Texas.
3.
to advance or progress: The red racing car moved into the lead.
4.
to have a regular motion, as an implement or a machine; turn; revolve.
5.
to sell or be sold: That new model is moving well.
6.
to start off or leave: It's time to be moving.
7.
to transfer a piece in a game, as chess or checkers.
8.
(of the bowels) to discharge or eject the feces; evacuate.
9.
to be active in a particular sphere: to move in musical society.
10.
to take action; proceed.
11.
to make a formal request, application, or proposal: to move for a new trial.
–verb (used with object)
12.
to change from one place or position to another.
13.
to set or keep in motion.
14.
to prompt, actuate, or impel to some action: What moved you to do this?
15.
to arouse or excite the feelings or passions of; affect with emotion (usually fol. by to ): to move someone to anger.
16.
to affect with tender or compassionate emotion; touch: The tale of tragedy moved her.
17.
to transfer (a piece in a game) from one position to another.
18.
to dispose of (goods) by sale.
19.
to cause (the bowels) to discharge or eject the feces.
20.
to propose formally, as to a court or judge, or for consideration by a deliberative assembly.
21.
to submit a formal request or proposal to (a court, a sovereign, etc.).
–noun
22.
an act or instance of moving; movement.
23.
a change of location or residence.
24.
an action toward an objective or goal; step: a move toward a higher tax.
25.
(in chess, checkers, etc.) a player's right or turn to make a play.
26.
a play or maneuver, as in a game or sport.
—Verb phrases
27.
move in, to begin to occupy a place in which to live or work.
28.
move in on, Informal .
a.
to approach or make advances toward usurping another's success, authority, position, or the like.
b.
to take aggressive steps to control or possess: The company has not yet moved in on the consumer market.
29.
move on, to approach or attack as a military target: The army is moving on the capital itself.
30.
move out, to leave a place in order to start or continue a planned march, maneuver, journey, etc.: The troops will move out of the encampment at dawn.
31.
move over, to change or cause to change to another position, esp. to make room for another: to make space by moving over.
32.
move up, to advance to a higher level.
—Idioms
33.
get a move on, Informal .
a.
to begin; act: We'd better get a move on before it rains.
b.
to hurry; hasten.
34.
make one's move, Informal . to act, esp. to assert oneself at an opportune time.
35.
on the move,
a.
busy; active: on the move from morning till night.
b.
going from place to place: Infantry units have been on the move all day.
c.
advancing; progressing: an industry on the move.
36.
put moves on, Slang . to make sexual advances toward. Also, make a move on.


This is where your view of the word Deploy gets redonkulous. Move has multiple meanings-- as you can see. However when applied to warhammer 40k, from the context of what's going on, there are only a couple of meanings that work:

to change from one place or position to another.
to pass from one place or position to another.


Deploy has multiple meanings---- however, when looked into the context of the situations in the 40k Rulebook, different meanings apply to the different situations.

This is why we don't have a problem with 'moving' our models--- I am not trying to propose formally to a court!

However, when I am deploying in the 'set-up' phase, I am using units strategically- placing units off the board in a position of readiness!
However, when I am deploying in the 'during-game', I am using the marines tactically, using lines and formations.

[EnglishInquisition]

Guys, check out the independant character thread.

It is so relevant to this one. If there isn't a "deployment phase" where force deployment is assigned, then Shrike can't infiltrate with a squad!
I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!

[hisdudeness]

I have seen the RAW argument about Shrike. The foundation for that argument is the reason (post 4 of the IC thread) we cannot put one demi-squad in reserves and one on the table.

The only 2 ways for Shrike to start the game with a unit does not allow him to infiltrate the unit. This is because once placed in a location you cannot change it up with the same results.

How are razorbacks and LR with squads worthless?

[Tynskel]

I have seen the RAW argument about Shrike. The foundation for that argument is the reason (post 4 of the IC thread) we cannot put one demi-squad in reserves and one on the table.

The only 2 ways for Shrike to start the game with a unit does not allow him to infiltrate the unit. This is because once placed in a location you cannot change it up with the same results.

How are razorbacks and LR with squads worthless?


This is a perfect example of why the deployment phase is where all deployment occurs- that the word deploy uses the multiple definitions.

This is what frustrates me with people who are 'RAW'-- rules as written still has multiple interpretations due to the flexibility in the vocabulary used.


According to your view of Deployment and Combat Squads, LR and Razorbacks as dedicated transports are worthless at least 1/3 of the time using standard missions. According to your view points, if you hold a razorback and the marines in reserve, you cannot place them inside the razorback and you would have to make separate reserve rolls for your dedicated transport and squad. On turn 50% of the time, your transport and squad would not enter the board together. If you are looking at Dawn of War, you would have to move the vehicle onto the board, then have a squad run to catch up to get in on turn 1.

This is the same for the Land Raider dedicated transport.

This doesn't make sense--- why would you be separated from your transport when you are in reserves? The transport's mission is to transport the squad that it was dedicated to.



However, when you realize that deploy and its use throughout the deployment phase is a strategic use, and the in game phase has a tactical use...

[hisdudeness]

These are not just my view of the rules but it seems a good majority of others also.

Just because you cannot use something the way you would like does not mean you can adjust the rules to the way you think they should be. Razorback has a limited carry capacity, so you buy smaller squads. Just because you cannot buy a full squad and ‘optimize’ the FOC by combat squading does not mean the way the rule is played is wrong.

Same for LR’s, you want to have one demi-squad in transport and one out to deep strike later with one FOC, the rules do not support this option. Deal with it, stop trying to change the rules to fit how you want to play and claim that is how everyone should play.

‘Deploy’ is a game mechanic in a game of little men, that just so happens to use a word to give us a better idea of what the mechanic represents. You cannot argue against my ‘X and Y’ example. This is a game with game mechanics, some poorly defined, and not real life or a story. So the real world analogs mean little more than fluff.

Using the definitions for deploy just so happens to make sense with deploy, but not so much for other key terms. Take Rage, the models cannot physically preform the definition of rage. The only difference is that rage is a better defined mechanic than deploy.

[Tynskel]

I am not adjusting the rules.

I didn't rewrite the rules.

I just applied the definitions of words appropriately to the rules.

Deal with it: people play this way too.


This is why there are lawyers in the world--- language is imperfect-- if words only had one meaning each, we would be able to describe exactly what we want--- the problem is language evolves through time, and words pick up additional meanings.

hahah--- your example is crap: Rage is defined by the rulebook.

[hisdudeness]

Exactly 'rage' is defined better, hence the reason I said it was the only difference. Now youare saying you get to pick and choose when to use the definition from an outside source? What kinda of a rules set is that where the players can choose when to apply a rule especially one from an outside source? Not having a clear definition of 'deploy' does not make the mechanic stop working? When the game uses the term ‘deploy’ we have to assume that it means ‘deploy’, and the lack of the term ‘deploy’ must mean the lack of the mechanic. The definition from an outside source; again, is no more binding to the rules as any other form of fluff. ‘Deploy’ is a descriptive term used to name a mechanic and has no bearing on the game itself. Replace ‘deploy’ with any other word you want and the mechanic still works. Change the terms used in the entire game and the game will still function, be it a little confusing with the unknown terms that are not very descriptive of the action the mechanic represents but it will still function.

The use of descriptive terms is one of the fundamental parts of writing instructions, write them in a way that your audience can easily relate to. This is a military game and thus uses military terms to help the player learn the mechanics of the game faster.

You are rewriting the rules. You are adding a mechanic (and a term) to a part of the rules that clearly does not have them. And then ignoring/removing the term (and the mechanic) from a part that clearly does include it. You then go outside the rules set and find a definition that fits what you want the rules to do and contend that they are part of the rules. Then you claim the very subjective idea of context (all unit actions during deploy forces step means the unit has deployed and units may not deploy any other time out side of the deploy forces step) as the reasoning for these actions. Even when the rules do not support any of the above actions/claims.

All the while, my view is simple. C:SM tells us ‘combat squad’ is triggered then the unit preforms ‘X’ action. X action is not present in rule for placing units in reserves, but is present in the rules when units arrive from reserves. Thus combat squads is not triggered when a unit is placed in reserves and is triggered when arriving from reserves. But this cannot be correct because some people cannot min-max the FOC.

“When your hear hoof beats, don't assume zebras."

[Tynskel]

hhahahah

you are really making me laugh...

rage is specifically defined in the rulebook- deploy is not.

I love what you say: "When the game uses the term ‘deploy’ we have to assume that it means ‘deploy’, and the lack of the term ‘deploy’ must mean the lack of the mechanic."

What is this garbage!


Did it make the mechanic stop working? What are you talking about??!?!?!! It didn't make any mechanic stop working.

I didn't rewrite the rules.
All I can do is interpret them.

I, like many others, use my brain, and use the vocab in a sentence with the context of the situation.

you are like one of those yippy yip yip dogs. Just won't stop! They also don't make sense, they just yip yip yippy yip all day long---- nothing's there!



Seriously, you need to take a logic, english language, and literature classes-- you can do all three in the fall semester that is coming up! When you have completed those, come back, and we can DISCUSS the deployment.

[hisdudeness]

Ad Hominem much? Try addressing the points I laid out.

Let's try this.

1) What allows a unit to use the 'combat squad' special rule?
2) When do the rules use the term that allows the use of the ‘combat squad’ special rule?

[Tynskel]

Ad Hominem much? Try addressing the points I laid out.

Let's try this.

1) What allows a unit to use the 'combat squad' special rule?
2) When do the rules use the term that allows the use of the ‘combat squad’ special rule?

I told you...

p. 92
deployment phase.

If you need more clarification- p. 94-- During DEPLOYMENT, when declaring which units are left in reserve, the player must clearly explain the organization of his reservers to the opponent.

Really, as simple as that. Clear example of how the word deploy changes throughout the game set-up and game play section.

This is also an example how the people over in the Independent Character's forum a incorrectly applying Shrike's rules (they are correct that a second independent character cannot attach and infiltrate, unless the character has infiltrate as well as per the USRs on p.75). They are wrong in that the Deployment Phase does not end until after all scout moves/free infiltration shots (auspex) have been completed, and the roll for Seize the Initiative is done. All deploying occurs during the deployment phase.


I love this- 'ad hominem' hahahaha--
See, you are associating my making fun of you as my justification for my argument. No, I am not! I gave you my justifications clearly. Once again, you have shown that you just don't have a full grasp of the english language (not that I do, but it seems that I have a better understanding of reading comprehension than you do.) You have misused 'ad hominem'. I am not making the association that you being a 'yip yip yippy dog' means that I can do reading comprehension-- I am just saying that you keep 'yippy yip yip' at me, like I am going to make a mistake!

For example--- your last post!

[hisdudeness]

Yes you did tell me about page 92 and 94. But you have not backed up your claim with something other than an interpretation. I just as easily interpret ‘During deployment’ as during the deploying forces step. (See how that works, you make a claim I post a rebuttal.)

I have also addressed the ‘clearly explain the organization’ part. In the next 3 paragraphs we are told quite clearly what we MUST explain. Anything else is entirely up to the player. (See, your claim rebutted.)

Now your turn, I will now present a few claims and you address them. The reason I repeat the same claims is that you do not seem to address them, even when I try to reword it.

1) Claim: An action by a unit during the deployment step does not mean the unit have ‘deployed’. Reason: Not stated in the rules that your claim is correct. Proof: Just as the use of a psychic power in the movement phase does not mean the unit counts as having moved.

2) Claim: Deployment is not limited to only during the deploy forces step. Reason: Again, not told this by the rules. Proof: Arriving from reserves clearly states that the unit deploys. You cannot say it does not matter as the definition changes based on situation (which we are not told it does) because we are never given a definition. But we do not even need one because the combat squad mechanic does not need a definition to function; it just needs the unit to deploy. Arriving from reserves clearly states the unit is deployed.

3) Context is subjective and thus not a good foundation for a rules argument. Reason: Context changes with the way a person reads, I fully believe I am within context.

[Tynskel]

Example: During deployment phase: I combat squad a unit. One squad is deployed on the board, the other is not deployed on the board, and instead, held in reserves for deep striking (each squad, from the moment of deployment is independent)--- I have done this during the deployment phase, while deploying forces, and I have clearly explained how I am using my forces.

zzzzippow! hahahahahah!


See the context is 'the board'. pages. 86-95 is all in reference to the board. That is the correct reference frame to make decisions from.

Your reference frame is only p.94-- it is too narrow, all of the rules are in a reference frame of the board. Even picking your points is in reference to the board-- how many points? 4x4--- you don't play 2500 points! You play 1500 at most!


3) context is subjective---
you are right! However, because you are limiting your scope of reading to just p. 94, you limit the interpretations. If p.94 was independent of p.86-95, then your argument would work.
This is why you are having trouble understanding my argument.
The scope of the argument includes p. 86-95-- The game set-up and playing section---specifically, the board. The issue is that p.94 is dependent on pages 86-95 (ie- set-up of the board). p. 94 is NOT mutually exclusive of p.86-95. That's why Deploy's meaning changes throughout the section.

your claim #1 not right-- your reference frame is in the wrong spot. Once again, you view p. 94 as independent of all events on p.86-95. They are dependent. As I explained above.
Your proof is even funnier! That's like me saying: by choosing not to move a unit, you moved a unit! The correct interpretation is that units can choose to how move in the movement phase. Casting psychic powers is an independent action, allowing you to change how to move in the movement phase. At no point does it mean I moved a unit.

#2 is even more redonkulous.
You do not have to be TOLD that a word changes meaning for the word to change meaning!
You still don't get it- the rulebook doesn't define deploy! You have to interpret the rules. That requires the context of the situation!

You need to take logic, english, and literature classes--- I swear, it will help you millions in debate.
yip yip yip!

[Tynskel]

In all seriousness.

I do think you are trying-- that's good. It takes a long time to develop the skill of absorbing information, categorizing, and then synthesizing the material.

One of the most important things I learned in college was this: There is no such thing as extra reading- All reading is applicable.

When I first heard this phrase, I had no idea what the instructor was talking about (In fact, flat out, I failed the course). What it means, however, is that it is important to expand the scope of the 'conversation' whenever possible. In the case for the rulebook- never isolating one individual section. The sections are interrelated to each other, and it is important to see how they fit together. Then, in the case of an undefined word, like deploy, you keep a dictionary handy to make sure you are using the word properly in context of the subject matter. When interpreting rules for a game like 40k, where the rulebook has '40,000' words (see the release video that GW produced with 5th ed came out), it is important to not dwell on a single sentence-- the single sentence in a 40,000 word rulebook has literally no meaning.

A lot of these rules 'arguments' (they are usually not debates), are due to improper citation. The authors are usually trying to remove information to prove and argument, rather encompassing more information. The more information that one uses to build their case, the stronger their argument becomes. This is what 'there is no extra reading, all reading is applicable' means.

However, this takes time, and a lot of effort. But, in any argument, always be willing to learn more information- never limit knowledge base. The more information one has allows for a more complete (and correct) synthesis.

example-- look at the debate for Acid Blood applying to all models in a squadron. This was not a simple, read sentence, do what it says-- it involved nearly the entire rulebook, and every single codex..

[hisdudeness]

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" – but the slightly less well-known is this: The unit must perform the action to trigger the special ability, declaring that you intend to deploy does not cut it. You must have a cause to induce the effect. Even if placing in reserves is deployment, you must actually deploy the entire unit ‘into reserves’, as in place them there. Once there you can combat squad them. Once deployed you cannot change the method without reversing anything that was triggered by deploying. This means you cannot pull part of the unit out and re-deploy the unit without undoing combat squads.

We cannot ‘split the unit in route’ to be deployed, the action must take place to trigger the ability.

Yes, we do need to be told when the meaning of a term changes. Otherwise how do we know what to do when this term comes up? Use context? Context being subjective and can change based on the whim of the reader? That makes no sense, players deciding on a whim what the rules means. That is just asking for problems and makes for a hard system to play.

Do you really think you are ‘winning’ this discussion? You have yet to back up your view with a solid item that anyone here can take to a game and even hope to advance your interpretation. Context will not do it, as you should know if you have played as much and as many different places as you claim. If you cannot advance your view in 2-5 mins to your opponent or the judge you have lost the argument. I have spent just as much time trying to get this idea of ‘context’ out of you as I have advancing my view.

So here is your chance before I end this for the time being (I have 2 tests this week and 3 finals coming up). We are at a tournament and playing against each other and when my Assault squad arrives from reserves (off of one reserves roll) I combat squad it . In 2-5 mins or less (about the time you have to plead your case at a tournament) explain to me why you claim I cannot do this. Remember this is a tournament and will only have items (books, rules, etc) you normally bring.

How is that for context.

[Tynskel]

Hahahaha--- I have backed my view with a solid argument. The entire section is written as a narrative and is all in reference to the board: p.86-95

For your example: I'd say you were cheating--- because have to:
1) declare what your units are doing while in reserve. You changed what your unit was doing in reserve (one unit became two- even though you declared one)! That's Cheating.
2) the combat squads happens during deployment phase.

Justifications:
1) There is no where in the combat squads rule that says that everything has to be in the same place-- just deploy.
2) Just 'when deployed' past tense-- if you go by your 'mechanics', you deploy the unit first- then you cannot split them. That makes no sense-- this is why it is not a 'trigger' mechanism-- if it was written as a trigger it would have said 'the decision to combat squad is made while DEPLOYING the unit'. This is the same issue with Shrike and a squad. People think this is a trigger mechanism, when it is not. You place Shrike and the unit at the SAME TIME.
3) The combat squads are separate units.
4) There is a Deployment phase
5) must declare what every unit is doing that phase

The game set-up is a narrative, not a mechanic.
All deployment is during the deploying forces segment of the game.

1) Choose points in relationship to board--- if you are playing at a tournament, the tournament has chosen a suitable board for the points value
2) Prepare the Battlefield: you and your opponent discuss every detail of the board- what terrain means what.
3) Select a Mission, place objectives on the board!
4) DEPLOY-- in reference to the board! duh!
5) Start the game.

[Culven]

2) the combat squads happens during deployment phase.
Where is this stated in the rules? All I can find is that it happens when the unit is Deployed. :confused:

2) Just 'when deployed' past tense--
Can't "when deployed" also indicate an indefinite point in the future? That seems to be how it is used in the rules.

This is the same issue with Shrike and a squad. People think this is a trigger mechanism, when it is not. You place Shrike and the unit at the SAME TIME.
I assume you are refering to using Shrike to grant Infiltrate to another unit. In that case, they would only be Deployed at the same time if both are Deployed as normal or the other unit also has Infiltrate (by themselves) and are placed during deployment of Infiltrators.

All deployment is during the deploying forces segment of the game.
This is the assumption upon which your entire arguement is dependant, but you have not proven it to be true. In fact, the Reserves rules disprove your assumption by stating "instead of deploying, a unit may be placed in reserves" (paraphrased). Additionally, the Reserves rules refer to units entering play as Deploying from Reserves. What are your counter-arguments against these rules?


1) Choose points in relationship to board--- if you are playing at a tournament, the tournament has chosen a suitable board for the points value
2) Prepare the Battlefield: you and your opponent discuss every detail of the board- what terrain means what.
3) Select a Mission, place objectives on the board!
4) DEPLOY-- in reference to the board! duh!
5) Start the game.
There is no "deploy" phase/step as you claim above. There is a Deploy Forces phase, but nothing requires all units to be deployed during this step (refer to the Reserves rules) nor is there anything that states all units would be considered to have "deployed" (even if they were not deployed and placed in Reserves instead) after the completition of this step.

[hisdudeness]

My answer to you would be that the ‘Organizing A Battle’ section is not a narrative but a set of rules governing how we start a game and not how to tell a story.

Claims:

1) I did declare my organization in reserves just as the rules require. I see nothing on page 94 (BRB) stating I must declare combat squads when placed in reserves. All I see is the requirement to specify if an IC in reserves is joining a unit, specify if any transports are carrying infantry units, and if the unit has access to ‘deep strike’, ‘scout’, or ‘infiltrate’ I much specify if they will use them. I would have declared the assault squad was deep striking as per the rules.

2) Where do you see combat squad being limited to the deploy forces step? I see the only limit to use combat squad (p51 C:SM) is that the unit must deploy. I clearly see that units arriving by reserves are ‘deployed’. (p94 BRB)

Justifications:

1) It does say they must deploy, we must actually deploy the unit for the ability to activate. Name me an action that we declare intent and have a special rule trigger from the intent without performing the action (besides when the special rule replaces the trigger).

2) What are you taking about? Combat Squads clearly has a ‘trigger’ or ‘activation clause’ to use the special rule. You must perform the action to gain the benefit. It makes perfect sense, the unit performs X and Y becomes available. Do one the other happens. Pull the ‘trigger’ and bullets fly.
Shrike is a completely different issue in which RAW is 100% against you. Refer to the hundreds of threads explaining this. Wishing something to be by force of will not make it true. And using something that has generally been ruled not in your favor does not help much. Nowhere are we told all deployment is simultaneous.

3) Yes, from the point after they combat squad they are separate units. That is not disputed.

4) Not really, there is a deploy forces step. But the idea is the same. Glad we cleared that up.

5) No, the only thing I see that we must declare while in the deploy forces step are the parts I referred to above (Claim 1). We should not need to declare what units on the table are doing as it should be clear by placement.



Thank you Culven. I have tried to reword my view every way I can, but you in one fell swoop addressed my main argument with your 4th point. I cannot seem to get clear support for this idea out of Tynskel.


Side note: Tynskel, you might want to read the second sentence under ‘infiltrators and scouts’. (p92 BRB) Further proof your interpretation is incorrect. And the rest of the paragraph gives context.

[Tynskel]

Culven:

You are treating setup rules as trigger mechanisms--
Shrike "may begin the game ALREADY with a unit, by being deployed in coherency with them. p.48."


The game set-up is not designed as trigger mechanisms. It is written as a narrative.
The pages 86-95 all have a reference frame of the board--- the use of the word 'Deploy' changes meaning between 'set-up' and 'in-game'. This is why there is a Deploy Phase.

You are actually deploying your forces in reserve if you do not deploy on the board. By reserving your unit, you "arrange in a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately".

By deploying on the board you "spread out (troops) so as to form an extended front or line."

Both of these are the correct use of the word deploy. And when you treat the Organizing a Battle as a narrative (which is how it is written), you notice that ALL deployment occurs during the Deploy Forces section. Because ALL deploying occurs in the Deploy Forces section, this is when Combat Squads is used.

The only trigger that occurs in the set-up section of the game is "seize the initiative"--- immediate beginning of the game--- where thereby your reserves now are 'activated' by triggers and game mechanics.

Have you read the entire thread? Or did you just hop in?

You do realize, every time you move a unit you are deploying them- does this mean I can combat squad? No. Because combat squads occurs in the Deploy Forces section.

[hisdudeness]

Yes, I am treating this as a game with rule mechanics. You will have to do more to prove this new ‘narrative’ idea and how it changes anything I have claimed to this point besides just making the claim.

You will also need to explain 'the board' context. I do not understand how this makes my view incorrect.

While you are at it, explain where you find the part about terms changing during the course of the game. Rules changing subjectively make no sense to me. Sounds like the basis for a crappy game system.

[Tynskel]

Yes, I am treating this as a game with rule mechanics. You will have to do more to prove this new ‘narrative’ idea and how it changes anything I have claimed to this point besides just making the claim.

You will also need to explain 'the board' context. I do not understand how this makes my view incorrect.

While you are at it, explain where you find the part about terms changing during the course of the game. Rules changing subjectively make no sense to me. Sounds like the basis for a crappy game system.

Yes, the IN-GAME has triggers and mechanics.

The Set-Up does not.


an example of a game that has set-up mechanics and triggers: Magic. There is a reason you can be paid professionally to do magic. Because the entire game is a step wise flow chart- there is no haziness between any section of the game rules-- just like the rules for professional sports.

[hisdudeness]

Where on earth do you get that idea? Set-up is still part of the rule set. All the rules form the game mechanics.

[Tynskel]

The set-up is part of the 'rule set' but the language is completely different.


You discuss the terrain on the board--- that's a narrative--- that means between different people, the board could look the same and have completely different points of operation.
You discuss your point values.
You discuss the mission--- even objectives are discussed.
You discuss how the forces are deployed.

When you start playing the game--- you are no longer discussing. You are using mechanics and triggers.

[Culven]

You are treating setup rules as trigger mechanisms--
When they are triggers for certain rules, yes, indeed.

Shrike "may begin the game ALREADY with a unit, by being deployed in coherency with them. p.48."
Right, when the game begins, the IC is alread part of the unit. It doesn't need to move into coherency with them. This doesn't change the fact that when one wishes to Infiltrate a unit, it must have the Infiltrate USR before it can even be declared as being held back to Infiltrate. This happens well before the beginning of the game, when Shrike couldn't even be a part of the unit yet (unless using a house rule).

the use of the word 'Deploy' changes meaning between 'set-up' and 'in-game'. This is why there is a Deploy Phase.
I disagree. Deploy consistantly refers to placing a unit on the gaming surface (aka table) and having them enter play.

You are actually deploying your forces in reserve if you do not deploy on the board.
Per the English rulebook, page 94, "Reserves", "Preparing Reserves", first sentence, "When deploying their army, players may choose not to deploy {emphasis mine} one or more units of their army and instead leave them in reserve." This proves your assertation incorrect.

Have you read the entire thread? Or did you just hop in?
I assume this means you haven't read my other posts which disprove your position. :rolleyes:

You do realize, every time you move a unit you are deploying them- does this mean I can combat squad? No.
Units which move while on the table do not "Deploy". If they moved onto the table from Reserves, they would be considered to "Deploy" per the Reserves rules.

Because combat squads occurs in the Deploy Forces section.
As the Keldons would say, "Prove it." May I suggest that you start by proving that the Reserves rules refering to "not deploying and instead remain in reserve" are wrong.

[Tynskel]

When they are triggers for certain rules, yes, indeed.

Right, when the game begins, the IC is alread part of the unit. It doesn't need to move into coherency with them. This doesn't change the fact that when one wishes to Infiltrate a unit, it must have the Infiltrate USR before it can even be declared as being held back to Infiltrate. This happens well before the beginning of the game, when Shrike couldn't even be a part of the unit yet (unless using a house rule).

I disagree. Deploy consistantly refers to placing a unit on the gaming surface (aka table) and having them enter play.

Per the English rulebook, page 94, "Reserves", "Preparing Reserves", first sentence, "When deploying their army, players may choose not to deploy {emphasis mine} one or more units of their army and instead leave them in reserve." This proves your assertation incorrect.

I assume this means you haven't read my other posts which disprove your position. :rolleyes:

Units which move while on the table do not "Deploy". If they moved onto the table from Reserves, they would be considered to "Deploy" per the Reserves rules.

As the Keldons would say, "Prove it." May I suggest that you start by proving that the Reserves rules refering to "not deploying and instead remain in reserve" are wrong.



Hahahahhahaah!

Notice that you purposefully left out all the parts where I state that the 'Organizing a Battle' has a reference frame of the board, that the entire section is a narrative, and that you completely ignored the definition of deploy.

The rulebook does not define deploy! I do not see it on page 3! Nor is it on p. 75! I am using 'deploy' with the context of the entire section 'Organizing a Battle'--- because to use any narrower viewpoint is leaving rules out.

haahahahaha


This is an example of how he's quoting out of context. He picks and chooses half sentences with no context. Incorrect citation, by default, ruins your argument.

[Culven]

Notice that you purposefully left out all the parts where I state that the 'Organizing a Battle' has a reference frame of the board, that the entire section is a narrative, and that you completely ignored the definition of deploy.
There is no definition of deploy. There is only the context from which we can infer the defnintion.

This is an example of how he's quoting out of context. He picks and chooses half sentences with no context. Incorrect citation, by default, ruins your argument.
And using convinient defintions, ignoring rules citations, and ad hominem comments ruin your argument.

I'm tired of listening to your faulty arguements, slights, and insults. You obviously don't want to have a civil debate, and you aren't even willing to discuss what others are posting, dismissing it as "incorrect citation" or some such nonsense. I will leave you to your house rules.

[Tynskel]

Yes,

The context of the situation is 'Organizing a Battle'-- p. 86-95. Which uses narrative language where you and your opponent discuss the ENTIRE set-up of a game. Discussion ends with the 'Seize the Initiative' roll.

The word Deploy has many definitions, and I have shown in my previous posts how I am correctly using them. When I showed you examples, you completely ignored them, not offering any counter to them---- this is why I have started to laugh at your skills of debate.

You are incorrectly citing your sources, and misquoting me--- you have selected half sentences of mine, and you have left out the context leading up to the phrases you quoted from the Rulebook.

You cannot just quote singular sentences to prove your point. Those singular sentences lose their meaning when quoted without a context.

Read the definitions of Deploy--- all of them. Read the entire 'Organizing a Battle' section- you'll notice that the language has a reference frame of the board. The entire 'Organizing a Battle' section- each part, you are supposed to discuss with your opponent what is happening with the board. With this context, you'll find that reserving your units is deploying them- falls quite neatly within the definition.

There is an entire build up and mindset leading up to the part with Reserves-- when factoring the entire 'Organizing a Battle' section, deploying occurs ONLY in the Deploy Phase. The word deploy has different meanings and connotations throughout p.94 due to p.86-93.

Finally, after declaring your reservers, you 'seize the initiative' and begin 'in-game' mechanics- which become trigger rolls. Deploy changes meanings at this point- losing its Strategic definition, and starts using the Tactical definition.

[hisdudeness]

We see what your view is, now prove it. Prove it with a RULE in Warhammer 40k, which is the game we are discussing right? That is what we are doing. Proving our view with ‘singular sentences’ is quoting rules of the game.

You keep stating theories and ideas without a single RULE to back-up your claim. Warhammer 40k is a game of rules that define what we do when with what. When asked to explain your view you pull out more vague theories with not a single RULE to back-up this. You continue to base your argument on ‘facts’ that you have failed to prove to any but yourself. Interpretations that are not backed up by RULES are no better than fluff.

Your claim: A unit held in reserves has deployed. Reason: Context of “the board”. Problem: You have not even provided proof that your ‘context’ is correct.

Your claim: 'Deploy' changes meaning based on 'context'. Reason: Before start of the game is strategic, after start of game is tactical. We must use the correct definitions from out of the game to determine how ‘deploy’ is used. Problem: Have not provided proof that 1) there is a ‘tactical’ and ‘strategic’ phase of the game and 2) the meaning of ‘deploy’ changes based on your idea of phases. Further, you have not proved your 'context' is correct.

Your claim: Pre-game is ‘narrative’ and thus is outside of the normal rules. Reason: I read the pre-game as a narrative. Problem: Not seeing any rules supporting this claim.

[Tynskel]

I did prove it- I cited p.86-95.
Or did you not go and read the pages?
Are you saying you want me to read the book to you?

read page 86-88. Narrative references to point values- which on p. 88 are in relationship to the board size. You discuss with your opponent
read p. 88 Narrative defining the board- you discuss with your opponent.
read p. 89 narrative of a defined board- to give you ideas about how to define things with your opponent.
read p. 90-91 missions and objectives, a narrative on how to set up the objectives in relationship to the board.
read p.92-94 through the beginning of 94!
It is a narrative where you and your opponent discuss your units and their relationship to the board!

A well defined reference frame! Now add in the different meanings of deploy in the context of this reference frame.
Set-up is a strategic decision that you and your opponent discuss how the battle will look. The decisions you make, from picking your list, to size of board, terrain, mission objectives, and choosing which forces will start on and off the board, are all strategic decisions. During these stages, Deploy uses a strategic definition. This is the definition that fits to the game setup situation--- hence, while not deploying your unit on the board, is still deploying your unit-- you are 'arranging in a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately'--- combat squads changes the strategic asset of a 10 man tactical squad to the strategic assets of two 5 man squads- allowing you to now use two units to be placed into 'positions of readiness'.

When game begins- with 'seize the initiative' (p92)- the game rules now switch from narrative to trigger format. You follow a strict order of play: Step wise format of: Move p.11-14, Shoot p.15-32, and Assault p.33-42, using special triggers for situations, ie- special rules (p.75), game mechanic interruptions (p.43), ect. Everything you and your opponents are doing 'in-game' are tactical decisions. Every time you move a unit, you are deploying them in a new 'formation and lines'-- your reserves now get triggered in and are deployed in 'formations and lines' p.94-95. They are no longer in a 'positions of readiness'-- they are in the 'front line formations'!

[hisdudeness]

No, you have proved nothing. How are any of the pages you quoted a narrative? I see no story. All I see is a rules pertaining to starting a battle and some descriptive text to enhance reader understanding. Discussing parts of setup with your opponent is not a narrative. If you take that as a story you will have to do better than that to explain your view. Either way, how the rules are presented does not change the rules as we play them. (p3-112, BRB)

Again, no proof that ‘deploy’ changes meanings or of a distinction in the rules of ‘strategic’ and ‘tactical’ or that this supposed distinction even changes the rules. Just the same claims of context and narrative without a rule to support it. Citing the entire section with the hope your proof is in that section is completely worthless. Where do you get this ‘switch from narrative to trigger’ nonsense? Is that somewhere in pages 86-88? Or is that found on pages 90-91?

Everything you list in your last paragraph is fluff used to add understanding and reference to the rules. (p54-68, BRB)

[Tynskel]

"All I see is a rules pertaining to starting a battle and some descriptive text to enhance reader understanding."
uh... that's what's called a narrative. Narratives convey information through a story.

1)
'Organizing a Battle' is COMPLETELY different than the rest of the book.
How the rules are presented DOES change how we use them--- 'Organizing a Battle' has a completely different language than that of the in-game rules! The rules state to discuss these different steps.

Discuss: to consider or examine by argument, comment, etc.; talk over or write about, esp. to explore solutions; debate

Now, I cannot find ANYWHERE during the 'in-game' section of the rulebook that this is a sanctioned rule. You do NOT discuss movement, shooting, and assault in-game-- nothing. It can happen, because someone might not know their rules, but in the assumption that if people know the rules, you do not discuss them. However, Organizing a Battle- there is a lot of discussion. p.86-87, discuss points and force organization-- this is all in reference to the board-- your board size determines your point values, and consequently how you use your FOC (p.88), p. 88-89 discuss the board, all details. p.90-91 discuss mission type and objectives and how objectives are defined, all in relationship to the board. p. 92 a note about secrecy- Full Disclosure-- not springing a secret trump card. Discussing your army. p. 92-94 the player must declare to his opponent, DURING ARMY DEPLOYMENT, whether they are going to use their special rules to deep strike/outflank or they are going to enter from his own table edge... This decision may NOT be changed later.

2)
You did not refute my claim that the entire section is in the reference frame of the board---- this is where my argument for 'deploy' comes in. This is what I mentioned earlier--- all reading is applicable, you should do your homework: read beyond the rulebook-- pick up a dictionary.

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

During set-up you are using strategy. Deploy: arrange in a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately (like placing a unit in reserve), To distribute (persons or forces) systematically or strategically (like placing a unit in reserve).

During in-game you are using tactics. Deploy: to spread out (troops) so as to form an extended front or line, To bring (forces or material) into action (like bringing your reserves onto the board)

3)
I am not 'fluffing' up stuff. This is an accurate description of what is done in a game.

Here, I feel like repeating myself. Maybe if I hammer it enough times, it will go down your throat.

p.86-94--- all pages are about you and your opponent's interaction with the board.
A well defined reference frame! Now add in the different meanings of deploy in the context of this reference frame.
Set-up is a strategic decision that you and your opponent discuss how the battle will look. The decisions you make, from picking your list, to size of board, terrain, mission objectives, and choosing which forces will start on and off the board, are all strategic decisions. During these stages, Deploy uses a strategic definition. This is the definition that fits to the game setup situation--- hence, while not deploying your unit on the board, is still deploying your unit-- you are 'arranging in a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately'--- combat squads changes the strategic asset of a 10 man tactical squad to the strategic assets of two 5 man squads- allowing you to now use two units to be placed into 'positions of readiness'.

When game begins- with 'seize the initiative' (p92)- the game rules now switch from narrative to trigger format. You follow a strict order of play: Step wise format of: Move p.11-14, Shoot p.15-32, and Assault p.33-42, using special triggers for situations, ie- special rules (p.75), game mechanic interruptions (p.43), ect. Everything you and your opponents are doing 'in-game' are tactical decisions. Every time you move a unit, you are deploying them in a new 'formation and lines'-- your reserves now get triggered in and are deployed in 'formations and lines' p.94-95. They are no longer in a 'positions of readiness'-- they are in the 'front line formations'!

[hisdudeness]

No, by your definition of a narrative most of the BRB is a narrative. None of this changes the rules.

1) ‘Organizing a Battle’ is written no different than the rest of the book. A ‘discussion’ does not make a narrative it makes a dialogue. Either way, it does not change the rules.

2) I did not refute this claim because I do not understand it. This is a stand-alone rules set, you do not need to read ‘beyond the rulebook’; all the rules we need are conveniently included in the rulebook.
I completely understand the difference between strategy and tactics. This does not change the rules.

3) No, this is an accurate description of what the actions performed with the models are representing. This is called fluff, descriptive text used to add description and enhance understanding. You do realize the world of 40k is not ‘real’; it is just a table with little plastic army men. Even the terrain is not ‘real’; it is just foam and paint. It is all an analog for what we believe the world of 40k is. The rules are in effect the Newtonian laws that define the world of 40k. These ‘Newtonian’ mechanics (the rules) are forces that define how objects interact with each other and are generally indisputable.

The rules tell us what we can and cannot do, you do understand that right? We can only perform the actions described in this rules. Even if your ideas of context and narrative are correct, these ideas do not change the rules because we are not told they do. ‘Deploy’ does not change meanings because we are not told it does. The rules do not ‘switch from narrative to trigger’ because we are not told it does.

You can repeat it all you want, but repeating is not proving. Your problem is you did not read my last few posts. You are basing your view on ‘facts’ that you have not proven. Start by proving these ‘facts’ you keep throwing around and you might get somewhere. In over 160 posts you have failed to present a rule that supports your claim. Citing entire sections (as you put it) is incorrect citation and by default your argument is wrong.

[EnglishInquisition]

Geez, is this still going on?

It all comes down to how you want to play a game.

People are being wordsmiths and denying context to rules. It seems obvious to me that there is a certain type of gamer that will take every advantage possible, even ones that shouldn't be there, to win a game. There is also a certain type of gamer that can see beyond the rules, deeper into the rules, to the intent that is behind the writing of the rule, to contextualise the rule no less.. These people are the ones that GW seem to have written this edition of 40k for, but unfortunately had to try to stop those rules being twisted or picked apart, and that is where the use of language has let them down. Unfortunately they are games designers and developers, not technical manual writers or lawyers.

I know which gamer i would prefer to game with. Let your own conscience decide, and when you have no one left to play a game with, you know you chose incorrectly!

Tynskel, my friend, find another battle to fight. To fight against a mind already made up is a battle you will never win.

[Tynskel]

I have cited quite clearly what's going on.
When you cite a text, you often do not use direct quotation of entire sections. You don't need to, my reader has a copy of the text I am citing. What I am citing is written in those sections, and it is inappropriate for me to copy the entire section. You have your own rulebook, and can refer to the sections that I have cited. I have, in some instances for emphasis, directly quoted the book.

Re: your 3 statements

1) I did not equate Discussion to narrative- . I said that the rules are written with a narrative and every step of the way is discussed. This gives us a context in which to use for describing how the rules work.


3) Understanding what is going on in a text is called reading comprehension-- this allows for an accurate application of vocabulary within the text.


You have failed to understand how important it is to cite with context- words have multiple meanings, and it is the context we use to determine which meaning is being applied. I have read your posts- and I have stated that your posts are from the viewpoint that p.94 is 'all in one', however, I have demonstrated that p.86-94 are interrelated to each other. Because these pages are interrelated, they are not mutually exclusive. This means that p.94 cannot be referenced without the context of p.86-93.


I have demonstrated:

1) The rules in Organizing a Battle are applied differently than the rest of the rulebook.
They are set-up rules, written with a narrative, and that every step of the process is a discussion of the rules. The 'in-game' rules are not for discussion, and are not laid out to be discussed.

2) A reference frame--- a basis for measurement
All the rules in 'Organizing a Battle' are in the frame of the Board. (p.86-94)

3) With the reference frame and different setting of the rules, I have applied the appropriate meaning of the vocabulary within that section.
Game 'set-up' is a strategic setting where rules are debated every step of the way, which is the opposite of the 'trigger mechanism' setting that the 'in-game' rules use.
'In-game' is a tactical setting of where you will make decisions based upon a 'trigger mechanisms' to dispose of your opponent.

4) with the vocabulary understood, we apply the rules.
Deployment occurs during the strategic portion of the game with the reference frame of the board. Not deploying on the board is making a conscious decision to "arrange in a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately"- an appropriately applied definition of the word deploy. What reenforces this application of the definition of the word deploy is the context: all deployment occurs during the deployment phase of the game (p. 86, 92-94). I have demonstrated that combat squads is a strategic decision whether to use your unit as a 10 man unit or a two 5 man units, and that when deploying them is when the decision is made, and further, those two squads become completely independent units (p.51 C:SM). With all deployment occurs during the deployment phase, you separate the combat squads, and they become separate units within the same Force Org Slot, and act independently (p. 92).

As 'in-game' occurs the meaning of deploy changes to the tactical meaning. When you 'move' your models on the board, you are tactically deploying them (helps to know your vocabulary). When you bring your reserves onto the board, you 'move them onto the board' (p.94). This, once again, implies a tactical meaning of deployment, which is mutually exclusive of the strategic definition. In all these cases, these are derived from 'trigger mechanisms' that are the opposite of the strategic set-up section of the rulebook.

[Tynskel]

Geez, is this still going on?

It all comes down to how you want to play a game.

People are being wordsmiths and denying context to rules. It seems obvious to me that there is a certain type of gamer that will take every advantage possible, even ones that shouldn't be there, to win a game. There is also a certain type of gamer that can see beyond the rules, deeper into the rules, to the intent that is behind the writing of the rule, to contextualise the rule no less.. These people are the ones that GW seem to have written this edition of 40k for, but unfortunately had to try to stop those rules being twisted or picked apart, and that is where the use of language has let them down. Unfortunately they are games designers and developers, not technical manual writers or lawyers.

I know which gamer i would prefer to game with. Let your own conscience decide, and when you have no one left to play a game with, you know you chose incorrectly!

Tynskel, my friend, find another battle to fight. To fight against a mind already made up is a battle you will never win.



Oi! I wish I had read your statement before the last post I made!

[hisdudeness]

OK, I will simplify my request for you:
Can you prove your ‘context’, ‘narrative’, or any other word you would like to use is the correct interpretation? The way I interpret p86-94 has been backed up by multiple rules, you know the pesky things that tell us how to play the game.

1) No you have not. Saying it is a narrative and that this means the rule meanings change is not proof. It is a statement with no support. The entire book can be read as a narrative:

“Warhammer 40,000 is set in a savage future age where Mankind must battle for survival…” (iii, BRB)

“A tremendous amount of action takes place in a battle: squads are constantly maneuvering and shooting,
tanks rumble into action and artillery fire roars overhead…” (9, BRB)

“If warriors come under heavy fire, they may decide to keep their heads down…” (24, BRB)

And so on. None of this changes the rules. If you choose to focus on the discussion part of your ‘narrative’, ‘The Most Important Rule!’ call out address discussing the rules in the entire book: “So long as both players agree, you can treat them [the rules] as sacrosanct or mere guidelines—the choice is yours.” (2, BRB)


2) Another statement with no support, where are we told the frame of reference is ‘the board’ and that it changes the rules that are written. I read p86-94 and do not get a reference frame of ‘the board’; I get a reference frame of setting up a game. You continue to state this reference frame controls all sorts of aspects of the game. I do not see this control. I see statements of design theory to give the player a better understanding of what the designers had in mind, but not controls.


3) You have applied vocabulary; I will give that, but have shown nothing proving your use of the vocabulary is correct. Nor have you shown that ‘strategic’ and ‘tactical’ have any effect to the rules. I am not seeing the clause in the rules that tell us terms have different meaning based on…well anything.

You do realize the only difference between the 2 terms is time frame? Everything you have listed can be seen in the light of both terms based on the situation.


4) Is your use of the vocabulary correct? Can you back it up? Stating you vocabulary is correct your interpretation. In 40k we back interpretations with rules not statements of how correct you are.
Where are we told the game is split between a narrative section and trigger section? Heck, you have not even proven ‘Organizing a Battle’ is narrative. Where is this magic limit of use of the combat squad special rule to deploy forces step?


I will not let you brow-beat me into just going away. I will not let you believe that your unsupported claims are correct. I am not the type of person that is scared to admit when I have interpreted a rule incorrectly, but this is the type of person I believe you are.

You are incorrect with your interpretation. (p2-122, BRB)

[Tynskel]

For your point 1)
The most important rule is more in reference to the codexes than the main rulebook. This, once again, demonstrates the importance of reading outside the rulebook. The main rules are concrete and clear-- it is when you are applying special rules from individual codexes where the most important rule comes in, because the special rules change the rulebook.

The tone throughout the main rulebook is not in a state of 'discuss' the rules.

The only section where there is a state of 'discussion' occurs, at great length, over and over, is during set-up. The rulebook clearly states this.

As for your point 2) A reading comprehension issue, and I have stated this before: There is plenty of support- point values are dependent on board size. Definition of terrain is dependent on its placement on the board. Mission parameters are determined by the board. Deployment is determined by the board. The entire section of 'Organizing a Battle' has the reference frame of the board.

your point 3) Answer is: Context--- clearly a reading comprehension issue. I cited many pages over and over--- you have not cited pages that are in disagreement. In fact, you say that 'Organizing a Battle' is not a narrative--- yet you do not cite anything. You say that discussing doesn't change the rules- but you do not know the definition of discuss.

I have cited strategical and tactical references-- you have not cited any pages countering.

In fact you have stated you have not understood my argument in earlier posts--- this should be setting off warning bells in your head that you are having vocabulary/reading comprehension problems. What I have stated has been written pretty clearly, and I have gone through the trouble of doing work for you in order to help you understand what I am saying. Defined terms, apply the terms within their cited context.

Time frame- yes, you are starting to get onto the right track--- and Strategy vs Tactics do involve a time frame reference.
game set-up is 'Pre-game'.
game starts is 'in-game'.
This is not all that separates Strategy and Tactics. Go look up those definitions- I am no longer going to go to the dictionary for you. This is called 'all reading is applicable'.

4) You keep asking this question, and I have backed up my answers. I did not make statements of 'how correct I was'; I cited numerous page numbers. After which, I stated these support my answers.

This is where you get really hilarious. For a narrative, just start from paragraph one on 'organizing a battle' and read a couple pages... Oh, that's right, you have reading comprehension issues.


Heheh,
I'll keep on brow-beating you--- I really hope your professors do the same. I have supported my answers with numerous cites--- what more do you need? Do you need the hand of God? Your mental state, as Mr. Inquisitor has stated, is that you have made up your mind before the argument even started.

Scared to admit when I have interpreted a rule incorrectly? You need to read numerous posts by me on BoLS. When I have made an error, I admit making an error. Check out the deff rollas article. I got a proper @$$whippin'.

Oh, wait--- that would require 'extra reading' on your part...

Hahahahahah!

[hisdudeness]

1) Wow, you like to interpret the rules incorrectly every chance you get. I see nothing saying ‘TMIR’ is generally only for BRB vs. codex arguments. In fact the example given is measuring for assaults—not covered in a codex. ‘TMIR’ adds the general clause that you can discuss the rules and ‘houserule’ them as you see fit. Try again. (Oh yea p3, BRB)

2) Now it is ‘reading comprehension’? Do you have a rule supporting your comprehension of what is written is correct? Yes you have cited pages over and over again, but you have yet to cite a rule. This is a game with rules. When we play we follow the rules. We do not follow descriptions or fluff. I have cited rules supporting my comprehension of the rules. Not pages, but rules.


3) Now it is both ‘context’ and ‘comprehension’? Come on. You have to prove your ‘context’ and ‘comprehension’ are correct before you can use them to support your claims.
Burden of proof supporting your claim is your job. How am I to cite a rule disproving your claim when you cite nothing for me to dispute? Ok, I will try it your way. The ‘Organizing a Battle’ chapter is no different from the rest of the BRB and rules found in previous sections are valid in this chapter as well. (p86-95, BRB)

Here is your quick lesson of strategy and tactics: The only difference is time frame and point of view (or scope). A squad ‘arranging in a position of readiness’ by moving into a fighting position can be both strategic and tactical. For the squad leader and platoon leader it is tactical movement. For the battalion commander and higher it is part of a strategic movement of forces. This is not different for 40k, when playing a campaign the movement of a unit can be both strategic and tactical. And they behave in the same way.

This is beside the point, you have not proven there is even a game distinction and that this distinction effects the rules of the game.


4) I have asked you to support your claims with a rule, not a section and then claim it is your proof. A section is not a rule that supports your claim, it is just a list of pages. But tell you what, next game I play in a tournament in which I have a disagreement with my opponent, I will tell him he is wrong and tell him the proof in in a chapter/section and I will see how that turns out.

You claim ‘comprehension’, ‘narrative’, and ‘context’ and have not shown proof your any of these are correct. And no; I did not make up my mind before I started, I changed my mind after joining the argument.

[Tynskel]

1) Hahahah-- did you read the details?
You do not discuss the rules DURING GAME- you roll off, and you continue. 'After the game you can happily continue your discussion of the finer points of the rules, or agree how you will both interpret them should the situation happen again'.
Measuring in assault is absolute: someone who wants to move 6 and 1/8" to assault is technically breaking a rule. Getting down and looking at cover, you can easily tell whether a model is in cover, if not you use what the rulebook says '-1' to cover save.

Also note, in the text, before your citation, refers to SOMEONE not knowing their rulebook!

This is an example of an incorrect citation--- you cited a specific detail to support your argument, ignoring the context from which you cited.
As I said before, the 'most important rule' is referring to codexes. Their rules change the main rulebook rules, which are well defined- where as, codex special rules are sometimes NOT well defined.

2) Rules are INTERPRETED within the context of they are written.
Some how, you are just not understanding this.

Also your application of Strategy and Tactics is incorrect:
This is where context is important, again--- you just refuse to see the difference between the two.
The deployment of a unit is not tactical in 'set-up' you are deploying according to an overall plan.
The deployment of a unit is not strategical 'in-game' you are deploying to gain an immediate result.

When units are deployed during 'set-up', they are NOT moving- implying a strategic definition. Nothing moves until Scout moves (which is after deployment all deployment has been completed, before Seize the Initiative).
Note: when you 'deploy' your unit coming in from reserves-- they are ALWAYS moving (p.94 and 95). Implying tactical frame of reference. Because they are MOVING they have already been deployed.

They are no longer in a position of readiness: they have been called into action--- they are MOVING, a tactical form of Deploy!


Example:
Fighting unit- a unit made of infantry.
Combat squad splits 1 FOC selection into 2 separate units. This is done before the game begins.
Reasoning- explicitly states that multiple units for the same FOC act independently, and that you have to have full disclosure of what your units are doing (p. 92, p.94), (p. 51 C:SM).

EXCEPTION:
Combat Squads out of a Drop Pod. You made the strategic decision during 'set-up' reserves to keep a fighting unit back and gain 2 fighting units at the same time from 1 reserve roll. This is the SPECIAL CASE for combat squads. (p. 51 C:SM)
EXCEPTION:
For Imp Guard Platoons- multiple units in one FOC, but enter the game as one reserve roll (p.96 Imp G).

[hisdudeness]

I do not see how you keep claiming stuff without a rule to back it up.


But ‘deploy’ means my units magical appear pre-game and then ‘deploy’ means my unit is walking in circles during the game. Because magically appears is strategic and moving is circles is tactical. How can you not comprehend this narrative with the context of the board. (p86-95)

That is about how much sense your argument makes.

Where in the BRB are you see we are told there is a distinction between strategic and tactical, and that this distinction changes the effect of a rule?

[Tynskel]

Rules are INTERPRETED within the context of they are written.



That is why I have spent so much time explaining the context.

[The Mystic]

Time to wade in.

Is it safe?

Ok, I think I've got a grasp on what each of your perspectives are so lets see if I've got this right.

@hisdudeness: I think you are saying that the game mechanic is the "placeing of models on the table" based on the desciptive text surrounding "deploy" within the Deploy Forces section. This mechanic would not change with a changeing of the word and as the way the mechanic functions reserves would not trigger "Combat Squads" as you are not placing the models on the table.

@Tynskel: I think you are saying that because we do not have a definition for "deploy" within the rules we must define the mechanic useing the dictionary definition. In this case, generaliseing, the mechanic is "to arrange in a position of readiness". Now by your interpetation of the context of the Deploy Forces section this mechanic is triggered throughout this entire section including reserves as this is interrelated with deployment.

I have tried to be un-biased in these observations
Now if I have got this wrong please correct me as I would like to be clear on this.

This is a very interesting thread but the recent flameing is in rather poor taste and really puts 2 fine posters reputation into question.

Play nice!;)

[Tynskel]

My posts are always on fire!




You are close to describing what my argument is:
We use the dictionary definition, but Deploy has multiple definitions-- strategic and tactical meanings. Both have different applications. We then have refer back to the rulebook to search for context to apply the most appropriate definition. The there are two situations:

1) 'Organizing a Battle' lays the rules in a different framework than the rest of the rulebook. Set-up has a reference frame of the board, you and your opponent discuss all elements of the board (mission, points, army design, deployment), and all of the rules pertain to planning of a battle.

2) the rest of the rules are organized in a framework of the execution of such a planned battle.

These two distinctions then allow one to apply the appropriate definition of deploy:

for situation 1) Strategic Planning
All instances of deploy before the game begins refer to stationary units- 'positions of readiness in a strategic appropriate manner'

for situation 2) Tactical Execution
All instances of deploy during the game are in reference with the moving of units-- 'formation of lines and fronts'

Combat Squads distinctly separates single FOC chart slots into multiple units within the same FOC. The rules for resolving how to use multiple units in one FOC are designated in the 'Organizing a Battle' framework: A Strategic Reference Frame.

[The Mystic]

Ok I think I get what you mean but this also raises an issue for me.

With this method of analysis would we not also need to define reserves as I cannot find any defination within the rules for them?

There is a narrative, as you put it, for them but no clear definition.

[hisdudeness]

I believe frustration has begun to set in. Thanks for putting us back on track.

Yes, you pretty much nailed my point. I believe there are enough uses of ‘deploy’ to support this definition of ‘deploy’. Basically “Combat Squads” are trigger by the unit deploying. We are told clearly in the rules when a unit deploys.

[Tynskel]

Ok I think I get what you mean but this also raises an issue for me.

With this method of analysis would we not also need to define reserves as I cannot find any defination within the rules for them?

There is a narrative, as you put it, for them but no clear definition.

Reserves is already defined: p. 94

"Reserves are forces in the same sector as the units on the battlefield who can be called in to reinforce them at a relatively short notice."


You have happened to have stumbled upon something that supports my argument--- these are units that have already been deployed.

"Set-up"
During the deployment phase, Reserves are...
in strategically placed into 'a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately.'

This further backs up the context of how 'deploy' is used.

"in-game"
When the reserve rolls are called made, the units are 'brought into action'.


I know fluff is not what we are trying to argue here, but these rules are presented in a narrative, so this can help clarify:

Space Marines in a drop pod are being fed battlefield updates all the way up until the doors pop open-- just before that moment, the Sgt (or force commander) makes the decision to make the unit act as one or two separate squads.

Space Marines on the ground (or air) have already been sent out on patrols- they are on a mission, and when an engagement begins, they quickly come to the aid of their comrades. They have already been given strategic goals. (ie, have been split up or kept as a single unit)

[The Mystic]

But, from what I understand of your methodology, that definition has no relation to the board through the narrative that you stipulate. The narrative of how the mechanic of reserves is performed does have relation to the board. If we are to be consistent, would we not need the definition to have relation to the board throughout the narrative?

Dictionary definitons of "Reserve"

–verb (used with object)
1.to keep back or save for future use, disposal, treatment, etc.
2.to retain or secure by express stipulation.
3.to set apart for a particular use, purpose, service, etc.: ground reserved for gardening.
4.to keep for oneself.

–noun
Military.
a.a fraction of a military force held in readiness to sustain the attack or defense made by the rest of the force.
b.the part of a country's fighting force not in active service.
c.reserves, the enrolled but not regular components of the U.S. Army.

These seem to be the most relative for this discussion
Now we have a variety of definations that can be used throughout the narrative that seem to support both arguements depending on which defination you apply.

I'm sorry if I seem to be over questioning but, like I posted earlier, this is a very interesting thread. :)

@hisdudeness: Hey, no probs. Sometimes things just need a fresh perspective to refocus everyones efforts. ;)

[hisdudeness]

Great, you found the fluff description of reserves and not the rules governing its use (the mechanics). Those are found in the following paragraphs. This is no different than me claiming the fluff for ‘going to ground’ is how the rule is used in the game. The opening paragraph (just like with reserves) states “ If warriors come under heavy fire, they may decide to keep their heads down and stay alive a little longer while they wait for reinforcements.” (p24, BRB) This tells us nothing about how to use the mechanic or how it affects the game but gives us a better understanding of the mechanic. Just like your quote does not tell us how to use reserves but gives us a mental image on what the mechanic is representing.

You have yet to show me where we are told a rule changes with the change of context. It is all good that you got to use your definitions, but we are never told that the mechanic changes with a different definition. For game purposes the definition does not change how the rule interacts with other rules. Never told it does, so it does not.

Nor are we told combat squad is limited only to the deploy forces step. This is a limit you are trying to impose with a vague reason and ‘support’ by quoting an entire section. We may not be told exactly what ‘deploy’ means but we are clearly told when it happens. I do not understand you can ignore the simple fact that combat squads happens when a unit deploys and we are told quite clearly when a unit is ‘deployed’. As in we see ‘deploy’ used describing an action of a unit.

The BRB does not liberally throw around the term ‘deploy’. They could easily have used it in any situation that fits any one of the many definitions you provided.

Your claim of rules changing in ‘set-up’ v ‘in-game’ has no backing by the rules. That is my problem, your thinking leaves the functioning of a mechanic entirely up to the interpretation of the player.

[Tynskel]

We cannot use the dictionary definition of Reserves: the rulebook has defined what they are on p.94.

I did have a caveat when I posted the descriptions.
However, this does not detract from what I previously wrote:

Agreed the rulebook does not "liberally throw around the term ‘deploy’."
Rules are INTERPRETED based on the context around them--
1) Deploy is undefined--- must be defined
2) Organizing a Battle and Playing a Battle have two different connotations within the context of the rules
ie: Organizing a Battle is a discussion based rules, where as playing a game is non-discussion based rules.
3) The rules for Organizing a Battle are written as a Narrative, as opposed to the majority of the 'in-game' rules. The 'in-game' rules have narrative elements, but are mutually exclusive of the rules. Organizing a Battle goes for pages with narratives interlaced with rules.
4) All rules in Organizing a Battle have the reference frame of the board. (p.86-94)
5) All the rules in Organizing a Battle are based around planning one's strategy, where as 'in-game' is execution.
6) Deployment Phase (p.86, 92-94)
7) Reserves is defined by the rule book: 'same sector units' to be 'called in to reinforce on short notice' -- ie, already deployed. (p.94)
8) Reserve Rules are Broken Down into 2 Sections: Set-Up rules, and In-Game Rules. The 'set-up' rules units do not move- deploy and moving are mutually exclusive. The 'in-game' rules always have deploy and moving as dependent. (p.94)
9) With the reference frame of the board, narrative context of 'set-up' rules, distinction between 'set-up' and 'in-game' application of rules, the definition of what reserves are, 'set-up' planning vs 'in-game' execution is a distinction between strategics and tactics, and a deployment phase all give context in which we apply the definitions of 'deploy'. The definition of the word 'deploy' takes of two aspects: a planning 'strategic' aspect during 'set-up' , and a 'tactical' aspect during 'in-game'.

With these distinctions: all units are deployed during the deployment phase, whether in reserves or on the board.

Combat Squads is applied when the unit is deployed (p.51 C:SM).
p. 92 FOC explicitly states during deployment units that take one Force Org Chart slot are completely independent, and Space Marine Codex (p.51) explicitly states that the unit becomes two independent units. These rules are consistent with each other.
(p.51 C:SM) The units can be placed in two separate locations. Reserves (p.94) are in a separate location than units on the board. Which is consistent with FOC and C:SM distinction of independent units (p.92, p. 51 C:SM).
Lastly, all units must be declared what they are doing clearly to the opponent (p.92, 94).
Splitting up a Terminator Squad (10 Terminators, 2 Assault Cannons, dedicated transport Land Raider) into 2 combat squads, reserving one combat squad to Deep Strike with 2 Assault Cannons, and the other with the Sgt. embarked in a Land Raider on the board (whether dedicated or not), is a clear description of how the units are being used. This description is completely within the rules of the unit- they are deployed at separate locations acting as independent units.

[hisdudeness]

And interpretations are backed up by the rules. Yours are not.


1) Deploy is undefined--- must be defined
1) True, it is not defined. But you have yet to show how you arrive at the conclusion that a) your use of the definitions are supported by the rules and b) the different definitions you assign to each claimed different context is supported by the rules. Much less that the different defintions change the mechanic. My guess is that if we read every instance of 'deploy' in the BRB we can find a pretty good defintion.

2) Organizing a Battle and Playing a Battle have two different connotations within the context of the rules

2) For the sake of argument, the context changes. Prove that the change in context changes the mechanics also.

3) The rules for Organizing a Battle are written as a Narrative, as opposed to the majority of the 'in-game' rules. The 'in-game' rules have narrative elements, but are mutually exclusive of the rules. Organizing a Battle goes for pages with narratives interlaced with rules.

3) For the sake of argument, the rules are a narrative. Prove this narrative changes the mechanics of deploy and reserves.

4) All rules in Organizing a Battle have the reference frame of the board. (p.86-94)

4) (p86-94) does not prove anything. You continue to use the notion of ‘the board’ and that is changes the mechanics of the game. Explain this ‘board’ and show proof that it changes the rules. I claim the reference frame is 'deploy forces step'. (p86-95)

5) All the rules in Organizing a Battle are based around planning one's strategy, where as 'in-game' is execution.

5) Agree for the most part, how does this change the mechanics of the game? This is your strategy v tactical argument reworded. Explain how you arrive at the idea that this theory changes the rules.

6) Deployment Phase (p.86, 92-94)

6) Nope. Pre-game has no phases, just steps. You still have not shown that the rules of the game stop functioning because they are in a pre-game step. Last time I checked, all the rules still apply, why do insist this one does not?

7) Reserves is defined by the rule book: 'same sector units' to be 'called in to reinforce on short notice' -- ie, already deployed. (p.94)

7) Fluff, not mechanics and using a theory to support not yet proven (see 1). There is no ‘sector’ in the battle so how can reserves be some place that does not exist in the game.

8) Reserve Rules are Broken Down into 2 Sections: Set-Up rules, and In-Game Rules. The 'set-up' rules units do not move- deploy and moving are mutually exclusive. The 'in-game' rules always have deploy and moving as dependent. (p.94)

8) I do not see a distinction, or agree that this distinction changes the rules of the game. Based on the premise that the rules change based on timing, as of yet this is unproven.


9) With the reference frame of the board, narrative context of 'set-up' rules, distinction between 'set-up' and 'in-game' application of rules, the definition of what reserves are, 'set-up' planning vs 'in-game' execution is a distinction between strategics and tactics, and a deployment phase all give context in which we apply the definitions of 'deploy'. The definition of the word 'deploy' takes of two aspects: a planning 'strategic' aspect during 'set-up' , and a 'tactical' aspect during 'in-game'.
9) Unproven reference frame, unproven context is correct, and unproven that this ‘distinction’ even changes the rules.


The rest:


p. 92 FOC explicitly states during deployment units that take one Force Org Chart slot are completely independent, and Space Marine Codex (p.51) explicitly states that the unit becomes two independent units. These rules are consistent with each other.
They become separate units at time of Combat Squading, until then they are a single unit. Does not support you claim.


(p.51 C:SM) The units can be placed in two separate locations. Reserves (p.94) are in a separate location than units on the board. Which is consistent with FOC and C:SM distinction of independent units (p.92, p. 51 C:SM).
Yes, 2 separate locations, but both must deploy. Reserves is not a form of deployment. Rules do not tell us this, in fact they tell us twice that reserves is not deployment.


Lastly, all units must be declared what they are doing clearly to the opponent (p.92, 94).
No, read the 3 paragraphs again (p92,94). This is the list of what must be clearly explained, that is all.


Splitting up a Terminator Squad (10 Terminators, 2 Assault Cannons, dedicated transport Land Raider) into 2 combat squads, reserving one combat squad to Deep Strike with 2 Assault Cannons, and the other with the Sgt. embarked in a Land Raider on the board (whether dedicated or not), is a clear description of how the units are being used. This description is completely within the rules of the unit- they are deployed at separate locations acting as independent units.
Completely incorrect with Termies, based on your unproven claim.

[The Mystic]

Well this just keeps going back and forth.

I think what the difference between your arguements is that one side is of the opinion that a game mechanic is static and does not change in anyway throughout the pregame setup and during the actual game regardless of the word(s) used to represent it. In other words, as a simplified example, if it stated "To ORANGE, place the model on the table." would mean the same as "To APPLE, place the model on the table." based on the descriptive text surrounding the word.

On the other side, the opinion is that a game mechanic is defined by the word(s) used to represent it. As the word itself is undefined within the rules we must apply the dictionary definitions, based on the context surrounding the word(s) to define the mechanic. This is were the mechanic would change as the context changes between "strategic" and "tactic".

Would this be an accurate observation?

[hisdudeness]

For my view: yes, you are correct.

This contiunes to got back and forth do to the lack of proof.

[Tynskel]

You are just flat out ignoring my evidence.

Rules are INTERPRETED based upon the context they set in.


your argument #1
is based upon p.94 being completely independent of the previous pages-- this is not the case, and I have shown that the rules in 'Organizing a Battle' are presented in a DIFFERENT format than the ones for playing a game. You discuss the each step of the way in 'Organizing a Battle' where you do not during 'in-game'.

This is important for discussion-- you cannot just SAY that you are right, you have to DEMONSTRATE you are right.

You have not demonstrated that these p. 94 is independent of p. 86-93.


your argument #2
the narrative changes rules to descriptions as opposed to mechanisms: p. 86-94. This is a drastic change to how the rules in the rest of the rulebook operate.

You need to demonstrate how a narrative description of an HQ unit is independent of their function in game- for some reason you have to have one, but can take two--- why not take a million- the description implies why.

your argument #3
We need to define a reference point from which the rules operate--- that is what a reference frame sets up. Organizing a Battle has a reference frame of the board.

I'll repeat this for you:
point values, dependent on board size
terrain layout, dependent on board
mission set-up, dependent on board
deployment, dependent on board

Rules don't just 'work', they have to be applied in reference to something.

You have not demonstrated that p. 94 is independent of this reference frame, just as you have not demonstrated that p. 94 is independent of p.86-94.

your argument #4
You keep citing page 94 is independent of the rest of the 'organizing a battle' section. Yet, you do not cite any proof to this claim. I have cited how the pages interact with each other-- this shows and interdependence--- your reserve choices and how they operate are completely dependent on how the board is set-up, what your opponent's army design is, the point values of the game, your army design, how terrain is defined, ect. All of these things are on p.86-94.

your argument #5
I have gone into great detail the difference between strategy and tactics, and their applications to the word deploy, and how these interact with the 'set-up' and 'in-game'.

your argument #6
??? Your point???
The phase does involve a series of steps. However, these steps are discussed. The 'in-game' rules are not discussed. This is a distinction that rules operate differently. (which inherently means that definitions change)

your argument #7
We have to know what reserves are to give context to how the rules operate--- Either the book does this, or we search our vocabulary to do so. In this case, the book has defined the context for us.

Rules are INTERPRETED based upon the context they are set in.

your argument #8
I have demonstrated that 'Organizing a Battle' and 'in-game' follow different rules of operation. You have not cited anything here to support your answer.
In fact- I pointed out the fact that Deployment of Forces during 'set-up' has NOTHING to do with moving (mutually exclusive!). Yet, 'in-game' the word deploy is entirely linked with moving.

This is crystal clear distinction that the word deploy has changed meaning.

You have yet to dispute this claim. Especially with evidence from the rulebook to do so.


All of your arguments do not involve support from the rulebook. This is very important for continuing this discussion.

Your argument falls apart on a series of issues.
Here are a list of things for you to prove your case:

Demonstrate how the narrative is separate from the rules for 'Organizing a Battle'-- (using the rest of the rulebook does not work, because we both know that the narrative is separated from the rules for 'in-game').
Demonstrate how p. 94 is independent of p.86-93
Demonstrate how the narrative rules does not change how they are interpreted.
Demonstrate how narratives do not give context to how rules operate.
Demonstrate how rules being discussed throughout 'Organizing a Battle' does not change the context of operation.
Demonstrate how the 'Organizing a Battle' and 'in-game' rules operate the same way.
Demonstrate how the strategic aspect of 'Set-up' is the same as the tactical aspect of 'in-game'
Demonstrate how the separation of movement and deploy during 'set-up' and the linking of movement and deploy 'in-game' does not change the meaning of the word deploy.


If you can do these things, your case will be strong.

The problem is that proving these things is nearly impossible.

[Tynskel]

Well this just keeps going back and forth.

I think what the difference between your arguements is that one side is of the opinion that a game mechanic is static and does not change in anyway throughout the pregame setup and during the actual game regardless of the word(s) used to represent it. In other words, as a simplified example, if it stated "To ORANGE, place the model on the table." would mean the same as "To APPLE, place the model on the table." based on the descriptive text surrounding the word.

On the other side, the opinion is that a game mechanic is defined by the word(s) used to represent it. As the word itself is undefined within the rules we must apply the dictionary definitions, based on the context surrounding the word(s) to define the mechanic. This is were the mechanic would change as the context changes between "strategic" and "tactic".

Would this be an accurate observation?



The problem with side 1) is that rules are interpreted by the context with which they are set in. You cannot just simply plug in words not defined by the rulebook itself.

For example: the word 'move'. Move is undefined by the rulebook, but use quite frequently. There are over 30 definitions of the word. What determines how we use the word? The context.

The difference between the uses of the word 'Move' and the word 'Deploy', in the case of the rulebook, is that 'move' is used with the same context every time the word 'move' comes up. However, the word 'deploy' has two different contexts on page 94, one is used mutually exclusive of the word move during the 'set-up' portion of the game, and the other is used dependently on the word move during 'in-game'.

The context has changed between the uses of the word, and the same application of deploy would be incorrect between the two scenarios.

[hisdudeness]

I have never claimed the sections are independent. I’m saying dependency does not matter. The rules state when X happens you may do Y. When a unit deploys it may combat squad. You have shown no proof that this rules is changed. Your interpritaion changes 2 rules printed in the book. The first is combats squading happens when unit deploys. And arriving from reserves is NOT deployment. You have shown no proof that these change.

You are adding “but only in certain cases of deploying.” to the combat squad rule and “ but this is not deployment.” to the arriving from reserves rule. How else do you explain that we cannot combat squad when the unit arrives from reserves, as it clearly states in the rules arriving from reserves is deploying and we may combat squad when the unit deploys? Prove it.

You have provided no rule that changes the 2 rules in question, I have asked for this imaginary rule from the start. YOU are claiming a change in the printed rules and YOU must prove this can be done. Citing an entire section does not cut it.

The reference frame does not change the rules printed. If it does show me the rule that does this.
Clear as day:
–combat squad when unit deploys--
–unit arriving from reserves is deploying—

That is my claim, I have claimed nothing else you have stated.

I cite p94 as my proof that reserves is not deployment, I have never made the claim reserves are independent. You have gone into great detail about strategy and tactics, but have not shown a rule that says this distinction changes the printed rule. I have stopped trying to prove my view a while ago. I have spent the last posts asking for proof to your claim.

[Tynskel]

Rules are INTERPRETED with the context of the situation.

The reference frame is the board-- reserves are not deployed [on the board].
This is where the interdependency of pages 86-94 come in. This gives the rules a contextual framework.
Your reference frame would only work IF p.86-93 were independent of p.94.
You have to establish that there is no dependency to be able to abolish the claim that the reference frame is not the board.

I have also shown 'X do Y' is not the case, as well. It is 'X do Y', and 'A do C'

Y and C are not the same, as are X and A. Which means that the word has been applied differently-- the definition has changed.

Deploy Phase, deploy a unit on the board--- you physically place unit within boundary conditions of the mission deployment (a dependency on the Board!)
Reserve comes in: deploy unit by moving. You are no longer placing the unit on the board! The unit is moving!

The mechanics are completely different. Because the mechanics are different, the word Deploy has changed meaning. Because the word Deploy has changed meaning, all references to deploy have changed also--- Combat Squads becomes a completely messed up rule.

If we treat combat squads the way you have described:
FOC slot references are inconsistent in both Combat Squads and rulebook.--- you have one unit in reserve, 2 units come in on the board.
Independently acting units are inconsistent between the special rule and the rulebook.-- you have one unit in reserve 2 units on the board.
You may deploy in different Locations is inconsistent between the special rule and the rulebook.-- you can only have the units in reserve or on the board, not both.
Your dedicated transport is inconsistent between the special rules and rulebook.-- the unit cannot start inside the transport while in reserve, even though only the unit which purchased the transport can start inside.
The Exception of drop pods is inconsistent with the rest of the rules.-- since you are deploying from reserve, the special rule already states you can combat squad, why does this need to be clarified?


With both the reference frame of the board AND the two different applications of Deploy-- the logical conclusion is that deployment happens during the Deploy Phase.

When Deploy is applied with the context of reference frame of the board and the changing meanings, all the rest of the rulebook and combat squad rules are consistent with each other:
Reserves are units in a different locations.
FOC slot references are consistent in both Combat Squads and rulebook.
Independently acting units are consistent between the special rule and the rulebook.
You may deploy in different Locations is consistent between the special rule and the rulebook.
Your dedicated transport is consistent between the special rules and rulebook.
The Exception of drop pods is consistent with the rest of the rules.

[hisdudeness]

Incorrect, reserves are not deployed at all. On both page 92 and 94 we are shown that reserves is not a type of deployment.


Why you are wrong:

(p92, Note on Secrecy) “…, before starting to deploy their armies,..” This statement gives us a time frame for when to apply the following rules.

(p92, infiltrators and scouts) “In all three types of deployment…” This is indication of when the following rules happen. “…players deploy their forces (APART from any unit LEFT IN RESERVES or that choose …” This is a statement of usage, notice how we are told that the unit deploys OR is left in reserves. “Then they deploy their infiltrators…” Also a statement on usage and the second step in a sequence.

(p92, Pitched battle) “He then deploys his force in his half of the table,…” and “His opponent then deploys in the opposite half.” Both give us an insight in to the definition of ‘deploy’ used in the game. Here deploy means ‘place on the table’. Same for other 2 deployment types.

(p94, preparing reserves) “When deploying their army, players may choose not to deploy one or more units…and instead leave them in reserve.” This starts as a statement of timing, as in when the following rules take place. And then not only are we told we can choose not to perform an action, we are told a replacement for that action. In fact; we are not even told to ‘place’ a unit in reserves, we are told ‘leave’ it there. So you are telling me all units start ‘deployed’ in reserves (even though we are not told this by the rules) and then we ‘deploy’ them again on the table?

By your thinking since in reserves equals deployment, the unit has already started the step deployed in reserves and cannot deploy any further.

(p94, Rolling for Reserves) “…the player picks any one of the units arriving and DEPLOYS it, …” and “Then he picks another unit and deploys it, and so on until all arriving units are on the table.” Further reference to units arriving are deploying and is a direct statement of this fact. Also gives us another reference to the definition of ‘deploy’, the same as before ‘on the table’.

(p94, Arriving from reserves) “If a unit cannot be deployed(…)or the player decides to keep it in reserves,…” Proof that ‘in reserves’ and ‘deployed’ are 2 separate actions and one does equal the other.

(p95, Deep Strike) “ Roll for arrival of these units as specified in the rules for reserves and then deploy them as follows.” Proof arriving from reserves is deployed.”

(p95, Deep Strike mishaps) “…unit cannot be deployed because…” More proof arriving from reserves is deploying.


FOC slot references are inconsistent in both Combat Squads and rulebook.--- you have one unit in reserve, 2 units come in on the board.
Independently acting units are inconsistent between the special rule and the rulebook.-- you have one unit in reserve 2 units on the board.
How is this a problem if the rules tell us this is how the mechanic works?


Your dedicated transport is inconsistent between the special rules and rulebook.-- the unit cannot start inside the transport while in reserve, even though only the unit which purchased the transport can start inside.
I have never stated or implied that a unit cannot start inside a transport, not sure where you get this idea. If you are saying that since you cannot combat squad in reserves and thus will not be able to place one demi-squad in the transport and the other someplace else (on board or reserves also), then this is correct. I fail to see how I am in the wrong here.


The Exception of drop pods is inconsistent with the rest of the rules.-- since you are deploying from reserve, the special rule already states you can combat squad, why does this need to be clarified?
Have already explained the “Drop Pod Exception” twice, re-read the posts if you are still confused. I do not recall you taking issue with my explanations either time. For those in the back it is based on the simple premise: A unit cannot combat squad when it disembark from a transport. Thus the exception.

Fact: no proof ‘the board’ is the correct reference frame.
Fact: have not proven there are two applications of deploy.
Fact: No proof deployment only happens in the deploy forces step.

Your view changes a printed rule and I see nothing you have provided proving that you can change the printed rules.

[Tynskel]

Jwolf has told me to pipe down on the trash talkin'. Apparently, he thinks that 'aerial flying feces with wings' (a paraphrase) prevents people from cleansing their brains of 'cloudy thoughts' (another paraphrase) to allow them to think clearly.

He's probably right-- so I am attempting to change the tone of this discussion.


1) More than half of your quotations are implying that I am denying the word 'deploy' is being used. This is incorrect; I know very well that the word deploy is being used.

Rules are interpreted based upon the context of the situation they are being applied, and the context of how 'deploy' is being used is the question!

2) Your quotations do not address the context change of the word deploy---- a) how units are deployed during 'set up' DO NOT MOVE and b) units that are deployed during 'in-game' are MOVING.

This drastically changes the meaning of the word deploy (a difference between a strategic application and a tactical application)---- this what needs to addressed!
The only way to address this issue is understanding the reference frame in 'Organizing a Battle' to give context to the word: deploy.

3) Your quotations did not address the 'reference frame of the board' or clearly identify a different 'reference frame'- all of which are needed to determine the context in which the word 'deploy' is being used.

You are ignoring the context of your quotations--- and this causes them to be incorrect citations.


Citation errors explained:
1) (p92, Note on Secrecy) “…, before starting to deploy their armies,..” This statement gives us a time frame for when to apply the following rules.

p.92 'To keep things fair, you should always allow your opponent to read your force roster after a game. In the same spirit, always make clear to your opponent which squads are embarked in which transport vehicle. However, before starting to deploy their armies, it is a good idea for players to agree whether or not they can read the opponent's force roster before and during the game. Some players prefer full disclosure (which is the norm in tournaments, for example), as they want to concentrate...'
The second sentence has NOTHING to do with a 'time frame' of deploying forces. You and your opponent DISCUSS how you will play your game.

This further backs my argument that the rules are applied differently during 'Organizing a Battle' than the application of rules during 'in-game', and that discussion is constant all the way up to the beginning of the game: 'executing scout moves' and 'seize the initiative' (p.92). Lastly, the language of the paragraph cited is linked with the rest of 'Organizing a Battle' with how you and your opponent's decisions, through discussion, change how you and your opponent use the board (hence the 'reference frame of the board').

2 and 3) (p92, infiltrators and scouts) “In all three types of deployment…” This is indication of when the following rules happen. “…players deploy their forces (APART from any unit LEFT IN RESERVES or that choose …” This is a statement of usage, notice how we are told that the unit deploys OR is left in reserves. “Then they deploy their infiltrators…” Also a statement on usage and the second step in a sequence.

(p92, Pitched battle) “He then deploys his force in his half of the table,…” and “His opponent then deploys in the opposite half.” Both give us an insight in to the definition of ‘deploy’ used in the game. Here deploy means ‘place on the table’. Same for other 2 deployment types.


'In all three types of deployment'---- this is NOT reference to the word 'deploy', this is in reference to the 3 different deployment types in the rulebook on p. 92-93. Second, 'deploy their forces' is with the context of the REFERENCE FRAME OF THE BOARD- which is why reserves are mentioned 'apart from [the board]'.

Pitched battle---- the forces are deployed with the context of the REFERENCE FRAME OF THE BOARD.
Spearhead-----the forces are deployed with the context of the REFERENCE FRAME OF THE BOARD.
Dawn of War----the forces are deployed with the context of the REFERENCE FRAME OF THE BOARD.

4) (p94, preparing reserves) “When deploying their army, players may choose not to deploy one or more units…and instead leave them in reserve.” This starts as a statement of timing, as in when the following rules take place. And then not only are we told we can choose not to perform an action, we are told a replacement for that action. In fact; we are not even told to ‘place’ a unit in reserves, we are told ‘leave’ it there. So you are telling me all units start ‘deployed’ in reserves (even though we are not told this by the rules) and then we ‘deploy’ them again on the table?

p. 94 When DEPLOYING their army, players may CHOOSE not to deploy [ON THE BOARD] one or more of the units in their army and instead leave them in reserve.---- this in the REFERENCE FRAME OF THE BOARD.
Key words here are DEPLOYING THEIR ARMY and CHOOSE and both are referring to the BOARD (the 'Organizing a Battle' reference frame) and the brackets indicate when a 'subject' of a sentence has not been directly stated, but this is the subject being referred to.

During your turn of the Deployment phase, deployment of your forces all happens at the same time -- there is nothing mentioned of a 'time frame' during the Deployment Phase, nor in the entire 'Organizing a Battle' section--- this is distinctly different from 4th (and earlier) editions, where you and your opponent traded off setting up units in a specified order, and this is distinctly different from rules 'in-game' where there is a specific order of operations (ie. activate a unit- move that unit, go to next unit, repeat).

5) (p94, Rolling for Reserves) “…the player picks any one of the units arriving and DEPLOYS it, …” and “Then he picks another unit and deploys it, and so on until all arriving units are on the table.” Further reference to units arriving are deploying and is a direct statement of this fact. Also gives us another reference to the definition of ‘deploy’, the same as before ‘on the table’.

The meaning of deploy HAS CHANGED from 'set-up' to 'in-game'---- you have NOT addressed this--- read the rest of the section: the units are MOVING! During 'set-up' DEPLOYING has NOTHING to do with MOVING.

6) (p94, Arriving from reserves) “If a unit cannot be deployed(…)or the player decides to keep it in reserves,…” Proof that ‘in reserves’ and ‘deployed’ are 2 separate actions and one does equal the other.

"Certain rare units are permanently immobile. If a unit like this cannot be deployed (for example in the Dawn of War deployment), or the player decides to keep it in reserve, it will enter the game by deep strike. This represents the immobile unit being airdropped or teleported into battle." p.94

Context:
This rule is an EXCEPTION to the normal reserve rules--- if the rules did NOT state this, and, for example, 'Dawn of War' (p.93) was selected as the deployment type (during the Deployment Phase p.86, 92-94), your unit could never come in due to being IMMOBILE and all reserves coming in MOVE (p. 94).
This rule directly applies to the Drop Pod (p. 69 C:SM), an immobile unit, and is consistent with exception to the Combat Squad Rules: allowing a unit in a Drop Pod to Combat Squad as the unit disembarks (p.51 C:SM).
All of this reinforces the link between the 'reference frame of the board' and the changing meanings of 'deploy' between 'set-up' and 'in-game'. This is the rules exception that is the only time during 'in-game' that the word deploy goes back to the 'set-up' meaning, because 'immobile' units cannot 'move'.

7) (p95, Deep Strike) “ Roll for arrival of these units as specified in the rules for reserves and then deploy them as follows.” Proof arriving from reserves is deployed.”

The meaning of deploy has changed: these units are 'moving'
Where as 'set-up' deployment is mutually exclusive to moving, and 'in-game' deploying is dependent on moving.

8) (p95, Deep Strike mishaps) “…unit cannot be deployed because…” More proof arriving from reserves is deploying.

I am not disputing that the word deploy is being used, I am disputing your context and how this is cited: a) the definition of deploy has changed from unit being stationary to one moving- there are two different definitions for deploy being used (p.94), and b) the specific reference on p. 95 involves MOVING into Impassable Terrain which CANNOT be done due to the MOVING rules (p.14).


Conclusion:

Change of context = change of meaning----> Change of meaning = change of mechanics.
Special rules only apply to one trigger mechanic, not multiple-- this is demonstrated with every special rule in the rulebook and codexes through the order of operations.
(ie: if A happens- do X, if B happens- do Y, if C happens-do Z).

When one applies the 'reference frame of the board' (demonstrated throughout 'Organizing a Battle') to the word 'deploy', 'deploy' takes on the strategic definition (to distribute persons or forces systematically or strategically, to arrange in a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately), which also includes the rulebook's definition of 'reserves': "Reserves are forces in the same sector as the units on the battlefield who can be called in to reinforces them at relatively short notice" (p.94). QED (which was to be demonstrated) that reserves = deploying.

Moving (p.11-14) is synonymous to the tactical definition of the word 'deploy' (to spread out troops so as to form an extended front or line, to put into use or action). When one rolls for reserve during 'in-game' the word 'deploy' is linked to 'moving'. QED: 'In-Game' Deploy (rolling for/arriving from reserves) takes on the tactical version of the word, which is mechanically linked to rulebook pages 11-14.

Codex Space Marines:
Combat Squads only has one 'rulebook' key word: deployment.
Nothing in the combat squads rule is linked to moving (with the exception of the Drop Pod--see #6 in the citations of this post for of an understanding of the mechanics).
Since the 'in-game' word 'deploy' is linked to moving, this is an inappropriate use for the trigger of the Combat Squads rule, because Combat Squads does not involve moving.
'Reserves' and 'forces on the board', are linked to the strategic definition of 'deploy', which does not involve moving- this is the most appropriate trigger for the Combat Squad rule.
Since this is all happening during deployment phase, and there is no 'time frame' for deploying forces (ie, everything is deployed at the same time), all other deployment rules apply (ie FOC slots for multiple units = independent units, declaring how all units are being used, ect.).

[hisdudeness]

I am not implying that you are denying the use of deploy, I am clearly stating that you are changing the meaning of deploy when the rules do not tell us we can do this. That means you are changing the rule. Even if there is a context change, it will not change the mechanics of the rule. You have given no proof to the contrary. The rules tell us what we can and cannot do; I have not seen anything that tells us we can change the rules in the manor you claim. That is change the meaning of ‘deploy’ to not trigger a special rule. Combat Squad is triggered when the unit deploys, but you add “but only in the proper defined use of deploy.” I do not see this qualifier, either implied or stated, in the rules.

I have clearly shown what the intended definition of the ‘deploy’ is. Your continued claims that the meaning changes and thus the mechanics change is completely unsupported. That is the foundation of your argument, from what I gather, and is supported by an interpretation that also is not supported by the rules. IMO, you have dug way down deep with an un-provable interpretation (thus making it impossible to disprove) to claim the changing of a printed rule.

The context ‘the board’ is an interpretation and one you support by citing the entire section. I have read the section and do not get that context. You have gvien me no proof that this is even the correct context to be using. Maybe if you showed me another instance where the context changes the rules I might be able see you point.

[Tynskel]

"I am not implying that you are denying the use of deploy, I am clearly stating that you are changing the meaning of deploy when the rules do not tell us we can do this."


1) I am NOT changing the meaning of the word deploy: p. 92-94 'DEPLOY' is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE of 'MOVING'. p. 94 (rolling for/arrival of reserves) Deploy is DIRECTLY DEPENDENT with MOVING. How am I changing the rule when the rulebook has changed the meaning of the word!

"That is the foundation of your argument, from what I gather, and is supported by an interpretation that also is not supported by the rules. IMO, you have dug way down deep with an un-provable interpretation (thus making it impossible to disprove) to claim the changing of a printed rule. "

2) I have cited specific examples of how the context of 'Organizing a Battle' is of the board- recently, I have been citing the entire section, because the entire section does refer to the board.

I stated:
Point values are dependent on the board (p.86 paragraph 2-3, p. 87 paragraph 8, p. 88 paragraph 1-2)
Army design is dependent on the board (small games are widely different than big games) (p.86 paragraph 2, p. 87 paragraph 4-5, 8, 9, p.88 paragraph 1-2)
Terrain definition and amount of terrain all depends on the board. (p. 88-89)
Mission objectives are NOT randomly set up, they are determined by the conditions of the board. (p. 90 paragraph 5-7, p. 91 seize ground, capture and control). Furthermore, most tournaments almost always have every single mission involve objectives on the board.
Your deployment of your forces is in relationship to the board design- even deployment types divide up the board. (p.92 inset: pitched battle, paragraphs 1-5, p.93 inset: spearhead and Dawn of War, p. 94 reserves.)

All of these examples demonstrate a reference frame of the board--- I have stated this many times. This is Provable- you can read the manual and see the book does state everyone of these facts: some of them with PICTURES as EXAMPLES!
I do not understand how you can state that I 'dug way down deep with an un-provable interpretation' when I am citing examples from the book! I should not have to spoon feed this information to you.

"I have clearly shown what the intended definition of the ‘deploy’ is. Your continued claims that the meaning changes and thus the mechanics change is completely unsupported."


3) You have NOT shown what the intended definition of 'deploy' is. I have demonstrated that every single one of your quotations were taken out of context and were not referring to what you think they were referring to.





You have NOT cited ONE thing that has countered my argument.
I have told you, in the past, HOW to debunk my argument. You have not gone and found evidence that does.
Every quotation you have used, I have shown why it is a WRONG application of a quotation. I have even gone into detail explaining how it was taken out of context, and cited how the quotation is related to different sections of the text, demonstrating how to properly cite a source.
This LAST post of yours has NOTHING in it to back up your claims.


Hypothesis: Deploy changes meanings in the rulebook, and the meaning changes the mechanics of the game.

A good hypothesis is fallible-- one that can be tested against.

Test #1 does the word change meanings.
Deploy 'set-up' is NOT linked (p.92-94) to moving, but is directly linked to a strategic definition (p.86-94), which includes the rulebook definition of reserves, as well. Deploy reserves 'in-game' is directly linked to moving rules (p.94-95, p.11-14), a tactical definition. There is one exception: immobile units. (p.94) which is directly linked back to the 'set-up' version of deploy.

Test #2 changing meanings change mechanics of the game.
Combat squads keyword is deploy. No link is made to moving units. The rules could have stated that this includes entering in from reserves--- which would give the rule BOTH strategic and tactical definitions-- debunking test #2. Instead, the only link to moving is included when referring to the Drop Pod, an immobile unit, which is in-line with the exception of tactical deploy.
RAW comes into play- there is no direct mention of moving, and therefore the word deploy inherently has a strategic definition.

[hisdudeness]

Point values are not dependent board size, where do you get that idea. There is a suggestion that some board sizes offer a better playing experience for the new player at a suggested point limit. This is in no way a rule but information for new players. I have played 3000pt games on 4x4 tables, had no problems.

Army design has nothing to do with the board. The standard missions and deployment types are the driving force behind list construction. The closes this comes is the type of game played (Apoc, City fight, etc.) as the terrain can make some units cumbersome, but in no way limits what unit can be taken.

Terrain and amount are dictated by the players not the board. The limits/definitions are suggestions for new players.

Mission objectives? Dictated by the mission type pure and simple. Yes, most tournaments do not play Annihilation. This is due to the fact that most tournaments are timed and it is much easier/faster to count objectives instead of KP. It also makes the list size (in terms of number of KP, which are rarely equal between players) a moot point in terms of fairness.

The ‘board’ does not limit any of the above. Where do you get this stuff? It may steer people to certain list ‘builds’ as they are better suited for the mission/objectives, but there is no limit.

Look, you can try to deny the accepted definition of ‘deploy’ as ‘place on the table' or not. It does not change the fact that you are incorrect. This has also been supported by 2 separate instances. Your idea of context does not change the rule.

It is simple and does not require and advance degree to understand:
Combat squad it triggered when the RULES (not context, narrative, or comprehension as these are purely subjective ideas) tells us a unit deploys. The rules tell us unit deploys when it arrives from reserves. Clear as day printed in the BRB:



arriving from reserves = unit deploys=unit may combat squad.

To claim this is not true is equal to changing the rules.

As I have finals next week I am pretty much ending my part in this. I believe there is enough information for the readers to decide on their own and most have most likely tuned us out 3-4 pages back.

[Eusebius Rex]

As I have finals next week I am pretty much ending my part in this. I believe there is enough information for the readers to decide on their own and most have most likely tuned us out 3-4 pages back.

Yeah, I gotta say, I think I am the only one reading this topic anymore :)

Drumroll please - BRATBATBTABTBABTBABAABBBAT

and the winner is:


arriving from reserves = unit deploys=unit may combat squad

That makes the most sense to me both the way the rules are written and because is it just a more simpler game mechanic that way. But really, when can this thread be locked?

[The Mystic]

I think at this point this thread should be locked.

It is clear to me that this situation will not be resolved and that both sides will play as they see fit until it is offically Faq'd.

As for my opinion, after following the entire thread, I would have to agree with hisdudeness.

I understand your arguement Tynskel ( I think) but I do question whether GW intended the mechanic of "Deploy" to function in the way you have interprated. It seems unnessarally complex for a rule system that is designed to be used for people from the age of 12.

Anyway, thanks to both sides for an interesting debate. ;)

[Tynskel]

you could play 3000 point games on a 4x4 game, but the book suggests that 4x8-- that's the fact- the book suggests that your point values are dependent on your board size.

when designing an army, if you know your board has a lot of terrain, you choose appropriately, if you know your board is large, you are inclined to pick faster units, units that deep strike, and outflankers, if you know your board is small you are less inclined to pick the fast units, because the slower units can get the job done. If you know the board is small, and for some weird reason the point values are high you will be less inclined to use deep strikers, because there will be no space on the board for them to go.

When you go to a tournament- you should ASK these simple questions- is there a lot of terrain, how big is the board size- and these will determine a major portion of your army design. Board size is inferred by the point values, because the book tells you to play a certain size game on a certain sized board.

All of this is in relation to the board.

Terrain, at tournaments, is already dictated for you (it is part of the board), but when you are selecting terrain, you and your opponent are making decisions about terrain in relationship to the board size!

This is in relation to the board.

Mission objectives are 'dictated' by the type, yes--- BUUUUUUUT where you put the objectives on the board is dependent on the board layout- where bunkers are, where buildings and forests are, how close they are to the board edge, how big is the board. If a few objectives have been placed in terrain, does putting this effect your decision to place one in the open. All of this is in relationship to the board.

This is in relation to the board.

Then deployment--- all deployment types modify the board- and choosing 'which side' after the roll off is dependent completely on which 'side' will give you or your opponent an advantage.

This is in relation to the board.



You keep saying "Combat squad it triggered when the RULES (not context, narrative, or comprehension as these are purely subjective ideas) tells us a unit deploys. The rules tell us unit deploys when it arrives from reserves. Clear as day printed in the BRB"

But I keep telling you that RULES are interpreted dependent on their context! Deploy changes context-- the rule, by definition, changes as well!

no one blindly follows rules (except for maybe in the military- and even then, I doubt that.)--- people look at the context of what the rule is suggesting and decide how to interpret the rule.

You are making a 'rules as intended' decision-- you are saying that the authors use the same word so it must mean the same thing. However, this is NOT the case, because 1) Deploy is not defined by the rulebook, and 2) the context of the book changes the word 'deploy' is used: for rules as written, deploy changes meaning, deploy changes rules.

I keep explaining to you--- you have not refuted that the word deploy changes meaning: When activating your reserves, you 'deploy by moving' these are inherently linked to the rules on p.11-14. While you deploy during deployment phase, moving is mutually exclusive of deploy. When you read the definitions of the two, one is tactical (moving) and one is strategic (stationary). The stationary definition of deploy includes the rulebook's definition of reserves!

This is a RAW interpretation.

These are two different approaches to playing the game. The problem with 'rules as intended' is when does the 'intention' stop? When does 'rules as intended' stop being a useful tool and becomes a tool used for abusing your opponent.

There is a reason people play 'rules as written', because it is much more difficult for your opponent to abuse the rules (there are some exceptions).




As for people reading the post----

This argument has boiled down to 'rules as intended' (RAI) vs 'rules as written' (RAW) argument.

One side- 'rules as intended'- The author used the word deploy, and therefore they mean the same thing every time the word is used. With the same use of the word 'deploy' every time, combat squads is used at the point the word 'deploy' is mentioned in the rulebook.

Other side- 'rules as written'- The author used the word 'deploy' undefined, the context determines that 'deploy' means two things: Deploy in relation to moving (second half of p. 94), and Deploy in relation to stationary (p.92 through first half of 94). Deploy by moving: the definition includes the rulebook moving rules (p.11-14). Deploy as stationary the definition includes the rulebook's definition of reserves (p.94). Since the word 'deploy' means two different things, combat squads rule uses the stationary meaning of 'deploy' due to no mention of moving in the combat squad rule (p.51 C:SM).

[Tynskel]

I think at this point this thread should be locked.

It is clear to me that this situation will not be resolved and that both sides will play as they see fit until it is offically Faq'd.

As for my opinion, after following the entire thread, I would have to agree with hisdudeness.

I understand your arguement Tynskel ( I think) but I do question whether GW intended the mechanic of "Deploy" to function in the way you have interprated. It seems unnessarally complex for a rule system that is designed to be used for people from the age of 12.

Anyway, thanks to both sides for an interesting debate. ;)

Sure, you see the 'rule as intended'. (but I don't think 40k is aimed only at 12 year olds).

I just rarely use rules as intended unless there is a clear precedent for doing so.

(like, for example- the demolisher shell on the BA vindicator, by itself, looks like non-blast, but when you include the author wrote the same thing for C:SM and this was FAQ, RAI applies).

[Tynskel]

I do find this a silly idea to lock this thread.

The topic has not changed.

If the thread gets locked, it will fade into oblivion of the tubes (taking up space like a dump truck), and in a few months the argument gets started all over again. What's the point of that?

[Eusebius Rex]

Sure, OK, you're right.

[The Mystic]

Simply because this will remain unresolved.

I do not think this is an arguement of RAI vs RAW either. Just different interpretations of the RAW.

One side using the descriptive text surrounding the word to define the mechanic

One side using the words defination to define the mechanic within the context they percieve.

Neither can be proven wrong so neither will ever be right.

Imoveable object vs the unstoppable force.

[Tynskel]

Simply because this will remain unresolved.

I do not think this is an arguement of RAI vs RAW either. Just different interpretations of the RAW.

One side using the descriptive text surrounding the word to define the mechanic

One side using the words defination to define the mechanic within the context they percieve.

Neither can be proven wrong so neither will ever be right.

Imoveable object vs the unstoppable force.

You are making no sense--- one side is using the descriptive text? one side is using the word's definition with the context they perceive?

That is the same thing. Rules are interpreted based upon the context they are written.


One side has been proven wrong--- by the rules of language, you interpret what is being said through the context of what is being said.

There is no definition of the word 'deploy' by the rulebook.
That is why 'rules as written' is the 'deploy' taken in context.--- look at the word 'move' this word is NOT defined by the rulebook, and there are over 30 definitions of the word 'move' in the dictionary. What allows us to determine which definition is the correct use is the context, the 'rules are written' (wow, would you look at that: RAW). The rulebook, every single time, uses the same context for move. However, the context of 'deploy' directly changes between Deployment Phase and 'in-game' use. Deployment Phase is mutually exclusive of moving, while 'in-game' deploy and moving are linked. Two WILDLY different uses of a single word---- alllllll within 3 pages. (as opposed to dozens and dozens of uses of the word 'move').



That is why 'rules as intended' is "that 'deploy' never changes meaning"-- this does not follow the text at all. When you apply the single definition to both reserves being called and the deployment phase-- the single definition don't make sense together with the context.

[Eusebius Rex]

arriving from reserves = unit deploys = unit may combat squad

[Tynskel]

arriving from reserves = unit deploys = unit may combat squad

And why? what is your justification?

There is no RULE that states this equality that you are CREATING.

Demonstrate, please!

I have used the rulebook to show how this is wrong (RAW) read about 10 posts back.


You need to use the rulebook to show how your interpretation is right.

[Eusebius Rex]

And why? what is your justification?

There is no RULE that states this equality that you are CREATING.

Demonstrate, please!

I have used the rulebook to show how this is wrong (RAW) read about 10 posts back.


You need to use the rulebook to show how your interpretation is right.

I read, I disagreed, I win. You should probably read the rulebook and Hisdudeness's post, cause you still don't get it. I will go back to my regularily scheduled life.


arriving from reserves = unit deploys=unit may combat squad

:D

[Tynskel]

I read, I disagreed, I win. You should probably read the rulebook and Hisdudeness's post, cause you still don't get it. I will go back to my regularily scheduled life.



:D

hahhahahahhah!

That's stupid- because I have cited many many many many examples throughout this thread.
And yet- the only defense is "that's not how I read it"-- with no support.

'oh, deploy only means one thing because the rulebook uses the word more than once.'

BoW video about Lightning Claws-- 'oh, my thunder hammer gets to re-roll to wound because I have a lightning claw.' Sorry, no--- rules have orders of operations and have context- Darrel clearly cited without context and is misusing the rule as a result.

You guys are doing the same thing!

Prove it. Show me the 'money'.

[Eusebius Rex]

I just don't think you get it. Its ok, but your arguement was off. Reread post that weren't yours... rather read them the first time.

Oh, and this summer, you won't be a real doctor.

[Tynskel]

hahhahaha
you don't get it. Maybe you should go back to school and learn how to read.
For example: I never said I was going to be a doctor.


I made clear links between language written and context for the word deploy.

Once again, you are not citing anything and just saying that I am wrong.


That's not how rules debate works, silly silly man.


Here, I'll give you some time to actually come up with a real argument. I am going sailing and won't be back until sunday evening. In three days you should be able to read 95 pages of rules and find SOMETHING that can support your statement.

[Eusebius Rex]

Once again, you are not citing anything and just saying that I am wrong.

Once again, I am saying that I don't need to state anything new becuase it has all been stated in previous posts on this thread. You are wrong, and now we're just deciding who the biggest troll is.

Remember to walk the plank!

[Tynskel]

I have shown how 'your' previous examples have taken rulebook quotations out of the context they were written, and misused them to prove a point. These are incorrect citations (I often demonstrated that they have nothing to do with the argument) and I have shown how they do not support that use of the word 'deploy'.

RAW
Combat Squads uses the Keyword: Deploy
Deploy is undefined by the Rulebook- must use context of the word to derive the meaning.

p.92-93 Deploy is mutually exclusive of moving
Cross Reference with Definition of Deploy: Strategic Version

p.94 Deploy is linked to Moving (p.11-14) during the calling in of reserves.
Cross Reference with Definition of Deploy: Tactical Version
p.94 immobile units are an exception to the tactical version of deploy- reverting to the strategic version.

Two different definitions, two different meanings, two different rules.
Reference Frame and other rulebook clues to back up the strategic definition:
p.86-93 Reference Frame is the board.
p.94 Rulebook Definition of Reserves is directly related to the Strategic Definition of Deploy, not the Tactical Definition.

p. 51 C:SM, Combat Squads has no reference to moving, except for the Drop Pod. Drop Pod rules are coherent with the exception for Immobile Units on p.94. Combat squads' keyword: deploy is in reference to the Strategic Definition, due to no reference to moving, ie Moving and Deploy are mutually exclusive.

The Strategic definition of Deploy includes reserves, all deployment occurs during Deployment Phase of the game (p.86, 92-94). Combat Squads occurs during Deployment Phase.



I have clearly laid out how the rulebook uses the word 'Deploy'. Unless a keyword is defined by the rulebook (for example: units), the word must be defined with the context of how it is being used (for example: move).

[hisdudeness]

And I have shown how the context gives us the widely accepted definition of deploy as ‘place on the table’. (If you doubt this, throw up a poll thread.) You are one of a few that is suggesting the quotes are ‘used incorrectly’ and refuse to see that you are incorrect in your interpretation. But you are free to pay as you want, but this rules forum is for people who wish to play the game as it is most commonly played.

You have tried to lecture me on rules debating, so I will return the favor. Know your audience and keep your points simple. You have not clearly laid out your view in a manner that the majority of the readers understand what you are saying. You also tried to change two fundamental ideas of the game 1) you tried to change the accepted mechanic of ‘deploy’ and 2) tried to argue against the idea that sometimes what the rule is literally saying is the ‘correct’ interpretation.

This has been quite enjoyable, to include the frustrating times; and look forward to further meetings on the forum battlefield. The moral of the last 213 posts is this: some people just really want to see a zebra.

[Tynskel]

But you didn't show that your context for the 'widely' accepted definition of deploy. I showed how you incorrectly cited almost everything. It is never a bad time to learn how to correctly cite things- your arguments become much stronger in the long run.

My last post was quite simple- you are right- know your audience-- which I do know them: my audience does not cite things correctly. This is what causes almost all of the rules arguments and questions on the forum, which is why you often seeing me correcting them on the forums.

This forum would practically be non-existent if people correctly cited rules properly.


I also didn't try to go against the 'accepted' meaning of deploy--- I have been to many tournaments, and all of them use 'deploy' the way I have been playing 'deploy'.

[EnglishInquisition]

Smug, smug, smug!
Having had not one, but two conversations, independant of each other, with a couple of friends who work for GW head office recently, I'm happy that combat squads are declared and split in the "deployment phase". With one of those people being a GT judge, I'm more than happy that his take on the rule is as it should be.
I know that this will be trounced, and shouted down as heresay, and not rules as written, but I'll play rules as INTENDED any day of the week and twice on Sunday!

This could be dragging up old and buried issues but this has been the single most annoying thread I've ever followed.

[hisdudeness]

Here are the problems English:

1) The answers you received from the employees are options and in no way prove the intent of the rule. They are no more proof of a ruling than asking an employee at any other store/office of GW. Frankly, we have no idea who these friends are and they could be janitors for all we know.

2) As all rules issues could never be covered in a FAQ/errata there is no definitive answer to most questions. A judge does nothing more than interpret the rules based on his experience (and published material) to move the game along. I’ve seen different answers to the same issue at the same tournament from 2 different judges. Has your judge friend run this issue and his answer across someone with knowledge of the intent? Has he played with the design team and seen combat squads played the way he interprets the rule?

I am not knocking your friends or their judgment, but they have no more authority than calling the GW ‘help’ line. And thus the responses should be taken for what it is worth. And yes, this has been the most annoying thread ever.

[DarkLink]

I read, I disagreed, I win.

Not that it has much to do with this thread, but this is absolutely horrible logic.

[Tynskel]

Smug, smug, smug!
Having had not one, but two conversations, independant of each other, with a couple of friends who work for GW head office recently, I'm happy that combat squads are declared and split in the "deployment phase". With one of those people being a GT judge, I'm more than happy that his take on the rule is as it should be.
I know that this will be trounced, and shouted down as heresay, and not rules as written, but I'll play rules as INTENDED any day of the week and twice on Sunday!

This could be dragging up old and buried issues but this has been the single most annoying thread I've ever followed.

The justifications that I have used are 'Rules As Written'. I used the context of the book to define 'undefined terms' based upon sentence usage and known definitions in the dictionary. This is the same use that your GW friends and Judges use, not to mention, every tournament that I have been to (which has been up n' down the West Coast US).

This is where the other argument falls apart--- The word 'deploy' has an inconsistent context, yet the other camp states that the word does not change meaning. This is following the direct meaning of 'Rules as Intended' (which 'RAI' and 'RAW' does not follow the dictionary definition, they mean the same thing---- maybe that's why people have trouble with all of this).

[SeattleDV8]

Of course you all know that Culven had the correct answer on page 1 and 2?
Units are not always 'deployed' in the Deployment Phase.
BRB pg. 94 "....players may choose not to deploy one or more of the units in their army and instead leave them in reserve."
Rolling for reserves ".....the player picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it, ...."
BRB pg 95 Deep Strike "Roll for the arrival of these units as specified in the rules for reserves and then deploy them as follows."
BRB pg. 93 Dawn of War " All Units that were not deployed and were not declared to be in reserves during depolyment......"
BRB pg 92 Infiltrators and Scouts "First the players deploy their forces ( apart from any unit left in reserve......"

Notice that units are never ]'depolyed' into reserves they are ' placed' or 'declared'.
Any time a unit is put onto the table they are 'depolyed'.
The Depolyment Phase is where most units are depolyed but not all of them.

Tynsel sorry but "I used the context of the book to define 'undefined terms' based upon sentence usage and known definitions in the dictionary."
Anytime you have to use the dictionary to debate GW rules you are generally on the wrong track.
In the context of GW rules depoly means putting the models on the table.

[Tynskel]

Of course you all know that Culven had the correct answer on page 1 and 2?
Units are not always 'deployed' in the Deployment Phase.
BRB pg. 94 "....players may choose not to deploy one or more of the units in their army and instead leave them in reserve."
Rolling for reserves ".....the player picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it, ...."
BRB pg 95 Deep Strike "Roll for the arrival of these units as specified in the rules for reserves and then deploy them as follows."
BRB pg. 93 Dawn of War " All Units that were not deployed and were not declared to be in reserves during depolyment......"
BRB pg 92 Infiltrators and Scouts "First the players deploy their forces ( apart from any unit left in reserve......"

Notice that units are never ]'depolyed' into reserves they are ' placed' or 'declared'.
Any time a unit is put onto the table they are 'depolyed'.
The Depolyment Phase is where most units are depolyed but not all of them.

Tynsel sorry but "I used the context of the book to define 'undefined terms' based upon sentence usage and known definitions in the dictionary."
Anytime you have to use the dictionary to debate GW rules you are generally on the wrong track.
In the context of GW rules depoly means putting the models on the table.


You need to read the other posts. I went through that entire section and explained how the word choice changes, what the definition of reserves are, and how the word deploy is used differently between 'in-game' and 'pre-game'. Also note, that you are using incorrect citations. You are not considering the surrounding paragraphs of your cite--- you are selecting specific phrases, not entire sentences/paragraphs to support your argument. All rules are written with a context--- you must cite the context to cite a rule.

GW did NOT define the word 'deploy'-- Usually GW does define words (ex 'range' on p.3), or, if they didn't, the book uses the same sentence structure every time the word is used (ex. word 'move'-- this word has 20+ Definitions, but GW manages to use the same one every time it is used.)

'Deploy' changes meaning between 'in-game' and 'pre-game'.
Pre-game: Deploy does not include moving.
In-Game: Deploy (from reserves) is moving.
These two words have completely different meanings. They are completely different uses. Also, note the exception on p.94 for 'immobile units'--- they follow the 'pre-game' rules for deployment--- and this is consistent with the 'Drop Pod' rules--- which is why you can combat squad out of a drop pod.

[hisdudeness]

'Deploy' changes meaning between 'in-game' and 'pre-game'.
Pre-game: Deploy does not include moving.
In-Game: Deploy (from reserves) is moving.
These two words have completely different meanings. They are completely different uses. Also, note the exception on p.94 for 'immobile units'--- they follow the 'pre-game' rules for deployment--- and this is consistent with the 'Drop Pod' rules--- which is why you can combat squad out of a drop pod.

Except nowhere in the BRB are we told your chosen definitions are the correct ones. Nowhere are we told your interpretations of the context at each phase the correct context. You have a completely improvable and subjective foundation to your view. Which in the area of 40k rules, makes your view incorrect.

I and others have used the rules to prove our view, while you have chosen outside sources. RAW trumps outside sources and subjective foundations any day of the week.

I really think readers have more than enough information in this thread to find a pretty good educated answer. I do not believe anything new will come to light with further posts. Can we just kill it?

[Tynskel]

uh... where do you define your words? Out of the 40,000 words in the rulebook (GW announced this number when it came out) less than 1% of the words are defined by the rulebook.

Less than 1%--- So, BY FAR, you are incorrect in your assumptions about not using outside definitions and the context of the rules to choose the appropriate definitions. You HAVE to use outside definition and context to be able to use 99% of the rulebook.

I wasn't using outside sources to prove my view---- I was using the context of the rules to prove my viewpoint. I didn't go to 'Battletech' to find out what 'Deploy' means--- I went to a dictionary---- something you MUST have to be able to read ANYTHING.

You keep stating you are 'RAW' but you are making up the definition of 'deploy'--- you don't use the context of the rules at all! That is RAI!

[SeattleDV8]

Actually it is you who are adding things to the rules Tynskel.
The word 'deploy' is always used in the rules to show when a unit is placed on the table.
This can be in the deployment Phase when models are placed in the Deployment Zone.
This can also be when models Deep Strike, Outflank or move on from the board edge from reserves.
Yes there are different ways to 'deploy' but all of them have the same basic meaning in the context of the rules.
This is when units are placed on the table.
That's it, not the 101 different meanings from the dictionary, and the silly assumptions you are making.
Each and even time 'deploy' is used the same thing is being done.
You are overthinking this and Your answer is not RAW.

[synack]

At my club and my local tournies, we all play it that you can deep strike and combat squad. No one has a problem with it and they all read the rules saying you can.

[EnglishInquisition]

Here are the problems English:

1) The answers you received from the employees are options and in no way prove the intent of the rule. They are no more proof of a ruling than asking an employee at any other store/office of GW. Frankly, we have no idea who these friends are and they could be janitors for all we know.

2) As all rules issues could never be covered in a FAQ/errata there is no definitive answer to most questions. A judge does nothing more than interpret the rules based on his experience (and published material) to move the game along. I’ve seen different answers to the same issue at the same tournament from 2 different judges. Has your judge friend run this issue and his answer across someone with knowledge of the intent? Has he played with the design team and seen combat squads played the way he interprets the rule?

I am not knocking your friends or their judgment, but they have no more authority than calling the GW ‘help’ line. And thus the responses should be taken for what it is worth. And yes, this has been the most annoying thread ever.

1- they are definately not janitors!
2- both friends regularly play with the design team, and as a judge at the UK GT, you generally have to give a judgement that is coherent with both rules as written and rules as intended.

The problem is that people don't want to surrender a position or advantage in games terms, and will defend and hold onto that advantage until GW provide an errata or FAQ. That's their perogative of course.

[Tynskel]

Actually it is you who are adding things to the rules Tynskel.
The word 'deploy' is always used in the rules to show when a unit is placed on the table.
This can be in the deployment Phase when models are placed in the Deployment Zone.
This can also be when models Deep Strike, Outflank or move on from the board edge from reserves.
Yes there are different ways to 'deploy' but all of them have the same basic meaning in the context of the rules.
This is when units are placed on the table.
That's it, not the 101 different meanings from the dictionary, and the silly assumptions you are making.
Each and even time 'deploy' is used the same thing is being done.
You are overthinking this and Your answer is not RAW.

I am not adding things to the rules--- this is how the are Written!

You need to look up the definition of deploy--- Completely different meanings when you include the context of the rulebook.

The same thing is NOT being done when you deploy 'in-game' and 'pre-game'. Read the context of the rule. Read the definition of 'deploy'. By our Language Standards--- you use the definition that is the correct use for the context of the sentence. This goes for ALL reading of the ENTIRE rulebook. This changes when the rulebook DEFINES a word for you-- then you use the rulebook definition---- but deploy is UNDEFINED.

Pre-game--- strategic definition--- I am not going to explain again--- read the earlier posts.
In-game---- Tactical Definition. (here's a hint--- one has to do with moving, the other does not!)

Combat Squads is a Strategic use of the word deploy--- ie. there is NOTHING to do with moving when using the combat squad rule.

The exception is Drop Pods---- but the 'in-game' deploy variation has an exception for 'immobile vehicles', of which the Drop Pod is one. The use of deploy and combat squads with a drop pod is completely consistent with the exception on p.94.

[hisdudeness]

@ Tynskel

Again, nowhere are we told that your chosen definition is the correct one. You are subjectively deciding which definition you would like to use based on how you want to play the game, without any reference to the rules.

My (and just about everyone but you and English) context: BRB, p92, Pitched battle deployment type call out, second paragraph- “The player that goes first then chooses one of the long table edges to be his own table edge. He then DEPOLYS his force in his half of the table,…” I get the context that the authors intended is to ‘place the little plastic army models on the table’. We are given a word-“deploy” and the action intended for this word- “place models in deployment zone” whenever we see this word further within the rules. There is no need to dig up a dictionary to figure out what is meant by “deploy” in the scope of the game. This is the same for the other 2 deployment types and I suspect is the same for the Planetstrike and Battle Missions deployment types as well.

Thus when, on page 94; when we are told “…,players may chose NOT to deploy one or more units in there army and INSTEAD leave then in reserve.” I read “…players may choose NOT to [place models in the deployment zone] and INSTEAD leave them in reserves.” It is funny how I did not even need to leave the BRB to figure out what the rule means.

There are so many places in the Organizing a Battle chapter that deploy and reserves are used in the above way. Were they are written as separate actions and in no place are they written to be the same.


@English:

This is not an advantage any more than any other rule is an advantage. There are no ‘broken’/‘overpowered’ units or rules, just broken minds on how to handle a change in the flow of the game. Everything in the game has a counter, but not everyone is savvy enough to realize it. When they can’t figure out a counter (or do not like the counter because it changes the min/maxed nature of their list) they fall back to the ‘broken’ excuse.

Plan as day guy, players may choose to not deploy and instead hold units in reserves. Very simple 8th grade level sentence. To read this as the player may choose to deploy the unit into reserves is an epic fail in reading the English language and a complete and obvious ignoring of the word ‘instead’. Maybe you 2 need to use your dictionary to define that word also.

Again, the options of your friends hold as much standing as the new hire at the local GW store. I was trying to be nice about it, but the word from GW employees is complete rubbish in the context of rules debates. So please stop tryingto use them to prove your point. This is at least the second time in this thread you have tried to use a GW employee to prove your point and the second time it has been explained that GW employees are not valid sources. Please refrain from further attempts as you will be mocked if you do not.

[synack]

I know a guy, that knows a guy, who has s sister, who scored a guy, who plays with a play tester of GW and he says you can Deepstrike and outflank.

See what I did there?

[EnglishInquisition]

I know a guy, that knows a guy, who has s sister, who scored a guy, who plays with a play tester of GW and he says you can Deepstrike and outflank.

See what I did there?

Extrapolated a rule so that it isn't what it is intended to be?
Oh no, it was just a poor attempt to bring my post into disrepute and try to hold up your own position by belittling my own!

Just wait for the FAQ and laugh it up then! :D

[EnglishInquisition]

@English:

This is at least the second time in this thread you have tried to use a GW employee to prove your point and the second time it has been explained that GW employees are not valid sources. Please refrain from further attempts as you will be mocked if you do not.

Just an attempt to shine a little light onto a debate that is going in circles. When you get a clarification like the one I did you cannot help but share it. Like i said in the post though - it would just be scorned as hearsay, and I can understand that attitude.

Please don't tell what to and what not to post under the threat of ridicule! Mock me if you like, but remember to apologise when the FAQ comes out.

[hisdudeness]

How do you know the rule is not what it is intended to be? Show some proof. And this time try to use something other than hearsay. Saying, “That I have some friends that that work for GW that told me that when they play with the design team -my way is the way that is played” means nothing. Besides being hearsay it is completely un-provable and thus hurts your argument more than it helps as it shows that you do not have anything else. Trying citing a provable source to support your view.

No one is trying to belittle your post because it is not needed. As suggested somewhere around post 40, do a little research and you will see that GW employees are not an accepted source for any rule debate forum I have read. Not only because of the documented inconsistency of answers from GW employees but because it cannot be proven either way.

I understand you were sharing information, but you also presented it a proof to the validity of your view. As such it is the job of those that do not share your view to show you how weak this proof is and that just about everyone that frequents the rules forums will just laugh at the idea that someone is using a reply from GW as proof. You may be correct that someday a FAQ will come along (don't hold your breath) and prove me wrong. When that happens (if I am still playing and on these boards) I will be one of the first to post a link to the correct answer. It is my intent is to find the correct answer to how to play the game, not find the answer I like.

Your view is completely centered around Tynskel’s idea of subjective interpretation. My view is backed by the rules in the book and the simple sentence of chose to not do something and instead do something else. No amount of ‘context’ will change the meaning of that sentence.

Again, because it seems to not be sinking in, where in the rules are we told the meaning (and thus the game effect) changes based on the phase? Heck, I will make it easier, just find a rule that we are told the meaning (and game effect) even changes. I see no place, so that means Tynskel is subjectively changing the meaning (and game effect) without being told to do so. Thus Tynskel is adding rules to the game.

[DarkLink]

The majority of GW employees might not be reliable sources, at least not any moreso than anyone else in the hobby, but some are if they rank high enough. Meaning there is no reason to dismiss out of hand his statement because of the source.

And hisdudeness, there's no need to be so rude and attack him for just mentioning something he thought was helpful.

[hisdudeness]

That may be the case DarkLink, but it does nothing to prove a view because, 1) we have no way of proving that was the answer given, let alone the friends even exist or what their ‘rank’ maybe and 2) how are we to judge who is high enough ‘rank’ to lend weight to the response given. Where is this chain of command so we can get an idea of whose word trumps whose? It is a common understanding that hearsay proves nothing, more so when it is only heard by one person. It is much easier to throw out the response instead of arguing on how much weight to give it.

I was neither rude nor attacked English. I am sorry if it was taken for rudeness, but I’m tired of sugarcoating responses that the opposition refuses to listen to. I and others have continued to ask for a rule to back up the view, not a subjective idea or hearsay. And I in no way attacked him personally, I attacked his view and his proof.

Tynskel’s reason: Everyone else is deficient in reading skills and everyone else is misreading the rules. He then uses subjective points to support this claim. My response is show me a rule that tells us the meaning (and mechanic) of a word changes. Then show me that even if the meaning changes that the multiple meanings are the correct ones to apply in the various situations.

He cannot because they are not there. Each example given used a definition chosen by Tynskel based on a subjective idea like context and not the rules.

EnglishInquisition’s reason: I have friends that know and play with the design team and they said the design team plays this way. There is so much wrong with this ‘proof’ that is just silly. What is worse is it started with “I made a call to GW and they said I was right.” which became I know people that know people. I’m not saying that he does not know these people, but they have no more weight than the 2 day old red shirt at my local GW stores.

It would have been different if this was presented as a ‘food for thought’ item, but it was used to prove a view and makes it fair game to rebuttal.

[Tynskel]

How do you know the rule is not what it is intended to be? Show some proof. And this time try to use something other than hearsay. Saying, “That I have some friends that that work for GW that told me that when they play with the design team -my way is the way that is played” means nothing. Besides being hearsay it is completely un-provable and thus hurts your argument more than it helps as it shows that you do not have anything else. Trying citing a provable source to support your view.

No one is trying to belittle your post because it is not needed. As suggested somewhere around post 40, do a little research and you will see that GW employees are not an accepted source for any rule debate forum I have read. Not only because of the documented inconsistency of answers from GW employees but because it cannot be proven either way.

I understand you were sharing information, but you also presented it a proof to the validity of your view. As such it is the job of those that do not share your view to show you how weak this proof is and that just about everyone that frequents the rules forums will just laugh at the idea that someone is using a reply from GW as proof. You may be correct that someday a FAQ will come along (don't hold your breath) and prove me wrong. When that happens (if I am still playing and on these boards) I will be one of the first to post a link to the correct answer. It is my intent is to find the correct answer to how to play the game, not find the answer I like.

Your view is completely centered around Tynskel’s idea of subjective interpretation. My view is backed by the rules in the book and the simple sentence of chose to not do something and instead do something else. No amount of ‘context’ will change the meaning of that sentence.

Again, because it seems to not be sinking in, where in the rules are we told the meaning (and thus the game effect) changes based on the phase? Heck, I will make it easier, just find a rule that we are told the meaning (and game effect) even changes. I see no place, so that means Tynskel is subjectively changing the meaning (and game effect) without being told to do so. Thus Tynskel is adding rules to the game.



There isn't a rule on 'subjective' reading. However, there are the rules of language--- of which, the Rulebook is based upon.


I have given multiple examples of how Deploy changes context in this thread. I have shown how the authors of the rulebook understand the importance of consistency with word choice--- the best of which is the word 'move'. With 20+ definitions, it would be easy to misinterpret text, however, the authors use the same context with every use (the authors NEVER defined 'move').

This is how you think you know that when the rulebook states 'move' that you think 'trigger word'.

However, this is an Incorrect Formulation in your thought process. You have the wiring wrong on how to read a text. What you should be thinking is this:

1) the book uses the word 'move'
2) review the context of use of the word
3) review known definitions (or look up if unknown-- as is obviously the case for the word 'Deploy')
4) then apply the correct definition.
5) continue with the rest of the rules statements.

This is how ALL reading is done. For ANY text. The rulebook, at no point, defines a specific language/syntax pattern that always uses all words as 'triggers'----- No Where! At all!

Therefore, you have to use the default method of reading a text. And the one I listed is how to properly read a text.



I love how you state that a sentence does not change meaning if the context surrounding the sentence is different. That's the most bogus bunch of Junk I have ever heard.

"If it were not for my horse, I would not have spent that year in college."

[hisdudeness]

Exactly; you have chosen the ‘correct’ definition, not the BRB. That is my point, where do you find that the definitions you choose are correct? Each example given is completely decided on your view of the meaning, not a meaning supported by the rules. I gave you the GW meaning of ‘deploy’ and the location of that meaning, I get a response of ‘you are reading it wrong.’

Your example of ‘move’ does not help your cause at all, as move is defined. These definitions start on p11 and continue on p51. We are told what the mechanic of ‘move’ in relation to each of the unit types and are told when the mechanic changes. There is not a statement of ‘deploy’ changing meanings in the BRB, much less what that change might be.

Now not only can I not comprehend what I am reading, but my thought process is incorrect also? I thought it was pretty simple, the BRB says chose to not perform an action and instead do something else. I say your thought process is wrong.
1) The book used the word ‘move’, I don’t know have the game of 40k applies this mechanic.
2) I deduce the rules for move would be under the ‘Movement Phase’ rules.
3) Check TOC and see that I am correct. Under movement distances, we are told how to use the mechanic of ‘move’.
4) At no time did I need to review definitions or apply a correct definition, as the rules tell us how to proceed when we encounter the word ‘move’. I also passed the 2nd grade and understand what move means.

The rulebook does define trigger words, what do you think USRs are? What do you think basic game mechanics are?

[Jwolf]

You guys are doing it wrong.

You declare Combat Squad at deployment, EXCEPT for Drop Pods.

Example:
I am declaring my assault squad is going to Combat Squad and Deep Strike- That's their deployment. Now you have 2 separate squads, and you make a roll for each one.

I am declaring combat squads for my assault squad, 1 will start on the board, the other in reserve.

I am declaring combat squads for my assault squad, 1 will start on the board, the other will deep strike.

I am declaring combat squads for my Scouts- one will start on the board according to the rules of Infiltrate, the other will be mounted in the Land Speeder Storm. The Storm is deploying by Outflank.

I am declaring Combat Squads for my Terminators. One squad will be mounted in their dedicated transport: Land Raider, and the other squad will Teleport Deep Strike. The Land Raider will start on the board.

ect. ect. ect.

The ONLY time you make one reserve roll for a squad, THEN combat squad later, is for the Drop Pod.

Ex:
I deploy my Tactical Squad inside the Drop Pod. (I did NOT announce my intention to Combat Squad.) I roll 1 reserves roll, the Drop Pod comes in- after Scattering has been completed, the doors open, squad disembarks. I now declare Combat Squads.


Lastly: Dawn of War deployment

You declare Combat squads, Place 5 Marines in the Dedicated Transport on the board (2 units), keep the other 5 off the board.
You declare ALL of the deployments of squads before placing models on the board: Outflank, Combat Squads, Infiltrate, Deep Strike, Reserves, and Dawn of War specialty placement.

I used to think this, but this is not correct. The text is clearly when deployed, not during deployment. It's the Drop Pod rules that make this seem like the correct methodology at first glance, but that is just bad writing.

And that's the end of this discussion.

On a separate note, here's a handy rule of thumb: If you spend more than 500 words on a reply, it is almost certainly too long.

And another: If you feel the need to insult the intelligence or reading comprehension of other posters, perhaps you should calm down before responding.