Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's vehicles moving flat out and 'turn' vs 'player turn' all over again for people with English as a second language.

Lets get one thing straight first.

Units placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads.

=/=

Units arriving and then deploying from reserve may not break down into combat squads.

And here are some relevant rules quotes, emphasis mine.

The decision to split the unit into combat squads, as well as which models go into each combat squad, must be made when the unit is deployed. Both combat squads can be deployed in separate locations. The one exception to this is a unit that arrives by Drop Pod - the player can choose to split such a unit into combat squads when it disembarks.

When deploying their army, players may choose not to deploy one or more of their units and instead leave them in reserve

Once all of the units have been rolled for, the player picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it..

Here is a full breakdown of most of the permutations.

- 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 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.
- 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)

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:It's vehicles moving flat out and 'turn' vs 'player turn' all over again for people with English as a second language.

Its not the same thing at all. the turn vs. player turn thing was VERY clearly spelled out in the rulebook, just many people didn't know it was there.


With this current debacle, while I can see your point, the FAQ answer is written sloppily enough that there IS real ambiguity and honestly, whether or not you believe that only people who speak 'English as a second language' are going to interpret it 'incorrectly' I actually think that, unless they change the FAQ wording (which they may), that *most* people are going to disagree with you.

Is it possible that GW "Purposefully" creates the ambiguities, vagaries and vexes to necessitate another edition?

Thereby assuring that we plop down another 250.00 on the updated rules?

Connor McKane wrote:Is it possible that GW "Purposefully" creates the ambiguities, vagaries and vexes to necessitate another edition?

Thereby assuring that we plop down another 250.00 on the updated rules?

$250? What amount is that? Rulebook and several codexes?

Its not the first time someone has suggested that...in fact in the '100 greatest hobby games of all time' the guy who picks 40K as his favorite game actually credits the way they write the rules for helping to spawn a lively debate over rules that keeps the game relevant. Considering that's what we're doing right now, sometimes I do wonder...


But really, if you ever get to hang out with any of the studio guys for a bit you realize all the conspiracy theories that people put out there about GW are utter rubbish. These guys do the best they can within the directives they're given but ultimately they're working towards a different sensibility then the fine level of detail gamers like you and I are looking for.

yakface wrote:

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:It's vehicles moving flat out and 'turn' vs 'player turn' all over again for people with English as a second language.

Its not the same thing at all. the turn vs. player turn thing was VERY clearly spelled out in the rulebook, just many people didn't know it was there.


With this current debacle, while I can see your point, the FAQ answer is written sloppily enough that there IS real ambiguity and honestly, whether or not you believe that only people who speak 'English as a second language' are going to interpret it 'incorrectly' I actually think that, unless they change the FAQ wording (which they may), that *most* people are going to disagree with you.

It is similar, if we can't call it the same. The turn thing is spelled out in the rulebook, people didn't know it was there/don't cross reference their rules. The combat squads things is also spelled out in the rulebook, again people don't know it's there, or don't bother to cross-reference their rules.

The rulebook spells out; That Combat squads happens when the unit is deployed; units can opt not to deploy in the deployment phase and go into reserve to be deployed later.
Pre-FAQ people still confused this aspect of combat squadding and when it can/can't be done all the time. That doesn't make those people right when they latch onto a FAQ and add it to their pile of misunderstanding.

The two relevant permutations from before.

- 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.

The FAQ confirms.

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.

It's a question, and an answer. It's a clarification, not a rules change.

FAQ clarified;
Q: Can you take a transport with a combat squad capable unit and put 5 men on the table, and 5 men in reserves in the transport, or put 5 men in reserves in the transport and 5 men in reserves out of the transport?
A: No because squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads (implicitly stating; if you read the rules, you need to have deployed a unit before it is able to combat squad, anything deployed can't be then be put into reserves because reserving requires you elect not to deploy.)

It's a poor FAQ because it really should say explicitly the implicit justification for the people who struggle to understand combat squads.

Its especially poor because it is just a copy-pasted question and answer from the old Dark Angels FAQ because Dark Angles have (had) a specific prohibition in their codex against combat squadding units at all once they're reserved.

So the answer was totally clearly correct for the old Dark Angel ruling, but now (at best) is highly confusing.

The question is really whether the codex author thought the 'right' answer was to disallow any and all combat squadding when arriving from Reserves (which we know is wrong per the rules) or whether he knew what the correct answer was and just copy-pasted the Dark Angel ruling without realizing what was happening (either is likely).

There was a tremendous amount of copy-pasting going on between the marine codex FAQs this round of updates because it finally looks like they're trying to get concurrent rulings into all the appropriate FAQs (something they never did before)...but unfortunately it can also lead to this.

In all honesty lets look at the FAQ Q&A again:
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? (p69)
A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not
break down into combat squads.

Now the question is whether you can combat squad and deploy half while keeping half in reserves.

The answer was that you cannot break squads placed in reserves into combat squads; which is exactly the opposite of something the Combat squads expressly permit(at least so long as the squad is dropping down in a Pod).

The first part of the answer is exactly correct(the "no") the reasoning is, however flawed.

I will, of course, abide by the answer excepting in the situation that I take a Squad in a Pod, reserve that squad in the Drop pod, and drop the unit(because the rule expressly permits this, and the FAQ is not an errata changing the rule itself).

Of course in a tourney; if a TO tells me i cannot Combat squad at pod landing due to this rule, I will make my case(what i just said here), and if the TO still says no; I will go with the TO's ruling.

Kommissar Kel wrote:
The answer was that you cannot break squads placed in reserves into combat squads; which is exactly the opposite of something the Combat squads expressly permit(at least so long as the squad is dropping down in a Pod).

The first part of the answer is exactly correct(the "no") the reasoning is, however flawed.

?? As long as the squad is dropping in a pod, they can split when they disembark, ie, when they deploy from deep strike. They are not split while in the pod, you don't declare them as split when placed into reserves in the pod, you can decide when they get out whether they are splitting or not. So the FAQ is not saying the opposite, it's reinforcing the existing rules.

The FAQ says quite simply that reserved squads can never split.

They do not tell us that Squads can only split when coming in from reserves they say that reserved squads cannot be split.

It is incredibly poor wording on their part.

Kommissar Kel wrote:The FAQ says quite simply that reserved squads can never split.

No it doesn't. It says this:

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

So when you place a squad in reserve, it may not be broken down ito combat squads. This means you can't take a 10 man squad, place it in reserve, split it into 2 combat squads and roll for each to arrive separtely.
When you place a unit in reserve, you are not deploying them.
And from Codex:Space Marines page 51: "The decision to split the unit into combat squads, as well as which models go into each combat squad, must be made when the unit is deployed."
The FAQ did not change this at all.
Reserved squads can be split into combat squads after they have been rolled for and as they are deployed.

That would be an accurate reading if it had said "No, be4cause you cannot Break a unit into combat squads when you place them into reserves"

What they said is squads placed(past tense) a unit in reserves you may not(present tense) break them down into combat squads.

it is as I said poor wording and has to do with the tenses used; You have already Placed you squad in reserve, you now may not Break them down into combat squads.

Kommissar Kel wrote:it is as I said poor wording and has to do with the tenses used; You have already Placed you squad in reserve, you now may not Break them down into combat squads.

I agree that the wording is poor, and IMO it is not really a necessary FAQ because the combat squad rule already specifies when a unit can be split when deployed via drop pod.
Be that as it may, the FAQ says that squads that are placed in reserve cannot be split, not squads that were placed in reserve.
You cannot split a squad when or as is it being placed in reserve, but when deploying it, you can split is as normal.

I agree with the FAQ ruling being unnecessary; but not with your interpretation of what it says.

It does not say you cannot Split while being placed, it says once placed you cannot split. And as far as parcing Are placed or Were placed the end outcome is the same: Cannot, upon deployment, split.

This is the same problem that the Storm Raven's Assault Vehicle rule had until the most recent FAQ: once you deep strike you could never assault out of it. Mind you the new FAQ fixes that; so lets hope they get to a new C:SM FAQ that fixes the Combat squad wording error.

I suppose that is a possible interpretation, with only units arriving via drop pods being able to bypass it. I don't think so personbally, but I do see how you're getting there. SO now they need to (once again) FAQ their FAQ..........

Yeah, everything would have been fine if they either left it alone or worded it properly.

In fact a Simple "no" sans explanation(as with some of their other answers) would have been preferable.

Kommissar Kel wrote:In fact a Simple "no" sans explanation(as with some of their other answers) would have been preferable.

Games Workshop doesn't most times give answers as to why. Just look at the Tyranid FAQ. So many questions with the Answer NO! Would have been nice to find out why for a better understanding.