Deep striking combat squads

[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.