If I put a unit with Deep Strike (or Outflank) in Reserves, and declare them to be Deep Striking (or Outflanking), are you allowed to change how they come on? Can they choose to walk on as normal after they have sat in Reserves for a turn or 2? Or are they required to come in via the method you have told your opponent?

This is a slight off-shoot of the previous thread regarding the Monolith portal and Deep Strike Reserves, and while it may have some bearing on that discussion, it was locked for a reason. So please leave that topic at the door.

Deep striking is a special rule. Read the entire rule.

It consists of starting with deep strike reserve.
And ending with you placing them, by arriving by deep strike.
I don't know of any other deploying special rules, so there would be nothing with precedence to circumvent following deep strike to the letter once you have started to use it.

Ceann wrote:
Deep striking is a special rule. Read the entire rule.

It consists of starting with deep strike reserve.
And ending with you placing them, by arriving by deep strike.
I don't know of any other deploying special rules, so there would be nothing with precedence to circumvent following deep strike to the letter once you have started to use it.

I have read the rules. My question is "If I say this unit is Deep Striking, can (when they arrive from reserves) change my mind and have them walk on?" The same question can be asked regarding Outflank, only instead of walking on, it would be arrive from their table edge instead of the side edges.

 Happyjew wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Deep striking is a special rule. Read the entire rule.

It consists of starting with deep strike reserve.
And ending with you placing them, by arriving by deep strike.
I don't know of any other deploying special rules, so there would be nothing with precedence to circumvent following deep strike to the letter once you have started to use it.

I have read the rules. My question is "If I say this unit is Deep Striking, can (when they arrive from reserves) change my mind and have them walk on?" The same question can be asked regarding Outflank, only instead of walking on, it would be arrive from their table edge instead of the side edges.

The rules indicate that only those units that 'must arrive by Deep Strike' will have no choice but to arrive by Deep Strike.

Some units must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike.

Otherwise the rules are silent on the issue. So a unit with the Deep Strike rule could choose to instead arrive from Reserves invoking normal infantry permissions and walking on the battlefield.


This discussion winds up being very pertinent to Flying Monstrous Creatures since they are FAQed to have the Deep Strike special rule and have multiple choices on how to enter play.

 Happyjew wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Deep striking is a special rule. Read the entire rule.

It consists of starting with deep strike reserve.
And ending with you placing them, by arriving by deep strike.
I don't know of any other deploying special rules, so there would be nothing with precedence to circumvent following deep strike to the letter once you have started to use it.

I have read the rules. My question is "If I say this unit is Deep Striking, can (when they arrive from reserves) change my mind and have them walk on?" The same question can be asked regarding Outflank, only instead of walking on, it would be arrive from their table edge instead of the side edges.

You cannot choose to partially use a special rule.
I don't know of any circumstance where you can.

If you already initiated the rule, I would say you have to follow it through to its completion, you cannot use half or a portion of a rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Deep striking is a special rule. Read the entire rule.

It consists of starting with deep strike reserve.
And ending with you placing them, by arriving by deep strike.
I don't know of any other deploying special rules, so there would be nothing with precedence to circumvent following deep strike to the letter once you have started to use it.

I have read the rules. My question is "If I say this unit is Deep Striking, can (when they arrive from reserves) change my mind and have them walk on?" The same question can be asked regarding Outflank, only instead of walking on, it would be arrive from their table edge instead of the side edges.

The rules indicate that only those units that 'must arrive by Deep Strike' will have no choice but to arrive by Deep Strike.

Some units must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike.

Otherwise the rules are silent on the issue. So a unit with the Deep Strike rule could choose to instead arrive from Reserves invoking normal infantry permissions and walking on the battlefield.


This discussion winds up being very pertinent to Flying Monstrous Creatures since they are FAQed to have the Deep Strike special rule and have multiple choices on how to enter play.

Being "silent" on a rule is not permission to decide what it does. It never states you have the option to bring them in another way.
Therefore you do not.

Deepstrike is a special rule, your beloved "infantry standards" have no precedence.
Neither do any other form of rule other than a special rule that contradicts deepstrike, which would have to be a labeled special rule in a codex.

Ceann wrote:


Being "silent" on a rule is not permission to decide what it does. It never states you have the option to bring them in another way.
Therefore you do not.

Incorrect. The infantry permission is there. You have to show that the permission has been explicitly eradicated by having the Deep Strike special rule, otherwise the unit simply elects to use that permission. Remember a unit that has Deep Strike and is nominating itself to Deep Strike at the beginning of the game is simultaneously in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves and so has both ways of arriving from Reserves available.

Moving On From Reserve
When a Reserves unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player’s table edge. Measure the model’s move from the edge of the table, as if they had been positioned just off the board in the previous turn.

No, because you chose to use the deep strike rule.
Deep strike is a special rule.
Deploying from reserves is not

Walking onto the board conflicts with deep striking.
Therefore you cannot walk onto the board.
The permission can be there all it wants, it doesn't have precedence and is overridden by deep strike.

Anything else you have to say on this is word soup and your normal literary sorcerer to try to bend the rules.

Ceann wrote:
No, because you chose to use the deep strike rule.
Deep strike is a special rule.
Deploying from reserves is not

Walking onto the board conflicts with deep striking.
Therefore you cannot walk onto the board.
The permission can be there all it wants, it doesn't have precedence and is overridden by deep strike.

Anything else you have to say on this is word soup and your normal literary sorcerer to try to bend the rules.

So A Flying Monstrous Creature is forced to Deep Strike onto the board?

An FMC is FAQd to have Deep Strike special rule. So this special rule overrides all other methods of arriving on the battlefield for the FMC?


Further, a unit that has Deep Strike and tells the opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike is placed in both Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves and so still has the option of arriving from Reserves.

In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in Reserve. When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve).

Having the rule and using the rule are two different things.

If you have told your opponent that FMC will be arriving by deep strike. Then it does.

If you did not tell them it would arrive by deep strike, then it does not.

You cannot decide to change its deployment method from deep strike to something else.

 Happyjew wrote:
If I put a unit with Deep Strike (or Outflank) in Reserves, and declare them to be Deep Striking (or Outflanking), are you allowed to change how they come on? Can they choose to walk on as normal after they have sat in Reserves for a turn or 2? Or are they required to come in via the method you have told your opponent?

This is a slight off-shoot of the previous thread regarding the Monolith portal and Deep Strike Reserves, and while it may have some bearing on that discussion, it was locked for a reason. So please leave that topic at the door.

I will put it this way: Without instructions from a codex special rule that allow you to override the decision made in Reserves, I would say that you cannot change their situation. There are several indications that once you make a Reserves commitment. No rules exist allowing you to change a unit's method of Arriving from Reserves once it has been declared.

One place for precedence on this is how Independent Character rules interact with joining a unit in Reserves. Once joined, its joined until the unit is deployed and cannot leave it. However, I will note that it is a specific instruction.

Two good examples of this situation are Tau Stealth Suits and Flayed Ones with a Monolith on the board.

Tau Stealth Suits have Deep Strike as part of their Unit Type, and come with Infiltrate. So, they can Deep Strike, Outflank, or walk on from Reserves like a normal unit. Once you declare one of these methods, they have no method of changing it.

Flayed Ones have both the Deep Strike and Infiltrate Special Rules, so can do the same things in regards to Reserves. However, a Monolith can pull them out of Reserves with the Eternity Gate. This method is not mentioned as arriving from Reserves, but as Disembarking from the Monolith. It doesn't care how the original method of Reserves Arrival was announced, as it completely overrides Arriving From Reserves. Both Deep Strike and Outflank are a method of Arriving From Reserves, just as much as walking on from Reserves. The only reason it is allowed is because the Eternity Gate is in a codex and its rules take precedence over any BRB rule.

Ceann wrote:
Having the rule and using the rule are two different things.

If you have told your opponent that FMC will be arriving by deep strike. Then it does.

If you did not tell them it would arrive by deep strike, then it does not.

You cannot decide to change its deployment method from deep strike to something else.

The Deep Strike rules require that you merely announce that you will be arriving via Deep Strike. But announcing does not restrict you from arriving via other means. Those other options are still completely available and have not been removed by any rule, special or otherwise. The Deep Strike rule specifically places you in Reserves AND Deep Strike Reserves, keeping options open.

For comparison, note that Outflank is written in such a way that all other options are removed.

Outflank
During deployment, players can declare that any unit that contains at least one modelwith this special rule is attempting to Outflank the enemy.

When this unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve, the controlling player rolls a D6: on a 1-2, the unit comes in from the table edge to the left of their controlling player’s own table edge; on a 3-4, they come on from the right; on a 5-6, the player can choose left or right. Models move onto the table as described for other Reserves.

You have to follow the entire rule Col.

Not just the first part of it and ignore the rest.

Ceann wrote:
You have to follow the entire rule Col.

Not just the first part of it and ignore the rest.

I am free to follow whatever options the rules leave open.

Outflank removes options. Deep Strike does not. A unit that announces that it will arrive via Deep Strike is placed in both Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves, leaving the option open to walk on from Reserves when it comes time to roll for Reserves.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
You have to follow the entire rule Col.

Not just the first part of it and ignore the rest.

I am free to follow whatever options the rules leave open.

No, you are only allowed to do what the rules give you permission to do

The rules don't tell you you can change how you come in from reserves so you do not have permission to

Please cite a rule that provides permission to do so

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
You have to follow the entire rule Col.

Not just the first part of it and ignore the rest.

I am free to follow whatever options the rules leave open.

No, you are only allowed to do what the rules give you permission to do

The rules don't tell you you can change how you come in from reserves so you do not have permission to

Please cite a rule that provides permission to do so

Sure no problem.

When Reserves arrive, pick one of your arriving units and deploy it, moving it onto the table as described below. Then pick another arriving unit and deploy it, and so on until all arriving units are on the table. The player can then proceed to move his other units as normal. Note that you must first roll for all Reserves, and then move any arriving Reserves, before any other units can move.

Moving On From Reserve
When a Reserves unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player’s table edge. Measure the model’s move from the edge of the table, as if they had been positioned just off the board in the previous turn.

Outflank takes away the above permission. Deep Strike does not. A unit that has announced that it will be Deep Striking is placed both in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves, leaving the option open to walk on from Reserves when it comes time to roll for Reserves.

An apple is an apple and an orange is an orange.
Outflank is it's own special rule with its own procedure.
One has nothing to do with the other.

You are deep striking, not outflanking.
Outflank tells you how to arrive, for outflank.

Deep strike has like 3 paragraphs that tell you how to arrive, for deep striking.

You are grasping at straws just so you can be "right".

You are quoting a basic rule to allow you to move on as normal.
You cannot use a basic rule, the unit has a USR on its Army List Entry called deep strike.
The basic rule is ignored.

You are TOLD by Deep Strike, how to deploy them. This is the only way they can be deployed.
Special rule has precedence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
deploy them as follows:
• First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you
would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model’s final position. If a
vehicle scatters when arriving via Deep Strike, do not change its facing – it must
continue to face the same direction as it did before you rolled for scatter.

• Next, the unit’s remaining models are arranged around the first one. Models must be
placed in base contact with the first model and begin to form a circle around it. When
the first circle is complete, a further concentric circle must be placed with each model
touching the circle inside it. Each circle must include as many models as will fit.

• Models deploying via Deep Strike treat all difficult terrain as dangerous terrain.

Ceann,

Thanks for quoting the Deep Strike rules but they are not relevant here since the unit is not Deep Striking. The unit chooses to arrive by walking on battlefield when rolling for reserves. The unit is both in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves at the same time and the option to walk on has not been removed.

Look at the Outflank special rule for an example of a special rule that removes the option to walk on.

Choosing to walk onto the field conflicts with the resolution of the deep strike rule. You have to follow the entire rule not just the first part of the rule.

Walking onto the field is a basic rule and is not located in the codex. Deep Strike will be on the Army List entry as a special rule.

You are told how to deploy and that is the only way you can deploy. You are reading only the first part of the rule and ignoring the rest, you cannot partially use a special rule.

The matter is settled and all you will do is ignore the rules and only read the part relevant to the outcome you desire, that is your modus operandi.

Ceann wrote:
Choosing to walk onto the field conflicts with the resolution of the deep strike rule. You have to follow the entire rule not just the first part of the rule.

Walking onto the field is a basic rule and is not located in the codex. Deep Strike will be on the Army List entry as a special rule.

You are told how to deploy and that is the only way you can deploy. You are reading only the first part of the rule and ignoring the rest, you cannot partially use a special rule.

The matter is settled and all you will do is ignore the rules and only read the part relevant to the outcome you desire, that is your modus operandi.

I am reading the entirety of the Deep Strike rule. I don't have permission to invoke portions of rules that are not invoked by the rules. When the unit chooses to walk on the battlefield instead of Deep Striking the second half of the Deep Strike special rule is simply never invoked. They explicitly made it so a unit is in both Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves at the same time, leaving the option open to walk on from Reserves when it comes time to roll for Reserves. If the unit somehow winds up in Ongoing Reserves it will again have the choice of Deep Striking or walking on the board.

"then deploy them as follows"

You missed that part.

Ceann wrote:
"then deploy them as follows"

You missed that part.

You are missing the part that the Deep Strike special does not remove the permission granted to all models to walk on from from Reserves. The unit simply chooses to walk on from Reserves instead of Deep Striking and therefore does not invoke the rules for Deep Striking.

Check out Outflank for a special rule that actually removes the permission to walk on from Reserves.

Wrong.

Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves and then deploy them as follows:

This is the entire process, you cannot bring them the field.
You must deploy them as follows.

Deploy them as follows is an absolute, not a choice.
It does not say you MAY deploy them as follows.

Ceann wrote:
Wrong.

Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves and then deploy them as follows:

This is the entire process, you cannot bring them the field.
You must deploy them as follows.

Deploy them as follows is an absolute, not a choice.
It does not say you MAY deploy them as follows.

The unit in question is not going to be Deep Striking. The unit is going to be walking on from Reserves. So the process for 'Deep Striking units' simply does not apply.

If you placed the unit in deep strike reserves then it will be deep striking.

If you didn't place it in deep strike reserves then the point is moot.

You cannot place it in deep strike reserves and then walk it onto the board.
Because then you are only following part of the rule. The rule is the entire process, from being put into reserves to the point the models resolve a deep strike.
Arriving by deep strike is part of the deep strike rule.

Ceann wrote:
If you placed the unit in deep strike reserves then it will be deep striking.

If you didn't place it in deep strike reserves then the point is moot.

You place the unit in Deep Strike Reserves so that it is 'able to Deep Strike'.

In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in Reserve. When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve).

Placing the unit in Deep Strike Reserves does not lock in the unit to be Deep Striking. It merely enables the unit to be able to Deep Strike (if it so chooses).

Since the unit is in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves then the unit still retains the permission of simply walking on the battlefield.

Outflank takes away the permission to walk on the battlefield. Deep Strike does not.

Some units must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike.

As noted in the above rule, only some units that have the Deep Strike special rule must arrive by Deep Strike. In the case of the specific case of a unit that 'must arrive by Deep Strike' then the issue is settled. But, we are not dealing with this specific case.

Oh is this another lets see how many pages we get till the thread is locked?

GodDamUser wrote:
Oh is this another lets see how many pages we get till the thread is locked?

Considering how much I know one of them doesn't bother to listen to what another says, and the other one is insistent on trying to convince them, apparently.

I know my own life has gotten quieter after setting one of them to Ignore.

GodDamUser wrote:
Oh is this another lets see how many pages we get till the thread is locked?

I simply read the rules and argue based on what the rules actually say and not on what I want them to say.

Arguments that are based purely on the Rules As Written aren't always popular and often elicit a knee-jerk response from others.

So lots of pages of back-and-forth can be used up by the action of me simply pointing to others where their counter arguments aren't supported by any rules or aren't in accordance with what they rules actually say.

If people paused and checked thoroughly on what the rules actually say before posting on any given thread then a lot of back-and-forth could be spared.

col_impact wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
Oh is this another lets see how many pages we get till the thread is locked?

I simply read the rules and argue based on what the rules actually say and not on what I want them to say.

Arguments that are based purely on the Rules As Written aren't always popular and often elicit a knee-jerk response from others.

So lots of pages of back-and-forth can be used up by the action of me simply pointing to others where their counter arguments aren't supported by any rules or aren't in accordance with what they rules actually say.

If people paused and checked thoroughly on what the rules actually say before posting on any given thread then a lot of back-and-forth could be spared.

You are just reading the rules incorrectly though.

It's why you are always the only person to be on your side of the argument. You're the one at fault

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
Oh is this another lets see how many pages we get till the thread is locked?

I simply read the rules and argue based on what the rules actually say and not on what I want them to say.

Arguments that are based purely on the Rules As Written aren't always popular and often elicit a knee-jerk response from others.

So lots of pages of back-and-forth can be used up by the action of me simply pointing to others where their counter arguments aren't supported by any rules or aren't in accordance with what they rules actually say.

If people paused and checked thoroughly on what the rules actually say before posting on any given thread then a lot of back-and-forth could be spared.

You are just reading the rules incorrectly though.

It's why you are always the only person to be on your side of the argument. You're the one at fault

Feel free to point out any shortcomings in my argument. You can't just say 'you are just reading the rules incorrectly'.

You need to provide proof with rules citations or at least a compelling well-thought out argument. I am open to anything educated and substantiated you have to say about my argument.



A rules debate is not a popularity contest. The correct answer is not necessarily going to be the popular answer. In fact, since people tend to gang up on things they view as OP and tend to have uneducated opinions, the correct Rules As Writtten argument is often unpopular.

A person who is more concerned with popularity than with truth shouldn't be debating rules or acting as a judge with regards to the rules. Educated truth is more important than uneducated opinion.


I am open to anything educated and substantiated you have to offer on the issue at hand.

" when placing a unit in reserve , you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by deep strike"

So.. looks pretty clear.. you declare it, then you must do it. Otherwise you have just lied to your opponent.

Someone will probably now say there's no rule saying you can't lie to your opponent.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
Oh is this another lets see how many pages we get till the thread is locked?

I simply read the rules and argue based on what the rules actually say and not on what I want them to say.

Arguments that are based purely on the Rules As Written aren't always popular and often elicit a knee-jerk response from others.

So lots of pages of back-and-forth can be used up by the action of me simply pointing to others where their counter arguments aren't supported by any rules or aren't in accordance with what they rules actually say.

If people paused and checked thoroughly on what the rules actually say before posting on any given thread then a lot of back-and-forth could be spared.

You are just reading the rules incorrectly though.

It's why you are always the only person to be on your side of the argument. You're the one at fault

Feel free to point out any shortcomings in my argument. You can't just say 'you are just reading the rules incorrectly'.

You need to provide proof with rules citations or at least a compelling well-thought out argument. I am open to anything educated and substantiated you have to say about my argument.



A rules debate is not a popularity contest. The correct answer is not necessarily going to be the popular answer. In fact, since people tend to gang up on things they view as OP and tend to have uneducated opinions, the correct Rules As Writtten argument is often unpopular.

A person who is more concerned with popularity than with truth shouldn't be debating rules or acting as a judge with regards to the rules. Educated truth is more important than uneducated opinion.


I am open to anything educated and substantiated you have to offer on the issue at hand.

Ceann has already pointed out out the short comings of your argument

And i never said this was a popularity contest. But considering out of the 40-50 people who have argued against you in the last few years, NO ONE has ever agreed with you. If all you are doing is, as you put it, "simply reading the rules" wouldn't at least one person actually agree with you if you were indeed correct?

Captyn_Bob wrote:
" when placing a unit in reserve , you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by deep strike"

So.. looks pretty clear.. you declare it, then you must do it. Otherwise you have just lied to your opponent.

Someone will probably now say there's no rule saying you can't lie to your opponent.

This is the crux of the matter.

The player must announce that the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike, but - and this is the big but - there is no rule in place requiring the player to actually have that unit arrive by Deep Strike. Outflank provides this but Deep Strike does not.

Announcing is not levying a restriction.

Technically, the player still has the option of having the unit walk on the battlefield and not Deep Strike onto the battlefield.

If a player exercises that option, that player isn't lying to the opponent. The player simply changed his or her mind and exercised his freedom to choose another option.

The key question to ask is this - if the player changes his mind and has his unit walk on the battlefield instead of Deep Striking (like he announced), did that player break any rule?

No. No, he did not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

And i never said this was a popularity contest. But considering out of the 40-50 people who have argued against you in the last few years, NO ONE has ever agreed with you. If all you are doing is, as you put it, "simply reading the rules" wouldn't at least one person actually agree with you if you were indeed correct?

This is a game where people choose sides on rules debates to gain advantages for themselves and/or impose disadvantages on others.

Since I am not trying to gain any advantages or impose any disadvantages, but rather to simply get at the truth of the matter, it is not surprising that I will encounter people arguing against me as they seek to push an agenda over principles of truth.

The philosopher's voice is the minority voice in YMDC.

What make you so special that you must be the only person who doesn't argue for an in game advantage? If you can do it, other people can do it.

If your argument was objectively correct some people would agree with you, it's that simple.

 CrownAxe wrote:
What make you so special that you must be the only person who doesn't argue for a in game advantage?

If your argument was objectively correct some people would agree with you, it's that simple.

Your statement fails due to the logical fallacy of 'argumentum ad numeram'.


If you have a problem with the argument that I am presenting then feel free to point out what that is with rules support and logical argumentation.

You seem to be going to great lengths to cast aspersions on what I am saying without actually providing a decent critique of my argument.

Veiled personal attacks are against the rules of this forum.

If my argument is wrong then prove its wrong. It's that simple.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
What make you so special that you must be the only person who doesn't argue for a in game advantage?

If your argument was objectively correct some people would agree with you, it's that simple.

If you have a problem with the argument that I am presenting then feel free to point out what that is with support.

You seem to be going to great lengths to cast aspersions on what I am saying without actually providing a decent critique of my argument.

Veiled personal attacks are against the rules of this forum.

Like I said before, other people have made that argument for me, I don't need to waste time repeating the same argument at ad nauseam like what happens in\ every thread you show up in.

And I've made a logical assessment on why your argument is not objectively sound. How is that an insult?

 CrownAxe wrote:

Like I said before, other people have made that argument for me, I don't need to waste time repeating the same argument at ad nauseam like what happens in\ every thread you show up in.

And I've made a logical assessment on why your argument is not objectively sound. How is that an insult?

Your logic is bad.

Your statement fails due to the logical fallacy of 'argumentum ad numeram'.


If my argument is wrong then prove its wrong. It's that simple.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Like I said before, other people have made that argument for me, I don't need to waste time repeating the same argument at ad nauseam like what happens in\ every thread you show up in.

And I've made a logical assessment on why your argument is not objectively sound. How is that an insult?

Your logic is bad.

Your statement fails due to the logical fallacy of 'argumentum ad numeram'.


If my argument is wrong then prove its wrong. It's that simple.

That doesn't apply because i'm not claiming i'm right because most people agree with it. I'm claiming that your argument is not objectively correct because if it were any reasonable people would agree with it at all and you have 0 people agree with you. And it would a statistical anomaly for every single person you have argued with over the last several years to be so biased that not one would adhere to logic and reason.


You argument has be disproven multiple times in every thread

 CrownAxe wrote:

That doesn't apply because i'm not claiming i'm right because most people agree with it. I'm claiming that your argument is not objectively correct because if it were any reasonable people would agree with it at all and you have 0 people agree with you. And it would a statistical anomaly for every single person you have argued with over the last several years to be so biased that not one would adhere to logic and reason.


You argument has be disproven multiple times in every thread

Your statement is still suffering from the bad logic of 'argumentum ad numeram'.



And more importantly I am still waiting for you, or anyone, to actually disprove my argument.

If my argument is bad, as you say, then it should be easy to disprove.



Summary of argument

We have disproved it but you are too delusional to realize it

 CrownAxe wrote:
We have disproved it but you are too delusional to realize it

In YMDC, you have to actually disprove my argument and not just claim I am delusional.

Why are you insisting on personally attacking me?

If my argument is wrong then prove it's wrong. It's that simple.



Summary of argument

Ceann has disproven your argument for me, if you want i can quote what he said.

Not acknowledging Ceann's argument just proves you are delusional

 CrownAxe wrote:
Ceann has disproven your argument for me, if you want i can quote what he said.

Not acknowledging Ceann's argument just proves you are delusional

Page 1 of this thread has been nothing but me continually disproving Ceann's counter argument.

It's been easy to do since he doesn't actually use the rules for support and relies on assumptions in his head.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724447.page#9328868

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724447.page#9328887

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724447.page#9328946

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724447.page#9329036

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724447.page#9329123

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724447.page#9329148

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724447.page#9329183


Summary of argument

Well the rule for deep strike states that when placing the unit in reserve, you must tell your opponent that the
unit is arriving by deepstrike (assuming that is your plan at the start of the game).

I would say that since the rule specifically has you state the method of entry that you will be using then you have to keep to this choice, the same way you cant just change your list after the game starts. (if the rule simply told you state if they start in deepstrike reserve or not, it would be more open to interpretation: "hey, I said they were in deepstrike reserve, I never said they were actually going to deepstrike".
So in the same way you cant tell your opponent that your captain has a combi-melta and then change it to a combi-plasma mid game, you cannot claim a unit to be deepstriking onto the board prior to the game, then have them walk on midgame. I am pretty sure that lying to your opponent about your army is cheating, and since you have to tell your opponent what units are coming in via deepstrike etc., changing that is akin to changing anything else about your list.

 hippyjr wrote:
Well the rule for deep strike states that when placing the unit in reserve, you must tell your opponent that the
unit is arriving by deepstrike (assuming that is your plan at the start of the game).

I would say that since the rule specifically has you state the method of entry that you will be using then you have to keep to this choice, the same way you cant just change your list after the game starts. (if the rule simply told you state if they start in deepstrike reserve or not, it would be more open to interpretation: "hey, I said they were in deepstrike reserve, I never said they were actually going to deepstrike".
So in the same way you cant tell your opponent that your captain has a combi-melta and then change it to a combi-plasma mid game, you cannot claim a unit to be deepstriking onto the board prior to the game, then have them walk on midgame. I am pretty sure that lying to your opponent about your army is cheating, and since you have to tell your opponent what units are coming in via deepstrike etc., changing that is akin to changing anything else about your list.

Thanks for your input, hippyjr.

This is the crux of the matter.

The player must announce that the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike in order to enable the unit 'to be able to Deep Strike', but - and this is the big but - there is no rule in place requiring the player to actually have that unit arrive by Deep Strike. Outflank provides this but Deep Strike does not.

Announcing is not levying a restriction. Announcing is done to simply enable the unit 'to be able to Deep Strike'.

Technically, the player still has the option of having the unit walk on the battlefield and not Deep Strike onto the battlefield.

If a player exercises that option, that player isn't lying to the opponent. The player simply changed his or her mind and exercised his freedom to choose another option.

The key question to ask is this - if the player changes his mind and has his unit walk on the battlefield instead of Deep Striking (like he announced), did that player break any rule?

No. No, he did not.


Summary of argument

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Ceann has disproven your argument for me, if you want i can quote what he said.

Not acknowledging Ceann's argument just proves you are delusional

Page 1 of this thread has been nothing but me continually disproving Ceann's counter argument.

It's been easy to do since he doesn't actually use the rules for support and relies on assumptions in his head.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724447.page#9328868

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724447.page#9328887

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724447.page#9328946

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724447.page#9329036

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724447.page#9329123

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724447.page#9329148

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/724447.page#9329183


Summary of argument

Spoiler:

The Deep Strike rules require that you merely announce that you will be arriving via Deep Strike. But announcing does not restrict you from arriving via the general permission to walk on the battlefield from Reserves. The general permission is still completely available and has not been removed by any rule, special or otherwise. The Deep Strike rule specifically places you in Reserves AND Deep Strike Reserves, keeping the option to walk on the battlefield from Reserves open.

For comparison, note that Outflank is written in such a way that all other options are removed.

Outflank
During deployment, players can declare that any unit that contains at least one modelwith this special rule is attempting to Outflank the enemy.

When this unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve, the controlling player rolls a D6: on a 1-2, the unit comes in from the table edge to the left of their controlling player’s own table edge; on a 3-4, they come on from the right; on a 5-6, the player can choose left or right. Models move onto the table as described for other Reserves.

Outflank takes away the permission to walk on from Reserves. Deep Strike does not. A unit that has announced that it will be Deep Striking is placed both in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves, leaving the option open to walk on from Reserves when it comes time to roll for Reserves.

The player must announce that the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike, but - and this is the big but - there is no rule in place requiring the player to actually have that unit arrive by Deep Strike. Outflank provides this but Deep Strike does not.

Announcing is not levying a restriction.

Technically, the player still has the option of having the unit walk on the battlefield and not Deep Strike onto the battlefield.

Dude none of what your argument is actually disproves Ceann, you just delusionally believe you do

Announcing is levying a restriction.
When the rules force you to declare something(which is pretty rare) you are expected to do what you declare.
This is basic social contract.

You don't need the rules to tell you that lying to your opponent is not allowed , any more than you need a rule to tell you not to cheat.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Dude none of what your argument is actually disproves Ceann, you just delusionally believe you do

If my argument is wrong then prove me wrong. It's that simple.

Are you not intellectually up to the task?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Announcing is levying a restriction.
When the rules force you to declare something(which is pretty rare) you are expected to do what you declare.
This is basic social contract.

You don't need the rules to tell you that lying to your opponent is not allowed , any more than you need a rule to tell you not to cheat.

It's odd that you bring accusations of lying and cheating against an opponent who simply changes his mind and exercises the freedom of options the rules legitimately give him.

The player simply announces again that "this unit is no longer Deep Striking and will walk on the battlefield instead". There you go. No lying. No cheating. Remember, the only thing the announcing was accomplishing was enabling the unit 'to be able to Deep Strike' and not locking the unit into Deep Striking. Outflank locks the unit into outflanking. Deep Strike does not.

At this point since you have outrageously called upon John Locke to make your argument, you are tacitly agreeing that there is indeed no rule in place in 40k requiring the player to Deep Strike. The player can simply legitimately claim the general permission to walk on the battlefield from Reserves instead.


Summary of argument

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Dude none of what your argument is actually disproves Ceann, you just delusionally believe you do

If my argument is wrong then prove me wrong. It's that simple.

Are you not intellectually up to the task?

What about "Ceann has already made the argument that proves you wrong" do you not get?

Are you actually stupid or do you just not know how to read?

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Dude none of what your argument is actually disproves Ceann, you just delusionally believe you do

If my argument is wrong then prove me wrong. It's that simple.

Are you not intellectually up to the task?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Announcing is levying a restriction.
When the rules force you to declare something(which is pretty rare) you are expected to do what you declare.
This is basic social contract.

You don't need the rules to tell you that lying to your opponent is not allowed , any more than you need a rule to tell you not to cheat.

It's odd that you bring accusations of lying and cheating against an opponent who simply changes his mind and exercises the freedom of options the rules legitimately give him.

The player simply announces again that "this unit is no longer Deep Striking and will walk on the battlefield instead". There you go. No lying. No cheating. Remember, the only thing the announcing was accomplishing was enabling the unit 'to be able to Deep Strike' and not locking the unit into Deep Striking. Outflank locks the unit into outflanking. Deep Strike does not.

At this point since you have outrageously called upon John Locke to make your argument, you are tacitly agreeing that there is indeed no rule in place in 40k requiring the player to Deep Strike. The player can simply legitimately claim the general permission to walk on the battlefield from Reserves instead.


Summary of argument

Spoiler:

The Deep Strike rules require that you merely announce that you will be arriving via Deep Strike. But announcing does not restrict you from arriving via the general permission to walk on the battlefield from Reserves. The general permission is still completely available and has not been removed by any rule, special or otherwise. The Deep Strike rule specifically places you in Reserves AND Deep Strike Reserves, keeping the option to walk on the battlefield from Reserves open.

For comparison, note that Outflank is written in such a way that all other options are removed.

Outflank
During deployment, players can declare that any unit that contains at least one modelwith this special rule is attempting to Outflank the enemy.

When this unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve, the controlling player rolls a D6: on a 1-2, the unit comes in from the table edge to the left of their controlling player’s own table edge; on a 3-4, they come on from the right; on a 5-6, the player can choose left or right. Models move onto the table as described for other Reserves.

Outflank takes away the permission to walk on from Reserves. Deep Strike does not. A unit that has announced that it will be Deep Striking is placed both in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves, leaving the option open to walk on from Reserves when it comes time to roll for Reserves.

The player must announce that the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike, but - and this is the big but - there is no rule in place requiring the player to actually have that unit arrive by Deep Strike. Outflank provides this but Deep Strike does not.

Announcing is not levying a restriction.

Technically, the player still has the option of having the unit walk on the battlefield and not Deep Strike onto the battlefield.

I'm afraid I find your stance, that being forced to declare something and then not doing what you declare is within the rules, nonsensical.

I won't be debating further.
I'd advise others against arguing for arguments sake it's been making YMDC pretty crazy of late.

 CrownAxe wrote:

What about "Ceann has already made the argument that proves you wrong" do you not get?

Are you actually stupid or do you just not know how to read?

I proved Ceann wrong. The rules don't support his argument.

And you know this already which is why you are refusing to simply present a counter to my argument.

If my argument is wrong then prove me wrong. It's that simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captyn_Bob wrote:


I'm afraid I find your stance, that being forced to declare something and then not doing what you declare is within the rules, nonsensical.

I won't be debating further.
I'd advise others against arguing for arguments sake it's been making YMDC pretty crazy of late.

So when you are tasked with providing a rule you fail to provide a rule and then proclaim YMDC crazy. That's another veiled personal attack.

If my argument is wrong then prove me wrong. It's that simple.

There is no rule locking the unit into Deep Striking. The announcement during deployment that enabled the unit to be able to Deep Strike is simply ammended when it comes time to roll for Reserves. The rules for Deep Strike (and not Outflank) keep the option open for the unit to choose instead to walk on the battlefield from Reserves.



Summary of argument

Col_Impact it's like you think 2+2=5.

'will be arriving via Deep Strike'

Surely that makes it pretty absolute? It doesn't say maybe arriving by Deep Strike depending if I change my mind at a later time.

You announce it 'will be arriving via Deep Strike', surely this restricts you to actually arriving via Deep Strike?

TonyL707 wrote:
'will be arriving via Deep Strike'

Surely that makes it pretty absolute? It doesn't say maybe arriving by Deep Strike depending if I change my mind at a later time.

You announce it 'will be arriving via Deep Strike', surely this restricts you to actually arriving via Deep Strike?

The player is required to announce his intent so that the unit is 'able to Deep Strike'. But intent is the extent of it.

There is no rule that locks the unit into Deep Striking. Outflank locks the unit into outflanking.

The announcement doesn't bind the player in any way nor is it indicated to be non-revocable.

The rule could have placed the unit only in Deep Strike Reserves to make it binding and non-revocable.

Instead the rule placed the unit in both Deep Strike Reserves and Reserves to make it non-binding and revocable.

Per the rules, the player has the freedom to choose to walk on the battlefield from Reserves.




Summary of argument

col_impact wrote:

TonyL707 wrote:
'will be arriving via Deep Strike'

Surely that makes it pretty absolute? It doesn't say maybe arriving by Deep Strike depending if I change my mind at a later time.

You announce it 'will be arriving via Deep Strike', surely this restricts you to actually arriving via Deep Strike?

The player is required to announce his intent so that the unit is 'able to Deep Strike'. But intent is the extent of it.

There is no rule that locks the unit into Deep Striking. Outflank locks the unit into outflanking.

The announcement doesn't bind the player in any way nor is it indicated to be non-revocable.

Per the rules, the player has the freedom to choose to walk on the battlefield from Reserves.


Summary of argument

Spoiler:

The rules indicate that only those units that 'must arrive by Deep Strike' will have no choice but to arrive by Deep Strike.

Some units must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike.

A unit with the Deep Strike rule could choose to instead arrive from Reserves invoking normal infantry permissions and walking on the battlefield.

The Deep Strike rules require that you merely announce that you will be arriving via Deep Strike. But announcing does not restrict you from arriving via the general permission to walk on the battlefield from Reserves. The general permission is still completely available and has not been removed by any rule, special or otherwise. The Deep Strike rule specifically places you in Reserves AND Deep Strike Reserves, keeping the option to walk on the battlefield from Reserves open.

For comparison, note that Outflank is written in such a way that all other options are removed.

Outflank
During deployment, players can declare that any unit that contains at least one modelwith this special rule is attempting to Outflank the enemy.

When this unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve, the controlling player rolls a D6: on a 1-2, the unit comes in from the table edge to the left of their controlling player’s own table edge; on a 3-4, they come on from the right; on a 5-6, the player can choose left or right. Models move onto the table as described for other Reserves.

Outflank takes away the permission to walk on from Reserves. Deep Strike does not. A unit that has announced that it will be Deep Striking is placed both in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves, leaving the option open to walk on from Reserves when it comes time to roll for Reserves.

The player must announce that the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike, but - and this is the big but - there is no rule in place requiring the player to actually have that unit arrive by Deep Strike. Outflank provides this but Deep Strike does not.

Announcing is not levying a restriction.

Technically, the player still has the option of having the unit walk on the battlefield and not Deep Strike onto the battlefield.

" when placing a unit in reserve , you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by deep strike"
No where does it say intent. You are making up words from thin air

col_impact wrote:

TonyL707 wrote:
'will be arriving via Deep Strike'

Surely that makes it pretty absolute? It doesn't say maybe arriving by Deep Strike depending if I change my mind at a later time.

You announce it 'will be arriving via Deep Strike', surely this restricts you to actually arriving via Deep Strike?

The player is required to announce his intent so that the unit is 'able to Deep Strike'. But intent is the extent of it.

There is no rule that locks the unit into Deep Striking. Outflank locks the unit into outflanking.

The announcement doesn't bind the player in any way nor is it indicated to be non-revocable.

The rule could have placed the unit only in Deep Strike Reserves to make it binding and non-revocable.

Instead the rule placed the unit in both Deep Strike Reserves and Reserves to make it non-binding and revocable.

Per the rules, the player has the freedom to choose to walk on the battlefield from Reserves.




Summary of argument

Spoiler:

The rules indicate that only those units that 'must arrive by Deep Strike' will have no choice but to arrive by Deep Strike.

Some units must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike.

A unit with the Deep Strike rule could choose to instead arrive from Reserves invoking normal infantry permissions and walking on the battlefield.

The Deep Strike rules require that you merely announce that you will be arriving via Deep Strike. But announcing does not restrict you from arriving via the general permission to walk on the battlefield from Reserves. The general permission is still completely available and has not been removed by any rule, special or otherwise. The Deep Strike rule specifically places you in Reserves AND Deep Strike Reserves, keeping the option to walk on the battlefield from Reserves open.

For comparison, note that Outflank is written in such a way that all other options are removed.

Outflank
During deployment, players can declare that any unit that contains at least one modelwith this special rule is attempting to Outflank the enemy.

When this unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve, the controlling player rolls a D6: on a 1-2, the unit comes in from the table edge to the left of their controlling player’s own table edge; on a 3-4, they come on from the right; on a 5-6, the player can choose left or right. Models move onto the table as described for other Reserves.

Outflank takes away the permission to walk on from Reserves. Deep Strike does not. A unit that has announced that it will be Deep Striking is placed both in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves, leaving the option open to walk on from Reserves when it comes time to roll for Reserves.

The player must announce that the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike, but - and this is the big but - there is no rule in place requiring the player to actually have that unit arrive by Deep Strike. Outflank provides this but Deep Strike does not.

Announcing is not levying a restriction.

Technically, the player still has the option of having the unit walk on the battlefield and not Deep Strike onto the battlefield.

That's not what the rules says, the rules doesn't say you announce your intention it says 'When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike'.

No if's/buts/or maybes, the unit 'will' be arriving by Deep Strike. RAW you don't get to change your mind later.

TonyL707 wrote:


That's not what the rules says, the rules doesn't say you announce your intention it says 'When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike'.

No if's/buts/or maybes, the unit 'will' be arriving by Deep Strike. RAW you don't get to change your mind later.

The rule is 100% satisfied by merely telling your opponent "the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike". End of story. That's what the rule literally requires. What amounts to 'a declaration of intent to Deep Strike'.

If you later change your mind and have the unit walk on the battlefield from Reserves the rule is still satisfied. You told your opponent "the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike" and that act of telling (declaring intent) is all that was required.


Pay attention to what the rule is actually requiring and not what you think it is requiring.

"You must tell your opponent that [the unit] will be arriving by Deep Strike" does not mean "the unit must arrive by Deep Strike".




Summary of argument

A lot of back and forth for a rule set that will be obsolete soon, just wait till 8th ed and then they'll be an entire new rule set for everybody to ignore words, make up stuff or not understand basic English.

Col you are wrong.
The issue is that you never admit you are wrong.
If you were correct your absolute final point would be what you led with, but it never is.

Out flank states how you will arrive.
Out flank is a special rule.

Out flank determine especially how you arrive once you successfully get a reserve roll for them.

Deep strike tells you as part of the reserve roll how to deep strike. Both of these are absolutes once initiated, as they are special rules you cannot change the process until it is completed. Which is precisely what you are quoting some basic rule to do. It is a basic rule it means nothing in the face of a special rule that contradicts it.
"deploy as follows" is the only way they can deploy


Your nonsense about normal reserves is a basic rule that has been overridden by a special rule in both circumstances.
The issue is that you are deluded into thinking you still have a choice but you do not. The first paragraph of deep strike is only part of the rule not the entire rule, you cannot follow part of a rule.

Every time we have a discussion you find the words that make the outcome you want and then use those words and ignore the rest.
If this was a story then you are the boy who cried wolf. You have misrepresented the rules so many times no one even believes you anymore.

Ceann wrote:

You have misrepresented the rules so many times no one even believes you anymore.

I mean, you're right on the rules in this instance, but was there even a hint of irony in that statement? Please tell me there was.

This is akin to declaring which weapon you will use in close combat and then changing your mind after rolling to hit. Just because you declared intent of which weapon you were going to use, doesn't mean you had to use it.

Waste of breath with col_incompetent.

No you can not, if you say they are ariving via deep strike they must arrive that way.

Its also worth noting that deepstrike reserves are separate from reserves, they are two different pools. At the start of the game you pick which unit is going to which pool, once they are in there, unless you have another special rule to summon them, they can only arrive the way that pool allows, no changing pools.

If they start in the deep strike pool, they must deep strike in. If they start in normal reserves, they must come in via normal reserve method.

t.A guy who half his army is deep strike.

 CrownAxe wrote:

col_impact wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
Oh is this another lets see how many pages we get till the thread is locked?

I simply read the rules and argue based on what the rules actually say and not on what I want them to say.

Arguments that are based purely on the Rules As Written aren't always popular and often elicit a knee-jerk response from others.

So lots of pages of back-and-forth can be used up by the action of me simply pointing to others where their counter arguments aren't supported by any rules or aren't in accordance with what they rules actually say.

If people paused and checked thoroughly on what the rules actually say before posting on any given thread then a lot of back-and-forth could be spared.

You are just reading the rules incorrectly though.

It's why you are always the only person to be on your side of the argument. You're the one at fault

To be fair, it's now always. We did have the one thread where he was with most of the people and it was just Ceann and Brother Ramses on the other side. I would say there have been many threads like you describe, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

Outflank takes away the above permission. Deep Strike does not. A unit that has announced that it will be Deep Striking is placed both in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves, leaving the option open to walk on from Reserves when it comes time to roll for Reserves.

Actually I'd like to see you give the rules quote showing Outflank taking away the permission. From what I read, it looks like the two are similar. You declare you're outflanking, then it tells you how units that are outflanking come on. You declare you're deep striking when you put the unit in reserves, then it tells you how deep striking units come on. I don't see how you claim the permission is rescinded for outflanking but not for Deep Strike.

But, relating it back to the other thread, I concur with Charistoph's post that if you have some special rule (like Eternity Gate) it could override it, but otherwise I don't see that you get to change your mind after you've made the declaration. You've already declared how the unit is coming on, there's notthing written up giving you permission to change the declaration, so it seems you would be stuck with the declaration (unless codex rule/equipment shenanigans get involved)

Brother Ramses wrote:This is akin to declaring which weapon you will use in close combat and then changing your mind after rolling to hit. Just because you declared intent of which weapon you were going to use, doesn't mean you had to use it.

Or changing the target after you Roll To Hit.

"Okay, you hit with all of your Fire Dragons on my Gaunts, roll to Wound."
"Actually, I will be Wounding your Zooming Tyrant instead."
" this, I'm going home".

doctortom wrote:But, relating it back to the other thread, I concur with Charistoph's post that if you have some special rule (like Eternity Gate) it could override it, but otherwise I don't see that you get to change your mind after you've made the declaration. You've already declared how the unit is coming on, there's notthing written up giving you permission to change the declaration, so it seems you would be stuck with the declaration (unless codex rule/equipment shenanigans get involved)

Thank you. We don't always agree on some of these things.

I would like to point out as an aside, the Gate is not a special rule, and deep strike is. Which is how it is able to manipulate normal reserves and ongoing reserves. Deep Strike is listed as a special rule, in the codex, on the Army List Entry page for any unit that has deep strike.

It is accorded all precedence of a special rule and an Army List Entry. What you have here is essentially the exact same scenario. Someone claiming you can cancel deep strike halfway through, which you cannot. Short of another LABELED special rule.

Gate is not a special rule and deploying as normal from reserves is not either, gate can take precedence over the basic rules because it is a "codex rule".

Nearly all of a particular individuals arguments are based on permissions he assumes he has.
When I think we can all agree we are told what permissions we have by the rules and under what circumstances we can use said permissions.

Ceann wrote:
I would like to point out as an aside, the Gate is not a special rule, and deep strike is. Which is how it is able to manipulate normal reserves and ongoing reserves. Deep Strike is listed as a special rule, in the codex, on the Army List Entry page for any unit that has deep strike.

It is accorded all precedence of a special rule and an Army List Entry. What you have here is essentially the exact same scenario. Someone claiming you can cancel deep strike halfway through, which you cannot. Short of another LABELED special rule..

At the risk of derailing the thread, it's not quite the same. The Gate is an advanced rule in a codex, Deep Strike (as a special rule) is an advanced rule in the main rulebook. "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule pprinted in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.." (page 13 main rulebook). The units are in reserve. Deep strike reserve is not treated as separate from reserves (or ongoing reserves) as per instructions in the codex - deep strike says "Roll for the arrival of Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves (p 135) and then deploy them as follows" Page 135 says "At the start of your second turn you must roll a D6 for each unit in your army that is being held in Reserve - these are known as Reserve Rolls." It doesn't say anything about treating Deep Strike Reserve for rolling, so the Deep Strike rules are treating the unit as being in Reserves. "Deep Strike Reserves" is just an indicator of how they come onto the board when they come out of Reserves. This means they are treated as being in Reserves for purposes of the Gate, and through the codex > rulebook provision form page 13 could be deployed through the gate. (For that matter, anybody placed in Reserves for outflanking could be pulled out in the same manner). So, advanced rules in the codex do override advanced rules in the main rulebook.

This is a different situation than what we are dealing with here in this thread, though. We have units declared to be deep striking (or outflanking) and no advanced rule from a codex or supplement to override it. You've already committed to having them arrive via deep striking (or outflanking) and have no permission to change that declaration (by way of an advanced rule from a codex or supplement), therefore they must arrive by the method that you declared they will arrive.

Ceann wrote:
I would like to point out as an aside, the Gate is not a special rule, and deep strike is. Which is how it is able to manipulate normal reserves and ongoing reserves. Deep Strike is listed as a special rule, in the codex, on the Army List Entry page for any unit that has deep strike.

It is accorded all precedence of a special rule and an Army List Entry. What you have here is essentially the exact same scenario. Someone claiming you can cancel deep strike halfway through, which you cannot. Short of another LABELED special rule.

Gate is not a special rule and deploying as normal from reserves is not either, gate can take precedence over the basic rules because it is a "codex rule".

The Gate is not any kind of rule, it is Wargear. It does have special rules, though. Remember the definition, location does not matter in defining it as a special rule.

The reason its rules are special are four fold.
* It is not a Transport nor on a Transport, but units can Disembark through it.
* It is able to Disembark units that are not Embarked on the unit.
* It is able to override the procedure of Arriving From Reserves by virtue of bypassing the roll.
* It is able to remove a unit from off the table to reposition it via Disembarking.

All of these are breaking numerous rules, mostly advanced rules at that, and that is part of what defines a special rule. There is no other term for it because these sure aren't basic rules it is using.

There is absolutely no rule that states, "you cannot override a special rule without another labelled special rule." That is a farcical comment which is nowhere in the rulebook. "Codex rules" take precedence over ANY rules in the rulebook, not just the basic rules. Deep Strike is defined in the rulebook, so the Gate can override it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
This is a different situation than what we are dealing with here in this thread, though. We have units declared to be deep striking (or outflanking) and no advanced rule from a codex or supplement to override it. You've already committed to having them arrive via deep striking (or outflanking) and have no permission to change that declaration (by way of an advanced rule from a codex or supplement), therefore they must arrive by the method that you declared they will arrive.

I did bring it up by virtue of the only way to counter the situation. I guess someone still has a burr about it, despite numerous points to the exact same rules that state otherwise to his opinion.

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
I would like to point out as an aside, the Gate is not a special rule, and deep strike is. Which is how it is able to manipulate normal reserves and ongoing reserves. Deep Strike is listed as a special rule, in the codex, on the Army List Entry page for any unit that has deep strike.

It is accorded all precedence of a special rule and an Army List Entry. What you have here is essentially the exact same scenario. Someone claiming you can cancel deep strike halfway through, which you cannot. Short of another LABELED special rule.

Gate is not a special rule and deploying as normal from reserves is not either, gate can take precedence over the basic rules because it is a "codex rule".

The Gate is not any kind of rule, it is Wargear. It does have special rules, though. Remember the definition, location does not matter in defining it as a special rule.

The reason its rules are special are four fold.
* It is not a Transport nor on a Transport, but units can Disembark through it.
* It is able to Disembark units that are not Embarked on the unit.
* It is able to override the procedure of Arriving From Reserves by virtue of bypassing the roll.
* It is able to remove a unit from off the table to reposition it via Disembarking.

All of these are breaking numerous rules, mostly advanced rules at that, and that is part of what defines a special rule. There is no other term for it because these sure aren't basic rules it is using.

There is absolutely no rule that states, "you cannot override a special rule without another labelled special rule." That is a farcical comment which is nowhere in the rulebook. "Codex rules" take precedence over ANY rules in the rulebook, not just the basic rules. Deep Strike is defined in the rulebook, so the Gate can override it.

We as players are not allowed to decide what does and does not break the rules.
If you note any unit with Deep Strike on it's list entry, under Special Rules section of the list it will be noted as one, as with any other rule that is a special rule.
If it is not noted as one then it is not one, regardless of our opinions on the matter.

The reason its rules are not special are one and only one.

* We are not told it is one.

Open any codex, go to the page before the first unit and read the break down of an Army List Entry.
This in particular.

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are
detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer
40,000: The Rules.

Eternity Gate is not listed as a special rule on the data sheet, so it is not one.
It is allowed to exert codex precedence over the basic rules, which is why it does work.
It is not allowed to supersede special rules, to my knowledge nothing is.
This is why Lance works over the shielding ability also, one is a special rule and one is not.
We are told where special rules exist and explicitly told where to find them.
This is also precisely why you cannot just walk onto the board after stating you will deep strike, you have already chosen to use the rule and you must use the entire rule, not a portion of a rule.

Hopefully when the 8th ed. rules drop that they make all of this a bit more clear, regardless of what side of it you are on.
I think we can all agree that we only want clarity.

Ceann wrote:
We as players are not allowed to decide what does and does not break the rules.
If you note any unit with Deep Strike on it's list entry, under Special Rules section of the list it will be noted as one, as with any other rule that is a special rule.
If it is not noted as one then it is not one, regardless of our opinions on the matter.

The reason its rules are not special are one and only one.

* We are not told it is one.

Open any codex, go to the page before the first unit and read the break down of an Army List Entry.
This in particular.

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are
detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer
40,000: The Rules.

Eternity Gate is not listed as a special rule on the data sheet, so it is not one.
It is allowed to exert codex precedence over the basic rules, which is why it does work.
It is not allowed to supersede special rules, to my knowledge nothing is.
This is why Lance works over the shielding ability also, one is a special rule and one is not.
We are told where special rules exist and explicitly told where to find them.
This is also precisely why you cannot just walk onto the board after stating you will deep strike, you have already chosen to use the rule and you must use the entire rule, not a portion of a rule.

Hopefully when the 8th ed. rules drop that they make all of this a bit more clear, regardless of what side of it you are on.
I think we can all agree that we only want clarity.

Incorrect. Location is not the definition of a special rule. Nothing you have ever quoted on this subject states that this is the only place to find special rules. Special Rules listed as such are the the abilities which are not tied to any equipment.

A special rule is something that bends or breaks the game's rules. Being found in Wargear does not automatically make it basic rules or the game's rules. Does the Eternity Gate entirely follow the game's rules, or does it bend or break them? I gave a list of rules that it does bend and break, and those were advanced rules as well, so the Gate's rules definitely bend or break the rules.

That is the rulebook's definition, and that is what matters, period.

Ceann wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
I would like to point out as an aside, the Gate is not a special rule, and deep strike is. Which is how it is able to manipulate normal reserves and ongoing reserves. Deep Strike is listed as a special rule, in the codex, on the Army List Entry page for any unit that has deep strike.

It is accorded all precedence of a special rule and an Army List Entry. What you have here is essentially the exact same scenario. Someone claiming you can cancel deep strike halfway through, which you cannot. Short of another LABELED special rule.

Gate is not a special rule and deploying as normal from reserves is not either, gate can take precedence over the basic rules because it is a "codex rule".

The Gate is not any kind of rule, it is Wargear. It does have special rules, though. Remember the definition, location does not matter in defining it as a special rule.

The reason its rules are special are four fold.
* It is not a Transport nor on a Transport, but units can Disembark through it.
* It is able to Disembark units that are not Embarked on the unit.
* It is able to override the procedure of Arriving From Reserves by virtue of bypassing the roll.
* It is able to remove a unit from off the table to reposition it via Disembarking.

All of these are breaking numerous rules, mostly advanced rules at that, and that is part of what defines a special rule. There is no other term for it because these sure aren't basic rules it is using.

There is absolutely no rule that states, "you cannot override a special rule without another labelled special rule." That is a farcical comment which is nowhere in the rulebook. "Codex rules" take precedence over ANY rules in the rulebook, not just the basic rules. Deep Strike is defined in the rulebook, so the Gate can override it.

We as players are not allowed to decide what does and does not break the rules.
If you note any unit with Deep Strike on it's list entry, under Special Rules section of the list it will be noted as one, as with any other rule that is a special rule.
If it is not noted as one then it is not one, regardless of our opinions on the matter.

The reason its rules are not special are one and only one.

* We are not told it is one.

Open any codex, go to the page before the first unit and read the break down of an Army List Entry.
This in particular.

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are
detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer
40,000: The Rules.

Eternity Gate is not listed as a special rule on the data sheet, so it is not one.
It is allowed to exert codex precedence over the basic rules, which is why it does work.
It is not allowed to supersede special rules, to my knowledge nothing is.
This is why Lance works over the shielding ability also, one is a special rule and one is not.
We are told where special rules exist and explicitly told where to find them.
This is also precisely why you cannot just walk onto the board after stating you will deep strike, you have already chosen to use the rule and you must use the entire rule, not a portion of a rule.

Hopefully when the 8th ed. rules drop that they make all of this a bit more clear, regardless of what side of it you are on.
I think we can all agree that we only want clarity.

Ceann, the main rulebook talks about basic vs. advanced, not special vs. non-special. I gave you the quote on how an advanced rule in a codex interacts with an advanced rule in the main rulebook. Insisting that the Gate doesn't override normal Deep Strike rules is you just trying to make rules up. Please refer back to page 13 in the main rulebook. I would also suggest that we drop this tangent as there will probably be more than enough going on here when col_impact rejoins the conversation, and we should probably not get this closed before he gets back because we derailed it into a subject that had already been closed up. Therefore, I would say that if you do not agree with what I said in my prevous post we should probably just agree to disagree on it.

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
We as players are not allowed to decide what does and does not break the rules.
If you note any unit with Deep Strike on it's list entry, under Special Rules section of the list it will be noted as one, as with any other rule that is a special rule.
If it is not noted as one then it is not one, regardless of our opinions on the matter.

The reason its rules are not special are one and only one.

* We are not told it is one.

Open any codex, go to the page before the first unit and read the break down of an Army List Entry.
This in particular.

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are
detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer
40,000: The Rules.

Eternity Gate is not listed as a special rule on the data sheet, so it is not one.
It is allowed to exert codex precedence over the basic rules, which is why it does work.
It is not allowed to supersede special rules, to my knowledge nothing is.
This is why Lance works over the shielding ability also, one is a special rule and one is not.
We are told where special rules exist and explicitly told where to find them.
This is also precisely why you cannot just walk onto the board after stating you will deep strike, you have already chosen to use the rule and you must use the entire rule, not a portion of a rule.

Hopefully when the 8th ed. rules drop that they make all of this a bit more clear, regardless of what side of it you are on.
I think we can all agree that we only want clarity.

Incorrect. Location is not the definition of a special rule. Nothing you have ever quoted on this subject states that this is the only place to find special rules. Special Rules listed as such are the the abilities which are not tied to any equipment.

A special rule is something that bends or breaks the game's rules. Being found in Wargear does not automatically make it basic rules or the game's rules. Does the Eternity Gate entirely follow the game's rules, or does it bend or break them? I gave a list of rules that it does bend and break, and those were advanced rules as well, so the Gate's rules definitely bend or break the rules.

That is the rulebook's definition, and that is what matters, period.

/sigh /triple face palm

Dude.


Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

It TELLS you when it is a special rule. You are pulling a "you know who" move by not stating the entire context of the statement.
So while you might THINK it is breaking rules, it isn't.
You can't decide it isn't a special rule because you were not told it was one.
Hence it is not represented by a special rule.
Because if it was then it would be.... "represented by a special rule".

Is rolling for reserves as normal, listed in the special rules section or represted by a special rule?
No.

Is deep strike?
Yes.

So we follow the rules for deep strike, because it is a special rule and special rules are listed IN THE CODEX on the datasheet under the "Special Rules" section of the Army List Entry.
The special rules in the BRB a repository for rules, if a rules is referenced on a data sheet it is permitted to use the rules being referenced unless it is superseded by a special rule.

Ceann wrote:
/sigh /triple face palm

Dude.


Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

It TELLS you when it is a special rule. You are pulling a "you know who" special by not stating the entire context of the statement.

Does the Eternity Gate, which a model has, have an ability that allows you to bend or break the game's rules? Yes, or no?

Do you accept the concept that a rule provided by a codex can override a USR? If not, can you demonstrate where it states otherwise?

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
/sigh /triple face palm

Dude.


Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

It TELLS you when it is a special rule. You are pulling a "you know who" special by not stating the entire context of the statement.

Does the Eternity Gate, which a model has, have an ability that allows you to bend or break the game's rules? Yes, or no?

Do you accept the concept that a rule provided by a codex can override a USR? If not, can you demonstrate where it states otherwise?

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.

You are told BY THE CODEX what special rules you have.
Is Eternity Gate listed as a special rule?
No.

Is it represented by a Special Rule?
No.

So is it one?
No.

Ceann wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
/sigh /triple face palm

Dude.


Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

It TELLS you when it is a special rule. You are pulling a "you know who" special by not stating the entire context of the statement.

Does the Eternity Gate, which a model has, have an ability that allows you to bend or break the game's rules? Yes, or no?

Do you accept the concept that a rule provided by a codex can override a USR? If not, can you demonstrate where it states otherwise?

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.

You are told BY THE CODEX what special rules you have.
Is Eternity Gate listed as a special rule?
No.

Is it represented by a Special Rule?
No.

So is it one?
No.

That does not address his question. It also does not address what I said earlier. I'm starting to wonder if you just have me on ignore. It's not special vs. non-special rule, it's basic vs advanced rule, and the ruleook tells you how to handle a conflict between rules in a codex and ones in the main rulebook. Charistoph, if he's not willing to drop the argument and agree to disagree as I suggested earlier, you might bring this up more explicitly with him.

The issue tom is that basic vs advanced is just that, basic vs advanced. A USR is not a basic rule, if you want to conceptually put two rules a box, which one must be the basic rule and which one must be the advanced rule becomes quite clear.

You are exhibiting the same behavior of cherry picking statements from rules and using those as arguments.

BvA:

1. The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated
in its Army List Entry.

2. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks - the advanced rule takes precedence.

I don't need to address his question because his question is based on a false premise that he has permission, as a player, to decide what is and is not an advanced rule. That is the issue that everyone seems to have.

That is why this issue keeps coming up, because everyone see's this statement "bends or breaks a rule" ignores the part that it will be "represented by a special rule" and asserts they have the authority to decide which is which.

We are told that special rules are advanced rules.
We are told where to find special rules.
We are told they will be notated on the Army List Entry.
We are told advanced rules are in the Army List Entry.

If the only example we are given, of BvA in action, is to notate that a special rule is the advanced rule and that is the only example we are given other than a description. Then clearly only special rules are advanced rules.

In all of these situations Deep Strike is listed under the special rules section of Data Sheet and nothing else is.
Therefore Deep Strike has precedence.
Outflanking is the same way, it is listed under the special rules for the unit, it has precedence.
The only way we would actually have a conflict would be if there was a special rule in the codex and a USR and those conflicted, then the special rule from the codex would have precedence.
However there is no special rule here to contest Deep Strike.

Ceann wrote:9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special
rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.

You are told BY THE CODEX what special rules you have.
Is Eternity Gate listed as a special rule?
No.

Is it represented by a Special Rule?
No.

So is it one?
No.

That is a definition by location. That is not listed as the defining characteristic of a special rule. The term "only" is not used in the rulebook's or codices' comments on location. That restriction is completely yours.

Answer the questions:
Does the Eternity Gate, which a model has, have an ability that allows you to bend or break the game's rules? Yes, or no?

Do you accept the concept that a rule provided by a codex can override a USR? If not, can you demonstrate where it states otherwise?

doctortom wrote:Charistoph, if he's not willing to drop the argument and agree to disagree as I suggested earlier, you might bring this up more explicitly with him.

I have. He did not like the answers and just gave a politician's answer, i.e. answer the question he wanted instead of the one asked.

Does the Eternity Gate, which a model has, have an ability that allows you to bend or break the game's rules? Yes, or no?


Fabrication Charistoph I am disappointed.
This is what he would do.

1. WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.

2. Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

It has not been represented as one, nor has it been stated otherwise that it is one.
You need to answer... is Eternity Gate represented as a special rule? Yes, or no?
In order to represented as one, it would have to be in the Special Rules section of the datasheet.

col_impact expresses himself in a way that is annoying, but in most cases technically correct, its therefor often not necessary for others to join in, so judging how right he is by how many who agrees with him is not fair.


There is no rule in the BRB that says you have to do what yo say.


I could say unit A will shoot at unit B, and then afterwards say "im rolling to run", and go on to roll a die to run unit A instead, no rule broken. Its not a nice way to behave, but its not illegal.


Likewise, I could put a unit in reserves and say it will deep strike, (this triggers a rule saying this unit is now in deep strike reserve, and also Reserves as he points out in red), but nothing in BRB says I have to do what I say, and nothing in the rules says it may now only arrive by deep strike.


Because the definition of putting a unit in deep strike is horribly worded by GW, "put in reserves and inform oponent", you end up with rules most likely being wrongly interpreted, strictly RAW.


Most people in the thread who argue say that when you say the "unit will arrive by DS", that unit now must arrive by DS. Changing the werb in that sentence already drastically changes the meaning.


I believe GW intended for the unit to now be locked to deploy by deep strike only, but their sentences strictly logically don't convey that meaning. Or they changed their mind while writing up rules, or different writers had different understanding of the rules. Its a mess anyway. But that is a RAI issue.

Had GW wanted this flexibilty, they would surely have expressed themselves differently, yet RAI.


When they wrote outflank they did a better job.

Ceann wrote:
The issue tom is that basic vs advanced is just that, basic vs advanced. A USR is not a basic rule, if you want to conceptually put two rules a box, which one must be the basic rule and which one must be the advanced rule becomes quite clear.

You are exhibiting the same behavior of cherry picking statements from rules and using those as arguments.

BvA:

1. The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated
in its Army List Entry.

2. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks - the advanced rule takes precedence.

I don't need to address his question because his question is based on a false premise that he has permission, as a player, to decide what is and is not an advanced rule. That is the issue that everyone seems to have.

That is why this issue keeps coming up, because everyone see's this statement "bends or breaks a rule" ignores the part that it will be "represented by a special rule" and asserts they have the authority to decide which is which.

We are told that special rules are advanced rules.
We are told where to find special rules.
We are told they will be notated on the Army List Entry.
We are told advanced rules are in the Army List Entry.

If the only example we are given, of BvA in action, is to notate that a special rule is the advanced rule and that is the only example we are given other than a description. Then clearly only special rules are advanced rules.

thank you for responding.

I do think your claim of cherry picking rules is way off-base. I am referring to THE rule that tells us how to handle basic rules and how to handle advanced rules. Yes, Deep Strike is a special rule. We know special rules are advanced rules because a) they are not in the core rules section, where we're told all the basic rules are, b) they are in the appendix, which we are told is a "collection of advanced rules, weaponry and abilities"

What about Eternity Gate? It contains advanced rules as well. I suggest you review what is stated on page 13 for a definition of advanced rules, as it covers more than just "special rules". All special rules are advanced rules, but not all advanced rules are special rules (and therefore, not only special rules are advanced rules). I think that is where your analysis falls apart. The Eternity gate has its own rules that override normal rules, so therefore cannot be basic rules. Also they are new rules in a codex, so aren't covered in the basic rules section. It would also fall under the advanced rules in the "apply to specific types of models" category - namely models equipped with it. "The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry." Are the rules for Eternity Gate indicated there? Yes. We are dealing with an advanced rule for the Eternity Gate for pulling models out of Reserves. (We also override the basic rules about how to deploy units coming in from Reserves when we use it.) So, we have an advanced rule from the main rulebook (Deep Strike) compared to an advanced rule in a Codex (Eternity Gate). According to page 13, Codex advanced rule beats main rulebook advanced rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:
Does the Eternity Gate, which a model has, have an ability that allows you to bend or break the game's rules? Yes, or no?


Fabrication Charistoph I am disappointed.
This is what he would do.

1. WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.

2. Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

It has not been represented as one, nor has it been stated otherwise that it is one.
You need to answer... is Eternity Gate represented as a special rule? Yes, or no?
In order to represented as one, it would have to be in the Special Rules section of the datasheet.

Unfortunately what you do here is not going by the rules. You should not be asking what special rules do I have, but what advanced rules do I have? It just happens that Eternity Gate has a special rule. Basic rules do not allow you to take a unit from Reserves and deploy it in front of the monolith. Then again, Reserves rules are advanced rules by themselves, so any rules involving reserves are advanced rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

torblind wrote:
col_impact expresses himself in a way that is annoying, but in most cases technically correct, its therefor often not necessary for others to join in, so judging how right he is by how many who agrees with him is not fair.


There is no rule in the BRB that says you have to do what yo say.


I could say unit A will shoot at unit B, and then afterwards say "im rolling to run", and go on to roll a die to run unit A instead, no rule broken. Its not a nice way to behave, but its not illegal.


Likewise, I could put a unit in reserves and say it will deep strike, (this triggers a rule saying this unit is now in deep strike reserve, and also Reserves as he points out in red), but nothing in BRB says I have to do what I say, and nothing in the rules says it may now only arrive by deep strike.


Because the definition of putting a unit in deep strike is horribly worded by GW, "put in reserves and inform oponent", you end up with rules most likely being wrongly interpreted, strictly RAW.


Most people in the thread who argue say that when you say the "unit will arrive by DS", that unit now must arrive by DS. Changing the werb in that sentence already drastically changes the meaning.


I believe GW intended for the unit to now be locked to deploy by deep strike only, but their sentences strictly logically don't convey that meaning. Or they changed their mind while writing up rules, or different writers had different understanding of the rules. Its a mess anyway. But that is a RAI issue.

Had GW wanted this flexibilty, they would surely have expressed themselves differently, yet RAI.


When they wrote outflank they did a better job.

The problem is that he says outflanking takes away permission, but deep striking doesn't. How so? For outflanking you declare they are outflanking. The rules later tell you how to handle outflanking units. You declare you are deep striking. The rules tell you how to handle deep striking units. If the declaration take away the permission to just walk on for outflanking units, then in order for him to be consistent, then deep striking units would also have had their permission to just walked on revoked in just the same manner it's revoked for outflankers. No, there's no rule in the BRB that you have to do what you say, but I do think there is a good argument for the point that at the time you declare that the unit is either deep striking or outflanking, you have defined the unit as a deep stirking unit or an outflanking unit, which means they are subject to the rules of having to follow through on how those types of units are instructed to com onto the board (unless, of course, there's an advanced rule associated with something in a codex that would override it - the Ceann/Charisoph/ myself sidebar going on now).

His argument about units the must deep strike cherry picks and ignores that they are required to be placed in reserves as well as being required to deep strike. Merely saying they are required in reserves would not cover them deep striking at all; it has to mention it in order to ensure they deep strike. That does not mean that it's an exclusionary statement in that only they are forced to deep strike. As I said, once you've made the commitment to deep strike you've defined your unit in a manner that makes you have to follow the deep strike rules for deployment.

 doctortom wrote:

Ceann wrote:
The issue tom is that basic vs advanced is just that, basic vs advanced. A USR is not a basic rule, if you want to conceptually put two rules a box, which one must be the basic rule and which one must be the advanced rule becomes quite clear.

You are exhibiting the same behavior of cherry picking statements from rules and using those as arguments.

BvA:

1. The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated
in its Army List Entry.

2. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks - the advanced rule takes precedence.

I don't need to address his question because his question is based on a false premise that he has permission, as a player, to decide what is and is not an advanced rule. That is the issue that everyone seems to have.

That is why this issue keeps coming up, because everyone see's this statement "bends or breaks a rule" ignores the part that it will be "represented by a special rule" and asserts they have the authority to decide which is which.

We are told that special rules are advanced rules.
We are told where to find special rules.
We are told they will be notated on the Army List Entry.
We are told advanced rules are in the Army List Entry.

If the only example we are given, of BvA in action, is to notate that a special rule is the advanced rule and that is the only example we are given other than a description. Then clearly only special rules are advanced rules.

thank you for responding.

I do think your claim of cherry picking rules is way off-base. I am referring to THE rule that tells us how to handle basic rules and how to handle advanced rules. Yes, Deep Strike is a special rule. We know special rules are advanced rules because a) they are not in the core rules section, where we're told all the basic rules are, b) they are in the appendix, which we are told is a "collection of advanced rules, weaponry and abilities"

What about Eternity Gate? It contains advanced rules as well. I suggest you review what is stated on page 13 for a definition of advanced rules, as it covers more than just "special rules". All special rules are advanced rules, but not all advanced rules are special rules (and therefore, not only special rules are advanced rules). I think that is where your analysis falls apart. The Eternity gate has its own rules that override normal rules, so therefore cannot be basic rules. Also they are new rules in a codex, so aren't covered in the basic rules section. It would also fall under the advanced rules in the "apply to specific types of models" category - namely models equipped with it. "The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry." Are the rules for Eternity Gate indicated there? Yes. We are dealing with an advanced rule for the Eternity Gate for pulling models out of Reserves. (We also override the basic rules about how to deploy units coming in from Reserves when we use it.) So, we have an advanced rule from the main rulebook (Deep Strike) compared to an advanced rule in a Codex (Eternity Gate). According to page 13, Codex advanced rule beats main rulebook advanced rule.

I feel like I am trying to be quite honest about BvA. It gives us a description of the kinds of things that might be advanced rules. That is it, a description. We are not given permission to freely on our own decide what is and is not an advanced rule. The only location it gives us as to where they might be located is an Army List Entry or Codex.

Eternity Gate is not an advanced rule, that is an assumption based on the description that is provided. In the example of what BvA is, it states that a special rule is the advanced rule and takes precedence.
Eternity Gate works as normal because if conflicts with the basic deployment rules, but by being in a codex it has precedence. Note that the basic reserve rules are not notated on the data sheet.
Deep Strike is a special rule, is notated as such on the data sheet. You cannot use part of a special rule, deep striking involves the entire process of placing it in reserves to the point it arrives. Anything that changes that is conflicting with the process.

Reanimation Protocols is a special rule, so is Chapter Tactics, if Eternity Gate was a special rule then it could easily be located under the special rule section of the units data sheet, but it isn't, if that were the case it would clearly have precedence.

Deep strike and outflank are both located in the special rules section of any unit that has them,

BvA tells us "Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because..."
Because means, reasons. We are given reasons why advanced rules would apply.
Not what they ARE, but why they apply.
We are then told "The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry."
Then provided an example of a special rule as being the advanced rule.
The two statements tell us what they apply too, and then tell us where the rules that apply are indicated.

I have drawn no conclusions on my own, nor decided I have permission to decide what rule is what rule.
The entire purpose of BvA is to poorly explain to us that special rules have precedence.

 doctortom wrote:
The problem is that he says outflanking takes away permission, but deep striking doesn't. How so? For outflanking you declare they are outflanking. The rules later tell you how to handle outflanking units. You declare you are deep striking. The rules tell you how to handle deep striking units.

I agree these look like very similar mechanics. But as always with RAW, the devil is in the details, every last tiny one.

For outflank it says literally:

When this unit arrives from Reserves, ...

Those few words make all the difference in the world. There is no such formal restriction on any paragraphs of the Deep Strike Rule.

Again I am dead certain that if GW wanted to make this distinction between the two methods (DS and OF), they wouldn't have hidden away the crucial difference between them in this one sentence deep inside BRB.

Now col_impact is being a total d*** about what is logical and strict, which is why those who agree (like me) seldom join in, and people with emotions (which covers well above 90% of us), get into these long angry and eventually locked YMDC threads.

torblind wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
The problem is that he says outflanking takes away permission, but deep striking doesn't. How so? For outflanking you declare they are outflanking. The rules later tell you how to handle outflanking units. You declare you are deep striking. The rules tell you how to handle deep striking units.

I agree these look like very similar mechanics. But as always with RAW, the devil is in the details, every last tiny one.

For outflank it says literally:

When this unit arrives from Reserves, ...

Those few words make all the difference in the world. There is no such formal restriction on any paragraphs of the Deep Strike Rule.

Again I am dead certain that if GW wanted to make this distinction between the two methods (DS and OF), they wouldn't have hidden away the crucial difference between them in this one sentence deep inside BRB.

Now col_impact is being a total d*** about what is logical and strict, which is why those who agree (like me) seldom join in, and people with emotions (which covers well above 90% of us), get into these long angry and eventually locked YMDC threads.

But the devil is entirely in the details.
"Reserves" as a standard deployment procedure takes place within the basic rules.
Outflanking and Deep Strike are special rules, special rules have a precedence when there is a conflict.

Outflank and Deep Strike dictate EXACTLY how you MUST arrive when using them.
If you try to bring that unit in via some other fashion, then you are conflicting with how the two special rules dictate they arrive.
You cannot use them to claim you are deploying in a particular fashion and then stop using the rule later to change it.
When you declare them in your deployment phase the bullet has effectively left the barrel, the grenade has been thrown.
You have no option to stop it "mid air" and change your mind. You have begun using the rule and must use the rule until it has been completed in it's finality.
Only a duly noted special rule from a codex could change the circumstances of their arrival.

Arriving from your board edge is not that circumstance.

Some people are going to love 8th Edition Narrative Play with how much crap they just make-up.

Ceann wrote:
I feel like I am trying to be quite honest about BvA. It gives us a description of the kinds of things that might be advanced rules. That is it, a description. We are not given permission to freely on our own decide what is and is not an advanced rule. The only location it gives us as to where they might be located is an Army List Entry or Codex.

You suffer from a misconception here. We are told what basic rules are and what advanced rules are. We are given permission to decide what is an advanced rule by the fact that they have defined what the basic rules are, and as the only categories are basic and advanced rules, if it is not a basic rule then it must be an advanced rule.

In matter of fact, we are required to be able to tell if a rule is a basic rule or an advanced rule when having to deal iwth the interaction between two rules. Otherwise, you would never know how to apply the basic vs advanced sidebar.

Ceann wrote:
Eternity Gate is not an advanced rule, that is an assumption based on the description that is provided. In the example of what BvA is, it states that a special rule is the advanced rule and takes precedence.
Eternity Gate works as normal because if conflicts with the basic deployment rules, but by being in a codex it has precedence. Note that the basic reserve rules are not notated on the data sheet.
Deep Strike is a special rule, is notated as such on the data sheet. You cannot use part of a special rule, deep striking involves the entire process of placing it in reserves to the point it arrives. Anything that changes that is conflicting with the process.

No assumptions made at all. It is compared to the basic rules in the Core Rules section. Are the rules for Eternity gate rules that are in the Core Rules section? No. Therefore, it is not a basic rule. It breaks or bends one of the main game rules, so it meets the definition of a special rule. It can be used for any unit in Reserves, so it is not strictly following vehicle rules (as you are not dealing with a unit embarked in the vehicle) (Vehicle rules are advanced rules, by the way, meeting the "are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank)", so even if it were merely disembarking rules you are still dealing with advanced rules)

So, not only do you not have a lack of permission, you have a duty to be able to tell if a rule is basic or advanced. Your problem is that you are treating special rules as the only advanced rules when page 13 clearly has a broader definition than that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:
[

But the devil is entirely in the details.
"Reserves" as a standard deployment procedure takes place within the basic rules.

Well, to put a point on it, the devil IS in the details. The first sentence for MISSION SPECIAL RULES on page 135 (the title of the section alone should be a big tip off): "Special rules can be added to a game to cover unique situations, tactics or abilities that you feel you need to be represented by your battle." So, we have just had the section with Mission Special Rules defined as Special Rules. And, since Special Rules are advanced rules, that means that the rules for Reserves there are advanced rules, not basic rules.

Ceann wrote:Does the Eternity Gate, which a model has, have an ability that allows you to bend or break the game's rules? Yes, or no?

Fabrication Charistoph I am disappointed.
This is what he would do.

1. WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.

2. Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

It has not been represented as one, nor has it been stated otherwise that it is one.
You need to answer... is Eternity Gate represented as a special rule? Yes, or no?
In order to represented as one, it would have to be in the Special Rules section of the datasheet.

No fabrication, I am just applying the situation as the rulebook defines it, not as the rulebook locates it. Note the difference in verb, "defines" vs "locates". You are only going by location, not definition. That is a fabrication.

I also note that you did not answer the questions:
Does the Eternity Gate, which a model has, have an ability that allows you to bend or break the game's rules? Yes, or no?

Do you accept the concept that a rule provided by a codex can override a USR? If not, can you demonstrate where it states otherwise?

torblind wrote:col_impact expresses himself in a way that is annoying, but in most cases technically correct, its therefor often not necessary for others to join in, so judging how right he is by how many who agrees with him is not fair.

While I agree on the second part, he more often is not technically correct as he often takes things out of context, and ignores things that would say otherwise, even in the very sentence he is nit-picking rules from.

torblind wrote:There is no rule in the BRB that says you have to do what yo say.

A false premise. That is the equivalent of saying, "but it doesn't say I can't". Please review the Forum Tenet Rules #1 and take particular note of the link on how to have an intelligent rules debate..

torblind wrote:I could say unit A will shoot at unit B, and then afterwards say "im rolling to run", and go on to roll a die to run unit A instead, no rule broken. Its not a nice way to behave, but its not illegal.

It depends on when you are announcing you are rolling to Run. If you are doing it during the To Wound portion of the Shooting Sequence, it is rather disingenuous and basically lying to your opponent. It is poor sportsmanship and will cause that you to lose any games.

torblind wrote:Likewise, I could put a unit in reserves and say it will deep strike, (this triggers a rule saying this unit is now in deep strike reserve, and also Reserves as he points out in red), but nothing in BRB says I have to do what I say, and nothing in the rules says it may now only arrive by deep strike.

If you change your mind in Deployment, most will see no problem with it any more than they would if you changed Targets before selecting a Weapon and rolling To Hit. But as has pointed out repeatedly, once the game starts, there is no permission set allowing you to change how a unit Arrives From Reserves except through codex rules. Doing so is following a, "but it doesn't say I can't" mentality.

torblind wrote:Most people in the thread who argue say that when you say the "unit will arrive by DS", that unit now must arrive by DS. Changing the werb in that sentence already drastically changes the meaning.

A change caused by tense. One is defining an action of the future. The other is regarding the fulfillment of that expectation.

Ceann wrote:I feel like I am trying to be quite honest about BvA. It gives us a description of the kinds of things that might be advanced rules. That is it, a description. We are not given permission to freely on our own decide what is and is not an advanced rule. The only location it gives us as to where they might be located is an Army List Entry or Codex.

Not true. It only states it is indicated, on there, not located there. Are you aware of the difference in these terms?

All special rules are advanced rules. All advanced rules carry special rules, otherwise, they are basic rules which would not allow them to be advanced.

Ceann wrote:Eternity Gate is not an advanced rule, that is an assumption based on the description that is provided. In the example of what BvA is, it states that a special rule is the advanced rule and takes precedence.
Eternity Gate works as normal because if conflicts with the basic deployment rules, but by being in a codex it has precedence. Note that the basic reserve rules are not notated on the data sheet.
Deep Strike is a special rule, is notated as such on the data sheet. You cannot use part of a special rule, deep striking involves the entire process of placing it in reserves to the point it arrives. Anything that changes that is conflicting with the process.

You are incorrect that you cannot use part of a special rule. See the Pysker Power Gate of Infinity and how it works for an example. See also how Stubborn deals with Fearless for another example of only using part of a special rule.

Ceann wrote:Reanimation Protocols is a special rule, so is Chapter Tactics, if Eternity Gate was a special rule then it could easily be located under the special rule section of the units data sheet, but it isn't, if that were the case it would clearly have precedence.

Deep strike and outflank are both located in the special rules section of any unit that has them,

BvA tells us "Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because..."
Because means, reasons. We are given reasons why advanced rules would apply.
Not what they ARE, but why they apply.
We are then told "The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry."
Then provided an example of a special rule as being the advanced rule.
The two statements tell us what they apply too, and then tell us where the rules that apply are indicated.

I have drawn no conclusions on my own, nor decided I have permission to decide what rule is what rule.

You have drawn conclusions of your own, otherwise you would be questioning what we are saying and not having a determination to fight against what we are saying.

So, let me ask you this, If the Eternity Gate's rules are not advanced nor special, what are they?

They are not basic, as they are defined in the codex, not the rulebook, nor defined as basic rules there. Nor do they even interact with any basic rule, as they address advanced rules regarding Reserves and Transports.

The Eternity Gate is a piece of Wargear and not rules. Wargear, much like models, carry rules. They cannot be basic rules, as they modify rules that are already defined as advanced in the rulebook.

Do the rules of the Eternity Gate fit any of the categories which define an advanced rule?
* Special kind of Weapon? Nope.
* Cause it to be different from its fellows? Nope.
* Cause it to be a not normal infantry model? Nope.
* Unusual Skill? Yes. It allows the model to do something that no other model without an Eternity Gate can do.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

torblind wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
The problem is that he says outflanking takes away permission, but deep striking doesn't. How so? For outflanking you declare they are outflanking. The rules later tell you how to handle outflanking units. You declare you are deep striking. The rules tell you how to handle deep striking units.

I agree these look like very similar mechanics. But as always with RAW, the devil is in the details, every last tiny one.

For outflank it says literally:

When this unit arrives from Reserves, ...

Those few words make all the difference in the world. There is no such formal restriction on any paragraphs of the Deep Strike Rule.

Again I am dead certain that if GW wanted to make this distinction between the two methods (DS and OF), they wouldn't have hidden away the crucial difference between them in this one sentence deep inside BRB.

From Deep Strike:

Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves and then deploy them as follows...

Only changing how they get on the table at this point.

In the Movement phase during which they arrive...

You rolled for getting them out of Reserves, and then they Arrive.

So, since it only changes the method of placing the units on the table, not the prerequisites, of Arriving From Reserves, it is somehow not included as "arriving from reserves"?

Ceann wrote:But the devil is entirely in the details.
"Reserves" as a standard deployment procedure takes place within the basic rules.
Outflanking and Deep Strike are special rules, special rules have a precedence when there is a conflict.

Incorrect. Reserves is a Mission Special Rule. It is not basic. Just because we are used to using it, does not define it as basic. That is your biggest problem with these definitions. You are taking something that is basic to us or to something else and defining it as basic without thinking about how the game sees it.

torblind wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
The problem is that he says outflanking takes away permission, but deep striking doesn't. How so? For outflanking you declare they are outflanking. The rules later tell you how to handle outflanking units. You declare you are deep striking. The rules tell you how to handle deep striking units.

I agree these look like very similar mechanics. But as always with RAW, the devil is in the details, every last tiny one.

For outflank it says literally:

When this unit arrives from Reserves, ...

Those few words make all the difference in the world. There is no such formal restriction on any paragraphs of the Deep Strike Rule.

Again I am dead certain that if GW wanted to make this distinction between the two methods (DS and OF), they wouldn't have hidden away the crucial difference between them in this one sentence deep inside BRB.

Now col_impact is being a total d*** about what is logical and strict, which is why those who agree (like me) seldom join in, and people with emotions (which covers well above 90% of us), get into these long angry and eventually locked YMDC threads.

My mini-rulebook says "When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not from Ongoing Reserves..." It doesn't just say "when this unit arrives from Reserves"

Huh, how about that? Conflicting statements between the two books we are looking at. No wonder there's an argument about it! I don't know which one is more recent (I suspect the mini-rulebook might be a corrected version given the specificity you're talking about being here but not in your quote - it looks like my quote is more of a correction of yours rather than the other way around. I can easily see, though why this would be seen differently, depending on which version of the book you have! Unfortunately I don't see it mentioned in the FAQ. Can somebody with an enhanced digital version give the quote from Outflank so we can clear up what's the most recent version? I would imagine the updates would have that version being more recent. It doesn't make sense to argue about the deep striking and reserves any more until we get this cleared up, as it is probably the different wordings causing the conflict.


Thanks for posting and for answering my earlier question; this wouldn't have come to light if you hadn't!!!!

 doctortom wrote:
My mini-rulebook says "When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not from Ongoing Reserves..." It doesn't just say "when this unit arrives from Reserves"

Huh, how about that? Conflicting statements between the two books we are looking at. No wonder there's an argument about it! I don't know which one is more recent (I suspect the mini-rulebook might be a corrected version given the specificity you're talking about being here but not in your quote - it looks like my quote is more of a correction of yours rather than the other way around. I can easily see, though why this would be seen differently, depending on which version of the book you have! Unfortunately I don't see it mentioned in the FAQ. Can somebody with an enhanced digital version give the quote from Outflank so we can clear up what's the most recent version? I would imagine the updates would have that version being more recent. It doesn't make sense to argue about the deep striking and reserves any more until we get this cleared up, as it is probably the different wordings causing the conflict.


Thanks for posting and for answering my earlier question; this wouldn't have come to light if you hadn't!!!!

There are 3 instances of Outflank, one for the rule itself, one for Scout, and one for Infiltrate. The latter two state, "When this unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve...", while the Special Rule itself is as you point out your rulebook states.

I'm thinking torblind was quoting from one of the sub-references found in Scout or Infiltrate, not Outflank itself.

Please read your data sheets.

8. Wargear: This section details the weapons and equipment the models in the unit are
armed with, many of which are described in more detail in the Appendix of this book. The
cost for all the unit’s basic equipment is included in its points cost.

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here.

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

We are told that the unit has basic equipment.
Therefore all of the equipment it has, are basic rules used for that unit in that codex.

Special rules are annotated for a REASON.
The special rules field would have no reason to exist other than to reference USR's which is clearly not the case.
There are plenty of pieces of wargear that notate specifically when they have a Special Rule.
If they were all advanced rules then this would again, have no purpose.

You guys are greatly misinterpreting basic vs advanced.
"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models whether because they have..."

Now please follow what I am saying.
It is telling you the circumstances, under which something WOULD have an advanced rule.
Not that the things listed ARE advanced rules.
Because... "The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry."

We are never anywhere given permission to make such determinations on our own.

The ONLY example of an advanced rule is this...

For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does
not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence.

We are told in the special rules section that models do not have special rules unless told otherwise.
The only place we are told what special rules a unit or model has, is on it's army list entry, in the special rules section of the data sheet.

Because we are dealing with special rules you are required to follow through the entire process of using them. Because otherwise you are not using the rule. The examples you provided of Stubborn and Fearless are not accurate examples because both of those are special rules and are notated as special rules and specifically notate how they interact in order to not cause a conflict between the two of them.

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
My mini-rulebook says "When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not from Ongoing Reserves..." It doesn't just say "when this unit arrives from Reserves"

Huh, how about that? Conflicting statements between the two books we are looking at. No wonder there's an argument about it! I don't know which one is more recent (I suspect the mini-rulebook might be a corrected version given the specificity you're talking about being here but not in your quote - it looks like my quote is more of a correction of yours rather than the other way around. I can easily see, though why this would be seen differently, depending on which version of the book you have! Unfortunately I don't see it mentioned in the FAQ. Can somebody with an enhanced digital version give the quote from Outflank so we can clear up what's the most recent version? I would imagine the updates would have that version being more recent. It doesn't make sense to argue about the deep striking and reserves any more until we get this cleared up, as it is probably the different wordings causing the conflict.


Thanks for posting and for answering my earlier question; this wouldn't have come to light if you hadn't!!!!

There are 3 instances of Outflank, one for the rule itself, one for Scout, and one for Infiltrate. The latter two state, "When this unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve...", while the Special Rule itself is as you point out your rulebook states.

I'm thinking torblind was quoting from one of the sub-references found in Scout or Infiltrate, not Outflank itself.

Good point. Looking, they do say "this unit" in the outflank section of Infiltrate and Scout, but my quote came directly from the Outflank rule. Strange that they changed a bit what they said for outflank in the sections for the other rules from the outflank rule itself, and don't reference the outflank special rule by page number but rely on the outflank rules in the scout or infiltrate part instead.

Ceann wrote:
Please read your data sheets.

8. Wargear: This section details the weapons and equipment the models in the unit are
armed with, many of which are described in more detail in the Appendix of this book. The
cost for all the unit’s basic equipment is included in its points cost.

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here.

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

We are told that the unit has basic equipment.
Therefore all of the equipment it has, are basic rules used for that unit in that codex.

Basic to the unit, but that doesn't mean that what they carry is basic to the game.

Review Terminator Squads for an example.
What is the basic Armour of the Terminator?
Does it carry any Special Rules?
What else does the Terminator Armour do to the model that isn't covered by a Universal Special Rule?
How is this different from how a normal Infantry model would play?
Does this break any of the game's rules?

Ceann wrote:
Special rules are annotated for a REASON.
The special rules field would have no reason to exist other than to reference USR's which is clearly not the case.
There are plenty of pieces of wargear that notate specifically when they have a Special Rule.
If they were all advanced rules then this would again, have no purpose.

Why would it have no purpose if both Wargear and Special Rules are both advanced rules? You are being far too closed minded on this.

Some things are tied to a modeled piece of equipment. There is a large portal on the front of a Monolith. What is it? It's the Eternity Gate. What does it do? A lot of things which you would not be able to do under any rule in the rulebook.

If something is not or cannot be referenced by a piece of Wargear or unit type, it is one of their skills, innate and without reference to any of their equipment. This is how GW has written the 40K game.

Ceann wrote:
You guys are greatly misinterpreting basic vs advanced.
"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models whether because they have..."

Now please follow what I am saying.
It is telling you the circumstances, under which something WOULD have an advanced rule.
Not that the things listed ARE advanced rules.
Because... "The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry."

We are never anywhere given permission to make such determinations on our own.

So why are you making this determination on your own? You have stated numerous things with no support. You have quoted many things out of context. You have ignored the direct quotes we have provided which state the exact opposite of your position.

Ceann wrote:
The ONLY example of an advanced rule is this...

For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does
not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence.

False. It gives many examples while providing its definition.

Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank).

Numerous definitions provided by the term "because", and numerous examples provided by the phrase, "such as".

Ceann wrote:
We are told in the special rules section that models do not have special rules unless told otherwise.
The only place we are told what special rules a unit or model has, is on it's army list entry, in the special rules section of the data sheet.

False. At no place does it state that the only place we may find Special Rules for a unit or model is under the Special Rules heading of its army list entry. The word "only" is missing. Models with the Bike Unit Type do not list "Relentless" any more than Terminator models. Do they not have the Relentless Special Rule? Of course they do. Why? It is not found under their Special Rules heading. The reason they have these special rules is that Relentless can be found in either its Unit Type (for the Bikes) or their Wargear (for the Terminator models).

If I can provide such a Special Rule to a unit without using the Special Rules entry of their army list entry, might I not provide others? Do all Special Rules have to have a special name? Not really. The ability is what is important. It is an unusual skill the Wargear provides. That is part of what makes a model have an unusual skill. How then is this not advanced by every determination of such?

This goes to show your "definition by location" is a complete and total false determination made by you.

Ceann wrote:
Because we are dealing with special rules you are required to follow through the entire process of using them. Because otherwise you are not using the rule. The examples you provided of Stubborn and Fearless are not accurate examples because both of those are special rules and are notated as special rules and specifically notate how they interact in order to not cause a conflict between the two of them.

It is not. I was demonstrating how you do use part of a special rule at times. If a unit has both Stubborn and Fearless applied to it, I can only use the last sentence of Stubborn, and not the first. That is using only a part of the special rule. Your standard has no weight because it fails when we start applying other rules to them.

Neither Outflank or Deep Strike grant permission to change a unit's method of Arriving From Reserves once the game starts, yet, the Eternity Gate allows a Monolith to do exactly that after the game starts. That is the definition of a special rule and advanced rule. It does things that you cannot normally do.

Ceann wrote:
Please read your data sheets.

8. Wargear: This section details the weapons and equipment the models in the unit are
armed with, many of which are described in more detail in the Appendix of this book. The
cost for all the unit’s basic equipment is included in its points cost.

9. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here.

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule.

We are told that the unit has basic equipment.
Therefore all of the equipment it has, are basic rules used for that unit in that codex.

Faulty logic there - basic equipment refers to the equipment that it always has, as opposed to optional equipment that you may choose to purchase. This does not mean that the equipment is all basic and treated as basic rules. Also, that does not preclude the wargear from having special rules. That statement only covers special rules that the unit endemically has, not special rules contained in the wargear. We do know for a fact that wargear contains advanced rules, as a boltgun is listed as an example of a "special kind of weapon" that is defined on page 13 as being/having advanced rules. Is a boltgun "basic equipment" on some datasheets? Yes. Does a boltgun have advanced rules? Yes, according to page 13 in the basic vs advanced sidebar. Therefore, merely saying "basic equpment" doe NOT mean "basic rules"

Ceann wrote:
You guys are greatly misinterpreting basic vs advanced..

No, not at all. You have demonstrated that you cannot even provide the correct information on where the basic rules end in the book, or what basic vs advanced is since you want to define special rules as being the only advanced rules, despite the definition of advanced rules disputing this. This is not cherry picking from that section, by the way, this is going with their definition.

"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models whether because they have..."

Ceann wrote:
Now please follow what I am saying.
It is telling you the circumstances, under which something WOULD have an advanced rule.
Not that the things listed ARE advanced rules.

Really? It certainly looks like a definition. Combine that with what it says at the core rules section about that section containing "all" the basic rules you need. Are the rules found only outside the core rules section? Are you matching up with their definitions? If yes, then you have an advanced rule.

Ceann wrote:
Because... "The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry."

And what about advanced rules that apply to missions? Advanced rules that apply to wargear, or to models? We're not told about those, yet we know they exist (especially Mission Special Rules). This is obviously not an all-inclusive statement since we have shown there are other advanced rules out there, ones that can apply elsewhere.

Ceann wrote:
We are never anywhere given permission to make such determinations on our own.

Sorry, I disproved that in a previous post and you did not provide the proof to refute it. Not only to you have permission, you have a requirement to make such a determination if you are dealing with two conflicting rules. You are making a grevious error with this statement, and the mere repeating of it borders on col impact-type behavior.

Ceann wrote:
The ONLY example of an advanced rule is this...

That statement is just plain wrong, as per the first sentence in the second paragraph of Basic versus Advanced. Special kind of weapon, unusual skills, different to their fellows, because they are not normal infantry models are 4 categories they list, with at least one example for each type. Therefore, saying "the ONLY example" is a demonstrably false statement.

Ceann wrote:
We are told in the special rules section that models do not have special rules unless told otherwise.

Irrelevant, because we are talking advanced rules, not special rules. Special rules are merely a subset of advanced rules. Basing your entire argument on whether or not it has special rules fails when they tell you what advanced rules can be. You ignored the plethora of examples given in the previous thread due to an erroneous reading of what the basic rules and what the advanced rules are The basic rules are in the core rules section. A reference in the core rules section that there may be advanced rules later does not make those later rules basic rules; they are still advanced rules.

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.

SHOW ME where the gate is represented by a special rule?

You can't because it isn't. You are taking what you perceive to be the definition and running with it.

BvA states that any advanced rules that apply to a unit will be on it's datasheet. Terminator armor is on the datasheet for units that have terminator armor. The wargear entry for terminator armor STATES it has the bulky, deep strike and relentless special rules.

This is a perfect example of a wargear telling you what special rules it has.

Is the gate telling you that it has any special rules?
No.

Then it doesn't because it is not represented anywhere to have one.

I don't have time to keep up with the speed of the thread so will try to phase myself out as neatly as possible.

 Charistoph wrote:
I'm thinking torblind was quoting from one of the sub-references found in Scout or Infiltrate, not Outflank itself.

Ah, good catch, I didn't notice the multiple occurences, not sure where I quoted from, but I believe they all result in the same conclusion for my argument? Ie having "Outflank" means the rules now give you only one well defined way to arrive.

 Charistoph wrote:

torblind wrote:Most people in the thread who argue say that when you say the "unit will arrive by DS", that unit now must arrive by DS. Changing the werb in that sentence already drastically changes the meaning.

A change caused by tense. One is defining an action of the future. The other is regarding the fulfillment of that expectation.

This is true, I was wrong, the verb as such is the same, but not, I would argue, the strict logical meaning of "will" and "must" when used in a rule. But I would not like to pursue this, it would be near pointless noise in this thread.

 Charistoph wrote:

torblind wrote:There is no rule in the BRB that says you have to do what yo say.

A false premise. That is the equivalent of saying, "but it doesn't say I can't". Please review the Forum Tenet Rules #1 and take particular note of the link on how to have an intelligent rules debate..

torblind wrote:I could say unit A will shoot at unit B, and then afterwards say "im rolling to run", and go on to roll a die to run unit A instead, no rule broken. Its not a nice way to behave, but its not illegal.

It depends on when you are announcing you are rolling to Run. If you are doing it during the To Wound portion of the Shooting Sequence, it is rather disingenuous and basically lying to your opponent. It is poor sportsmanship and will cause that you to lose any games.

I'm sure we can both agree that there are situations where I can easily get away with doing something else than what I at one point say without a rule that blocks me from doing that.


RAW says that by informing my opponent, my unit in Reserves is in Deep Strike Reserve. That is all RAW says.

Should the rule writers have wanted to force me to go through with the Deep Strike, they would have to add something like "these units shall now arrive by the rules of Deep Strike instead of walking on from Reserves as described in... " or something similar.


Regardless of that, I think the intention is quite clear, the rule intends to remove any confusion when the turn comes and I suddenly throw down a unit on the middle of the table (hey where did they come from), I also think they intended for that to be a forced outcome.

Ceann wrote:
Outflank and Deep Strike dictate EXACTLY how you MUST arrive when using them.
If you try to bring that unit in via some other fashion, then you are conflicting with how the two special rules dictate they arrive.
You cannot use them to claim you are deploying in a particular fashion and then stop using the rule later to change it.
When you declare them in your deployment phase the bullet has effectively left the barrel, the grenade has been thrown.
You have no option to stop it "mid air" and change your mind. You have begun using the rule and must use the rule until it has been completed in it's finality.
Only a duly noted special rule from a codex could change the circumstances of their arrival.

Arriving from your board edge is not that circumstance.

Outflank is a done deal as far as I see it, it demonstrates how arrival from Reserves unambiguously can be narrowed to only one way.

For the rest of the argument I'm not 100% sure how to argue the case either way. I'd probably end up re-iterating what most of col_impact has already said, I believe, it would be something along the following lines:

For Deep Strike it says:

* It must have the rule
* It must start the game in Reserves
* You must inform the opponent that they will arrive by Deep Strike

If my unit starts the game in Reserves, surely it must be considered to be in "Reserves" for all intents and purposes until something explicitly takes me out of reserves, nothing changes that fact.

Arriving by deep strike

Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units [...] and then deploy as follows

At first I did think that "Deep Striking units" would be units in the process of deep striking, but it is not, it has to refer to units in Deep Strike Reserve, because otherwise you couldn't make a roll for them.

You can only make a roll for a unit that is currently in Deep Strike reserve (or vanilla Reserves), you can not make a roll for a unit that is Deep Striking (as in actively performing the action), so the term "all Deep Striking units", has to refer to "all units in Deep Strike Reserves".

Now to the tricky part, it does say, black on white:

Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units and then deploy them [...]

"Rolling for arrival" can only refer to the standard roll being made for Reserves, which takes place at a specific time in the turn.

If this description of how to roll for a unit in Deep Strike Reserve now prevents you from making a "normal" roll for moving on from the edge as arriving from "normal" Reserves, then a unit in Deep Strike Reserves is prevented from making this roll and thus move on from the edge. This would be the case now if this falls under the ruling about advanced rules taking precedence over not so advanced rules. Charistoph has reason to believe this is not the case: (I did not have his argument when I started on this reply)

 Charistoph wrote:
Incorrect. Reserves is a Mission Special Rule. It is not basic. Just because we are used to using it, does not define it as basic. That is your biggest problem with these definitions. You are taking something that is basic to us or to something else and defining it as basic without thinking about how the game sees it.

Otherwise, by this reasoning, this is a case of two conflicting rules that takes place at the same time:

1. Reserves says to roll to advance from my edge, that hasn't strictly and logically been taken away from the unit
2. Deep Strike says to roll in a similar way but then immediately do different things.

It doesn't say that "units in Deep Strike reserves" roll like this instead.

Because the Deep Strike rule didn't clear up its relation to Reserves, there are two conflicting rolls by my reasoning. As such controlling player decides. And moves on from the edge.

But again, I think there is little doubt of how the rule writers intended the game to be played.

Tom,

The issue here is that Infantry are used to explain the rules.
It explicitly states on the first page of the movement phase that they will start by explaining infantry.

"For the time being, we’ll just EXPLAIN how squads of Infantry move..."

Everything after that stems from this false idea, that Infantry being used to explain the procedures for the phases, makes them the default rules and nothing else.

If you consider this and then think about my view you will see how everything else I am saying makes a lot more sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Torblind,

The player cannot make that decision.
Just like if you have a unit that has relentless, you cannot choose to make it snapfire when shooting. You just don't have the choice.

Of if you have Move Through Cover and you want to try to kill your unit for some reason, you can't choose to make them take that roll for terrain.

Or if you have Zealot you cannot choose to go to ground.

The ability to make the choice has been eliminated. Because you have to do exactly what the special rule states, you are not given choices.

The roll for deepstrike states, deploy them AS FOLLOWS and then lists the procedure, to follow.

This thread is getting de-railed by a discussion about Eternity Gate which is expressly what the OP forbid.

 Happyjew wrote:
If I put a unit with Deep Strike (or Outflank) in Reserves, and declare them to be Deep Striking (or Outflanking), are you allowed to change how they come on? Can they choose to walk on as normal after they have sat in Reserves for a turn or 2? Or are they required to come in via the method you have told your opponent?

This is a slight off-shoot of the previous thread regarding the Monolith portal and Deep Strike Reserves, and while it may have some bearing on that discussion, it was locked for a reason. So please leave that topic at the door.

I suggest we get back to the actual discussion about whether or not a player who declares a unit to be Deep Striking can change how they come on.

Now many of you may have RAI arguments that the player cannot change how they come on, but RAW says otherwise.


The rules indicate that only those units that 'must arrive by Deep Strike' will have no choice but to arrive by Deep Strike.

Some units must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike.

A unit with the Deep Strike rule could choose to instead arrive from Reserves invoking normal infantry permissions and walking on the battlefield.

The Deep Strike rules require that you merely announce that you will be arriving via Deep Strike. But announcing does not restrict you from arriving via the general permission to walk on the battlefield from Reserves. The general permission is still completely available and has not been removed by any rule, special or otherwise. The Deep Strike rule specifically places you in Reserves AND Deep Strike Reserves, keeping the option to walk on the battlefield from Reserves open.

For comparison, note that Outflank is written in such a way that all other options are removed.

Outflank
During deployment, players can declare that any unit that contains at least one modelwith this special rule is attempting to Outflank the enemy.

When this unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve, the controlling player rolls a D6: on a 1-2, the unit comes in from the table edge to the left of their controlling player’s own table edge; on a 3-4, they come on from the right; on a 5-6, the player can choose left or right. Models move onto the table as described for other Reserves.

Outflank takes away the permission to walk on from Reserves. Deep Strike does not. A unit that has announced that it will be Deep Striking is placed both in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves, leaving the option open to walk on from Reserves when it comes time to roll for Reserves.

The player must announce that the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike, but - and this is the big but - there is no rule in place requiring the player to actually have that unit arrive by Deep Strike. Outflank provides this but Deep Strike does not.

Announcing is not levying a restriction.

When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve).

The rule is 100% satisfied by merely telling your opponent "the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike". End of story. That's what the rule literally requires. What amounts to 'a declaration of intent to Deep Strike'.

If you later change your mind and have the unit walk on the battlefield from Reserves the rule is still satisfied. You told your opponent "the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike" and that act of telling (declaring intent) is all that was required.


Pay attention to what the rule is actually requiring and not what you think it is requiring.

"You must tell your opponent that [the unit] will be arriving by Deep Strike" does not mean "the unit must arrive by Deep Strike".



Technically, the player still has the option of changing his mind when it comes to Rolling for Reserves and having the unit walk on the battlefield and not Deep Strike onto the battlefield.

You cannot use part of a special rule Col.

"Deploy them as follows"
Just like you can't fire a plasma gun but forget about the "get's hot" part.

Basic reserve rules have no precedence.
Therefore you cannot contradict "deploy them as follows".

Ceann wrote:
You cannot use part of a special rule Col.

"Deploy them as follows"
Just like you can't fire a plasma gun but forget about the "get's hot" part.

Basic reserve rules have no precedence.
Therefore you cannot contradict "deploy them as follows".

I am free to follow whatever options the rules leave open.

Outflank removes options. Deep Strike does not. A unit that announces that it will arrive via Deep Strike is placed in both Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves, leaving the option open to walk on from Reserves when it comes time to roll for Reserves. The first part of the sentence that ends with "deploy them as follows" is simply never invoked.

This permission is followed instead.



Reserves is a special rule and cannot be overridden by Deep Strike. In order to prevent a unit from being able to move on the battlefield from Reserves the option to do so must be taken away as is it in the case of Outflank.

Ceann wrote:
Tom,

The issue here is that Infantry are used to explain the rules.
It explicitly states on the first page of the movement phase that they will start by explaining infantry.

"For the time being, we’ll just EXPLAIN how squads of Infantry move..."

Everything after that stems from this false idea, that Infantry being used to explain the procedures for the phases, makes them the default rules and nothing else.

If you consider this and then think about my view you will see how everything else I am saying makes a lot more sense.

"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, wehter because...or beacuse they are not normal infantry models (a bikde, a swarm or even a tank)"

So, they show advanced rules apply to models that are not normal infantry models. Infantry are the default because there are no advanced rules needed for them, all the rules needed for them are basic rules. Other types of unit have additional rules which do not apply to all types of models in the game, so override the basic rules. This makes them advanced rules, as per the quotation above.

I considered it and thought about your view, then rejected it because your view is still blinkered about what is basic compared to what is advanced.

Ceann wrote:Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.

SHOW ME where the gate is represented by a special rule?

You can't because it isn't. You are taking what you perceive to be the definition and running with it.

Show me how the gate does not have a special rule.

What does the gate do that is normal?

Where does it state that a special rule must have a name?

Where does it state that it may only be found in the special rules section of a book?

Ceann wrote:BvA states that any advanced rules that apply to a unit will be on it's datasheet. Terminator armor is on the datasheet for units that have terminator armor. The wargear entry for terminator armor STATES it has the bulky, deep strike and relentless special rules.

This is a perfect example of a wargear telling you what special rules it has.

Is the gate telling you that it has any special rules?
No.

Then it doesn't because it is not represented anywhere to have one.

Yes, the gate is telling me it has special rules. It isn't by name, but by what it tells me to do, break the rules.

You have not answered my question, I see.

What type of rules do the Eternity Gate go by under your distinctions?

Ceann wrote:Tom,

The issue here is that Infantry are used to explain the rules.
It explicitly states on the first page of the movement phase that they will start by explaining infantry.

"For the time being, we’ll just EXPLAIN how squads of Infantry move..."

Everything after that stems from this false idea, that Infantry being used to explain the procedures for the phases, makes them the default rules and nothing else.

If you consider this and then think about my view you will see how everything else I am saying makes a lot more sense.

Actually the rulebook tying the Infantry rules to only being the basic rules, and everything else talking about basic rules and Infantry rules in too many sentences make it not a false idea. But hey, ignore away and project.

The game writers know that different rules will come along and change them. It goes over the basic rules, which are also the Infantry rules for the most part, first. Just because it is stating, "but wait, more rules will come along and change this", by no means those "more rules" are basic rules, especially when everything else which denotes "basic vs advanced" tells you "more rules' are not basic rules.

Ceann wrote:

Torblind, The player cannot make that decision.
[...]
The roll for deepstrike states, deploy them AS FOLLOWS and then lists the procedure, to follow.

There was more to my argument.

Being in Reserves likewise instructs me to make a roll, a roll that conflicts with this roll.

col_impact wrote:
The rules indicate that only those units that 'must arrive by Deep Strike' will have no choice but to arrive by Deep Strike.

Some units must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike.

No, the rules only indicate that units that "must arrive by Deep Strike" must be placed in Reserves and must arrive by Deep Strike. This does not mean that they are the only units that must arrive by deep strike.

col_impact wrote:
A unit with the Deep Strike rule could choose to instead arrive from Reserves invoking normal infantry permissions and walking on the battlefield.

Except that you have defined the unit as a deep striking unit when you declared it will arrive by Deep Strike at the time you placed it in Reserves. There are rules for how deep striking units arrive. You don't have permission to change their status from a deep striking unit to a non-deep striking unit. That change in status because of your declaraion is a restriction.

col_impact wrote:
For comparison, note that Outflank is written in such a way that all other options are removed.

Outflank
During deployment, players can declare that any unit that contains at least one modelwith this special rule is attempting to Outflank the enemy.

When this unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve, the controlling player rolls a D6: on a 1-2, the unit comes in from the table edge to the left of their controlling player’s own table edge; on a 3-4, they come on from the right; on a 5-6, the player can choose left or right. Models move onto the table as described for other Reserves.

Please note that the Outflank fule itself states "When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserves, the controllling player rolls a D6: on a 1-2...(page 168). Now, that is different wording from what you have. It's supposed to be the same rule, however. For it to be the same rule, then obviously what is said in the outflanking part itself about "When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves", it means that it is considered an Outflanking unit from the moment it is declared to be outflanking - "this unit" in your statement corresponding to "an Outflanking unit" in the Outflank rule. This would mean that when you read "roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units..." it means all units that have declared they are deep striking, just as outflanking units are units that declared they will be outflanking when placed into Reserves. GW making the slight difference in the different places on how they treated outflanking does certainly make it clear what their intention is, even if you don't want to axccept it as RAW.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
You cannot use part of a special rule Col.

"Deploy them as follows"
Just like you can't fire a plasma gun but forget about the "get's hot" part.

Basic reserve rules have no precedence.
Therefore you cannot contradict "deploy them as follows".

I am free to follow whatever options the rules leave open.

Outflank removes options. Deep Strike does not. A unit that announces that it will arrive via Deep Strike is placed in both Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves, leaving the option open to walk on from Reserves when it comes time to roll for Reserves. The first part of the sentence that ends with "deploy them as follows" is simply never invoked.

This permission is followed instead.

Spoiler:

When Reserves arrive, pick one of your arriving units and deploy it, moving it onto the table as described below. Then pick another arriving unit and deploy it, and so on until all arriving units are on the table. The player can then proceed to move his other units as
normal. Note that you must first roll for all Reserves, and then move any arriving Reserves, before any other units can move.

Moving On From Reserve
When a Reserves unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player’s table edge. Measure the model’s move from the edge of the table, as if they had been positioned just off the board in the previous turn.

You aren't free to do anything.

Your spoiler means nothing.

Deep Strike is a special rule.
If you wish to place a unit in deep strike reserve, then you are using the rule.
The rule ends when the unit resolves from a successful deep strike attempt.
If you attempt to do anything else, you are conflicting with the special rule.

Ceann wrote:


Deep Strike is a special rule.
If you wish to place a unit in deep strike reserve, then you are using the rule.
The rule ends when the unit resolves from a successful deep strike attempt.
If you attempt to do anything else, you are conflicting with the special rule.

Reserves is a special rule as well so the two are forced to co-exist.

The unit is both in Reserves and in Deep Strike Reserves at the same time, leaving the option open to simply walk on the battlefield from Reserves when it comes time to Roll for Reserves. Outflank removes the option for a unit to be able to walk on the battlefield from Reserves. Deep Strike does not.



Summary of Argument

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.

SHOW ME where the gate is represented by a special rule?

You can't because it isn't. You are taking what you perceive to be the definition and running with it.

Show me how the gate does not have a special rule.

What does the gate do that is normal?

Where does it state that a special rule must have a name?

Where does it state that it may only be found in the special rules section of a book?

Ceann wrote:BvA states that any advanced rules that apply to a unit will be on it's datasheet. Terminator armor is on the datasheet for units that have terminator armor. The wargear entry for terminator armor STATES it has the bulky, deep strike and relentless special rules.

This is a perfect example of a wargear telling you what special rules it has.

Is the gate telling you that it has any special rules?
No.

Then it doesn't because it is not represented anywhere to have one.

Yes, the gate is telling me it has special rules. It isn't by name, but by what it tells me to do, break the rules.

You have not answered my question, I see.

What type of rules do the Eternity Gate go by under your distinctions?

Ceann wrote:Tom,

The issue here is that Infantry are used to explain the rules.
It explicitly states on the first page of the movement phase that they will start by explaining infantry.

"For the time being, we’ll just EXPLAIN how squads of Infantry move..."

Everything after that stems from this false idea, that Infantry being used to explain the procedures for the phases, makes them the default rules and nothing else.

If you consider this and then think about my view you will see how everything else I am saying makes a lot more sense.

Actually the rulebook tying the Infantry rules to only being the basic rules, and everything else talking about basic rules and Infantry rules in too many sentences make it not a false idea. But hey, ignore away and project.

The game writers know that different rules will come along and change them. It goes over the basic rules, which are also the Infantry rules for the most part, first. Just because it is stating, "but wait, more rules will come along and change this", by no means those "more rules" are basic rules, especially when everything else which denotes "basic vs advanced" tells you "more rules' are not basic rules.

The reason I address that comment to Tom is because you are already set in your ways.
In fact the rules being described as a procedure makes more sense than defining them around a particular unit type. Which it does not say anywhere that it does anyway.
All of your examples of that are pulled from AFTER the point that it states it will explain the rules using them. So of course you can point to those statements.
Your premise however is false, which makes all the rest of it false.

The eternity gate would use the basic rules for disembarking, because that is the action it states that it takes.
The disembarkation process can be found in the BRB and can be replicated for any transport that performs disembarking, the rule for the gate tells you everything you need to know.

If it isn't telling you by name, then it doesn't have any. If you claim it does then that is HYWPI or RAI per your view.
The special rules section explicitly states that a unit has no special rules unless told otherwise. The only special rules we are told it has are deep strike and living metal.

Again the core rules section tells you the PROCESS for phases. It always states" your units, your models" it never states "your infantry".
The rule book is telling you the basic rules for your UNITS, your MODELS, not for "Infantry".


It is not a special rule Col, sorry buddy.
You are just grasping at straws now.

"Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule."

Is there a special rule called Reserve in the special rules section?
Nope.

WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.

Do any models have a special rule called "Reserve"?
Nope.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
A unit with the Deep Strike rule could choose to instead arrive from Reserves invoking normal infantry permissions and walking on the battlefield.

Except that you have defined the unit as a deep striking unit when you declared it will arrive by Deep Strike at the time you placed it in Reserves. There are rules for how deep striking units arrive. You don't have permission to change their status from a deep striking unit to a non-deep striking unit. That change in status because of your declaraion is a restriction.

You are imagining things. The rules make no such change in status. The only thing that has happened is that the player has announced "this unit will be arriving by Deep Strike" and he does that in order that the unit "is able to Deep Strike". The rules make no mention that the announcement locks the unit in to a state of Deep Striking. You are making that up. Stick exactly to what the rules say. The unit has merely been enabled to be able to Deep Strike and has been placed both in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves.

In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in Reserve. When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve).

Ceann, it would be best to drop the eternity gate stuff. The rules being referenced are advanced rules Getting into this is just derailing things, so we should probably just stick with arguing each side without invoking the Eternity Gate.

 doctortom wrote:
Ceann, it would be best to drop the eternity gate stuff. The rules being referenced are advanced rules Getting into this is just derailing things, so we should probably just stick with arguing each side without invoking the Eternity Gate.

As I said before.

This all boils down to Infantry being used to explain the rules.
If someone draws the conclusion of that being the standard, then the entire view of the rules and how they function from that point forward is skewed.
In majority of these cases very skewed.

You can't really have a good assessment of any ruling if the fundamentals are based on a false premise.

Col always assumes he can do the things that he isn't told he can't do.
However the rules are permissive and tell you what you can do, and you can only do that and nothing else.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
A unit with the Deep Strike rule could choose to instead arrive from Reserves invoking normal infantry permissions and walking on the battlefield.

Except that you have defined the unit as a deep striking unit when you declared it will arrive by Deep Strike at the time you placed it in Reserves. There are rules for how deep striking units arrive. You don't have permission to change their status from a deep striking unit to a non-deep striking unit. That change in status because of your declaraion is a restriction.

You are imagining things. The rules make no such change in status. The only thing that has happened is that the player has announced "this unit will be arriving by Deep Strike" and he does that in order that the unit "is able to Deep Strike". The rules make no mention that the announcement locks the unit in to a state of Deep Striking. You are making that up. Stick exactly to what the rules say. The unit has merely been enabled to be able to Deep Strike and has been placed both in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves.

In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in Reserve. When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve).

I imagine nothing. I even gave you a page number to reference my quotation. Go ahead and give me a page number reference for your version of Outflank. The wording for the two conditions are different. Are you saying they don't do the same thing? It's the same rule, or supposed to be. How do YOU explain them being the same rule if the wording is different. As I said, this certainly lays out their intention perfectly even if you do not to read it as RAW. Given that interpretation, you should be applying the same interpretation to Deep Strike in order to be consistent.

Ceann wrote:


It is not a special rule Col, sorry buddy.
You are just grasping at straws now.

"Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule."

Is there a special rule called Reserve in the special rules section?
Nope.

WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.

Do any models have a special rule called "Reserve"?
Nope.

Reserves is a special rule affecting all models in the Mission. The only thing that you need to be concerned about is that it is not a basic rule so BvA does not apply.

Ceann wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Ceann, it would be best to drop the eternity gate stuff. The rules being referenced are advanced rules Getting into this is just derailing things, so we should probably just stick with arguing each side without invoking the Eternity Gate.

As I said before.

This all boils down to Infantry being used to explain the rules.
If someone draws the conclusion of that being the standard, then the entire view of the rules and how they function from that point forward is skewed.
In majority of these cases very skewed.

You can't really have a good assessment of any ruling if the fundamentals are based on a false premise.

I maintain it is you who don't have the good assessment. I will also say that you show the same stubbornness as col impact - I ask for us to drop it, and you want to continue the argument. Wise up, if you're trying to get the thread locked up, at least stick with the main topic and let it be locked up in discourse with col impact (who I hope will engage on the points I posted on and not just stick with the copy and pasting his previous answers). That should not be too much to ask.

 doctortom wrote:


I imagine nothing. I even gave you a page number to reference my quotation. Go ahead and give me a page number reference for your version of Outflank. The wording for the two conditions are different. Are you saying they don't do the same thing? It's the same rule, or supposed to be. How do YOU explain them being the same rule if the wording is different. As I said, this certainly lays out their intention perfectly even if you do not to read it as RAW. Given that interpretation, you should be applying the same interpretation to Deep Strike in order to be consistent.

I am sticking with RAW and I am not going to make a guess as to intent. I am not a mind-reader. Neither are you.


You should rather ask yourself - what rules keeps the player from having the unit walk on the board from Reserves? The answer is there is no rule.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:


It is not a special rule Col, sorry buddy.
You are just grasping at straws now.

"Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule."

Is there a special rule called Reserve in the special rules section?
Nope.

WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.

Do any models have a special rule called "Reserve"?
Nope.

Reserves is a special rule affecting all models in the Mission. The only thing that you need to be concerned about is that it is not a basic rule so BvA does not apply.

Spoiler:

MISSION SPECIAL RULES
Special rules can be added to a game to cover unique situations, tactics or abilities that you feel need to be represented in your battle.
Mysterious Objectives
Night Fighting
Reserves
Reserves are forces that can be called upon to reinforce a battle at short notice, or to conceal your true strength from the foe.

Preparing Reserves
When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later. In addition, if it impossible to deploy a unit for any reason, it must be placed in Reserve. The only exception to this are units that cannot move after they have been deployed. Such units are removed as casualties if it is impossible to deploy them during the Deployment step of Preparing for Battle.

Combined Reserve Units
During deployment, when deciding which units are kept as Reserves, you must specify if any of the Independent Characters in Reserve are joining a unit, in which case they must arrive together. Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon
any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together. In either case, when making a Reserve Roll (see below) for a combined unit, roll a single dice for the unit and/or its Independent Character/Transport vehicle.

Arriving from Reserve
At the start of your second turn, you must roll a D6 for each unit in your army that is being held in Reserve – these are known as Reserve Rolls. If the roll is a 3 or more, that unit arrives this turn. If the roll is less than 3 it remains in Reserve and is rolled for again next turn.
At the start of your third turn, roll for any units remaining in Reserve. If the roll is a 3 or more, that unit arrives this turn. If the roll is less than 3, it remains in Reserve and automatically arrives at the start of your fourth turn.
Some special rules can modify the roll required for a unit to arrive from Reserve. Regardless of the modifier(s), a natural roll of a 1 always means that the unit in question remains in Reserve.
When Reserves arrive, pick one of your arriving units and deploy it, moving it onto the table as described below. Then pick another arriving unit and deploy it, and so on until all arriving units are on the table. The player can then proceed to move his other units as normal. Note that you must first roll for all Reserves, and then move any arriving Reserves, before any other units can move.

Moving On From Reserve
When a Reserves unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player’s table edge. Measure the model’s move from the edge of the table, as if they had been positioned just off the board in the previous turn. A unit cannot charge, or use any abilities or special rules that must be used at the start of the turn, in the turn it arrives from Reserve.
If for some reason a model’s maximum move is insufficient to fit the entire model onto the board, or it becomes Immobilised whilst moving onto the board, place the model as far onto the table as you can. If this leaves the model in a position where it may fall off the table, then mark the position the model is meant to be occupying in some manner, and then position it more safely – we don’t want any models to get damaged in the battles that we fight!

Ongoing Reserves
If a unit enters Reserve part way through the game, such as a Flyer leaving the battlefield, this is referred to as entering Ongoing Reserves. Units in Ongoing Reserve always re- enter play at the start of their controlling player’s following turn, but otherwise follow the normal rules for Reserves.

Such a liar.
Bold faced.

Mysterious Objectives, if you actually start reading the section states it is a special rule, first sentence.
Night Fighting states it is a special rule, first sentence.
Tactical Objectives? first sentence.

Reserves?
Can't seem to find it anywhere Col. In fact the only think it does mention is that some special rules can modify the roll to arrive from Reserve.
Which outflank and deep strike would.

Charlatan, word soup.

Can you at least actually read the entirety of the rules in question and provide page numbers or quotes instead of cherry picking what you like?
You are attempting to present something, yet again, as an argument that is blatantly false.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


I imagine nothing. I even gave you a page number to reference my quotation. Go ahead and give me a page number reference for your version of Outflank. The wording for the two conditions are different. Are you saying they don't do the same thing? It's the same rule, or supposed to be. How do YOU explain them being the same rule if the wording is different. As I said, this certainly lays out their intention perfectly even if you do not to read it as RAW. Given that interpretation, you should be applying the same interpretation to Deep Strike in order to be consistent.

I am sticking with RAW and I am not going to make a guess as to intent. I am not a mind-reader. Neither are you.


You should rather ask yourself - what rules keeps the player from having the unit walk on the board from Reserves? The answer is there is no rule.

Saying you have to be a mind reader is disingenuous. Go ahead and read the Special Rule for Outflank, the rule itself, not as referenced in the other rules. Then, go ahead and read the other version when you're going back to giving the page number reference I asked you for.

What rules keep you from walking on the board? The rule saying you declare that you are going to deep strike, which classifies you as a deep striking unit. Just as a unit that declares himself to be outflanking is an outflanking unit (as we see when consulting ALL the Rules As Written for Outflanking. ALL the Outflanking rules establish declaration as changing the status of the unit to the designation of a unit coming in from that method (in this case, outflanking), so therefore not applying the same standard to a unit declaring itself as coming in from deep striking as a deep striking unit shows a severe case of myopia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:


Such a liar.
Bold faced.

Mysterious Objectives, if you actually start reading the section states it is a special rule, first sentence.
Night Fighting states it is a special rule, first sentence.
Tactical Objectives? first sentence.

Reserves?
Can't seem to find it anywhere Col. In fact the only think it does mention is that some special rules can modify the roll to arrive from Reserve.
Which outflank and deep strike would.

Only because you ignored Charistoph and myself pointing out that Reserves are in the section MISSION SPECIAL RULES and points out that the section has special rules for missions. Go ahead, check out page 135. "The Warhammer 40,000 missions included in this book mostly make use of the more common mission special rules presented here; many other missions will use these alongside their own special rules."

Sorry, Ceann, the colonel is right about Reserves being special rules.

 doctortom wrote:

What rules keep you from walking on the board? The rule saying you declare that you are going to deep strike, which classifies you as a deep striking unit.

There is no such rule. When you announce to your opponent that "[this unit] will be arriving by Deep Strike" the unit is enabled "to be able to Deep Strike" and is placed both in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves.

In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in Reserve. When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve).

There is no classification of the unit in question as a Deep Striking unit. You are making that up. You are not allowed to make stuff up. Stick to what the rules say.

The unit is free to exercise the option to walk on the battlefield from Reserves. No rule has taken away that permission.


Summary of Argument

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

What rules keep you from walking on the board? The rule saying you declare that you are going to deep strike, which classifies you as a deep striking unit.

There is no such rule. When you announce to your opponent that "[this unit] will be arriving by Deep Strike" the unit is enabled "to be able to Deep Strike" and is placed both in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves.

In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in Reserve. When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve).

There is no classification of the unit in question as a Deep Striking unit. You are making that up. You are not allowed to make stuff up. Stick to what the rules say.

The unit is free to exercise the option to walk on the battlefield from Reserves. No rule has taken away that permission.

DEPLOY AS FOLLOWS.

Its in the words of the deep strike special rule.
Now Col in english we have these things call paragraphs.

"a distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering."

Now you see big guy, we have multiples of these things called paragraphs, involving the rule Deep Strike.

And you are only reading the first one.
There is another section called "Arriving by Deep Strike"
And a third called "Deep Strike Mishap Table"

And once you finish reading "Deep Strike Mishap Table" then you have finally (Congratulations!!!!) finished reading the rule.

If you try to walk on the board, then you are not "deploying as follows".
If you are not "deploying as follows" you are conflicting with the rule.
When you are conflicting with a rule, the special rule has precedence.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

What rules keep you from walking on the board? The rule saying you declare that you are going to deep strike, which classifies you as a deep striking unit.

There is no such rule. When you announce to your opponent that "[this unit] will be arriving by Deep Strike" the unit is enabled "to be able to Deep Strike" and is placed both in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves.

In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in Reserve. When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve).

There is no classification of the unit in question as a Deep Striking unit. You are making that up. You are not allowed to make stuff up. Stick to what the rules say.

The unit is free to exercise the option to walk on the battlefield from Reserves. No rule has taken away that permission.

I see you haven't done what I said; it doesn't appear that you have even contemplated what I am saying. But,I do have to say that if there is no classification of a unit as a Deep Striking unit, then you can not use the Deep Strike rules as it only covers how to handle the arrival of Deep Striking Units. Go ahead and check that out, the classification is not made up. GW made up the classification and put it in their rules. Should we iignore it because GW made it up?

Again, please do what I asked you to do about providing a reference to your outflank quotation that you haven't yet. I will add to it by asking that you type the quotation for the Outflank special rule itself so that we can tell you actually bothered to go read it. After that we can discuss how the contrast between the two versions.

 doctortom wrote:


I see you haven't done what I said; it doesn't appear that you have even contemplated what I am saying. But,I do have to say that if there is no classification of a unit as a Deep Striking unit, then you can not use the Deep Strike rules as it only covers how to handle the arrival of Deep Striking Units. Go ahead and check that out, the classification is not made up. GW made up the classification and put it in their rules. Should we iignore it because GW made it up?

Again, please do what I asked you to do about providing a reference to your outflank quotation that you haven't yet. I will add to it by asking that you type the quotation for the Outflank special rule itself so that we can tell you actually bothered to go read it. After that we can discuss how the contrast between the two versions.

We are dealing with the Rules As Written. Let's stick to what the rules actually say. I am not going to take a trip down 'Speculation Road' with you and start guessing at what GW intended.

If you have something to prove with a rules quote then prove it.

Otherwise, there is no rule preventing a unit that has been place in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves from simply walking on the battlefield from Reserves.


Summary of Argument

Ceann wrote:The reason I address that comment to Tom is because you are already set in your ways.

I can change if given supportable reason. You have given none.

Ceann wrote:In fact the rules being described as a procedure makes more sense than defining them around a particular unit type. Which it does not say anywhere that it does anyway.
All of your examples of that are pulled from AFTER the point that it states it will explain the rules using them. So of course you can point to those statements.
Your premise however is false, which makes all the rest of it false.

No, not all were after the point, one was before we even started reading about the turn.

Ceann wrote:The eternity gate would use the basic rules for disembarking, because that is the action it states that it takes.
The disembarkation process can be found in the BRB and can be replicated for any transport that performs disembarking, the rule for the gate tells you everything you need to know.

Disembarking is not a basic rule, though. I find it mentioned no where in the Movement Phase of the rules. It is exclusive to a specific unit type which the Monolith does not have.

In order for a unit to Disembark, the unit must first be Embarked on it, according to its Transport Capacity. The Eternity Gate does not Embark the unit, nor does the Monolith have a Transport Capacity to Embark a unit on.

Pulling a unit out of Reserves is not a basic rule, either, they are Mission Special Rules. The Eternity Gate even modifies this by bypassing the need to roll to Arrival. Furthermore, it changes it by not having the unit arrive the table edge, but by Disembarking from the Monolith.

Tell me where any of these changes are in the basic rules or even normal to anything but the Eternity Gate?

Ceann wrote:If it isn't telling you by name, then it doesn't have any.

Quote please.

Ceann wrote:Again the core rules section tells you the PROCESS for phases. It always states" your units, your models" it never states "your infantry".
The rule book is telling you the basic rules for your UNITS, your MODELS, not for "Infantry".

It is stated in numerous places that Infantry rules are basic rules. You blind yourself by focusing too much on tiny details without considering the entire picture of the rulebook. It's almost as bad as Col_Ignored, but at least you look at whole sentences.

Ceann wrote:It is not a special rule Col, sorry buddy.
You are just grasping at straws now.

"Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule."

Is there a special rule called Reserve in the special rules section?
Nope.

WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.

Do any models have a special rule called "Reserve"?
Nope.

Hmm...

(1) ETERNAL WAR: CRUSADE
...
MISSION SPECIAL RULES
Night Fighting, Reserves, Mysterious Objectives.

Sure looks like Reserves are a special rule to me. Not provided by an army list entry, but by the mission. That being said, it does affect the models and how they operate within the game.

Your hard definition is showing soft edges, Caenn.

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:The reason I address that comment to Tom is because you are already set in your ways.

I can change if given supportable reason. You have given none.

Ceann wrote:In fact the rules being described as a procedure makes more sense than defining them around a particular unit type. Which it does not say anywhere that it does anyway.
All of your examples of that are pulled from AFTER the point that it states it will explain the rules using them. So of course you can point to those statements.
Your premise however is false, which makes all the rest of it false.

No, not all were after the point, one was before we even started reading about the turn.

Ceann wrote:The eternity gate would use the basic rules for disembarking, because that is the action it states that it takes.
The disembarkation process can be found in the BRB and can be replicated for any transport that performs disembarking, the rule for the gate tells you everything you need to know.

Disembarking is not a basic rule, though. I find it mentioned no where in the Movement Phase of the rules. It is exclusive to a specific unit type which the Monolith does not have.

In order for a unit to Disembark, the unit must first be Embarked on it, according to its Transport Capacity. The Eternity Gate does not Embark the unit, nor does the Monolith have a Transport Capacity to Embark a unit on.

Pulling a unit out of Reserves is not a basic rule, either, they are Mission Special Rules. The Eternity Gate even modifies this by bypassing the need to roll to Arrival. Furthermore, it changes it by not having the unit arrive the table edge, but by Disembarking from the Monolith.

Tell me where any of these changes are in the basic rules or even normal to anything but the Eternity Gate?

Ceann wrote:If it isn't telling you by name, then it doesn't have any.

Quote please.

Ceann wrote:Again the core rules section tells you the PROCESS for phases. It always states" your units, your models" it never states "your infantry".
The rule book is telling you the basic rules for your UNITS, your MODELS, not for "Infantry".

It is stated in numerous places that Infantry rules are basic rules. You blind yourself by focusing too much on tiny details without considering the entire picture of the rulebook. It's almost as bad as Col_Ignored, but at least you look at whole sentences.

Ceann wrote:It is not a special rule Col, sorry buddy.
You are just grasping at straws now.

"Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game
rules, it is represented by a special rule."

Is there a special rule called Reserve in the special rules section?
Nope.

WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule.

Do any models have a special rule called "Reserve"?
Nope.

Hmm...

(1) ETERNAL WAR: CRUSADE
...
MISSION SPECIAL RULES
Night Fighting, Reserves, Mysterious Objectives.

Sure looks like Reserves are a special rule to me. Not provided by an army list entry, but by the mission. That being said, it does affect the models and how they operate within the game.

Your hard definition is showing soft edges, Caenn.

I can also change if given supportable reason.
However all basic vs advanced tells us is that the basic rules are all you need to use Infantry. And because they don't have any special rules as a unit type, that statement is 100% accurate, if misleading.
However it does say the basic rules apply to ALL MODELS, not that the INFANTRY rules apply to all models.

I remain unconvinced that Infantry are the standard, it has not been clearly stated to my satisfaction.

If for the sake of argument, you take my stance, then disembarking is a basic rule for a transport, no issues from my perspective.
The friction is that you believe it contradicts an infantry standard, to me, each unit type has a standard. In this case the gate is using a basic rule for transports.

Yes, the gate does conflict with the BRB, however it is allowed too because it is a codex rule, by that virtue alone, it being an advanced rule is not a requirement to function.
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."
Please note that it states a rule, not an advanced rule, if all of the codex rules were advanced rules, this statement would then be redundant and not required.

You ask for a quote... Both are from the Special Rules section of the BRB.
"Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule."
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."

I would argue that my definition is not showing edges.
As you clearly showed you have special rules, labeled as special rules.
I may have been mistaken about what Reserves is as a status, but that does not fault my premise.
It still is a rule for a mission, not a rule for a unit or model, it would be difficult to make it applicable in that regard.
Luckily it gives permission for other special rules to modify the reserves, which we have two that do, Outflank and Reserve.

 Happyjew wrote:
If I put a unit with Deep Strike (or Outflank) in Reserves, and declare them to be Deep Striking (or Outflanking), are you allowed to change how they come on? Can they choose to walk on as normal after they have sat in Reserves for a turn or 2? Or are they required to come in via the method you have told your opponent?

This is a slight off-shoot of the previous thread regarding the Monolith portal and Deep Strike Reserves, and while it may have some bearing on that discussion, it was locked for a reason. So please leave that topic at the door.

I would say that I have reservations as to whether or not limitations are there. However the Deep Strike rule itself states that you roll for all DSing units and then deploy in a specific manner. As long as you specify that the unit is going to deploy normally before making the roll for arrival there should be no issue.

Cheers

Andrew

Ceann wrote:
I can also change if given supportable reason.
However all basic vs advanced tells us is that the basic rules are all you need to use Infantry. And because they don't have any special rules as a unit type, that statement is 100% accurate, if misleading.
However it does say the basic rules apply to ALL MODELS, not that the INFANTRY rules apply to all models.

And the basic rules do apply to all models. At least until their advanced rules kick in. You know, that whole, "until we're told otherwise". And let's face it, some of them do a lot.

Ceann wrote:
I remain unconvinced that Infantry are the standard, it has not been clearly stated to my satisfaction.

That's your choice at this point.

Ceann wrote:
If for the sake of argument, you take my stance, then disembarking is a basic rule for a transport, no issues from my perspective.
The friction is that you believe it contradicts an infantry standard, to me, each unit type has a standard. In this case the gate is using a basic rule for transports.

But I don't accept your stance as it violates the very definitions provided by the rulebook. Why should I accept an interpretation which violates the standard which I go by?

The Gate may use the Disembarking rules, but it violates many of the Disembarking rules while doing so. Not the least of which is Unit Type. The Monolith is not a Transport, nor does it have Transport Capacity, and it allows a unit which is not Embarked to Disembark.

Are you even aware of the "basic" rules for Disembark?

Ceann wrote:
Yes, the gate does conflict with the BRB, however it is allowed too because it is a codex rule, by that virtue alone, it being an advanced rule is not a requirement to function.
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."
Please note that it states a rule, not an advanced rule, if all of the codex rules were advanced rules, this statement would then be redundant and not required.

You are blinding yourself by lack of titles. There are advanced rules throughout the rulebook. None of the codex rules are basic, even if they call on basic ones here and there. They all fulfill the standards by which advanced rules are defined, and Basic vs Advanced doesn't separate them from advanced rules. We just call them "codex rules" to differentiate them from the rulebook's advanced rules that they take precedent over.

Ceann wrote:
You ask for a quote... Both are from the Special Rules section of the BRB.
"Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule."
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."

Nothing about this says anything about a "name". In fact, the term is not used anywhere in your quote.

Ceann wrote:
I would argue that my definition is not showing edges.
As you clearly showed you have special rules, labeled as special rules.
I may have been mistaken about what Reserves is as a status, but that does not fault my premise.
It still is a rule for a mission, not a rule for a unit or model, it would be difficult to make it applicable in that regard.
Luckily it gives permission for other special rules to modify the reserves, which we have two that do, Outflank and Reserve.

Actually it does fault your premises. It demonstrates that Special Rules can be found outside of the Special Rules section of the rulebook. It also demonstrates that such can be found in their own areas.

The Terminator and Bike example also shows that special rules can be included on the model without using the Special Rules field on the army list entry.

Now, who or what do the rules of Reserves involve, the unit or the battlefield?

Special rules have name's.
There is no special rule listed as eternity gate.
The mission special rules would be just that, for missions.
They cannot be an advanced rule because they are not found on army list entry.

Any advanced rule that applies to a model will be listed on its data sheet. Again terminator armor is not an example in your favor. Terminator armor is listed on data sheets and it states on the wargear what special rules it does have. You must remember that the special rules section on a data sheet is for rules the UNIT has. There are units where only certain models can purchase certain gear, which is why the gear lists the special rules related to them.

The fact that it states what special rules it has shows us that anything that doesn't state it has them, does not. If you want to try to find an obvious hole in my interpretation feel free.

The rules for reserve would have to be rules for the battlefield as they are applied to your army, not a unit. If you look at night fighting for example it is clearly different from reserves.

Ceann wrote:
Special rules have name's.

Again, quote please. An assertion without a quote is rather baseless.

Ceann wrote:
The mission special rules would be just that, for missions.
They cannot be an advanced rule because they are not found on army list entry.

They are not basic rules, either. What are they then?

I think you are still blinding yourself to matters of location defining what classifies as what type of rule, despite other definitions being applied.

Ceann wrote:
Any advanced rule that applies to a model will be listed on its data sheet. Again terminator armor is not an example in your favor. Terminator armor is listed on data sheets and it states on the wargear what special rules it does have. You must remember that the special rules section on a data sheet is for rules the UNIT has. There are units where only certain models can purchase certain gear, which is why the gear lists the special rules related to them.

Actually, the Special Rules section states what special rules apply to the models on the list entry.

Terminator Armour is listed in the Wargear section of the army list entry, not the Special Rules section, and that is the point. Besides Relentless, they have the ability to prevent the unit from making a Sweeping Advance. That is not normal and definitely against the rules.

There are unit entries where only one of most of the models can purchase certain Wargear, such as Specialist and Heavy Weapons.

Ceann wrote:
The fact that it states what special rules it has shows us that anything that doesn't state it has them, does not. If you want to try to find an obvious hole in my interpretation feel free.

I am saying that you can find special rules for a model in other places then the stodgy, hard-line approach with location you are limiting yourself to. Same can be said for advanced rules. In many cases they are not found in the Special Rules section of any book, but in the Unit Type section of the BRB or in the Armoury. These are then referred to by the army list entries by indicating them by Unit Type or Wargear, as well as the Special Rules section of book and army list entry.

Ceann wrote:
The rules for reserve would have to be rules for the battlefield as they are applied to your army, not a unit. If you look at night fighting for example it is clearly different from reserves.

Then you may want to reread who is affected by the rules of Reserves. Here's hint: Reserves doesn't move Terrain.

If things that "break or bend" the rules are represented by a special rule, and special rules have names, then any special rule would have to have a name to be represented as one. If you have some different interpretation of what these direct quotes from the special rules section mean, then do share. I feel like you have to adequately account for these in order to proceed with your stance on player identified special rules.

"Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule."
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."


Wargear are not basic rules, why do missions have to be?

The special rules section of the data sheet states what special rules apply to the UNIT. The models have those rules by virtue of the unit.

If I make an Aquila Kill Team that has a biker in it, the unit may gain splitfire, but not relentless, because the model has relentless, not the unit. When the rules say models, they mean models, not units.

Terminator Armor is not from the BRB, it is from a codex. If it has a conflict with sweeping strikes, it supersedes that. The BvA only states if a RULE conflicts, not the type of rule.

Any of the special rules notated in the Unit Types section are notated in the special rules section. In the Unit Types section each type has a Special Rules: section. I don't see it as a hard-line approach. I look at my army list entry and anything listed on said entry is what I am permitted to use. If I want to use a lascannon, then the armory section of the codex will contain a reference telling me to consult the BRB.
Any special rule a unit has, will be listed on its Army List Entry sheet, or attached to another aspect of its data sheet and tell me that it is one. Such as wargear or unit type. If it doesn't tell me that it is one when referencing those items, then it isn't.

The index for BRB, if you search for advanced rules, takes you to page 13. That is it. Why clearly outline core rules section and the special rules and then just leave the rest "up to our wisdom" to determine which is which. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

In this circumstance the entire reason Deep Strike and Outflanking work properly are because they are special rules. If we didn't have a locked in precedence for certain rules and clear guidelines as to how we identify those rules we then enter into the world of players deciding what they think rules are on their own.

Ceann wrote:
If things that "break or bend" the rules are represented by a special rule, and special rules have names, then any special rule would have to have a name to be represented as one. If you have some different interpretation of what these direct quotes from the special rules section mean, then do share. I feel like you have to adequately account for these in order to proceed with your stance on player identified special rules.

I have already stated them and placed the burden of the "special rules have names" on you, as you have brought it up. At no point in anything you have so far quoted does it state that a Special Rule is required to have a name.

Ceann wrote:
Wargear are not basic rules, why do missions have to be?

Indeed, why would they have to be? To be more clear, they, and the rules that govern them, are not included in any definition of basic rules.

That doesn't answer the question, though. If their rules are not basic rules, what are they?

Ceann wrote:
The special rules section of the data sheet states what special rules apply to the UNIT. The models have those rules by virtue of the unit.

Not in argument or relevant. Demonstrate that this is the only place they may be found to support your premise.

Ceann wrote:
If I make an Aquila Kill Team that has a biker in it, the unit may gain splitfire, but not relentless, because the model has relentless, not the unit. When the rules say models, they mean models, not units.

Indeed. A case I have made many times. And the pertinence of this statement is because?

I should note, again, be careful on automatically assigning split fire to a unit just because it includes a biker. This is not a rule attendant to the Bike Unit Type.

Ceann wrote:
Terminator Armor is not from the BRB, it is from a codex. If it has a conflict with sweeping strikes, it supersedes that. The BvA only states if a RULE conflicts, not the type of rule.

Incorrect. BvA does state what type a rule is. It has to establish that in order to address how to resolve conflict because it is not established at any other point in such a manner.

And the Terminator Armour rule being discussed is neither an advanced rule or a special rule because...?

Ceann wrote:
Any of the special rules notated in the Unit Types section are notated in the special rules section. In the Unit Types section each type has a Special Rules: section. I don't see it as a hard-line approach. I look at my army list entry and anything listed on said entry is what I am permitted to use. If I want to use a lascannon, then the armory section of the codex will contain a reference telling me to consult the BRB.
Any special rule a unit has, will be listed on its Army List Entry sheet, or attached to another aspect of its data sheet and tell me that it is one. Such as wargear or unit type. If it doesn't tell me that it is one when referencing those items, then it isn't.

Your hard-line premise is that Special Rules can only be found in the Special Rules section, period. This is grossly in error as I have demonstrated that they can be found in many places.

Let's take Hard To Hit for Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures. Most would consider this a special rule. It certainly classifies as such in every area except being listed in the Special Rules section. Why is not being in the Special Rules section allow you to dismiss this as being a special rule or an advanced rule?

Remember, location is not an acceptable answer, neither is the lack of self-definition. At no point are either of these what defines a special rule or an advanced rule.

Ceann wrote:
The index for BRB, if you search for advanced rules, takes you to page 13. That is it. Why clearly outline core rules section and the special rules and then just leave the rest "up to our wisdom" to determine which is which. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

"Definition by Location" is not a thing unless we are told to refer to it as such. The definition is there, you just choose to ignore it. The purpose of a definition is so that you can apply it through the rest of the document. If you are not using that definition throughout the document, you are violating the rules.

Ceann wrote:
In this circumstance the entire reason Deep Strike and Outflanking work properly are because they are special rules. If we didn't have a locked in precedence for certain rules and clear guidelines as to how we identify those rules we then enter into the world of players deciding what they think rules are on their own.

Agreed, so why are you trying to change the identity of those guidelines when they are well and properly established? Is it because you cannot understand the sentence as a definition, or you simply do not want to?

How isn't this thread locked yet..

It has been the most pointless argument yet

GodDamUser wrote:
How isn't this thread locked yet..

It has been the most pointless argument yet

You're not being forced to read it. Let them hash it out.

Although several (private) warnings have been handed out in this thread, it will stay open for now.

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
If things that "break or bend" the rules are represented by a special rule, and special rules have names, then any special rule would have to have a name to be represented as one. If you have some different interpretation of what these direct quotes from the special rules section mean, then do share. I feel like you have to adequately account for these in order to proceed with your stance on player identified special rules.

I have already stated them and placed the burden of the "special rules have names" on you, as you have brought it up. At no point in anything you have so far quoted does it state that a Special Rule is required to have a name.

Ceann wrote:
Wargear are not basic rules, why do missions have to be?

Indeed, why would they have to be? To be more clear, they, and the rules that govern them, are not included in any definition of basic rules.

That doesn't answer the question, though. If their rules are not basic rules, what are they?

Ceann wrote:
The special rules section of the data sheet states what special rules apply to the UNIT. The models have those rules by virtue of the unit.

Not in argument or relevant. Demonstrate that this is the only place they may be found to support your premise.

Ceann wrote:
If I make an Aquila Kill Team that has a biker in it, the unit may gain splitfire, but not relentless, because the model has relentless, not the unit. When the rules say models, they mean models, not units.

Indeed. A case I have made many times. And the pertinence of this statement is because?

I should note, again, be careful on automatically assigning split fire to a unit just because it includes a biker. This is not a rule attendant to the Bike Unit Type.

Ceann wrote:
Terminator Armor is not from the BRB, it is from a codex. If it has a conflict with sweeping strikes, it supersedes that. The BvA only states if a RULE conflicts, not the type of rule.

Incorrect. BvA does state what type a rule is. It has to establish that in order to address how to resolve conflict because it is not established at any other point in such a manner.

And the Terminator Armour rule being discussed is neither an advanced rule or a special rule because...?

Ceann wrote:
Any of the special rules notated in the Unit Types section are notated in the special rules section. In the Unit Types section each type has a Special Rules: section. I don't see it as a hard-line approach. I look at my army list entry and anything listed on said entry is what I am permitted to use. If I want to use a lascannon, then the armory section of the codex will contain a reference telling me to consult the BRB.
Any special rule a unit has, will be listed on its Army List Entry sheet, or attached to another aspect of its data sheet and tell me that it is one. Such as wargear or unit type. If it doesn't tell me that it is one when referencing those items, then it isn't.

Your hard-line premise is that Special Rules can only be found in the Special Rules section, period. This is grossly in error as I have demonstrated that they can be found in many places.

Let's take Hard To Hit for Flyers and Flying Monstrous Creatures. Most would consider this a special rule. It certainly classifies as such in every area except being listed in the Special Rules section. Why is not being in the Special Rules section allow you to dismiss this as being a special rule or an advanced rule?

Remember, location is not an acceptable answer, neither is the lack of self-definition. At no point are either of these what defines a special rule or an advanced rule.

Ceann wrote:
The index for BRB, if you search for advanced rules, takes you to page 13. That is it. Why clearly outline core rules section and the special rules and then just leave the rest "up to our wisdom" to determine which is which. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

"Definition by Location" is not a thing unless we are told to refer to it as such. The definition is there, you just choose to ignore it. The purpose of a definition is so that you can apply it through the rest of the document. If you are not using that definition throughout the document, you are violating the rules.

Ceann wrote:
In this circumstance the entire reason Deep Strike and Outflanking work properly are because they are special rules. If we didn't have a locked in precedence for certain rules and clear guidelines as to how we identify those rules we then enter into the world of players deciding what they think rules are on their own.

Agreed, so why are you trying to change the identity of those guidelines when they are well and properly established? Is it because you cannot understand the sentence as a definition, or you simply do not want to?

I have posted many times, verbatim text, from both the data sheet and the BRB stating the locations of Special Rules. You merely disregard them in favor of using your own brush to determine what is and is not a special rule, without providing any justification for being allowed to do so. Unless you are using some house rules, you are not permitted to decide what type of a rule, a rule is. The BvA statement is about informing you of the existence of special rules, it is not permission to decide them on your own. If anything you need to demonstrate you have permission to do this.

As for missions, I don't see why they can't have basic and special rules just like units do, I see no qualms with this.

Demonstrate for like 50th time? I don't know how else to tell you.
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."


Terminator Armor isn't a special rule because it doesn't need to be one. It has the appropriate special rules it needs and the sweeping strike conflict is resolved by virtue of being a codex rule.
Lets look at some other examples, Nightmare Shroud has the Fear special rule, The Solar Staff has the Solar Pulse special rule, it is notated as such on the wargear. If these items were just advanced rules by default there would be no reason to draw the distinction, of when they have special rules and not have special rules, if they were all already special rules in the first place.

Hard to hit flyers and FMC...
Riddle me this. Why do all unit types have a special rules section then? If all of their rules were special rules, then clearly all of their rules would be listed under Special Rules then for the unit type, wouldn't they?
Are we told about the extra special, special rules? I don't think that is the case. Why do I not consider them special rules? Because I haven't been told otherwise.
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."

I am aware that bikes do not inherently have splitfire in general, however DW Bikers do, which is why I used them for the example.

How is definition by location not a thing? Your entire argument about Infantry rules being the standard is predicated upon the explanation of Infantry in the core rules section.
If you see my view as wrong, then clearly yours is also entirely wrong and that is putting aside my qualms with the assertion in the first place.

The only guideline we have is that you and others are asserting what are and are not special or advanced rules on your own. I follow each trail located on the Army List Entry and identify each circumstance of "Special Rule" and only attribute those, rather than a freelance opinion of what I think they are.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:
How isn't this thread locked yet..

It has been the most pointless argument yet

I feel like Charistoph and I are having a productive conversation.
I am sorry you disagree.

Ceann wrote:
I have posted many times, verbatim text, from both the data sheet and the BRB stating the locations of Special Rules. You merely disregard them in favor of using your own brush to determine what is and is not a special rule, without providing any justification for being allowed to do so. Unless you are using some house rules, you are not permitted to decide what type of a rule, a rule is. The BvA statement is about informing you of the existence of special rules, it is not permission to decide them on your own. If anything you need to demonstrate you have permission to do this.

I have never stated that the individual player decides on it. That has been a leap that you have invented. I have stated that we follow the definitions provided. A very very clear difference. I have presented that definition numerous times.

I have no problems with finding special rules located in a section marked "Special Rules". My problem is your insistence that special rules may only be found where marked as such, when such a direction or distinction does not ever exist. In everything you have quoted on location of special rules, not once has it been as an exclusive statement as you would have me believe.

In addition, at no point has the identity of special rules been limited by requiring a name.

Ceann wrote:
As for missions, I don't see why they can't have basic and special rules just like units do, I see no qualms with this.

Again, basic to the game or not? Basic to themselves is not in consideration with this conversation. We are considering them as if they are basic to the game, as that is the definition under debate.

Ceann wrote:
Demonstrate for like 50th time? I don't know how else to tell you.
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."

And having it by virtue of Wargear or Unit Type doesn't count? Even if those special rules are defined only within the same and not in the Special Rules section of a book?

Ceann wrote:
Terminator Armor isn't a special rule because it doesn't need to be one. It has the appropriate special rules it needs and the sweeping strike conflict is resolved by virtue of being a codex rule.
Lets look at some other examples, Nightmare Shroud has the Fear special rule, The Solar Staff has the Solar Pulse special rule, it is notated as such on the wargear. If these items were just advanced rules by default there would be no reason to draw the distinction, of when they have special rules and not have special rules, if they were all already special rules in the first place.

Fear is a noted USR, but what about the other affect it has in the Shooting phase? Is this a normal operation in the game? If it is not normal, then how it is not a special rule? The same applies to the Terminator's Armour affect on Sweeping Advance (there is no Sweeping Strike).

Weapons are a little more weird in how they are set up. It used to be that equipped special rules were kept off the Weapon's Type. Sometime in 6th or early 7th Edition, they switched it so they were all on the Weapon's Type. Since it is on the Type, it needs a name. Why is a name so necessary for you to consider something as a special rule when the game does not?

Ceann wrote:
Hard to hit flyers and FMC...
Riddle me this. Why do all unit types have a special rules section then? If all of their rules were special rules, then clearly all of their rules would be listed under Special Rules then for the unit type, wouldn't they?
Are we told about the extra special, special rules? I don't think that is the case. Why do I not consider them special rules? Because I haven't been told otherwise.
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."

But you have been told they have these rules, and they fit the definition of special rules, so that quote seems rather non sequitur in nature.

Is the self-identity in this matter so important for you to classify them as such? Why can you not go by the definitions provided in the rulebook instead? Do you really need them nailed down like a computer does?

Ceann wrote:
I am aware that bikes do not inherently have splitfire in general, however DW Bikers do, which is why I used them for the example.

So, they don't have it as part of their Type, which led to the confusion regarding it. Previously, you were not specifying the type of Biker.

Ceann wrote:
How is definition by location not a thing? Your entire argument about Infantry rules being the standard is predicated upon the explanation of Infantry in the core rules section.
If you see my view as wrong, then clearly yours is also entirely wrong and that is putting aside my qualms with the assertion in the first place.

It is not a thing because we have not been told to identify special rules by their location. We have not been told to identify advanced rules by their location except that they are not where the basic rules are. The basic rules are identified by location and we are specifically directed so.

My argument about Infantry rules being the standard is based on explanations in General Principles, Movement Phase, and Unit Type. Unit Type is not part of the Core Rules section.

As an interesting side note, in 5th Edition Infantry rules we are specifically told that all the basic rules are presented on the basis that the models referred to them are Infantry. It has no bearing now, but one can see the imprints and assumptions of it in the current rulebook if one is aware of the possibility of the concept.

Ceann wrote:
The only guideline we have is that you and others are asserting what are and are not special or advanced rules on your own. I follow each trail located on the Army List Entry and identify each circumstance of "Special Rule" and only attribute those, rather than a freelance opinion of what I think they are.

In other words, you do not accept what we present as guidelines and definitions as any of the kind. Which returns back to the question of, is it because you cannot understand them as a definition, or that you simply do not want to?

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


I see you haven't done what I said; it doesn't appear that you have even contemplated what I am saying. But,I do have to say that if there is no classification of a unit as a Deep Striking unit, then you can not use the Deep Strike rules as it only covers how to handle the arrival of Deep Striking Units. Go ahead and check that out, the classification is not made up. GW made up the classification and put it in their rules. Should we iignore it because GW made it up?

Again, please do what I asked you to do about providing a reference to your outflank quotation that you haven't yet. I will add to it by asking that you type the quotation for the Outflank special rule itself so that we can tell you actually bothered to go read it. After that we can discuss how the contrast between the two versions.

We are dealing with the Rules As Written. Let's stick to what the rules actually say. I am not going to take a trip down 'Speculation Road' with you and start guessing at what GW intended.

If you have something to prove with a rules quote then prove it.

Otherwise, there is no rule preventing a unit that has been place in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves from simply walking on the battlefield from Reserves.


Summary of Argument

Spoiler:

The rules indicate that only those units that 'must arrive by Deep Strike' will have no choice but to arrive by Deep Strike.

Some units must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike.

A unit with the Deep Strike rule could choose to instead arrive from Reserves invoking normal infantry permissions and walking on the battlefield.

The Deep Strike rules require that you merely announce that you will be arriving via Deep Strike. But announcing does not restrict you from arriving via the general permission to walk on the battlefield from Reserves. The general permission is still completely available and has not been removed by any rule, special or otherwise. The Deep Strike rule specifically places you in Reserves AND Deep Strike Reserves, keeping the option to walk on the battlefield from Reserves open.

For comparison, note that Outflank is written in such a way that all other options are removed.

Outflank
During deployment, players can declare that any unit that contains at least one modelwith this special rule is attempting to Outflank the enemy.

When this unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve, the controlling player rolls a D6: on a 1-2, the unit comes in from the table edge to the left of their controlling player’s own table edge; on a 3-4, they come on from the right; on a 5-6, the player can choose left or right. Models move onto the table as described for other Reserves.

Outflank takes away the permission to walk on from Reserves. Deep Strike does not. A unit that has announced that it will be Deep Striking is placed both in Reserves and Deep Strike Reserves, leaving the option open to walk on from Reserves when it comes time to roll for Reserves.

The player must announce that the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike, but - and this is the big but - there is no rule in place requiring the player to actually have that unit arrive by Deep Strike. Outflank provides this but Deep Strike does not.

Announcing is not levying a restriction.

When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve).

The rule is 100% satisfied by merely telling your opponent "the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike". End of story. That's what the rule literally requires. What amounts to 'a declaration of intent to Deep Strike'.

If you later change your mind and have the unit walk on the battlefield from Reserves the rule is still satisfied. You told your opponent "the unit will be arriving by Deep Strike" and that act of telling (declaring intent) is all that was required.


Pay attention to what the rule is actually requiring and not what you think it is requiring.

"You must tell your opponent that [the unit] will be arriving by Deep Strike" does not mean "the unit must arrive by Deep Strike".



Technically, the player still has the option of changing his mind when it comes to Rolling for Reserves and having the unit walk on the battlefield and not Deep Strike onto the battlefield.

Okay, if that's how you want to be, then I'll have to engage you on the subject by first challenging your outflanking quote.

From Outflank (the Special Rule), page 168 "When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserves, the controlling player rolls a D6..." This is not matching up with your quotation for Outflank. It does not say " When this unit arrives from Reserves". Provide your quotation with a page reference, then discuss any differences you see between the statements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:
Unless you are using some house rules, you are not permitted to decide what type of a rule, a rule is.

Then how do you determine if a rule is a basic or an advanced rule if you have two rules in conflict. In order to apply the Basic versus Advanced rules, you must be able to determine if a rule is basic or advanced. Your argument fails.

Ceann wrote:
Riddle me this. Why do all unit types have a special rules section then? If all of their rules were special rules, then clearly all of their rules would be listed under Special Rules then for the unit type, wouldn't they?

The Special Rules seciton defines which USRs in the book from the Special Rules section. It does not define all their rules. In fact, it's a moot point whether you treat the other rules for the units as special rules or not. They are all advanced rules. Not all advanced rules have to be special rules, even if all special rules have to be advanced rules. They are rules that override basic rules.

Ceann wrote:
Unless you are using some house rules, you are not permitted to decide what type of a rule, a rule is.

Then how do you determine if a rule is a basic or an advanced rule if you have two rules in conflict. In order to apply the Basic versus Advanced rules, you must be able to determine if a rule is basic or advanced. Your argument fails.

Ceann wrote:
Riddle me this. Why do all unit types have a special rules section then? If all of their rules were special rules, then clearly all of their rules would be listed under Special Rules then for the unit type, wouldn't they?

The Special Rules section defines which USRs in the book from the Special Rules section. It does not define all their rules. In fact, it's a moot point whether you treat the other rules for the units as special rules or not. They are all advanced rules. Not all advanced rules have to be special rules, even if all special rules have to be advanced rules. They are rules that override basic rules.

Ceann wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Unless you are using some house rules, you are not permitted to decide what type of a rule, a rule is.

Then how do you determine if a rule is a basic or an advanced rule if you have two rules in conflict. In order to apply the Basic versus Advanced rules, you must be able to determine if a rule is basic or advanced. Your argument fails.

Ceann wrote:
Riddle me this. Why do all unit types have a special rules section then? If all of their rules were special rules, then clearly all of their rules would be listed under Special Rules then for the unit type, wouldn't they?

The Special Rules section defines which USRs in the book from the Special Rules section. It does not define all their rules. In fact, it's a moot point whether you treat the other rules for the units as special rules or not. They are all advanced rules. Not all advanced rules have to be special rules, even if all special rules have to be advanced rules. They are rules that override basic rules.


---------------------------------------------------------------------


In regards to Outflanking, I could find no relevant FAQ's to the discussion.

The physical BRB pg 168 states
"When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve..."
Digital copy...
"When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve..."

Exactly the same on both, physical and digitial, verbatim.

Regardless of this segmented approach of a handful of words, outflanking is an entire rule from the point of being declare at deployment, to the point they arrive, we cannot look at partial statements. We have to look at them contextually as a whole. The primary flaw in the arguments, as a rule of thumb, is not looking at an entire set of rules and state "what is this rule telling us to do". Instead looks for "what the rule is telling us we can't do" and assuming anything undeclared is an action we can take because we were not told we couldn't. The rules are ultimately permissive, if you are not told you can do something, then you cannot..

That had been directed at col impact, not you. I think it's more a case of engaging him on what it says for Outflank in the outflanking rule as compared to what it says for outflanking as subsections of Scout or Infiltrate. Do the digital versions in those sections match up with what it says in the Outflank special rule, or with the print version of what col impact quoted?

Ceann wrote:
I determine if a rule is a basic rule or an advanced rule based on whether it is a special rule or not. If it is labled as a special rule, then it is advanced, if it is not labeled as one, it is basic.

This is where your analysis falls apart. The second paragraph in the Basic versus Advanced section tells you about advanced rules and gives some different categories for classifying advanced rules. At no point in this does it say "Special Rules". That means you do not get to make the assumption that only Special Rules are advanced rules. You have to go by their classification for advanced rules, which is larger than merely "Special Rules"

Ceann wrote:
So far, from a procedural standpoint I have not run into any issues with my interpretations in action that "breaks the game" or anything along those lines.
Notice that besides this one section of the BRB "Basic vs Advanced" to my knowledge, no codex ever mentions "advanced" no rule ever mentions "advanced" and the example provided in basic vs advanced demonstrates a special rule being used as and advanced rule.

Most likely because they defined the Core Rules section as containing "all the basic rules that you will need in order to command your army and fight your Warhammer 40,000 battles", and given their Basic versus Advanced rules figured that people playing the game would be able to understand that if it's not a rule in the section that contains all of the basic rules, that it's an advanced rule.

Ceann wrote:
The special rules section of a unit type does not define all special rules, for example Chariots, have in their special rules a notation that the rider of a chariot fires in overwatch and that the chariot's weapons cannot.
This is not a USR, it is a special rule attributed to chariots. If it was an advanced rule as you say, then there would be no need for them to add the statement to it's special rules section.

Irrelevant, as all the rules dealing with vehicles are advanced rules, as per the classification of advanced rules on page 13 and on none of the vehicle rules being in the Core Rules section. This is where I disagree somewhat with Charistoph - there are references to location based rules; it's that all the basic rules are in the core rules section of the book (their location), and rules outside that section that are not merely saying "see page xx" for a rule in the core rules section are advanced rules.

Ceann wrote:
At the end of the day, I don't think we have been handed a paint brush and the ability to determine a rules classification.

Not a paintbrush, but a classification guide, and instructions on where all the basic rules are contained. If you can not determine if a rule is basic or advanced based on those classifications, you aren't following the rules. Saying that Special Rules are the only advanced rules are not following the rules on page 13. GW gave us the tools for the job; if you can't make the determination properly it is not due to lack of instruction on their part.

Ceann wrote:
I determine if a rule is a basic rule or an advanced rule based on whether it is a special rule or not. If it is labled as a special rule, then it is advanced, if it is not labeled as one, it is basic.

And where do you find this standard that is in conflict with Basic vs Advanced?

Ceann wrote:
So far, from a procedural standpoint I have not run into any issues with my interpretations in action that "breaks the game" or anything along those lines.
Notice that besides this one section of the BRB "Basic vs Advanced" to my knowledge, no codex ever mentions "advanced" no rule ever mentions "advanced" and the example provided in basic vs advanced demonstrates a special rule being used as and advanced rule.

Why does it need to when it is defined already in one spot? Why does it need to be repeated? The standard for Special Rules is not repeated in the codex, either, so why define advanced rules in such a manner?

Ceann wrote:
The special rules section of a unit type does not define all special rules, for example Chariots, have in their special rules a notation that the rider of a chariot fires in overwatch and that the chariot's weapons cannot.
This is not a USR, it is a special rule attributed to chariots. If it was an advanced rule as you say, then there would be no need for them to add the statement to it's special rules section.

But it is not listed in the Special Rule section of the book, which has been your defined standard in all of this. And, interestingly enough, similar rules are not listed under other unit type's special rules, but as part of their rules involved with either Assault or Shooting. To be honest, I was surprised to find that under Special Rules.

Ceann wrote:
At the end of the day, I don't think we have been handed a paint brush and the ability to determine a rules classification.

And neither do we, yet you accuse us of doing so with statements like this.

Ceann wrote:
We are told when advanced rules are applied.

Yet, you continue to ignore this in recognizing what is the difference between basic and advanced rules. It is you who are using a paintbrush to try and blend your basic paint over the advanced rules in this instance.

It specifically tells you that advanced rules apply when it is a unit type other than Infantry, but you paint Bikes and Chariots as basic rules, instead of the same color we are told to paint unusual skills.

It specifically tells you that advanced rules apply when they have unusual skills, but apparently you think that Wargear cannot have unusual skills, so you paint them with the brush of "not advanced", which is counter to this.

At no point does this classification of advanced rules state that codex rules are not advanced rules. It notes the difference for which takes precedence, but any title is our construct, not the rulebook's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
Irrelevant, as all the rules dealing with vehicles are advanced rules, as per the classification of advanced rules on page 13 and on none of the vehicle rules being in the Core Rules section. This is where I disagree somewhat with Charistoph - there are references to location based rules; it's that all the basic rules are in the core rules section of the book (their location), and rules outside that section that are not merely saying "see page xx" for a rule in the core rules section are advanced rules.

Why do people always miss terms like "if" and "unless"?

Yes, we are told where we will find Basic Rules, and we are given no other definition to stand by. That is part of what I meant by, "unless we are told otherwise".

The "definition by location" was in referring to the defining of Special Rules. Caenn was stating that Special Rules can only be found in the Special Rules section, which goes against the definition provided by the introduction of the Special Rules section. This becomes even more apparent when we do find rules which fit that category under many different areas of the rules other than what is listed under Special Rules sections.

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
I have posted many times, verbatim text, from both the data sheet and the BRB stating the locations of Special Rules. You merely disregard them in favor of using your own brush to determine what is and is not a special rule, without providing any justification for being allowed to do so. Unless you are using some house rules, you are not permitted to decide what type of a rule, a rule is. The BvA statement is about informing you of the existence of special rules, it is not permission to decide them on your own. If anything you need to demonstrate you have permission to do this.

I have never stated that the individual player decides on it. That has been a leap that you have invented. I have stated that we follow the definitions provided. A very very clear difference. I have presented that definition numerous times.

I have no problems with finding special rules located in a section marked "Special Rules". My problem is your insistence that special rules may only be found where marked as such, when such a direction or distinction does not ever exist. In everything you have quoted on location of special rules, not once has it been as an exclusive statement as you would have me believe.

In addition, at no point has the identity of special rules been limited by requiring a name.

Ceann wrote:
As for missions, I don't see why they can't have basic and special rules just like units do, I see no qualms with this.

Again, basic to the game or not? Basic to themselves is not in consideration with this conversation. We are considering them as if they are basic to the game, as that is the definition under debate.

Ceann wrote:
Demonstrate for like 50th time? I don't know how else to tell you.
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."

And having it by virtue of Wargear or Unit Type doesn't count? Even if those special rules are defined only within the same and not in the Special Rules section of a book?

Ceann wrote:
Terminator Armor isn't a special rule because it doesn't need to be one. It has the appropriate special rules it needs and the sweeping strike conflict is resolved by virtue of being a codex rule.
Lets look at some other examples, Nightmare Shroud has the Fear special rule, The Solar Staff has the Solar Pulse special rule, it is notated as such on the wargear. If these items were just advanced rules by default there would be no reason to draw the distinction, of when they have special rules and not have special rules, if they were all already special rules in the first place.

Fear is a noted USR, but what about the other affect it has in the Shooting phase? Is this a normal operation in the game? If it is not normal, then how it is not a special rule? The same applies to the Terminator's Armour affect on Sweeping Advance (there is no Sweeping Strike).

Weapons are a little more weird in how they are set up. It used to be that equipped special rules were kept off the Weapon's Type. Sometime in 6th or early 7th Edition, they switched it so they were all on the Weapon's Type. Since it is on the Type, it needs a name. Why is a name so necessary for you to consider something as a special rule when the game does not?

Ceann wrote:
Hard to hit flyers and FMC...
Riddle me this. Why do all unit types have a special rules section then? If all of their rules were special rules, then clearly all of their rules would be listed under Special Rules then for the unit type, wouldn't they?
Are we told about the extra special, special rules? I don't think that is the case. Why do I not consider them special rules? Because I haven't been told otherwise.
"It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule."

But you have been told they have these rules, and they fit the definition of special rules, so that quote seems rather non sequitur in nature.

Is the self-identity in this matter so important for you to classify them as such? Why can you not go by the definitions provided in the rulebook instead? Do you really need them nailed down like a computer does?

Ceann wrote:
I am aware that bikes do not inherently have splitfire in general, however DW Bikers do, which is why I used them for the example.

So, they don't have it as part of their Type, which led to the confusion regarding it. Previously, you were not specifying the type of Biker.

Ceann wrote:
How is definition by location not a thing? Your entire argument about Infantry rules being the standard is predicated upon the explanation of Infantry in the core rules section.
If you see my view as wrong, then clearly yours is also entirely wrong and that is putting aside my qualms with the assertion in the first place.

It is not a thing because we have not been told to identify special rules by their location. We have not been told to identify advanced rules by their location except that they are not where the basic rules are. The basic rules are identified by location and we are specifically directed so.

My argument about Infantry rules being the standard is based on explanations in General Principles, Movement Phase, and Unit Type. Unit Type is not part of the Core Rules section.

As an interesting side note, in 5th Edition Infantry rules we are specifically told that all the basic rules are presented on the basis that the models referred to them are Infantry. It has no bearing now, but one can see the imprints and assumptions of it in the current rulebook if one is aware of the possibility of the concept.

Ceann wrote:
The only guideline we have is that you and others are asserting what are and are not special or advanced rules on your own. I follow each trail located on the Army List Entry and identify each circumstance of "Special Rule" and only attribute those, rather than a freelance opinion of what I think they are.

In other words, you do not accept what we present as guidelines and definitions as any of the kind. Which returns back to the question of, is it because you cannot understand them as a definition, or that you simply do not want to?

What is wrong with my insistence of only looking at labeled Special Rules and only considering those as such? I recall previously you were stating "if i read the rules like a computer" in your arguments and your statements now contradict that.

Wargear and Unit Type, both state what special rules they have. Terminator armor states it has the "Bulky, Deepstrike and Relentless" special rules. So if it states it has a special rule then it does, if it does not state that then it does not. As per the special rules section where it has "unless stated otherwise". In the case of sweeping advance, there are vehicles that have in their basic rules they cannot perform sweeping advances. The wargear is referencing a basic rule outside of their unit type, just like the monolith references rules for transports to disembark, they are still using basic rules nonetheless.

Is self identity so important? It is very important. I only perform exactly what I am told to do and perform. The rulebook does not provide a definition you just think that it does and I feel like that is where the misunderstanding lies. Lets break this down to my point...

"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because"... reasons

You are being given reasons as why advanced rules would apply to specific types of models, you are not being told what the advanced rules are, you are being told CIRCUMSTANCES that something would have them. You are considering the circumstances, the definition, they are not.

Then we have...
"The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry."

Why would it tell us to look at the Army List Entry, if the advanced rules that apply to a unit are located in another section of the book?
The rules tell us where to find the rules for other unit types, it tells us where to find the rules for vehicles, it even includes page numbers in the physical BRB.
But to "advanced rules" there is not a reference insight other than to check the Army List Entry.

We are told in those sections the following things...
1. In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section.
Notice the infantry unit type is not treated any differently than anything else.
2. Vehicle characteristics are described in the vehicles section.
3.For the time being, we’ll just explain how squads of Infantry move, as they are by far the most common units in the game. Vehicles, Jump units, Bikes and certain other
units move in different ways to represent their greater mobility, and these will be discussed in full detail later in the book, in the Unit Types section.

Many of these references, and I can provide more, all include page numbers on those quotes in the physical brb, referencing the Unit Types section.
How many page references does BvA have to the unit types section? Zero.
But you consider it to be the more valid statement?

The splash page on the physical BRB for the Appendix states....
This section contains a collection of advanced rules, weaponry and abilities that you can use...
Note that NOWHERE in this book, besides page 13, are advanced rules mentioned, other than the splash page of the the Appendix.
What are the three sections of the Appendix? Special Rules, Weaponry, and Psyker Powers.

Advanced rules = Special Rules at this point is not a stretch, especially after in the only example provided in BvA, stated a special rule was the advanced rule.
Are the rules for unit types located in the Appendix? No.
Are the special rules notated in the special rules section of each unit type, located in the Appendix? Yes.
The only logical conclusion is that all special rules are located in the appendix and unit types are not located in the appendix.
They can therefore only be basic rules for the unit of their type, short of the specifically mentioned special rules.

Ceann wrote:
What is wrong with my insistence of only looking at labeled Special Rules and only considering those as such?

Because it means that you are classifying some advanced rules as basic rules. It's as simple as that.

Ceann wrote:
Advanced rules = Special Rules at this point is not a stretch, especially after in the only example provided in BvA, stated a special rule was the advanced rule.

It really is. Advanced rules =/= basic rules. That is what is not a stretch. If it's not a basic rule, it's an advanced rule. What are the basic rules? The rules in the Core Rules section. Any other rules that are not merely referencing rules from the core rules section are advanced rules. Advanced rules=rules not in the Core Rules section.

Ceann wrote:
The only logical conclusion is that all special rules are located in the appendix and unit types are not located in the appendix.

Not even remotely logical. It shows a basic failure of reading comprehension to come to that conclusion, to be honest.

 doctortom wrote:

Ceann wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Unless you are using some house rules, you are not permitted to decide what type of a rule, a rule is.

Then how do you determine if a rule is a basic or an advanced rule if you have two rules in conflict. In order to apply the Basic versus Advanced rules, you must be able to determine if a rule is basic or advanced. Your argument fails.

Ceann wrote:
Riddle me this. Why do all unit types have a special rules section then? If all of their rules were special rules, then clearly all of their rules would be listed under Special Rules then for the unit type, wouldn't they?

The Special Rules section defines which USRs in the book from the Special Rules section. It does not define all their rules. In fact, it's a moot point whether you treat the other rules for the units as special rules or not. They are all advanced rules. Not all advanced rules have to be special rules, even if all special rules have to be advanced rules. They are rules that override basic rules.


---------------------------------------------------------------------


In regards to Outflanking, I could find no relevant FAQ's to the discussion.

The physical BRB pg 168 states
"When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve..."
Digital copy...
"When an Outflanking unit arrives from Reserves, but not Ongoing Reserve..."

Exactly the same on both, physical and digitial, verbatim.

Regardless of this segmented approach of a handful of words, outflanking is an entire rule from the point of being declare at deployment, to the point they arrive, we cannot look at partial statements. We have to look at them contextually as a whole. The primary flaw in the arguments, as a rule of thumb, is not looking at an entire set of rules and state "what is this rule telling us to do". Instead looks for "what the rule is telling us we can't do" and assuming anything undeclared is an action we can take because we were not told we couldn't. The rules are ultimately permissive, if you are not told you can do something, then you cannot..

That had been directed at col impact, not you. I think it's more a case of engaging him on what it says for Outflank in the outflanking rule as compared to what it says for outflanking as subsections of Scout or Infiltrate. Do the digital versions in those sections match up with what it says in the Outflank special rule, or with the print version of what col impact quoted?

Ceann wrote:
I determine if a rule is a basic rule or an advanced rule based on whether it is a special rule or not. If it is labled as a special rule, then it is advanced, if it is not labeled as one, it is basic.

This is where your analysis falls apart. The second paragraph in the Basic versus Advanced section tells you about advanced rules and gives some different categories for classifying advanced rules. At no point in this does it say "Special Rules". That means you do not get to make the assumption that only Special Rules are advanced rules. You have to go by their classification for advanced rules, which is larger than merely "Special Rules"

Ceann wrote:
So far, from a procedural standpoint I have not run into any issues with my interpretations in action that "breaks the game" or anything along those lines.
Notice that besides this one section of the BRB "Basic vs Advanced" to my knowledge, no codex ever mentions "advanced" no rule ever mentions "advanced" and the example provided in basic vs advanced demonstrates a special rule being used as and advanced rule.

Most likely because they defined the Core Rules section as containing "all the basic rules that you will need in order to command your army and fight your Warhammer 40,000 battles", and given their Basic versus Advanced rules figured that people playing the game would be able to understand that if it's not a rule in the section that contains all of the basic rules, that it's an advanced rule.

Ceann wrote:
The special rules section of a unit type does not define all special rules, for example Chariots, have in their special rules a notation that the rider of a chariot fires in overwatch and that the chariot's weapons cannot.
This is not a USR, it is a special rule attributed to chariots. If it was an advanced rule as you say, then there would be no need for them to add the statement to it's special rules section.

Irrelevant, as all the rules dealing with vehicles are advanced rules, as per the classification of advanced rules on page 13 and on none of the vehicle rules being in the Core Rules section. This is where I disagree somewhat with Charistoph - there are references to location based rules; it's that all the basic rules are in the core rules section of the book (their location), and rules outside that section that are not merely saying "see page xx" for a rule in the core rules section are advanced rules.

Ceann wrote:
At the end of the day, I don't think we have been handed a paint brush and the ability to determine a rules classification.

Not a paintbrush, but a classification guide, and instructions on where all the basic rules are contained. If you can not determine if a rule is basic or advanced based on those classifications, you aren't following the rules. Saying that Special Rules are the only advanced rules are not following the rules on page 13. GW gave us the tools for the job; if you can't make the determination properly it is not due to lack of instruction on their part.

I know it was directed at Col, I was providing you the information to support your case. I have both the digital and physical copies of the rules.
They say the exact same thing. So any terms he is claiming exist there, do not appear to exist there as I have read it.
The phrasing between the two was exactly the same and I found no FAQ that contradicted that.

The second paragraph of BvA does not tell you that those ARE advanced rules, they tell you circumstances in which advanced rules would apply. I think that is the fault in phrasing of the statement.
I think we can both agree that "boltgun" is not an advanced rule. But clearly a combi-melta, would be. The only direction we are given to find advanced rules is to consult an Army List Entry, not to consult the Unit Type section. Also note that there are NO page references to the unit type section anywhere in BvA, the only reference it gives you is Army List Entry's. Whereas in the core rules, there are many references, with page numbers provided to the different unit types. Also the only thing in BvA that is stated as a verbatim EXAMPLE of an advanced rule is one use to prevent morale roll and it states that a special rule is the advanced rule.
I would assert my point has more evidence to support it.


The issue is that at the beginning of the movement phase rules, it tells us that they will EXPLAIN the rules using Infantry, so everything that follows is using them to explain the rules.
This leads, in my mind, to a misunderstanding that Infantry are the rules, even though we were told they would be used as an explanation.
The core rules explains the processes of moving, shooting, assaulting and morale. Infantry are used to explain the rules for ease of use, because they have no innate special rules. It would be much more confusing to a player if they tried to explain the rules using FMC's. Using the simplest and most common unit is the easiest way. If you flip to the start of the Unit Types section, Infantry is the first thing there, right there alongside its more complicated brethren.

All the rules dealing with vehicles are not advanced rules those. Vehicles possess their own basic rules just like Infantry possess their own basic rules. Infantry just have no special rules, which is noted by them not having a special rules section. All unit types can follow the same processes for movement, shooting, assaulting and morale just like the others. The rules are just explained from the perspective of Infantry being plugged into the process. You could take "move 6" and "Special Rules: This unit has no special rules" slam Infantry into the unit types section and then explain the rules using bikes, while pointing out the special rules. The process would be exactly the same, just more complicated to understand. The core rules is about the PHASES and what units do in the phases, not about Infantry. The physic phase is located in the core rules, but I don't see any of you trying to claim that IG Conscripts are ML1 because its a basic rule.

We are not given a classification guide anywhere, you guys are assuming this. Just like using the "breaks or bends a rule" but leaving off the end part of the sentence stating "represented by a special rule".