Deep strike and Combat squads

[Tynskel]

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

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

[wkz]

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

Here's the interesting thing, you acknowledge there's more than one interpretation of the rules.

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

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

People, especially judges, are not infailable. See my earlier post's example case about the 3 HQ Ork army actually getting some games played in 'Ard Boyz before they got themselves disqualified: they apparently got the nod from judges to even FIELD such an illegal army... in 'Ard Boyz no less!

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

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

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

[Nabterayl]

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

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

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

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

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

[Tynskel]

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


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

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

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

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

[Tynskel]

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

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

[Culven]

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

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

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

i have stated before, from my point of view, your interpretation of deploy is incomplete, due to the changing context of deploy.

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

[Nabterayl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It sounds like you are arguing thusly:

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

Did I get that right?

[Tynskel]

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


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

[Tynskel]

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

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

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

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

It sounds like you are arguing thusly:

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

Did I get that right?

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

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

[Nabterayl]

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

We both use what is written to determine how to play, of course. But as you know (I think?), "RAW" is a term of art among 40K players. I do not give the imprimatur of that term to rules matters I consider reasonably open to debate.

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

That's precisely the confusion. Combat Squads only allows you to split "when the unit is deployed." The fact that leaving a unit in Reserve occurs "during deployment" does not perforce mean that the unit so left has been "deployed."