Shrike and Infiltration

[Polonius]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jwolf]

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

[Polonius]

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

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

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

[Lerra]

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

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

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

[Jwolf]

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

[Nabterayl]

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

[Bean]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit:

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

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

Look at page 75, BRB:

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

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

Or pages 92 and 93, where it discusses deployment:

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

Deploy any infiltrators and make any scout moves."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jwolf]

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

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

[Bean]

And that would be cheating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jwolf]

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

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