Deep strike and Combat squads

[Naravus]

Also, I have demonstrated that it is supported by the rulebook and FAQ. Nothing conflicts with the rules.
You just disagree with this.

Could you please link to posts by you which demonstrate this support?

Failing that, as I'm sure there aren't any, could you please state said support using actual quotes and page references?

In the rules there is no such thing as strategic deployment. Units not deployed onto the board are held in reserve, they are not strategically deployed there.

[Nabterayl]

Naravus, it really isn't helpful to be hostile or challenging. We've gotten to 280 posts on this thread largely avoiding that, and there's no reason to start now.

As I think you know, what Tynskel has demonstrated is that (i) his understanding of the meaning(s) of deploy is consistent with one or more accepted definitions of deploy, (ii) a coherent view of the rulebook can be constructed such that Tynskel's understanding does not conflict with the text of the rulebook. I think we all (excepting perhaps you) agree with those points. In my mind and Culven's at least, there is still some confusion about (iii) whether Tynskel views the FAQ as supporting his viewpoint or modifying it (I suspect the latter).

The dispute that I, Jwolf, dv8, Culven, wkz, et al. have with Tynskel is not really over what Tynskel has demonstrated but whether what he has demonstrated is relevant. I think (and I suspect the others, and you, I think) that this is simply the wrong way to approach a rulebook when one has questions about the meaning of a word in that rulebook. It is for this reason that various people have found Tynskel's argument unpersuasive - and because Tynskel does not share I (our) view, he has naturally not found our arguments that he has failed to accomplish his goals persuasive.

We can move the conversation to the topic of how rules (and specifically the 40K rules) should be construed, though I think that would deserve its own thread, and I'm not sure it's really a conversation everybody is interested in having. I submit, though, that if you intend to "prove" to Tynskel that he has failed to demonstrate the support he thinks he has, asking him to engage in a conversation about construction would be more productive than flinging an implication of failure in his face.

[Tynskel]

That was good statement.

[Tynskel]

So, if I understand you, you are stating:
- A Unit may Combat Squad whenever it is "strategically" deployed.
- Any Unit placed on the table during Deploy Forces, as well as any Unit placed in Reserves, has been "strategically" deployed.
- The FAQ overwrites the Combat Squad ruleand prevents Unit placed in Reserves, and "strategically" deployed, from being allowed to combat Squad.

Is this correct?

Yup, you got most of it.
There is also the exception within the reserves rules.
Otherwise, you got it.

[Nabterayl]

If that's so, Tynskel, in your FAQ-modified view, how would you treat a ten-man assault squad with jump packs held in Reserve? It sounds like you would not allow them to combat squad at all, since they can't split when strategically deployed to reserve (per the FAQ), and can't split when tactically deployed to the board (per your strategic deployment-only view).

[jeffersonian000]

If that's so, Tynskel, in your FAQ-modified view, how would you treat a ten-man assault squad with jump packs held in Reserve? It sounds like you would not allow them to combat squad at all, since they can't split when strategically deployed to reserve (per the FAQ), and can't split when tactically deployed to the board (per your strategic deployment-only view).

I'll answer that. When they are in reserve, they are a single unit. When it comes time to place them on the table, you can choose to combat squad them (if they have that rule), at which point they are treated as two separate units from that point on.

To address another question posted, about the 10-man squad with a DT, and whether or not you can have 5 men inside the vehicle and 5 men out while in reserve, the answer is no. The rules support all 10 inside the DT, or none inside the DT. The rules support all 10 inside the DT and a single reserve roll to place the combined unit on the table. The rules support a 10-man unit outside their DT in reserve, where both units are treated separately. The DP special rule overrides this, and allows a 10-man unit to arrived inside the DP followed by the unit combat squading after disembarking.

SJ

[Tynskel]

If that's so, Tynskel, in your FAQ-modified view, how would you treat a ten-man assault squad with jump packs held in Reserve? It sounds like you would not allow them to combat squad at all, since they can't split when strategically deployed to reserve (per the FAQ), and can't split when tactically deployed to the board (per your strategic deployment-only view).

yup. Terminators, tacticals, ect.

[Nabterayl]

yup. Terminators, tacticals, ect.

Well, fair enough. No wonder Combat Squads seems restrictive to you.

[SeattleDV8]

Tsk , tsk that was 4th ed, Tynskel.
DA Codex pg.23 "Units held in reserve cannot be split into combat squads and vice versa."
Remember that this line was removed by errata, which would be very silly if they were not changing anything.
Now in 5th ed units placed in reserve are free to combat squad when deployed, or to put it clearly, when coming in from reserve.
In that is when they are first deployed,because units placed in reserve are not deployed.

If the units could not Combat squad coming in from reserves it would be very restrictive and would remove a tactical element from the game.
I know because I had to deal with that restriction in 4th.

[Tynskel]

no, this has nothing to do with 4th edition. Normally you would combat squad in reserves, but the FAQ states no combat squads in reserves.