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

Just wanted to get some clarifacations on the different aspects of the arguement.

One side says Shrike and a squad cannot infiltrate because you cannot join him to the squad unless the squad is already deployed on the table.

Another side says there are no deployment rules that say you can't join an IC to a squad pre-deployment, so you can, thus granting the squad infiltrate. The gist of this arguement is that you don't deploy a unit one at a time, and that you don't deploy an IC separately from a squad that you want him to be attached to, but that you can do it all at once.

I've actually seen someone say deployment is not declared to be illegal until the game starts, so you can put a squad down 18 inches away, then have Shrike join it, and thus the deployment is not illegal.

Am I missing any other arguements for/against?

Nope, and the trouble with the "for" shrike infiltrating side is that 40k is permissive, and they lack permission...

The "for" Argument lacks any sort of rules backing, while the "against" argument -gasp- follows the rules.

So, In short (before this one gets locked):

RaW: No

RaI: Yes, No, Maybe, Purple.

RaPlayed: Yes by Most People.

Blah..blah..blah.....same old arguements form the RAW worshippers...
(The comment is aimed at the guys in your group, not the users of this forum...this forum has re-hashed this about 20 billion times, and we all know where each other stands on the isue )

Bothe INAT and GW (for 'Ard Boyz) have ruled that Shrike CAN infiltrate a unit.....good enough for me.

If you are going to a tourney that accepts niether INAT nor GWs ruling, then that is a tourney you should probably avoid anyway... I forsee alot of rules problems coming up in such a tourney.

Gwar! wrote:The "for" Argument lacks any sort of rules backing, while the "against" argument -gasp- follows the rules.

So, In short (before this one gets locked):

RaW: No

RaI: Yes, No, Maybe, Purple.

RaPlayed: Yes by Most People.

I'm not trying to argue the points, just to get what the arguements are.

I agree the for side does not have rules that say you CAN play the way they say, but at the same time, there are no rules that say how you deploy..a unit at a time etc.

The rules state you deploy everything, (on table or into reserves) The exception are units with Infiltrate.

So, by the rules, those termies *must* be on the table, or in reserves; before the 'infiltrate' step occurs. And the rules state you deploy in your deployment zone.

During the infiltrate step, Shrike can be placed as an infiltrator, but there is no rule that allows you to 'undeploy' those termies. And they don't become part of Shrikes unit until *after* they deploy. That is also stated in the rules.

Again, this is what the rules say. Not the way most play it. (Including myself)

coredump wrote:The rules state you deploy everything, (on table or into reserves) The exception are units with Infiltrate.

So, by the rules, those termies *must* be on the table, or in reserves; before the 'infiltrate' step occurs. And the rules state you deploy in your deployment zone.

During the infiltrate step, Shrike can be placed as an infiltrator, but there is no rule that allows you to 'undeploy' those termies. And they don't become part of Shrikes unit until *after* they deploy. That is also stated in the rules.

Again, this is what the rules say. Not the way most play it. (Including myself)

Right, but another aspect of the the for arguement is that there are no rules against joining an IC to a squad pre-deployment, thus, the squad of termies can be joined to Shrike and then deployed during the Infiltration step. The words deployed in coherency are "vague"....

General Hobbs wrote:
Right, but another aspect of the the for arguement is that there are no rules against joining an IC to a squad pre-deployment, thus, the squad of termies can be joined to Shrike and then deployed during the Infiltration step.

There are also no rules for me knocking the table over after you deploy and claiming that since your models are off the table they're in reserves.

There are specific rules for how an IC joins a squad during deployment, if you aren't using them then you aren't playing by the RAW.
It's a permissive ruleset, you have to prove you can do something to be able to do it.

Gorkamorka wrote: There are specific rules for how an IC joins a squad during deployment, if you aren't using them then you aren't playing by the RAW.

There are rules about an independent character beginning the game already with a unit and a dedicated transport carrying the unit it was seleceted with plus independent characters, but they are anything but specific.

Gorkamorka wrote: It's a permissive ruleset, you have to prove you can do something to be able to do it.

Then you would have to show where in the rules you have permission to knock over the table.

time wizard wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote: It's a permissive ruleset, you have to prove you can do something to be able to do it.

Then you would have to show where in the rules you have permission to knock over the table.

That was exactly the point.

There are no rules that allow you to join an IC to a unit before deployment, aside from when you hold them in Reserves. Therefore, this is something that you can not do, as there are no mechanics in place for doing so.

You can join the IC to the unit upon deployment, if legally possible. But that doesn't work for Shrike's infiltrate as there is no way to hold a unit back to deploy it at the infiltrate step unless it has the infiltrate rule. So they would have to have been deployed with the rest of the army.


It is quite clear that Shrike is supposed to be able to infiltrate with a unit that doesn't already have the USR. But as the rules stand, there is simply no legal way to make it happen.

insaniak wrote:It is quite clear that Shrike is supposed to be able to infiltrate with a unit that doesn't already have the USR. But as the rules stand, there is simply no legal way to make it happen.

And that is the problem with playing only pure RAW.

And that is the problem with playing only pure RAW.

No body does look at the fun list of RaW thread for some even dumber "rules". Fortunately the rules weren't written to be interpreted using RaW and in this case the rules are obvious and pretty much everyone pays by the rules rather than the RaW.

jbunny wrote:And that is the problem with playing only pure RAW.

There is no problem, because nobody actually does that.

FlingitNow wrote:... in this case the rules are obvious and pretty much everyone pays by the rules rather than the RaW.

In this case, pretty much everybody plays by the rules as we assume they were intended, rather than by the rules.

The rules are what is written in the codex.

The rules are what is written in the codex.

The rules are what was designed by GW. Who's rules do you play by if not those designed by GW?

Do we really need to have this discussion again already?

Please see the tenets of YMDC. The rules of the game, as appropriate to discussions on this board, are those written in the current rulebook, codexes and FAQs.

The ideas that the games devs had when writing the rules are not the rules. The rules are what they actually wrote down. Any ideas that they may have had that did not accurately come out in print may be the rules as intended. Or may be the rules as originally envisaged but altered on revision. Or may be the rules as originally intended but discarded in favour of what they wound up actually writing.

But not the actual rules of the game, which are printed in the Warhammer 40K rulebook. That's what a rulebook is for.

The rules of the game, as appropriate to discussions on this board, are those written in the current rulebook, codexes and FAQs.

This statement in itself proves that RaW =/= The rules as the FAQs frequently have changes in RaW written as clarifications. Hence "The Rules" havn't changed but RaW has, therefore they can not be the same thing.

The ideas that the games devs had when writing the rules are not the rules.

Yes they are by definition. Who do you think designed the rules if not the games devs?

Any ideas that they may have had that did not accurately come out in print may be the rules as intended.

Which by definition is the rules.

But not the actual rules of the game, which are printed in the Warhammer 40K rulebook. That's what a rulebook is for.

But what is written can be interpreted in many ways. Using literalism on the exact wording of the text is only one way to interpret the rules from the written text; it is not the only way to do so nor is it the intended way. The rulebook is there to teach us the rules, GW remains the designer.

Just like legal rules known as Laws it is the spirit and intention behind the law that matters not the literalist interpretation of the written words. It is the intention and idea of the designer that defines the rule (or law) not what is actually written down, what is written down is simply a set of symbols to communicate that idea (or intention) to others. It is often easy to determine the intention of the writer from the written text without using literalist translation of the written words. In this case the rules are obvious.

Flingitnow, where does one begin to address all the strange things you just said?

Why not just start with each point in turn if you disagree with any of them, point out where I am wrong in each case.

I will. I just needed to get some perspective.

FlingitNow wrote:

The rules of the game, as appropriate to discussions on this board, are those written in the current rulebook, codexes and FAQs.

This statement in itself proves that RaW =/= The rules as the FAQs frequently have changes in RaW written as clarifications. Hence "The Rules" havn't changed but RaW has, therefore they can not be the same thing.

While a FAQ can change the rules, it does not change the nature of the rules. RAW = Rules, based on the simple fact that the games designers intended for us to follow the rules (which is done 99.8 % of the time). Infantry moves 6", BS 4 hits on 3s and so on.
The fact that perceived exceptions are invented (fluff and old editions being the main culprits) does not disprove the rule, merely reinforce it.

The ideas that the games devs had when writing the rules are not the rules.

Yes they are by definition. Who do you think designed the rules if not the games devs?

That is not what he said. He said that what the designers might have thought about during the development of the rules is irrelevant. Only the final draft of the rules is.
The designers will at some point most certainly have thought about making Termagants fleet during the process of making codex Tyranids.
So because the designers, at some point, intended Termagants to be fleet......they are Fleet when you play them now?

Any ideas that they may have had that did not accurately come out in print may be the rules as intended.

Which by definition is the rules.

No, the rules are what we read in the rulebook/codex. See above.

But not the actual rules of the game, which are printed in the Warhammer 40K rulebook. That's what a rulebook is for.

But what is written can be interpreted in many ways. Using literalism on the exact wording of the text is only one way to interpret the rules from the written text; it is not the only way to do so nor is it the intended way. The rulebook is there to teach us the rules, GW remains the designer.

Just like legal rules known as Laws it is the spirit and intention behind the law that matters not the literalist interpretation of the written words. It is the intention and idea of the designer that defines the rule (or law) not what is actually written down, what is written down is simply a set of symbols to communicate that idea (or intention) to others. It is often easy to determine the intention of the writer from the written text without using literalist translation of the written words. In this case the rules are obvious.

While some few points might be interpreted different ways, most are clear.
I believe we are all victims of a degree of tunnelvision when it comes to rules.
The vast majority of rules are very clear. Unfortunately those are not the rules focused on in YMDC, but rather the opposite.
Some times people are even actively looking to for trouble and invent, at times crazy, scenarios to justify their mock anger at the rules.

Also not all kinds of Law is based on intentions. This varies wildly between countries and even the kind of Law we are talking about (legal, mathematical, physics and so on).

FlingitNow wrote:This statement in itself proves that RaW =/= The rules as the FAQs frequently have changes in RaW written as clarifications. Hence "The Rules" havn't changed but RaW has, therefore they can not be the same thing.

If an FAQ changes the rules, then the rules have changed. Whether that change is labelled as a change or as a clarification makes no difference. It's still a change.

FlingitNow wrote:

The ideas that the games devs had when writing the rules are not the rules.

Yes they are by definition. Who do you think designed the rules if not the games devs?

I'm missing the relationship between my statement and your response.

Of course the games devs designed the rules. That doesn't mean that the game as it is now intended to be played is the same as the game that they originally envisioned.

Nor does it mean that the rules as they currently stand are the way the guy who wrote the book intended them to work. When you buy a game, you buy a printed rulebook that tells you how to play the game. You don't buy a psychic link to the writer of the book so that you can divine how the game is supposed to be played. Nor do you need to... you bought a rulebook to tell you how to play the game.

Any ideas that they may have had that did not accurately come out in print may be the rules as intended.

Which by definition is the rules.

The rules as intended are not the rules. This is evidenced by the number of times FAQ's have gone against the stated intention in favour of what is actually written in the book.

But what is written can be interpreted in many ways.

Which means simply that there are many ways to play the game. Which is exactly what it says in the front of the rulebook, coincidentally enough.

Using literalism on the exact wording of the text is only one way to interpret the rules from the written text; it is not the only way to do so nor is it the intended way. The rulebook is there to teach us the rules, GW remains the designer.

The intended way to interpret the rules is to read the rulebook. That's why they sell it.

The intended way to play the game is to follow those rules as closely or as loosely as you and your opponent see fit.

Just like legal rules known as Laws it is the spirit and intention behind the law that matters not the literalist interpretation of the written words.

See my previous point. Yes, it's the spirit of the law that matters... but that doesn't change the law. It just changes how it is implemented. The law remains as written in the law books.

Same thing here. The rules are as written in the rulebook. How those rules are implemented is up to you... and not necessarily anything to do with what the designer originally intended.

The designer's intent (where it can actually be determined, as opposed to simply guessing based on what you personally think is reasonable, which is what is generally passed off as RAI) can be a useful tool for deciding how to play the game. But it is not the be-all-and-end-all of rule interpretation... because quite often that intent changes, or is over-ridden deliberately in favour of what the rules actually say.

The intent is not the rule. The rule is the rule.

While a FAQ can change the rules, it does not change the nature of the rules. RAW = Rules, based on the simple fact that 99.8 percent of the time the games designers intended for us to follow the rules. Infantry moves 6", BS 4 hits on 3s and so on.
The fact that perceived exception are invented (fluff and old editions being the main culprits) does not disprove the rules, merely reinforce it.

Yes in the majority of cases RaW and The Rules will coincide (I think you're a little generous with 99.8% but that is besides the point) that doesn't mean Raw = The rules. You've actually not argued against my point at all. In fact by admitting that in 0.2% of cases The Rules =/= RaW you just conceded the point.

That is not what he said. He said that what the designers might have thought about during the development of the rules is irrelevant. Only the final draft of the rules is.
The designers will at some point most certainly have thought about making Hormagaunts fleet during the process of making codex Tyranids.
So because the designers, at some point, intended Hormagaunts to be fleet......they are Fleet when you play them now?

Hormagaunts are fleet not sure what you're getting at perhaps Termagants? Again you're not arguing against my point your arguing against the design process all counting as rules. Yes the final draft is the rules, but that doesn't mean a literalist interpretation of the written text is the rules. Do you beleive that Wolf Scouts don't have the scouts USR, but instead have some as yet to be defined scout rule?

No, the rules are what we read in the rulebook/codex. See above.

And what we read can be different things. Literalist interpretations of the written text is still not the ony way to interpret the text. However the rules are still those that GW designed. Honest who do you think designed the rules if not the GW Dev team? I'm genuinely interested to know who the RaW camp thinks designed the game as you repeated claim GW didn't.

While some few points might be interpreted different ways, most are clear.
I believe we are all victims of a degree of tunnelvision when it comes to rules.
The vast majority of rules are very clear. Unfortunately those are not the rules focused on in YMDC, but rather the opposite.
Some times people are even actively looking to for trouble and invent, at times crazy, scenarios to justify their mock anger at the rules.

Exactly so we should look to interpret those rules in the most appropriate manner trying to get as near to the intentions of the designer as possible (i.e as near to The Rules). Examining the RaW is an important step to take in this process and in many cases the only step required, however in other cases the result from interpreting using RaW is wrong as has been illustrated by numerous FAQs. To interpret the rules of the game accurately we are required to look beyond the literalist translation of the written word.

Also not all kinds of Law is based on intentions. This varies wildly between countries and even the kind of Law we are talking about (legal, mathematical, physics and so on).

However the laws in the legal sense of the country in which the rulebook was written (i.e. the only other laws that would be relevant to discuss) work this way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If an FAQ changes the rules, then the rules have changed. Whether that change is labelled as a change or as a clarification makes no difference. It's still a change.

But the RaW is that it is a clarification hence the rules have not changed. Why are you insisting on religiously standing by some of the words but not others? How are you justifying that stance?

Nor does it mean that the rules as they currently stand are the way the guy who wrote the book intended them to work. When you buy a game, you buy a printed rulebook that tells you how to play the game. You don't buy a psychic link to the writer of the book so that you can divine how the game is supposed to be played. Nor do you need to... you bought a rulebook to tell you how to play the game.

That's doesn't mean literalist translation of the written text is the only way to read those rules. What is the point of language if not to communicate ideas? The written text commmunicates the intentions of the author to us, that is the entire point of the book. It does so imperfectly, but we live in an imperfect world.

The intended way to interpret the rules is to read the rulebook. That's why they sell it.

Yes but to use literalism on the exact wording of the book is not the intention as is clearly illustrated by their lacklustre definitions and rules writing.

See my previous point. Yes, it's the spirit of the law that matters... but that doesn't change the law. It just changes how it is implemented. The law remains as written in the law books.

Sorry but you are incorrect in this assertation. The spirit and intention is the law, what is written is what we use to interpret that intention. What we then implement can be anything we choose and that does not change the law. Incorrectly implementing a law is not following the law, however implementing a law using a literalist interpretation of the written text that is diffrerent to the clear intention is also not following the law. By TMIR we are allowed to do any of the above in agreement with our opponent.

The designer's intent (where it can actually be determined, as opposed to simply guessing based on what you personally think is reasonable, which is what is generally passed off as RAI) can be a useful tool for deciding how to play the game. But it is not the be-all-and-end-all of rule interpretation... because quite often that intent changes, or is over-ridden deliberately in favour of what the rules actually say.

The intent is not the rule. The rule is the rule.

You say the intent is often over-ridden by at later dates and this is possibly true (though the argument could be that the intent was different to what we thought all along) what is certainly true is that the RaW is also over-ridden in favour of intent. Now I know lots of people will try to pass off their guess at a rule as the RaI (yes I've done that myself), however in many cases (and this is one of them) the RaI is patently clear for everyone to see.

The rules that GW designed are by definition the rules. The RaW (i.e. a literalist interpretation of the written text) is an interpretation of this and nothing more.

FlingitNow wrote:

While a FAQ can change the rules, it does not change the nature of the rules. RAW = Rules, based on the simple fact that 99.8 percent of the time the games designers intended for us to follow the rules. Infantry moves 6", BS 4 hits on 3s and so on.
The fact that perceived exception are invented (fluff and old editions being the main culprits) does not disprove the rules, merely reinforce it.

Yes in the majority of cases RaW and The Rules will coincide (I think you're a little generous with 99.8% but that is besides the point) that doesn't mean Raw = The rules. You've actually not argued against my point at all. In fact by admitting that in 0.2% of cases The Rules =/= RaW you just conceded the point.

I most certainly did not concede the point. Notice how I said "perceived exception"? and the 0.2 % just proves the rules, not disprove it.
I will happily admit that 99.8% is being overly generous, but you get the point, I'm sure

That is not what he said. He said that what the designers might have thought about during the development of the rules is irrelevant. Only the final draft of the rules is.
The designers will at some point most certainly have thought about making Hormagaunts fleet during the process of making codex Tyranids.
So because the designers, at some point, intended Hormagaunts to be fleet......they are Fleet when you play them now?

Hormagaunts are fleet not sure what you're getting at perhaps Termagants? Again you're not arguing against my point your arguing against the design process all counting as rules. Yes the final draft is the rules, but that doesn't mean a literalist interpretation of the written text is the rules. Do you beleive that Wolf Scouts don't have the scouts USR, but instead have some as yet to be defined scout rule?

If you check the timestamps, you'll see that I did indeed edit my Hormagaunt mistake while you were typing your reply.
I believe the scout/scoutS issue is a simple typo.
I do not believe that Wolf Scouts have Furious Charge based on my misguided belief that the games designers intended for them to have it, but simply forgot to put it in....which is basically the way of thinking that you are promoting.

No, the rules are what we read in the rulebook/codex. See above.

And what we read can be different things. Literalist interpretations of the written text is still not the ony way to interpret the text. However the rules are still those that GW designed. Honest who do you think designed the rules if not the GW Dev team? I'm genuinely interested to know who the RaW camp thinks designed the game as you repeated claim GW didn't.

Nobody is saying that the designers didn't make the rules. Please, stop using that as an argument to further something entirely different.

While some few points might be interpreted different ways, most are clear.
I believe we are all victims of a degree of tunnelvision when it comes to rules.
The vast majority of rules are very clear. Unfortunately those are not the rules focused on in YMDC, but rather the opposite.
Some times people are even actively looking to for trouble and invent, at times crazy, scenarios to justify their mock anger at the rules.

Exactly so we should look to interpret those rules in the most appropriate manner trying to get as near to the intentions of the designer as possible (i.e as near to The Rules). Examining the RaW is an important step to take in this process and in many cases the only step required, however in other cases the result from interpreting using RaW is wrong as has been illustrated by numerous FAQs. To interpret the rules of the game accurately we are required to look beyond the literalist translation of the written word.

You misunderstood me. I'm not promoting going for "intention". The tunnelvision-theory is presented to show that RAW works fine. We just can't see it because of all the posts focusing on the small problems (which can be handled though RAW almost all the time).

"To interpret the rules of the game accurately". Who gets to define what is accurate?

Also not all kinds of Law is based on intentions. This varies wildly between countries and even the kind of Law we are talking about (legal, mathematical, physics and so on).

However the laws in the legal sense of the country in which the rulebook was written (i.e. the only other laws that would be relevant to discuss) work this way.

and the 0.2 % just proves the rules, not disprove it.

You've lost me there. How does RaW=/= The Rules prove that RaW= The rules?

If you check the timestamps, you'll see that I did indeed edit my Hormagaunt mistake while you were typing your reply.
I believe the scout/scoutS issue is a simple typo.

So you're making an assumption based on the written text but not following the RaW, you're doing exactly what I am saying you should do.

I do not believe that Wolf Scouts have Furious Charge based on my misguided belief that the games designers intended for them to have it, but simply forgot to put it in....which is basically the way of thinking that you are promoting.

No I'm not, I've never said anything of the sort. I'm saying the stuff on the fun list of RaW thread is not what the actual rules are. i.e. That bjorn's invulnerable save is useless, that Shrike's inflitrate can't be given to a squad, that scouts moves are not possible in standard missions as it refers to scout moves (presumably something to do with that as yet undefined scout special rule that wolf scouts have) etc etc etc

Likewise if they gave someone fusious assault (without defining it) I'd assume that that meant they intended to give them furious charge...

"To interpret the rules of the game accurately". Who gets to define what is accurate?

GW obviously.

Why should the legal laws (even the ones from the games country of origin) have any relevance?
I say the laws of UK have zero relevance in interpreting the rules of 40k, based on the fact the the law of the UK and the law of 40k works on completely different principles.

They have relevance because they determine how codified rules sets are supposed to be interpreted in the country of origin of this codified rules set. The laws of physics have nothing to do with how rules are designed in the UK, the legal system does. The laws of physics are theorectically not designed by humans (more discovered) so I really don't see the relevance but how we in the UK design our rulesets is relevant to how a rule set designed in the UK is to be interpreted.

I give up.

This is in danger of getting a little too wall'o'texty, so I'm going to summarise my point and leave it here. Quite frankly, I'm at a loss as to how you (FlingitNow) can seriously claim that reading a piece of text is not the correct way to determine what it means.

What it all boils down to is this:

FlingitNow wrote:The rules that GW designed are by definition the rules.

... and the rulebook is the medium used to convey those rules to us. Not the thoughts of the designer. If they wanted to include those as a part of the rules, they would have included designer's notes throughout the book to explain what they were trying to achieve by each written rule. Or the author's phone number, so you could contact him and ask if what he wrote was actually what he meant.

Those ideas floating around in the designer's head may be a part of what was originally intended for the game. But they're not what was codified by putting it down on paper and selling as a collection of the rules of the game. So whatever was intended, the rules are what you see in the rulebook. Again, that's what a rulebook is for, and that's the only practical way of creating a game unless everyone who plays it is in constant contact with the author.

How you play the game can be different to the rules.
How you choose to interpret a rule can be different to how the rule is written. You can even claim that you're pretty sure that how you interpret it is what he meant when he wrote it.
The rules in a given situation may not make sense and require alteration in order to make the game playable.

But the rules as written in the rulebook are the rules. That's what a rulebook does.

General Hobbs wrote:
Just wanted to get some clarifacations on the different aspects of the arguement.

One side says Shrike and a squad cannot infiltrate because you cannot join him to the squad unless the squad is already deployed on the table.

Another side says there are no deployment rules that say you can't join an IC to a squad pre-deployment, so you can, thus granting the squad infiltrate. The gist of this arguement is that you don't deploy a unit one at a time, and that you don't deploy an IC separately from a squad that you want him to be attached to, but that you can do it all at once.

I've actually seen someone say deployment is not declared to be illegal until the game starts, so you can put a squad down 18 inches away, then have Shrike join it, and thus the deployment is not illegal.

Am I missing any other arguements for/against?

Again, people have a very difficult time paying attention while they read the rules. The verb "Deploy" is so very important but people keep dropping it and replacing it with nonsense. RaW clearly states that Shrike can infiltrate with a squad attached to him just fine and RAW is not in question in the debate at all, it is the inability of people to understand the verb "Deploy", just like in the argument about combat squadding from reserves.

Shrike Codex Entry:

See, But Remain Unseen: Shrike (and models in his squad) benefit from the infiltrate special rule.

Rulebook P92:

In all three types of deployment, the sequence is the same. First the players deploy their forces (apart from any unit left in reserve or that chose to use their infiltrate special rule. Then they deploy their infiltrators

Rulebook P48

An independent character may begin the game already with a unit, by being deployed in coherency with them

Rulebook P94

... If any of his independent characters left in reserve are joining a unit, in which case they will be rolled for and will arrive together, or not in which case they will count as separate unit when rolling for reserves

In all references to ICs in the rulebook, it clearly states that ICs are with the unit they are deployed with, they are joined together and this is signified by deploying them within coherency, they do not confer powers upon their joined squad by being deployed in coherency, they are signified by being in coherency when being deployed. This is the single most important fallacy that is committed over and over; Shrike and his unit have infiltrate before they are deployed because they are in the same squad, how do you know they are in the same squad? Because the player chooses it to be so when he builds his army list... When you purchase Shrike and the squad he is with, they are purchased as a single squad... They are then deployed in coherency. Just like with a Dedicated transport, the squad and the transport are purchased together...

Dedicated transport vehicles sit outside the Force
Organisation structure, as they are attached to the unit
they are bought for.

insaniak wrote:That was exactly the point.

There are no rules that allow you to join an IC to a unit before deployment, aside from when you hold them in Reserves. Therefore, this is something that you can not do, as there are no mechanics in place for doing so.

You can join the IC to the unit upon deployment, if legally possible. But that doesn't work for Shrike's infiltrate as there is no way to hold a unit back to deploy it at the infiltrate step unless it has the infiltrate rule. So they would have to have been deployed with the rest of the army.


It is quite clear that Shrike is supposed to be able to infiltrate with a unit that doesn't already have the USR. But as the rules stand, there is simply no legal way to make it happen.

Insaniak, that's the problem with the For arguement. They are saying there are no rules that say you can't join an IC to a squad. Someone even went so far as to say deployment is not "legal" until the game begins, so you can even deploy a squad illegally 18 inches away, and then join Shrike, and then when the game begins, its legal.

I've looked through the rules and there really are no rules that determine how you deploy, whether you put down a squad at a time, or if you can or can't join the IC pre-deployment. I am in agreement that the wording says you join an IC by deploying him in coherency with a squad, but the counter-arguers are saying that means you can join him pre-deployment, and thus get the infiltrate skill.

General Hobbs wrote:Insaniak, that's the problem with the For arguement. They are saying there are no rules that say you can't join an IC to a squad.

But that's not an argument. You need a rule that says you can join them before deployment, otherwise you can't.

Someone even went so far as to say deployment is not "legal" until the game begins, so you can even deploy a squad illegally 18 inches away, and then join Shrike, and then when the game begins, its legal.

Not sure where that idea is coming from, either.

I've looked through the rules and there really are no rules that determine how you deploy, whether you put down a squad at a time, or if you can or can't join the IC pre-deployment. I am in agreement that the wording says you join an IC by deploying him in coherency with a squad, but the counter-arguers are saying that means you can join him pre-deployment, and thus get the infiltrate skill.

The deployment rules are indeed rather sketchy. There is nothing saying that you have to deploy a unit at a time, or that a unit has to be deployed in coherency, or that it has to be on legally traversable terrain.

There is, however, a certain amount of process that is stated. Namely, that models with the Infiltrate USR are deployed after both players have deployed the rest of their armies.

No provision is made to hold back units without the Infiltrate USR... everything has to be either deployed, or held in Reserve.
No rule is given that allows an IC to join a unit before deployment... he is only allowed to join the unit during deployment by being deployed in coherency with them.

The IC deployment can be taken two ways:
The common way of reading it is that the IC has to be deployed into a squad that is already on the table (in which case they are not physically one unit until the IC has been placed)

The other way, as explained by visavismeyou, is that the IC and the unit are deployed at the same time, with everyone in coherency (in which case they are not one unit until everybody has been placed and determined to be in coherency, because that's how you determine whether the IC is joined to the unit).

In either case, the IC and the unit are only actually joined once the IC is physically on the table. And if you're putting the IC down in the Infiltrate step, it's too late to deploy a unit that doesn't have the infiltrate USR with him... they would have had to deploy with the rest of the army.

It's simply not possible without adding in rules.

insaniak wrote:The other way, as explained by visavismeyou, is that the IC and the unit are deployed at the same time, with everyone in coherency (in which case they are not one unit until everybody has been placed and determined to be in coherency, because that's how you determine whether the IC is joined to the unit).

In either case, the IC and the unit are only actually joined once the IC is physically on the table. And if you're putting the IC down in the Infiltrate step, it's too late to deploy a unit that doesn't have the infiltrate USR with him... they would have had to deploy with the rest of the army.

It's simply not possible without adding in rules.

So you disagree that when you build your army that the squad and IC are not joined? How do IC's get into dedicated transports with a squad then?

I really think it is important to study this line:

Alternatively an independent character may begin
the game already with a unit, by being deployed in
coherency with them.

"May begin the game" and "already" imply that a preexisting condition applies to the IC and the Squad, that is, being joined into a single unit before the game.

Also, the section about "Special Rules" is interesting to this discussion.

For example, if an independent
character without the ‘infiltrate’ special rule joins a
unit of infiltrators during deployment, the unit
cannot infiltrate (see the Universal Special Rules
section for more details).

How could an IC without infiltrate interfere with a unit of infiltrators? This quite clearly states that before the infiltrators are deployed via the infiltrate rule the IC without Infiltrate joins the unit with infiltrate and therefore they can deploy during the normal deployment but not during infiltrate deployment. If a squad and an IC were not joined as they were purchased together, then this special rules section would be worded differently.

Thus, if I build an army list where Kor'Sarro Khan joins a Scout Squad then that squad cannot infiltrate; similarly, if I build a list where Shrike and a squad of terminators are in the same squad, then all 6 can infiltrate.

And visavismeyou wins. Brilliant!

/thread.