Deep strike and Combat squads

[Tynskel]

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

[SeattleDV8]

oh, I already admitted I was wrong.

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


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

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

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

You don't.

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

You were wrong then and you're still wrong.

[Nabterayl]

I have explained the not to deploy in the previous thread, too.. The entire reference frame of the entire section is related to the board, you are not deploying onto the board, but when you read the reserves section, the rules are setup such that you are deploying your units off board.

Oh, okay, we'll do it again. SeattleDV8, you are a bad influence

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

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

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

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

[wkz]

...but when you read the reserves section, the rules are setup such that you are deploying your units off board...

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

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

Reserves = preparation for deployment. That's all.




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

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

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

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

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

This, basically. Between this and the "units not deployed... goes into reserve" sentence I've quoted, units in reserve are not "deployed" yet, thus combat squads do not work there. RAW at its rawest.




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

[hisdudeness]

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

[Tynskel]

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

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


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

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

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

[Culven]

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

The rule from the Reserves section stating that units are placed into Reserves instead of being deployed has been cited repeatedly, yet I have not seen the citation that supports your claim. Where is the rule that states units held in Reserves are considered deployed?

All the FAQ does is explicitly state how combat squads cannot split their units in reserves.

Unfortunately, they didn't state why.

This, however, does not mean that you are not deploying in reserves.

True. The ". . . instead of Deploying . . ." portion of the Reserves rule is what states units in reserves aren't deployed.

This actually adds more confusion, because this means that units are in transports while in reserves have been deployed, . . .

Why would they be conssidered deployed when they were placed in reserves instead of being Deployed? Being declared as embarked doesn't constitute being deployed.

[Tynskel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nabterayl]

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

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

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

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

That's not the argument, no. The argument is as follows:

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

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

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

[Culven]

You are arbitrarily stating that combat squads only applies when the unit hits the board, yet there is no rule that this thought process is stemming from.

The rules basis for this position is that combat squads can be used when the Unit is deployed. By refering to the various rules, we can determine whether the unit has deployed by the use of the term "deploy". Granted, there are times when "deploy" is used that players don't make use of Combat Squads, and I don't know the reasoning behind this.

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