combat squads and reserves

[Mezkh]

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.

 

Context and correct grammatical tense is everything it would seem.

 

I can see BO's and tahrikmili's argument, but I'd have to completely disregard both those things to agree with it. It would be pretty disingenious to do so.

 

Putting the grammatical aspect aside, when you isolate an answer to a very specific question that concerns the ordering of arrival of your forces in the deployment phase, and try to apply it as binding general rule that now overrides a straightforward game mechanic, you might be missing the forest for the trees.

[Grey Mage]

@ 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:

Your still missing the part where a unit that is being deployed is no longer in reserves. Ive highlighted the appropriate section for you. A unit that is being deployed is no longer 'placed in reserve', and thus this answer no longer applies to them. This FAQ only states that they cannot be combat squaded while in reserves. Anything else is conjecture.

[Mezkh]

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, RAW you can't combat squad a unit placed in reserve, fullstop.

 

Because RAW you can only combat squad a unit on deployment, and combat squad a unit that disembarks from a droppod.

 

You're still trying to say that squads that have been placed in reserve can't combat squad, which is not RAW.

 

Here is a full breakdown.

 

- You can deploy a capable squad and combat squad it into two units (in the deployment phase).

- You can do the above and place one of the squads into a non-dedicated transport that has sufficient capacity.

- You can do the above and place one squad outside a transport dedicated to them and deploy the other in a transport dedicated to them

-You could deploy a combat squad in a non-dedicated and one into a dedicated, or both into separate non-dedicated transports.

- You cannot deploy, combat squad, and then place one of those combat squads back into reserve, because you can't reserve a unit you have deployed.

- You cannot place a unit into reserve and break it down into combat squads (thus each unit would roll it's own reserve roll) because the triggerpoint for the unit to combat squad is that it be deployed, and reserving units is conditional on them not deploying

- You cannot place a unit into a dedicated transport (eg. tactical in a Rhino) that is then placed into reserve, and later combat squad after it arrives from reserve and deploys as a)) you can't have two units existing in the one transport as it's deployed, and B ) it's too late to make the combat squad desicion after the transport moves and disembarks as you've then gone past the point of the unit deploying and thus the decision point for combat squading.

- An exception is provided for units arriving via drop-pod, they are given the option to combat squad as they disembark from a drop-pod.

- You can combat squad a unit at the point it deploys (after arriving onto your board edge via reserves)

- You can combat squad a unit at the point it deploys (via outflank)

- You can combat squad a unit at the point it deploys (via Deepstrike)

- You could combat squad a unit that deploys after arriving from reserve, and embark one of the squads onto a vehicle that may or may not have arrived from reserve that turn.

 

The FAQ is clarifying the bolded points in respect to Drop-pods.

 

For simpler rules of thumb;

-At the point you combat squad, both resultant squads have to have their boots/wheels on the board (a combat squad may be placed into an acceptable vehicle if in the deployment phase)

-You can never combat squad if you arrived from reserve in a transport vehicle. Exception - you are allowed to combat squad upon disembarking from a Droppod.

[shatter]

*snip*

 

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:

 

I think the general answer is in the codex, dude. Combat Squading happens at deployment as per C:BA (at least). It wasn't combat squads in C:BA that was FAQ'ed. It was drop pods and by extension Combat Squading within reserve. ie. units in reserve may not have (already) utilized the CS rule.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

You're simply missing my point that while the question was specific the answer was general.

 

G:HQ:

[Leksington]

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.

Not so fast there pilgrim.

 

I take a spoon from the cabinet, and place it on the table.

It would be incorrect grammar to tell you to eat your soup with the spoon placed in the cabinet. The spoon is 'from the cabinet,' not 'placed in the cabinet.'

 

Edit: I misspelled grammar. :D

[Leksington]

You're simply missing my point that while the question was specific the answer was general.

 

G:HQ:

I think you are taking for granted that a model removed from reserves is considered placed in reserves.

[Grey Mage]

You're simply missing my point that while the question was specific the answer was general.

 

G:HQ:

No, I got that. And in general any unit- not just ones with DPs- are unable to combat squad WHILE they are still in reserves.

 

Thats all. Thats it. The fact that every single unit is so restricted with the inability to combat squad until they are being placed on the table doesnt stop any of them from doing it when they are being placed on the table.

[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.

Not so fast there pilgrim.

 

I take a spoon from the cabinet, and place it on the table.

It would be incorrect grammar to tell you to eat your soup with the spoon placed in the cabinet. The spoon is 'from the cabinet,' not 'placed in the cabinet.'

 

Edit: I misspelled grammar. :D

 

More straw men. How cute.

 

Look, for it to be actually comparable, yuo have to present the SAME scenario, not something that LOOKS LIKE it. You can't just refute a stupid example that you try to make look like my interpretation and act like you are refuting my explanation. Nobody in this thread has ever been able to present a sensible reason as to WHY NOT this is a RAW logical interpraetation without resorting to obtuse straw men!

 

So,

1. You say "Forks that are placed in the cabinet can not be used for eating your meal."

2. You take a bunch of forks from the washing machine, put some in the cabinet, and some on the table.

3. At this point all the forks you put in the cabinet are INELIGABLE FOR ME!

4. You then take some forks from the cabinet and add them to the table

5. How do you expect me to eat my meal with a new fork that came from the cabinet, not directly from the washing machine?

 

You guys are just being obtuse, that's all there is to it.

 

If one more person tries to work around the grammar or my argument with a straw man I'll call it quits, this forum used to be better than this. Now people are just trying to shove RAI down other people's throats as RAW because 'it makes more sense.' Sorry, sense has nothing to do with RAW!

 

Deployment and Reserves may be DIFFERENT things but this rule DOES NOT effect units ONLY WHILE IN RESERVE. Nowhere in it does it say WHILE IN RESERVE. This part you are all making up to validate your arguments. This rule is NOT about reserves, it's about Deep Striking! It's exclusion is universal and indefinite, it has no set duration!

 

If you are just so desperate go play your game however you want. You win.

 

Whatever the hell..

[tahrikmili]

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.

 

You just shot yourself in the foot, again.

 

Such a ban would never be worded like that. It would be "Police officers on suspension may not arrest people." A present day effect based on a present day precondition.

 

For it to be worded your way, it would have to be tied to a past tense precondition not a present tense. In that case, it actually WOULD cause police officers who were previously on suspension to not be able to make arrests, and no one would use that English sentence to mean what you want to mean.

 

Do you still not see the difference between what GW said and what you want them to have said?

[Mezkh]

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.

 

Conjecture you have yet to prove.

 

Just saying something over and over doesn't make you correct.

[Grey Mage]

You guys are just being obtuse, that's all there is to it.

 

If one more person tries to work around the grammar or my argument with a straw man I'll call it quits, this forum used to be better than this. Now people are just trying to shove RAI down other people's throats as RAW because 'it makes more sense.' Sorry, sense has nothing to do with RAW!

 

Deployment and Reserves may be DIFFERENT things but this rule DOES NOT effect units ONLY WHILE IN RESERVE. Nowhere in it does it say WHILE IN RESERVE. This part you are all making up to validate your arguments. This rule is NOT about reserves, it's about Deep Striking! It's exclusion is universal and indefinite, it has no set duration!

 

If you are just so desperate go play your game however you want. You win.

 

Whatever the hell..

Thats not what the sentence says. No matter how large a tantrum you throw, the rules of the english language say your wrong.

 

You are right on a few points- sense isnt what were debating here. Frankly it could make sense either way. Your also right in that the QUESTION was about deep striking, not reserves.

 

What you seem to be missing is that were not debating the question though... were talking about the answer. And the answer says this:

 

A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not

break down into combat squads.

 

A squad is either placed in reserves, deploying, or deployed, or removed. This statement, this answer, says only that if they are in that first state- placed in reserves- that they cannot break into combat squads. Thats all. Where you get the idea that this affect is continuous Im not sure... its like saying a unit may not move in the shooting phase applied to it in the assault phase.

[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.

 

Conjecture you have yet to prove.

 

No, a conjecture you have yet to disprove. The way it's worded makes it, grammatticaly, a general and universal ban because the wording omits any set duration. It falls onto YOU to prove that it is in effect only WHILE IN reserve, and you have no solid ground to stand on to prove that.

 

I suggest you check out the BRB, which I am skimming right now, to find out pretty much every rule with an intended duration has it explicitly stated.

 

A squad is either placed in reserves, deploying, or deployed, or removed. This statement, this answer, says only that if they are in that first state- placed in reserves- that they cannot break into combat squads. Thats all. Where you get the idea that this affect is continuous Im not sure... its like saying a unit may not move in the shooting phase applied to it in the assault phase.

 

NO.

 

A s quad is either IN reserves, deploying, deployed or removed.

 

OR

 

A squad is either PLACED in reserves or DEPLOYED on Turn 1.

 

Being IN RESERVE and being PLACED IN RESERVE are not the same state, and their inverse are also different. This is where you are going wrong. Over and over.

 

A squad can meet the conditions for being placed in reserve and deployed at the same time. Just like my fork example above, where a fork can meet the conditions for being on the table and being placed in the cabinet at the same time and thus making me unable to use it.

 

It can't meet the conditions for being in reserve and deployed at the same time. But this is NOT what the answer states.

[Mezkh]

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.

 

Conjecture you have yet to prove.

 

No, a conjecture you have yet to disprove. The way it's worded makes it, grammatticaly, a general and universal ban because the wording omits any set duration.

 

 

No, it doesn't.

 

Context.

 

Grammatically, it's a ban on units placed in reserve from combat squadding. Contextually, it is answering a question concerning the ordering of forces in the deployment phase, where the decision is made to deploy (eligible to combat squad) or withhold and place in reserve (thus not eligible at that point, and hence an answer that is given that makes sense relative to the question.)

 

When are units placed in reserve? Turn one. Can they combat squad when they're placed in reserve? No. The FAQ is silent on combating squading in later turns when units arrive and deploy. It really is.

 

If we accept your twisted interpretation that units placed in reserve cannot combat squad evaaaaaaaar for the rest of the game after they leave reserves, then no unit in drop-pod could ever combat squad on arriving and disembarking, because according to you they have some indefinate 'it was placed in reserve, so NO' status hanging over them.

 

Really? You want to go down this path?

[Grey Mage]

A squad can meet the conditions for being placed in reserve and deployed at the same time.

 

It can't meet the conditions for being in reserve and deployed at the same time.

 

And no, it cant- because there is no difference between being placed in reserves and being there period.

 

There is a difference between having been placed in reserves and being in reserves though. What is this difference? Its the past tense- particularly the past participle tense while placed in would be the present perfect continous tense. Or basicly- ones been completely done previously, the others being done now as well as before. I know that auxiliary verbs can be somewhat confusing in the english language, but this particular case is very straightforward.

[captain Mungo]

@tahrikmili: You have a lot of good points and views to contribute, but you are getting too worked up about this to make the most out of your arguments. Take a break from the computer, have some fresh air, blow some steam and calm down. We'll most likely not have reached any conclusion before you're back anyway. :P

 

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

Haha, I love what you did there! I know its just poor choice of words but still funny to me. What's funny is that a "conservative route" would be one that wishes to preserve the way things used to be before the FAQ. But this is irrelevant, I just found it funny.

 

Since most of what we've done lately is argue over the grammatical meaning of each others metaphors, maybe we could try to sum up the relevant rule quotes and arguments for all sides? If no mod has the time for it I can give it a try. Could help refocus on what we're actually discussing.

[tahrikmili]

A squad can meet the conditions for being placed in reserve and deployed at the same time.

 

It can't meet the conditions for being in reserve and deployed at the same time.

 

And no, it cant- because there is no difference between being placed in reserves and being there period.

 

There is a difference between having been placed in reserves and being in reserves though. What is this difference? Its the past tense- particularly the past participle tense while placed in would be the present perfect continous tense. Or basicly- ones been completely done previously, the others being done now as well as before. I know that auxiliary verbs can be somewhat confusing in the english language, but this particular case is very straightforward.

 

Emphasis mine. Stop adding to the answer. The answer is NOT having been placed it's being placed. The two are different things. Compare 'being placed in reserves' with 'being in reserves' like I did, because your argument has NOTHING to do with the rule or the answer.

 

If we accept your twisted interpretation that units placed in reserve cannot combat squad evaaaaaaaar for the rest of the game after they leave reserves, then no unit in drop-pod could ever combat squad on arriving and disembarking, because according to you they have some indefinate 'it was placed in reserve, so NO' status hanging over them.

 

Dude.. Really? What?

 

The drop pod squads have their own explicit FAQ item.

 

Really, as advised, I'm taking a break from this thread, it's become all sorts of convulted nonsense.

[Grey Mage]

*sighs*

[Grey Mage]

Seahawk just sent me this lil tidbit.

 

What we are going with, and this is after actually chatting to the guy who wrote the new GW FAQ last Friday evening so we know his intention, is that you only decide to combat squad when a unit is deployed on the board.

 

The Grand Tournament (GW UK) FAQ now reads:

 

Q. 65. When do squads count as being deployed for the purposes of deciding whether or not to split units into combat squads?

Players must declare if a unit is splitting into combat squads when it does one of the following:

1. When it is deployed on the board during set up.

2. When it moves onto the board on turn 1 in the Dawn of War scenario.

3. When you successfully roll to bring it on the board from reserves, deepstriking or outflanking.

4. When it disembarks from a Drop Pod.

Please remember that in cases 1,2 & 3, as per the official GW FAQ’s, you may not be split into a combat squad and have both squads inside the same transport.

[JamesI]

Thanks GM. Good enough for me. Hopefully that nugget makes it into an Official FAQ though.

[Mezkh]

Great stuff :teehee:

[Grizzly Adams]

well hopefully this will hurry up and cross the pond and be official! Then we can all go back to power armored high fives and bro hugs :lol:

 

Seahawk just sent me this lil tidbit.

 

What we are going with, and this is after actually chatting to the guy who wrote the new GW FAQ last Friday evening so we know his intention, is that you only decide to combat squad when a unit is deployed on the board.

 

The Grand Tournament (GW UK) FAQ now reads:

 

Q. 65. When do squads count as being deployed for the purposes of deciding whether or not to split units into combat squads?

Players must declare if a unit is splitting into combat squads when it does one of the following:

1. When it is deployed on the board during set up.

2. When it moves onto the board on turn 1 in the Dawn of War scenario.

3. When you successfully roll to bring it on the board from reserves, deepstriking or outflanking.

4. When it disembarks from a Drop Pod.

Please remember that in cases 1,2 & 3, as per the official GW FAQ’s, you may not be split into a combat squad and have both squads inside the same transport.

[Mezkh]

Well it is 'official' already :lol: that's all consistent with the current rules. It's almost on par with WBB though for confusion given the 5 page thread.

[Grizzly Adams]

Well it is 'official' already :P that's all consistent with the current rules. It's almost on par with WBB though for confusion given the 5 page thread.

 

maybe a better word would have been, "clarified" :D

[Algesan]

Well it is 'official' already :o that's all consistent with the current rules. It's almost on par with WBB though for confusion given the 5 page thread.

 

Except for WBB it takes non-standard reinterpretations of the English language usage to try to find creative ways to deny it to Necrons.