Deep strike and Combat squads

[Tynskel]

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

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

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

[Nabterayl]

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

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

[Culven]

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

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

[Tynskel]

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

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

[Tynskel]

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

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

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

[Nabterayl]

I disagree. I think they are still a more compelling case than the other viewpoint, by reasoning that they fit more of the text.

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

[Tynskel]

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

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

my general feeling of RAW is what fits the text.

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

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

[Nabterayl]

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

Neither the fact that my position has merit, nor the fact that your position has merit, would compel you to read the text either way. There is a difference between "your reading has merit, but I think mine is better" and "this text admits of only one reading." I am asking whether you think this is a case of the former or the latter.

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

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

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

Have I accurately deduced your position on this topic?

[wkz]

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

....Citing you got crap past 'Ard Boyz doesn't mean anything: if you managed to break a rule and get away with it, it only says that your opponent has a poor grasp of rulebook and/or codex rules, and not that the rule is correct. (some guy even managed to bring THREE ORK HQs into 'Ard Boyz, and even made it past a few games before he was called out and disqualified)

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

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


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

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

You got my point.

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

And lastly:

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

These forums censors a lot of words actually. And even some very mild ones such as Sh*t for example (although I can see how Sh*t can offend some people)

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

[Tynskel]

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