Mezkh Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 If you could do that then the FAQ would have said so. This is just another reach around. I'm not seeing any part of any FAQ that says units deploying from reserve may not combat squad. Where are you reading this? Units placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads. =/= Units deploying from reserve may not break down into combat squads. where did you read that second quote? because if thats in the rulebook somewhere that blows.. It's BO's position, and it's not in any rulebook or FAQ or errata at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLACK BLΠFLY Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 It's in the new FAQ. Its says units placed in reserve cannot combat squad. If you can't even bother to read it what's the point? Amazing. G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Weasel Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 It's in the new FAQ. Its says units placed in reserve cannot combat squad. If you can't even bother to read it what's the point? Amazing. G you miss what they are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezkh Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 It's in the new FAQ. Its says units placed in reserve cannot combat squad. If you can't even bother to read it what's the point? Amazing. G yes, The FAQ says Its says units placed in reserve cannot combat squad You are saying Units deploying from reserve may not break down into combat squads. Do you not see the difference between the two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLACK BLΠFLY Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 The first quote supersedes the second. FAQ > BRB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Weasel Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 why its not the brb. and its about the word deploy, i know you dont agree. but thats the point being made, weather you agree or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezkh Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 The first quote supersedes the second. Explain. You are not making sense. One supercedes the other in the same way as "I had toast for breakfast this morning" supercedes "I like red cars". Which is to say it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLACK BLΠFLY Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 You are just talking rubbish now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezkh Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Well what would help you to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Weasel Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 You are just talking rubbish now. he's trying to get you to say more then "that's all there is to it" you see it as open and shut and other don't, but you don't even want to hear out what people are saying, it's just no. you say that the FAQ rule overpowers what the CODEX says we say that they are diffrent parts of the rule, that i won't explain because it doens't matter to you. Well what would help you to understand? he doens't want to understand, he's right, we are wrong, nothing else really matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLACK BLΠFLY Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 If a couple fools agree good for them. It won't change my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Weasel Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 If a couple fools agree good for them. It won't change my mind. sadly it's not about changing your mind, it's seeing that the rule isn't clear cut to everyone else, and there is another viable interpitation, even if it's not one you agree with. and i'm not a fool, so don't go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mezkh Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 he doens't want to understand, he's right, we are wrong, nothing else really matters. I think you are right brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leksington Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 "Squads placed in reserve may not be broken down into combat squads" Once a squad is being deployed via deep strike, it is no longer a squad "placed in reserve". Since it is no longer a squad 'placed into reserve,' it is free to split into combat squads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggmoritz Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Hooray, now we wait in a nice 4 month lull while people argue about something that's clearly a wording mistake. I remember back when the BA codex dropped people rules lawyer'd vindicators into single shot weapons - and all the arguments circling around whether or not Ord weapons had to be large blasts and whatnot. Lets use common sense please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plague Angel Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 FAQ > BRB That's completely false. "The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelus Mortifer Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 "Squads placed in reserve may not be broken down into combat squads" Once a squad is being deployed via deep strike, it is no longer a squad "placed in reserve". Since it is no longer a squad 'placed into reserve,' it is free to split into combat squads. Have to say BO, you're a top bloke and have added a lot to this BA forum over the couple of years I've been a member, and I'd be the first of many to give you a thumbs up for the benefit you add, but you are being a little inflexible and bordering on slightly rude. Whilst this may take a further BA FAQ to clarify, which could take months to arrive (or 24.7 secs if anything similar to the Straken nonsense a while back), what Leksington has said very simply, which others have also suggested in more descriptive ways, is indeed a viable possible interpretation of this mechanic. Being in Reserve and being Deployed are two separate parts of the mechanic, and in the same way I had to argue pretty vehemently with someone over the DoA - with/without JP mechanic, each individual facet of the overall rule cannot be ignored. In the same way that common sense should have been the key to BA Demolisher Cannons being Large Blast, and BA models without Jump Packs not benefitting from DoA (whether it was written in their unit entry or not), I personally would be quite surprised if this indeed would be the outcome for Combat Squadding from Reserve. I could of course be proved wrong and GW will state categorically that the rule works in the way you're suggesting, and I'll abide by that... but you're failing to see, whether by design or not, that the rule is not categorical, and that there is a valid interpretation that differs from your own. Also, that other people are trying to illustrate their differing views in a constructive and non-argumentative manner, and one you seem to be unjustly ignoring. C'mon mate, that's not like you... As a side note, if "Space Marines" are no longer allowed to Combat Squad at deployment, then we may as well all sell our armies and collect an 18-vehicle Mech IG force, because splitting 2 squads of double Melta Assault Marines and Deep Striking them in on a flank to have a go at four potential targets was a justifiable list choice to make against such a prevalent opposition. Doesn't make sense to me to remove a strategic/tactical option from a series of Codices which, by their design, would only serve to reduce the options you have for playing, collecting, painting (= making more money for GW) etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAJake Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 I still don't see why Black Orange cant accept that units are PLACED in reserve, not DEPLOYED in reserve. It's in the rulebook. In the codex, it clearly states squads make the decision to combat squad upon deployment. Full Squad in reserve. Full Squad Comes out of reserve. It is now up to the player to decide whether they deploy as combat squads or not. The FAQ backs this up by saying Squads arriving by Drop Pod do not get to make this choice until they walk out of the pod. The qustion was only to clarify that you cannot have a combat squad itself held in reserve Clear as day to those who read the FAQ/Rulebook/Codex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildfire Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Ok guys, lets take a step back and a deep breath. It's only a game, nothing to get riled up over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattleDV8 Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 It is also nothing new. You could never Combat squad units in reserve, once they are deployed you may. No need to get worked up, nothing has changed. The line from the DA Codex that states"units held in reserve cannot be split into combat squads and vice versa" has been removed by errata. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plague Angel Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 It is also nothing new.You could never Combat squad units in reserve, once they are deployed you may. Right, I think that's the most important thing to point out: Nothing has changed. This was an FAQ, not an errata. It doesn't say anything about "you may no longer do X." It's pointing out the way things have always been and using that as justification for answering a particular question. Which is the other important thing here: context. Context is everything. People are obsessing over the answer while ignoring the question. The question was, "can I use Combat Squads to deploy half of a unit at the beginning of the game and still keep the other half in reserve?" to which the answer is (and always has been) no, because a squad in reserve can't be combat squaded until it is deployed. Combat squading happens at deployment, not before. That is the extent of what the FAQ is saying. It is poorly worded, but it is creating no new rule and changing no old rule. I can definitely understand the confusion, though, because it is worded so very, very poorly. Regardless of the wording however, this is in the FAQ section and not the Errata section. So it doesn't override either the Codex or the BRB. And from the Codex and the BRB, we know: 1. A unit held in reserves does not deploy until later in the game. (BRB p. 94) 2. A unit with jump packs may always be held in reserve, no matter the mission. (C:BA p. 62) 3. A unit with the Combat Squads special rule is split into two units during its own deployment. (The exception is a unit arriving via drop pod, which is deployed as a single unit, then afterward is divided when it disembarks instead of when it deploys). (C:BA p.23) None of the above has been changed or overridden. Taken the above rules into account then, a jump-packing unit like Assault Squads or Vanguard Veterans can be held in reserves, then rolled for as a single unit, then when deploying use their Combat Squads to land in two different places. This is entirely consistent with the BRB and the Codex, as well as the FAQ (which is addressing a different situation altogether). The incorrect form of combat squadding that the FAQ is specifically forbidding, is using Combat Squads to keep half of a unit in reserves while the other half is deployed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tahrikmili Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Units placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads. =/= Units deploying from reserve may not break down into combat squads. They actually ARE the same thing, "Units placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads." takes away the ability to break down into combat squads indefinitely, regardless of whatever game phase you are in, because the wording mentions no game phase (i.e., doesn't end with "while in reserves.") What you are doing is trying to work around RAW and force a RAI on your opponent. It will not work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tahrikmili Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 he doens't want to understand, he's right, we are wrong, nothing else really matters. I think you are right brother. Untrue. Once deployed the unit is no longer in reserve but it has been placed in reserve previously and the rule mentions no combat squads for units placed in reserve, and not only while they are kept in reserve, the rule is for the whole game, because it lacks any duration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Units placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads. =/= Units deploying from reserve may not break down into combat squads. They actually ARE the same thing, "Units placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads." takes away the ability to break down into combat squads indefinitely, regardless of whatever game phase you are in, because the wording mentions no game phase (i.e., doesn't end with "while in reserves.") What you are doing is trying to work around RAW and force a RAI on your opponent. It will not work. Actually it could mean what you say, or it could mean while they are in reserves. After all, once you put them on the board theyve been placed somewhere else.... and so are no longer placed in reserves. Still, Im going to say this once and once only- we are stopping the personal attacks. If you need, take some time and come back to this debate in a couple days. Because I really dont want to have to warn half a dozen people over something as silly as our interpretation on Combat Squads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorre Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Hmmm well neither argument has swayed me one way or the other. Sort of leaves you in a what do we do now state ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.