Conjurations not for all

[Ozshock]

in the deployment phase you choose which units go where...reserves included...which counts as you having "deployed for battle"

 

so yes the game can start as you have chosen to keep your units in reserve...ending your deployment phase

[Grey Mage]

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.

1 ) Its not relevant.

2 ) Its been deployed, because you followed all of the rules for deployment. It just hasnt been deployed onto the table.

3 ) Chill your britches, before the thread is locked. Youve been around long enough to know that GW does not write their rules in a technical style, and if you continue to use that fact to stir up arguments with no real point there will be warnings.

[Grand Master Laertes]

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'.

 

In the rulebook, in the Deployment section of the Preparing for Battle chapter, is written:

 

 

Whichever method you use, models must either deploy within their deployment zone or be held back in Reserve.

 

So being held in reserve is part of being deployed (for battle), and this makes your argument invalid.

 

 

As for the Drop Pods argument, it invalidates the argument based on the semanthical analysis of "within 12" of each other" as an index of the simultaneity of deployment, but 

I would never use a similar argument, for I think is too weak, complex and misleading... and it is easy to confute unless you add some specs to it, which are born by an interpretation and are not written in the rules.

[Kristoff]

 

 

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'.

In the rulebook, in the Deployment section of the Preparing for Battle chapter, is written:

Whichever method you use, models must either deploy within their deployment zone or be held back in Reserve.

So being held in reserve is part of being deployed (for battle), and this makes your argument invalid.

So a unit held in Reserves deploys twice? Once for battle, and another to be on the board?

 

As for the Drop Pods argument, it invalidates the argument based on the semanthical analysis of "within 12" of each other" as an index of the simultaneity of deployment, but

I would never use a similar argument, for I think is too weak, complex and misleading... and it is easy to confute unless you add some specs to it, which are born by an interpretation and are not written in the rules.

Which argument are you saying it refutes again?

[Komrk]

 

 

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'.

In the rulebook, in the Deployment section of the Preparing for Battle chapter, is written:

Whichever method you use, models must either deploy within their deployment zone or be held back in Reserve.

So being held in reserve is part of being deployed (for battle), and this makes your argument invalid.

So a unit held in Reserves deploys twice? Once for battle, and another to be on the board?

 

As for the Drop Pods argument, it invalidates the argument based on the semanthical analysis of "within 12" of each other" as an index of the simultaneity of deployment, but

I would never use a similar argument, for I think is too weak, complex and misleading... and it is easy to confute unless you add some specs to it, which are born by an interpretation and are not written in the rules.

Which argument are you saying it refutes again?

 

 

A unit held in reserve deploys for battle once (being held in reserves being the deployment choice), then it deploys (not for battle) onto the field when it comes in from reserves.

[Dusktiger]

another way to reword it, is to say "A unit held in reserve deploys for battle once (being held in reserves being the deployment choice), then it is placed onto the active playing area when it comes in from reserves."

[Kristoff]

A unit held in reserve deploys for battle once (being held in reserves being the deployment choice), then it deploys (not for battle) onto the field when it comes in from reserves.

So, your answer is, "Yes, a unit held in Reserves is deployed twice."?

 

another way to reword it, is to say "A unit held in reserve deploys for battle once (being held in reserves being the deployment choice), then it is placed onto the active playing area when it comes in from reserves."

Except the wording for arriving from Reserves specifically states that a unit deploys on to the board. The method for placing a unit in to Reserves is never referenced in that section as "deploying" or ant of its conjugations.

 

Part of the issue is that in every other use of the word "deploy" as a verb in the BRB it specifically means a unit (not always a model for those mounted in a Transport) being placed on the board.

 

A unit in Reserves is placed or announced there, not deployed there.

[Grey Mage]

No.

 

Deploying for battle is one action.

Deploying is another.

One can deploy a unit for battle by deploying it onto the table, but this is not the only way.

That they both have the word deploying in them is a curiosity, but it doesnt make them the same. Not anymore than a psychotic and a psychiatrist are the same, despite both having psych in them. Yet.... some psychotics are psychiatrists. Still not the same thing.

[Raeven]

 

A unit in Reserves is placed or announced there, not deployed there.

 

 

 

The point is, choosing to place units in reserves is a choice you make when "deploying for battle."  If all your units are held in reserve, you have fulfilled the requirements to deploy for battle and the first game turn can begin.  They aren't being deployed twice, but the initial condition of deploying for battle has been met.

 

The new rule system makes use of a lot of these terms without set definitions, but distinct wording around them to allow you to grok their whole meaning.   For example, in the grenades section, it says units may only throw one grenade per phase.  So, again, we have a word/phrase that we have to determine the meaning behind that has no set definition.  Later on under each grenade, it describes throwing a grenade only under the shooting paragraph in the grenades rules.  

 

In the case of Come the Apocalypse, the only time units that are Come the Apocalypse with each other deploy together ("when they are deploying for battle") is during the deployment phase.

[Kristoff]

No.

 

Deploying for battle is one action.

 

Deploying is another.

 

One can deploy a unit for battle by deploying it onto the table, but this is not the only way.

 

That they both have the word deploying in them is a curiosity, but it doesnt make them the same. Not anymore than a psychotic and a psychiatrist are the same, despite both having psych in them. Yet.... some psychotics are psychiatrists. Still not the same thing.

Prove where they are different.

 

But, "deploy for battle" is used exactly once in the rulebook, in the Alliance section. If it was used in the Deployment Phase rules, you would have a case.

 

But all you have is supposition and possible (even probable) intention in your argument. Nothing actually written.

 

The point is, choosing to place units in reserves is a choice you make when "deploying for battle." If all your units are held in reserve, you have fulfilled the requirements to deploy for battle and the first game turn can begin. They aren't being deployed twice, but the initial condition of deploying for battle has been met.

And what section does it specifically state this? All I see is you adding words to the deployment phase. This is is not proper evidence.

 

The new rule system makes use of a lot of these terms without set definitions, but distinct wording around them to allow you to grok their whole meaning. For example, in the grenades section, it says units may only throw one grenade per phase. So, again, we have a word/phrase that we have to determine the meaning behind that has no set definition. Later on under each grenade, it describes throwing a grenade only under the shooting paragraph in the grenades rules.

 

In the case of Come the Apocalypse, the only time units that are Come the Apocalypse with each other deploy together ("when they are deploying for battle") is during the deployment phase.

1) The CtA rule says nothing about deploying together. This is only your interpretation of it, and not how the rule is written. Infiltrators cannot deploy within 12" of enemy units, do they deploy at the same time as enemy units? No, they do not.

 

2) Aside from your (and several others) own assumption, what is the written evidence that "deploy for battle" only references the deployment phase?

[Raeven]

Come the Apocalypse says they are deploying together.  "When they deploy".  They being both sides of Come the Apocalypse.  Deductive reasoning says, they are deploying at the same time.  I tried leaving it open for all sorts of deployment, but you convinced me that there is specific meaning behind the phrasing in CtA because all other conditions for deployment places the units in a separate order.  So, when is the only time "They" deploy together?  The Deployment phase.

 

As Laertes pointed out, Preparing for Battle is the title of the whole section within which Deployment falls under.  So the direct phrasing may not have been used, but it's close enough to infer a relationship.

 

Infiltrate doesn't say, "cannot deploy within 12" of enemy units when they deploy."  It says, "Cannot be placed within 12" of any enemy unit."  Why didn't the Infiltrate rules say, "Deployed within 12" of any enemy units".  Because there is a difference.  All other types of deployment make mention of this difference except for the deployment phase.

[Kristoff]

Come the Apocalypse says they are deploying together.  "When they deploy".  They being both sides of Come the Apocalypse.  Deductive reasoning says, they are deploying at the same time.  I tried leaving it open for all sorts of deployment, but you convinced me that there is specific meaning behind the phrasing in CtA because all other conditions for deployment places the units in a separate order.  So, when is the only time "They" deploy together?  The Deployment phase.

Deploying together is never used in the Come the Apocalypse description, nor is it ever implied. The very first word is "Units", including all units that fit this description. So therefore, "they" is the proper pronoun to use in the entire paragraph. And since Alliance relationships work on both sides, and not just one, it is important to be inclusive when writing such rules.

 

As Laertes pointed out, Preparing for Battle is the title of the whole section within which Deployment falls under.  So the direct phrasing may not have been used, but it's close enough to infer a relationship.

If "Preparing" were a synonym for "deploy" or if deployment was a verb, this would be fait accompli. But they don't. Anything else is supposition, especially since units are not considered part of the battle until actually deployed, i.e. on the board.

 

Infiltrate doesn't say, "cannot deploy within 12" of enemy units when they deploy."  It says, "Cannot be placed within 12" of any enemy unit."  Why didn't the Infiltrate rules say, "Deployed within 12" of any enemy units".  Because there is a difference.  All other types of deployment make mention of this difference except for the deployment phase.

Actually, it doesn't even say placed, it says:

INFILTRATE

=][= snip =][=

Infiltrators can be set up anywhere on the table that is more than 12" from any enemy unit, as long as no deployed enemy unit can draw line of sight to them. This includes in a building, as long as the building is more than 12" from any enemy unit. Alternatively, they can be set up anywhere on the table more than 18" from any enemy unit, even in plain sight.

=][= snip =][=

So it uses "set up" for the distance, but then "deploys" when talking about DTs.

[Raeven]

Pardon me for not actually quoting the book verbatum.  

 

What are you even arguing any more?  I've lost track.

[Dam13n]

Infiltrate is not being discussed in this topic, so it's relevance is somewhat dubious.

 

Kindly keep it on topic please.

 

If there is nothing new to add, maybe it's best that this thread be allowed to lie.

 

The rules have been picked pretty clean and anyone who reads this thread should find enough information here to make up their own minds.

 

D.

[Grand Master Laertes]

But, "deploy for battle" is used exactly once in the rulebook, in the Alliance section. If it was used in the Deployment Phase rules, you would have a case.

 

 

This is not true, for as I've pointed out before it is used twice in the Rulebook, the first instance of it being:

 

 

'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.

 

 

(sorry if I cannot give you the exact page number, but I only own the eBook edition)

 

This sentence seems to imply quite clearly that the "deployment for battle" is what happens after all the "before the game begins" effects, and thus happens only once, at the beginning of the whole game, before you get into the battle.

[Teetengee]

The section Laertes mentions clearly states that deploying for battle is something armies do as a whole, not units. The only time the army deploys for battle is during the preparing for battle step. Therefore the come the apocalypse 12" restriction only applies when the unit is deploying while the army is deploying for battle (hence the phrase when they are deploying for battle, it refers plurally to multiple units, i.e. the army).

[Kristoff]

 

But, "deploy for battle" is used exactly once in the rulebook, in the Alliance section. If it was used in the Deployment Phase rules, you would have a case.

 

 

This is not true, for as I've pointed out before it is used twice in the Rulebook, the first instance of it being:

 

 

'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.

 

 

(sorry if I cannot give you the exact page number, but I only own the eBook edition)

 

This sentence seems to imply quite clearly that the "deployment for battle" is what happens after all the "before the game begins" effects, and thus happens only once, at the beginning of the whole game, before you get into the battle.

 

 

Ah, there we go, another instance. I didn't remember this reference from being presented earlier, I only remember people using the "Prepare for Battle" as the only reason or reference.

 

However, as Teetengee points out: 

The section Laertes mentions clearly states that deploying for battle is something armies do as a whole, not units.

Interestingly enough, Teetengee then makes an interesting leap, going from exception to inclusion:

The only time the army deploys for battle is during the preparing for battle step. Therefore the come the apocalypse 12" restriction only applies when the unit is deploying while the army is deploying for battle (hence the phrase when they are deploying for battle, it refers plurally to multiple units, i.e. the army).

But the last part is in error, as there are occasions were units do deploy together outside of Deployment (which led to the previous discussion of Drop Pods and Reserve Transports), and any belief that CtA only applies to deploying together is only in the believers head and not supported by the semantics of the sentence. If it said, "All units" or used the word "together", then it would be supported, but it does not.

 

The only thing that CtA specifically addresses is that when a unit is deployed for battle, it cannot be within 12" of a unit it has the CtA relationship with. Anything else is reliant upon when a person believes in when a unit "deploys for battle".

 

For some, this is when the army deploys for battle, which would invariably include Infiltrate and Scout, but not any Arriving from Reserves.

 

For others, this is when the unit deploys to engage in the battle, and would apply to any Outflanking or Deep Striking unit as much as in regular Deployment.

 

For myself, I believe the semantics are not quite strong enough to support either case to a full conclusion, and go by whatever my opponent feels is appropriate.

[Teetengee]

I never meant to say that multiple units don't sometimes deploy together. But the plural, combined with deploying for battle being used as an action for armies, suggests that deploying for battle is limited to when the army deploys, rather than units. The army deploys for battle at the start of the game (see the line quoted by Laertes and realize that the game cannot occur at all if otherwise). Units may deploy at other times and even multiple units at once, but they are only deploying whilst deploying for battle when the army is deploying for battle, i.e. at the beginning of the game.

Obviously it isn't an ironclad interpretation, but considering that it is the only interpretation that allows all the rules to function (cta summoning is explicitly allowed to be given to armies such as space marines, even if it isn't terribly advisable.) it is probably the best one.

Related

As far as I understand, the purpose of this forum is to understand the rules so that we may play the game, and as such there is the implicit assumption that the rules function as an integrated whole (even if there is little reason to explicitly assume such) and therefore when/if multiple interpretations of the rules are valid (such as appears to be in this case) then the interpretation that allows models to do what the rules say they can (i.e. cast summoning), should be accepted until further details from GW reject such an interpretation.

[Ozshock]

isnt this one finished yet?

 

why couldnt i place a drop pod within 12" of my allied necrons? what happens if it scatters to within 12"? does it not deploy? does it mishap...well no cause there are no mishaps with a droppod...what about a team of terminators (better example cause they do scatter like normal)...where does it say they cant deploy if they land within 12" of a CtA ally? do they mishap? well no cause nothing in the mishap rule says they do...then you are stuck because you think you cant place them within 12"...what do you do now?

 

i think the ruleing has come across that because the phrase "deploying for battle" is used, it is at the deployment step before turn 1 starts, and when during your player turn, you have already "deployed for battle" so CtA allies can deploy within 12"...its the only way everything works out...

 

until GW bring out an FAQ that says otherwise, just use this ruleing as it is the most reasonable to assume, given all the evidence posted above...and leave it at that