combat squads and reserves

[tahrikmili]

Think about it guys. Does the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces prevent you from ever smoking again after you've been in a pub once? No, it only prevents you smoking IN the pub.

 

The ban on smoking inside is "People can't smoke while in enclosed spaces." not "People who have been in public enclosed spaces can't smoke."

 

Conversely the rule does not say "Squads can not be combat squadded while placed in reseves." but says "Squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads."

 

It's more comparable to something like "Persons who are convicted of child abuse may not be employed as kindergarten teachers."

 

You think about that.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I know often here I see posters talking about how important is RAW. All I have seen so far from the opposing side is RAI. That is my main issue with this argument. There was no need for GW to put it in the FAQ if it changes nothing.

 

G :D

[Wildfire]

This gives rise to new issues though. Take a 10man tactical and a razorback arriving from reserve:

• How do you roll for them? One roll for razor and one for tacs? One roll for both?
  
• Can the tacs at all deploy inside the razorback?
  

 

Actually, that's a very good question. It's the first argument for not allowing combat squads on deployment that I see some merit in. I'll have to think about it.

 

Edit - Okay I read the rules for combat squad in the codex. I don't see why GW would have put the much hated statement in the new FAQ unless they meant to prevent units held in reserve from breaking into combat squads. It is what it is and they can fix it if that was not their intent.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are saying that you don't believe the FAQ is used for anything but changes in rulings? If so, I would point out that there's lots of stuff in the FAQs that is simple RAW. Stuff that no one I know ever debated. Yet still they feel the need to clarify. Some of it is even taken practically word-for-word from the relevant book. For example, the first new (i.e. pink) question in the main rulebook FAQ is regarding the usage of the terms "turn" and "player turn". The wording in the rulebook is very clear, at least in my eyes. The FAQ, to me, is just wasting space by including something that is clearly spelled out in the main rulebook. Yet they still felt the need to include it, without changing anything.

 

But ONCE and WHEN it has been placed in reserve at the beginning of the game, it has been deemed 'unable to deploy as combat squads' indefinitely.

 

See my above argument on the fallacy of this statement.

 

I know often here I see posters talking about how important is RAW. All I have seen so far from the opposing side is RAI.

 

I feel that I am arguing RAW. In my eyes, reserve and deployment are two separate things, and nothing in the rule says that the restriction on combat squadding carries over from one state to another.

[tahrikmili]

@Wildfire: My interpratation is a logical argument and not a fallacy, unlike like yours, which is strawman I won't bother addressing.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I feel that I am arguing RAW. In my eyes, reserve and deployment are two separate things, and nothing in the rule says that the restriction on combat squadding carries over from one state to another.

 

That is what you believe to be the intent. How can you say that is RAW ?

 

G :tu:

[Brother Theophantus]

RAW for Black Orange;

 

"squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads."

 

ARE PLACED IN RESERVE is present tense. Once they deploy they are no longer IN RESERVE ergo they may combat squad. Again, for your arguement to be valid the past tense would have to be used along the lines of "squads that have been placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads."

[tahrikmili]

no, for that the rule would have to be 'units that are in reserve', that would be present.

 

'units that are placed in reserve can not be deployes as combat squads' is a present tense restricction based on a past tense precondition.

 

Ergo, sir, you are wrong.

[Wildfire]

This gives rise to new issues though. Take a 10man tactical and a razorback arriving from reserve:

• How do you roll for them? One roll for razor and one for tacs? One roll for both?
  
• Can the tacs at all deploy inside the razorback?
  

 

Actually, that's a very good question. It's the first argument for not allowing combat squads on deployment that I see some merit in. I'll have to think about it.

 

Having thought about it, I would say I have to agree with Grey Mage's answer. It doesn't make sense, and I'm sure it's not what was intended, but I think there's no other way to play it by RAW.

 

@Wildfire: My interpratation is a logical argument and not a fallacy, unlike like yours, which is strawman I won't bother addressing.

 

I don't know what "strawman" means. If you're saying it doesn't make sense, then you are of course correct. Which was my point.

 

I feel that I am arguing RAW. In my eyes, reserve and deployment are two separate things, and nothing in the rule says that the restriction on combat squadding carries over from one state to another.

 

That is what you believe to be the intent. How can you say that is RAW ?

 

G :whistling:

 

I could say the same thing. I honestly cannot comprehend why you think otherwise.

 

It's more comparable to something like "Persons who are convicted of child abuse may not be employed as kindergarten teachers."

 

I missed this last time around. Let me point out that this is incorrect english. Unless the judge is handing down a sentence at the instant you say that, the proper statement should be "Persons who have been convicted of child abuse may not be employed as kindergarten teachers."

[tahrikmili]

@Wildfire: quoting wikipedia:

 

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

 

Basically your response was a logical fallacy aimed at making mine look like one. You did not answer or refute my argument, you just tried to ridicule it by comparing it to something obtusely stupid. I won't even adddress your strawman reply.

[Plague Angel]

But ONCE and WHEN it has been placed in reserve at the beginning of the game, it has been deemed 'unable to deploy as combat squads' indefinitely.

 

Nothing in the FAQ supports this interpretation. I will repeat that this would be a new rule altogether that directly contradicts what the Codex and BRB say. And the FAQ isn't making a new rule, it's answering a question about a current rule.

[tahrikmili]

But ONCE and WHEN it has been placed in reserve at the beginning of the game, it has been deemed 'unable to deploy as combat squads' indefinitely.

 

Nothing in the FAQ supports this interpretation. I will repeat that this would be a new rule altogether that directly contradicts what the Codex and BRB say. And the FAQ isn't making a new rule, it's answering a question about a current rule.

 

And that would be new, how? Consider the shp bubble mechanic change, was that not a faq that invented a new rule that completely disregards how buff bubbles work as per brb?

[tahrikmili]

Double post sorry :whistling:

[Brother Theophantus]

Tread not on my monocle sir, for in my shock I have dropped it.

 

The problem is that your interpretation is taking the wording as definite, units that have at one point been placed in reserve may never thereafter combat squad as the act of placing them in reserve negates that option. However it would then follow that they may not move or shoot, since those options are also invalid for units in reserve.

 

The arguement I put forward is that units are only unable to combat squad WHILE IN reserve, much as they cannot move or shoot, in order to prevent the squad arriving in seperate locations and turns.

 

Also since your interpretation on the wording is that it is a present tense restriction based on a past tense precondition this would proclude the unit ever being deployed as combat squads again since the statement is indefinite.

 

The correct english for your viewpoint would indeed be "units THAT HAVE been placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads." or indeed " units that are placed in reservce may not break down into combat squads THEREAFTER."

[Plague Angel]

But ONCE and WHEN it has been placed in reserve at the beginning of the game, it has been deemed 'unable to deploy as combat squads' indefinitely.

 

Nothing in the FAQ supports this interpretation. I will repeat that this would be a new rule altogether that directly contradicts what the Codex and BRB say. And the FAQ isn't making a new rule, it's answering a question about a current rule.

 

And that would be new, how?

 

Because it's not in the Codex or the BRB, and is in fact different than what the Codex says.

 

I confess I'm not familiar with which mechanic you're talking about, so I can't address that point.

 

Brother Thephantus brings up a good comparison:

 

"A unit in reserves cannot Combat Squad" is analogous to "A unit that has moved cannot fire Heavy weapons." Does that mean that once your Devastator unit has moved, you can never fire your missile launchers again for the rest of the game? Of course not.

 

A unit in reserves cannot Combat Squad. That's always been true. However, once it comes out of reserves and deploys, it may Combat Squad according to the Codex. Saying a unit put in reserves loses its Combat Squads ability for the rest of the game is 1) a new rule not found in the Codex and 2) not stated or even implied by the FAQ.

[tahrikmili]

Tread not on my monocle sir, for in my shock I have dropped it.

 

The problem is that your interpretation is taking the wording as definite, units that have at one point been placed in reserve may never thereafter combat squad as the act of placing them in reserve negates that option. However it would then follow that they may not move or shoot, since those options are also invalid for units in reserve.

 

The arguement I put forward is that units are only unable to combat squad WHILE IN reserve, much as they cannot move or shoot, in order to prevent the squad arriving in seperate locations and turns.

 

Also since your interpretation on the wording is that it is a present tense restriction based on a past tense precondition this would proclude the unit ever being deployed as combat squads again since the statement is indefinite.

 

The correct english for your viewpoint would indeed be "units THAT HAVE been placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads." or indeed " units that are placed in reservce may not break down into combat squads THEREAFTER."

 

I will be brief because I need to sleep. I'll start with the last.

 

"units THAT HAVE been placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads."

 

This is plain wrong, HAVE BEEN implies a condition that is still going on.. As in "I have been a Metallica fan since 1982" which implies I am still a fan, which is not the case here as we are not checking for whether the unit is still in reserve or not. If you will really argue this bs you should have said "Units THAT WERE placed in reserve.." However, "Units thar are placed in reserve" will still work because at any time you check the logic of this rule, the unit will still be a unit deployed in reserve.

 

" units that are placed in reservce may not break down into combat squads THEREAFTER."

 

This is also obtuse. Without the thereafter, the ban from breaking down into combat squads is obviously indefinite, and implies the thereafter. To the contrary, if it were only for while they are in reserve, they would have had to say WHILE IN RESERVE, not thereafter.

[tahrikmili]

\"A unit in reserves cannot Combat Squad\" is analogous to \"A unit that has moved cannot fire Heavy weapons.\" Does that mean that once your Devastator unit has moved, you can never fire your missile launchers again for the rest of the game? Of course not.

 

Holy crap at the straw men in this thread! If you\'ll post a rule just post it all and not the part that works to your end!

 

If a unit moves then it cannot shoot heavy weapons – they either move or shoot, but not both. Remember that if any models move, their whole unit counts as having moved for that turn, and this will prevent models with heavy weapons from firing even if those specific models stayed still. When shooting, heavy weapons always fire the number of times indicated regardless of range. They are very good for laying down long range supporting fire or taking out tanks and monstrous creatures. Units that fire heavy weapons in the Shooting phase may not assault into close combat in the Assault phase.

 

The rule obviously states its context - it\'s all within the context of a player turn!

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I understand tahrikmili and what his position is. End of the day there is no getting around what the FAQ says now. I can understand the angst but emotion does not make for a solid argument.

 

G :P

[Brother Weasel]

I understand tahrikmili and what his position is. End of the day there is no getting around what the FAQ says now. I can understand the angst but emotion does not make for a solid argument.

 

G :P

 

works both ways.

 

Here's hopping they change it to make it quite clear as soon as possible

[Brother Theophantus]

No the "since 1982" indicates that you are still a metallica fan. Also when you check at a later date the unit/s will indeed HAVE BEEN in reserve, as actually your arguement requires as a condition of them not being able to combat squad, but since they ARE NOT currently placed in reserve they may combat squad since the rule only states that units that ARE placed in reserve may not combat squad.

 

As an example, units that ARE pinned may not shoot. Whereas units that HAVE been pinned can, as long as they no longer ARE pinned, can. Therfore units that were previously in reserve, but no longer are, can combat squad.

 

To further illustrate, Police officers that are placed on suspension may not arrest people. However once they are not on suspension they may arrest people. The fact that they were once on suspension does not prevent them ever arresting someone again.

[captain Mungo]

I feel like Ive taken a fairly objective look in this, and RAI I have no idea which way to go. RAW it's probably 50/50.

 

The rulebook clearly states that being placed in reserve and being deployed are two very separate things so a condition that applies to one shouldn't automatically apply to the other. However the statement is very general so maybe it does, but the point is the FAQ doesn't say which one goes at the moment. So how do we play in the meantime until GW clarifies this? One side of the argument would merely modify a rule and give rise to a few strange issues regarding transports etc. The other side would remove a lot of flexibility and tactical elements of the game, and still have those same strange issues.

 

Which one it is, I don't know, but I do know which would be more fun.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

You can play to your advantage or take the conservative route. It's one or the other.

 

G :P

[nurglez]

My understanding on this, is to stop you taking a 10 man unit with drop pod, and combat squading it, so you have a unit of 5 on the table and a unit of 5 in reserve to drop in.

 

It specifies that a unit in reserve can not combat squad, thus so you cannot have 1 unit become 2 for the purposes of rolling reserves. I do not believe that this rule is to stop 1 unit being held in reserve combat squading once they have depoloyed.

 

and for the record, I play chaos and space wolf count as, So none of my things can combat squad and this is not to my benefit.

[Grey Mage]

You say that this is an indefinite state- once they are placed in reserve they are always placed in reserve. This is not the case.

 

NO.

 

Just NO.

 

What we are saying is that once they are placed in reserve, they can not be combat squadded, not that they are always placed in reserve.

 

Once the unit is deployed from reserve, it is no longer placed in reserve.

 

But ONCE and WHEN it has been placed in reserve at the beginning of the game, it has been deemed 'unable to deploy as combat squads' indefinitely.

 

So basically, once you put the unit in reserve, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU DO WITH IT FOR THE REST OF THE GAME, it can not deply as combat squads.

 

Don't put words in anybody's mouth.

The words in the FAQ do not refer to what you have already done- its present tense. If your not currently doing it then it doesnt currently apply to you.

 

The only way it can work the way your saying is if it was past tense, wich it is not. A unit that has been placed in reserves is not the same as a unit that is placed in reserves just like a rhomboid is not a square, even though some rhomboids are.

 

I know often here I see posters talking about how important is RAW. All I have seen so far from the opposing side is RAI. That is my main issue with this argument. There was no need for GW to put it in the FAQ if it changes nothing.

 

G :P

 

And that, right there, is the problem with your whole argument. Just because something has been FAQd doesnt mean anything has changed. Want a prime example? Lets look at the core FAQ:

 

Q: What is meant when the term ʻturnʼ is used? (p9)

A: Whenever the word turn is used it means player turn.

Otherwise it will clearly state game turn. In a complete

game turn both players get a player turn. Hence one game

turn will comprise two player turns.

 

This is from the core rule book FAQ. It is in fact the first FAQ question. And you know what? Its almost an exact copy/paste job from the core book.... and changes absolutely nothing about the game. That they clarify things we already know by stating them, again, is not uncommon or unknown for GW.

[shatter]

Goodness, a heated thread in OR.

 

I'll accept GM's answer here, though I think this is something that could still cause problems as not everyone will interpret it that way.

 

Folks have to point out 'placed in reserve' =/= 'deployment'... again... for the confused.

 

The FAQ is for drop pods and their exception to common CS/deployment mechanics. The fact that it states the why; you can't combat squads units in reserve, is to clarify the reason. This reason is one already known: you could never combat squad in reserves as it's a deployment option. For a pod to arrive with 5 of 10 men inside meant that this (pre-deployment CS) had to have happened. The FAQ says it's not a valid interpretation of the CS & DP rules.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

@ Grey Mage

 

The example from the BRB FAQ you have given is cut and dry. It is helpful to re instate because there has been some confusion lately about what happens when a skimmer that is a transport moves flat out and is destroyed while it's carrying an embarked squad. There were quite a few questions in regards to this rule because of the Stormraven and the new dark eldar codex recently released.

 

Let's take a look at the exact wording from the recently re released Blood Angels FAQ concerning the question here in regards to combat squads and units placed in reserve:

 

Q: Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man squad and then put a combat squad in it, deploying the other combat squad on the table, or leave it in reserve but not in the Drop Pod? (p32)

 

A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads.

 

The answer is presented as a general statement encompassing any unit with the combat squad rule. The answer is both very specific and explicit. By RAW you can no longer combat squad any unit placed in reserve unless they are arriving by a drop pod. The answer does not say:

 

No, because squads with a drop pod...

 

A unit with a drop pod has it's own rule that tells you how and when to break them into combat squads - this is not the case for any other unit including bikes (e.g., outflanking) and assault squads (e.g., deepstriking). If this is not the case then GW needs to revise their FAQs yet again. The question was specific to a unit with a drop pod but the answer was in general, otherwise they would have said so.

 

G :rolleyes: