Conjurations not for all

[Ozshock]

why does GW have to spell out every term they use? have they ever?

 

whats wrong with identifying the term "deploying for battle" as the deployment phase...and deploying via Deep Strike happening in the movement phase is not deploying for battle...then you will have no conflicts, and the CtA psykers THAT HAVE ACCESS TO the Malefic powers, have no problem casting them.

 

i think people are just trying to find a way to stop the spread of summoning that is happening...but really all you are doing is arguing over something that doesnt need arguing over

 

"deploying for battle" is not defined by GW...but how hard is it to define it urselves? maybe some people prefer a roll off so someone isnt actually allowed to do something that EVERY OTHER RULE tells them they can do...they just want to stop said player from playing the way he likes, which turns out to be an unfair game...

 

i would mark a player down for sportsmanship if they wanted to argue this over the table in a tournament...it isnt defined by GW so really how can you say the two terms are the same or not?

[Kristoff]

why does GW have to spell out every term they use? have they ever?

Any term that is not going to be using its dictionary version must be otherwise defined. This is the case in any game.

 

whats wrong with identifying the term "deploying for battle" as the deployment phase...and deploying via Deep Strike happening in the movement phase is not deploying for battle...then you will have no conflicts, and the CtA psykers THAT HAVE ACCESS TO the Malefic powers, have no problem casting them.

Nothing, so long as you recognize that this is House Ruling or treating it as RAI. Part of the rules is make this game your own, but that isn't the purpose of this specific portion of the board.

 

Part of the problem is that the only time "deploy for battle" is used is in the CtA Alliance description. Combine that with "deploy", in and of itself, is used both pre-game and in game, it then causes that phrase to be easily carried over to mean more than just the deployment phase. And yes, it's all because of semantics.

 

i think people are just trying to find a way to stop the spread of summoning that is happening...but really all you are doing is arguing over something that doesnt need arguing over

Not quite. As has been pointed out, this would apply to Shrikes Deep Striking in to support a Grey Knight Terminator Squad as much as it does Conjuring Daemons.

 

And it's not all just arguing, but being aware of the rules as they are written and being aware where those problems may occur to talk them over with an opponent just in case it may crop up in a friendly game and get it out of the way before it IS in the middle of the game. It also can be good to bring these up to your local TO so they can make a ruling on it before the tournament begins.

 

"deploying for battle" is not defined by GW...but how hard is it to define it urselves? maybe some people prefer a roll off so someone isnt actually allowed to do something that EVERY OTHER RULE tells them they can do...they just want to stop said player from playing the way he likes, which turns out to be an unfair game...

 

Again, not hard at all, but we can't possibly represent everyone in the world and House Rule for everyone. Again, that's what those boards are for, this one is about How It Is Written.

 

i would mark a player down for sportsmanship if they wanted to argue this over the table in a tournament...it isnt defined by GW so really how can you say the two terms are the same or not?

Precisely because it isn't defined by GW, we have to apply our own interpretation on it. Now since everyone is different and has different experiences, they may have different views on how it could or should be interpreted. The only other way is to use the dictionary version, which actually does not support your view.

 

Just be aware, that person you mark down because they don't agree with you, may mark you down for the same reason, as it goes both ways, and they are just as right as you are.

[Gentlemanloser]

SAntic and MAlefic are both called Daemonolgy in the rulebook.

Yeah, but this topic is about Malefic. And until the update of C:I, the BRB ruled all Codexes (bar the GK) get access to Maelfic.

But with its update, C:I has no access to Maelfic.

It was also why I mentioned;

Unless you mean a catch all for Santic and Malefiic....

why does GW have to spell out every term they use? have they ever?

Because that's what makes it rules for a game, rather than a story. Or an allegory we're supposed to interpret.

[Ozshock]

if GW meant the rule "deploys for battle" to be the same as "deploys" then why use different terms?

 

i still hold to the ruleing that "deploy for battle" means before the game begins...whereas "Deploy" could be in amongst any other phase...

 

what would happen if shrikes DS next to a unit of GK at 13" (allowed by your ruling for CtA) but then scatters within the 12" range? its then not allowed to DS? but it hasnt caused a mishap, what do you do now? i think the same terms apply here as well...Deploy is different to Deploys for Battle...

 

the deep strike rule says..."deploy"...not "deploy for battle" so i still hold that it is allowed...which means shrikes could deploy beside a unit of GK...BUT you still have to take into account the one eye open rule

[Gentlemanloser]

Is a unit in ongoing reserves in the battle?

 

When that unit deploys in Turn 3, is it joining the battle?

 

Wouldn't you say that it was deploying for battle?

[Teetengee]

So this conversation has alerted(reminded of?) me to the existence of a tyranid unit known as shrikes. For a second I thought you were referring to shrike, who I was fairly certain was a battlebro to gk.

Anyways.

I agree that this is probably one of those things that needs to be discussed pregame. (and since the RAI seems pretty clear it shouldn't be too much of a hassle most of the time).

[Kristoff]

if GW meant the rule "deploys for battle" to be the same as "deploys" then why use different terms?

One is a term, one is a phrase that contains the same term. If they meant the deployment phase, why did they not just use "deployment" as they use it in every other instance?

 

Do you see how this can go back around with Intentions?

[Raeven]

Regardless, I think there is support for Ozshock's point that they mean the beginning of the game because of the phrasing.  "when they are deploying for battle."

 

As Kristoff pointed out, there is only one time in the game when multiple units deploy for battle simultaneously.  The deployment phase.  In all other instances of deployment, when you place the units, you are restricted to leaving them where you place them, essentially mandating an order on the placement.  In deployment, you can rearrange the models as much as you like until you are happy with the final positioning.  Meaning things happen all at once and there is no order of operations (ignoring scout and infiltrate).

 

Yes, GL.  Obviously, when I said Daemonology, I meant both sets of powers.

[Kristoff]

Regardless, I think there is support for Ozshock's point that they mean the beginning of the game because of the phrasing. "when they are deploying for battle."

 

As Kristoff pointed out, there is only one time in the game when multiple units deploy for battle simultaneously. The deployment phase. In all other instances of deployment, when you place the units, you are restricted to leaving them where you place them, essentially mandating an order on the placement. In deployment, you can rearrange the models as much as you like until you are happy with the final positioning. Meaning things happen all at once and there is no order of operations (ignoring scout and infiltrate).

 

This is not true. A Drop Pod will often deploy with 2 or more units, including itself.

[Gentlemanloser]

Yes, GL.  Obviously, when I said Daemonology, I meant both sets of powers.

 

It's just we have a very recent discussion about C:I having access to Malefic.  Which it did when 7th hit, due to the BRB ruling.  And every codex, bar GK, had access to Malefic due to the BRB rules.

 

When it was stealth updated, it removed Malefic from the list of available disciplines.  Which over rules the BRB on allowing Malefic.

 

Edit: Still, I don't get what access to Sanctic has to do with the topic at hand.  I thought the point you were trying to make is that GW gave access to Summoning to everyone (bar GK of course) in the BRB.  Therefore, the obvious intention was that everyone (bar the GK) should be able *to* summon.

 

Therefore the problems with CtA and Summoning distances should be ignored.

 

Sanctic has no bearing on that line of discussion.

 

And it's now obvious the GW don't want *everyone* (bar the GK) to have access to Summoning.  So the arguement above starts to lose weight.

 

 

 

This is not true. A Drop Pod will often deploy with 2 or more units, including itself.

 

Or an outflanking Transport with two Combat Squads and attached ICs.

 

Or any one of the various 'Formations' that bring on multiple units together.

 

It's not just the pre game Deployment Phase.

[Raeven]

Regardless, I think there is support for Ozshock's point that they mean the beginning of the game because of the phrasing. "when they are deploying for battle."

As Kristoff pointed out, there is only one time in the game when multiple units deploy for battle simultaneously. The deployment phase. In all other instances of deployment, when you place the units, you are restricted to leaving them where you place them, essentially mandating an order on the placement. In deployment, you can rearrange the models as much as you like until you are happy with the final positioning. Meaning things happen all at once and there is no order of operations (ignoring scout and infiltrate).

This is not true. A Drop Pod will often deploy with 2 or more units, including itself.

Oh for pete's sake. Drop Pods do not deploy during the deployment phase.

Yes, GL. Obviously, when I said Daemonology, I meant both sets of powers.

It's just we have a very recent discussion about C:I having access to Malefic. Which it did when 7th hit, due to the BRB ruling. And every codex, bar GK, had access to Malefic due to the BRB rules.

When it was stealth updated, it removed Malefic from the list of available disciplines. Which over rules the BRB on allowing Malefic.

Edit: Still, I don't get what access to Sanctic has to do with the topic at hand. I thought the point you were trying to make is that GW gave access to Summoning to everyone (bar GK of course) in the BRB. Therefore, the obvious intention was that everyone (bar the GK) should be able *to* summon.

Therefore the problems with CtA and Summoning distances should be ignored.

Sanctic has no bearing on that line of discussion.

And it's now obvious the GW don't want *everyone* (bar the GK) to have access to Summoning. So the arguement above starts to lose weight.

This is not true. A Drop Pod will often deploy with 2 or more units, including itself.

Or an outflanking Transport with two Combat Squads and attached ICs.

Or any one of the various 'Formations' that bring on multiple units together.

It's not just the pre game Deployment Phase.

You guys are special when you want to be. No wonder you can't just read the rules. You have to have every damned detail spelled out for you. Reading for comprehension...you'll have none of it!

Seriously. The rules piss you both off so much, this may not be the game for you.

[Gentlemanloser]

(This isn't a personal jab, I'm not trying to incite the Melta here.  But for reading comprehension...)

 

 

 

Oh for pete's sake.  Drop Pods do not deploy during the deployment phase.

 

 

 

there is only one time in the game when multiple units deploy for battle simultaneously. The deployment phase.

 

That's *why* Drop Pods...

 

They do not deploy during the deployment phase, but in turns during the game.

 

And they deploy units simultaneously.

 

*cough*spelling things out*cough* ;)

[Morollan]

i still hold to the ruleing that "deploy for battle" means before the game begins...whereas "Deploy" could be in amongst any other phase...

 

All due respect, that's not a ruling. It is, at best, an opinion.

[Dam13n]

(This isn't a personal jab, I'm not trying to incite the Melta here. But for reading comprehension...)

hmmm...

You guys are special when you want to be. No wonder you can't just read the rules. You have to have every damned detail spelled out for you. Reading for comprehension...you'll have none of it!

Seriously. The rules you both off so much, this may not be the game for you.

*cough*spelling things out*cough*

... and the melta starts warming up...

This thread was starting to wind down nicely, this latest batch of comments is not helpful... it is instead verging on ad hominem.

If this continues... well you know what'll happen!

[Grand Master Laertes]

Well, GW never defined clearly the difference between "deploying for battle" and "deploying", but I would like to hazard a guess: and if "deploying for battle" is simply meant to refer to the deployment which happens in the "Preparing for Battle" phase, which has its own chapter in the rulebook?

 

This could seem a weak argument on its own, but seems supported by the only other instance of the "deploying for battle" wording which appears in the book, in the "The Turn" chapter (don't know the page number, as I only have the eBook version of the rulebook):

 

 

'Before the Game Begins' and 'At the End of the Game'

During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens 'before the game begins'. Examples of suche events include generating Warlord Traits and psychic powers. These are always resolved before the armies deploy for battle.

 

So, we still don't have a clear statement by GW, but this paragraph, in my opinion, strongly suggest tath the "deployment for battle" is what happens immediately after the events that occur before the game begins.

[Gentlemanloser]

What happens if you place your entire Army into Reserves?

 

Can the game not start as that one army hasn't 'deployed for battle'?

[Raeven]

(This isn't a personal jab, I'm not trying to incite the Melta here. But for reading comprehension...)

Oh for pete's sake. Drop Pods do not deploy during the deployment phase.

there is only one time in the game when multiple units deploy for battle simultaneously. The deployment phase.

That's *why* Drop Pods...

They do not deploy during the deployment phase, but in turns during the game.

And they deploy units simultaneously.

*cough*spelling things out*cough*

Drop Pods do not fit the criteria we are discussing of placing multiple units on the board simultaneously. The drop pod deploys. After all the other drop pods deploy, the units inside disembark. Both are considered arriving from reserve/deep strike by the rules, but you cannot place both the unit and the drop pod on the table simultaneously. Nor can you place multiple drop pods on the table simultaneously. You resolve each unit in an order, scatter, disembark, etc... individually.

So no, they don't meet the qualification for placing multiple units on the board simultaneously in the same phase/turn.

[Gentlemanloser]

You place a single Drop Pod.

 

You then place *multiple* units, that deploy by disembarking from the Pod.

 

Multiple units, deploying simultaneously, after the pre game Deployment Phase.

[Raeven]

Uh...no.  You place a drop pod pre movement.  Then during the movement phase you disembark a unit.  Individual units that 1. can never physically be placed on the table in the same mini phase within a turn, and 2. will never be considered CtA with each other so don't matter one whit to this argument.

[Gentlemanloser]

No, that's not how Drop Pods have *ever* worked...

 

 

 

note that you must first roll for all Reserves, and then move any arriving reserves, before any other units can move

[Kristoff]

Uh...no. You place a drop pod pre movement. Then during the movement phase you disembark a unit. Individual units that 1. can never physically be placed on the table in the same mini phase within a turn, and 2. will never be considered CtA with each other so don't matter one whit to this argument.

A unit in a transport that is on the table is considered deployed. A unit being deployed has only marginal association with the models being on the board.

 

But this is only to counter your argument on multiple units being deployed at the same time only occurs in the deployment phase.

 

However, simultaneous deployment is not mentioned anywhere as a relationship or concern in Come the Apocalypse.

 

What is of concern is how close the unit is to a unit in its army it has that relationship with when it is deploying for battle (whenever that officially is). This is not a "simultaneous" concern at all, but part of the process as you are bringing units to the board.

[Raeven]

It fails as a counter argument.

[Ozshock]

Well, GW never defined clearly the difference between "deploying for battle" and "deploying", but I would like to hazard a guess: and if "deploying for battle" is simply meant to refer to the deployment which happens in the "Preparing for Battle" phase, which has its own chapter in the rulebook?

 

This could seem a weak argument on its own, but seems supported by the only other instance of the "deploying for battle" wording which appears in the book, in the "The Turn" chapter (don't know the page number, as I only have the eBook version of the rulebook):

 

 

'Before the Game Begins' and 'At the End of the Game'

During your game, you may encounter rules that say that an action or event happens 'before the game begins'. Examples of suche events include generating Warlord Traits and psychic powers. These are always resolved before the armies deploy for battle.

 

So, we still don't have a clear statement by GW, but this paragraph, in my opinion, strongly suggest tath the "deployment for battle" is what happens immediately after the events that occur before the game begins.

 

thanks for finding this Laertes...just goes to prove my point again...GW themselves referring to the term "Deploy for Battle" as being the deployment step of setting up an army, after warlord traits and psychic powers...

 

edit: and drop pods? are considered one unit until after they deploy...the infantry choose the DP as a dedicated transport...but that still doesnt change the argument...if you could put a CtA ally into a DP then it would matter, but it matters not a whit here...no CtA ally can use a drop pod, therefore doesnt deploy simultaneously or otherwise with it...

[Gentlemanloser]

And yet no ones answered my question about an entire army put into Reserves.

 

The game can't start then, as one side hasn't 'deployed for battle'.

 

Also, you miss the point on the Drop Pod.

 

It's only an example of multiple units deploying simultaneously in a phase that is after Deployment.

[Teetengee]

I believe the armies very well may have deployed for battle in those steps even though no individual units have.