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.

Hello,

I made this pole because of a thread in this forum. We are discussion about fleeting termies and I brought up a idea to put Shrike in a squad of termies and allow them to infiltrate. Well, some other user have stated that the rules are clear that until the unit is deployed with the IC in reserves or on the table they are not considered joined. Therefore the unit dosn't get the right to infiltrate with Shrike.

I have come here to see what everyone thinks. I see that we need to follow the letter of the law, but I feel that GW didn't word this special rule right. So I am opening it up for a vote.

You're missing a fourth choice:

"Yes, because the rules for independent characters and deployment, p.94, unequivocally state that independent characters can join units prior to deployment."

Therefore if Shrike joins a unit, they can be deployed as infiltrators, or be held in reserves to outflank (or deepstrike if the unit has the deepstrike rule).

Thank you.. but sense you have stated this. I think my pole is a little bit pointless now. Thank you for clarifying this.

Nurglitch wrote:"Yes, because the rules for independent characters and deployment, p.94,

The what that's where, now?


There are no rules for Independant Characters and deployment on page 94. Page 94 covers Reserves.

The Deployment rules are on page 92. They don't mention ICs.

There is no rule allowing an IC to be joined to a unit prior to deployment unless they are being held in Reserve.

Yeah, I was looking on p.94 and couldn't find anything.

The rule says "Alternatively an independent character may begin the game already with a unit, by deploying in coherency with them."

I think it is fair to assume with = joined with.

Shrike grants infiltrate to any unit he joins.

So: Shrike may begin the game already with a unit (which gains Infiltrate), by deploying in coherency with them.

The question seems to hinge on timing. Since the only indicator is that the model "begin(s) the game" with the unit, I think it is a fair interpretation that the joining is effective prior to deployment, but the deployment is a requisite (IE if joined character must deploy in coherency with unit) not a prerequisite. In support of this position is the Reserve rules which state that a player must specify any characters in reserve join a unit. How could a player specify this if it is not possible? (IE a character only joins upon deployment.)

jmurph wrote:The rule says "Alternatively an independent character may begin the game already with a unit, by deploying in coherency with them."

Where that falls apart with Shrike is that Infiltrators are deployed last.

Since the unit doesn't have the ability to Infiltrate until Shrike actually joins them, they would have to be deployed with the rest of the army.

Shrike, as an Infiltrator, is deployed last. At that point, he can be deployed into a unit, and is thus joined to them... but by that point, it's too late for them to infiltrate.

How could a player specify this if it is not possible? (IE a character only joins upon deployment.)

Indeed. It's for exactly that reason that most players assume that you are supposed to be able to join characters to units in Reserve, and to hold a unit back to be deployed with Shrike, even though the rules don't explicitly allow it. The fact that they talk about things that wouldn't be possible if you couldn't do so is enough for most people.

#3

Its fairly clear that GW intended shrike to allow 1 unit in your army to infiltrate with shrike. GW is not infallible and RAW is often at odds with the "spirit of the rules"

GW are not experienced rule writers and don't lay much energy in careful wording or consistency when writing rules. So if RAW is weird then it propably isn't what the author intended.

This is clearly such a case and option 3 is clearly the intended (and IMO therefore the correct) way to play.

Red_Lives wrote:#3

Its fairly clear that GW intended shrike to allow 1 unit in your army to infiltrate with shrike. GW is not infallible and RAW is often at odds with the "spirit of the rules"

Agreeded. Infiltrating termies is a bit rubbish though and probably wasnt what was intended.

It makes less sense that shrike is either ment to infiltrate/outflank himself or with some scouts compared to doing the same with a squad of assault marines (or by that logic, any sqaud).

Sorry but Rules > Made up rubbish. Until an errata is released people should play it as per the rules, or house rule it within their club (and not try to get pissed off when they play at another club that follows the rules).

Gwar! = TFG in yet another thread...

Alpharius wrote:Gwar! = TFG in yet another thread...

I don't understand this. How am I TFG for wanting to Play Warhammer 40,000 and not some bastardised version of it and house rules?

Gwar! wrote:Sorry but Rules > Made up rubbish. Until an errata is released people should play it as per the rules, or house rule it within their club (and not try to get pissed off when they play at another club that follows the rules).

Good, then we may play it not your way.

Alpharius wrote:Gwar! = TFG in yet another thread...

Sadly not so wrong.

Alpharius wrote:Gwar! = TFG in yet another thread...

Keep it polite, Alpharius. I know you disagree, but there are more polite ways to go about this.

If he really is being obnoxious, hit the Mod Alert if you feel like it. But don't let other posters get your goat (I know, easier said than done, and I've been guilty of it too).

Gwar! wrote:Sorry but Rules > Made up rubbish. Until an errata is released people should play it as per the rules, or house rule it within their club (and not try to get pissed off when they play at another club that follows the rules).

I agree, the rules are the rules. IF someone wants to play to a house rule with constenting partners then thats up to them, but that doesn't change the answer to this question.

Hymirl wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Sorry but Rules > Made up rubbish. Until an errata is released people should play it as per the rules, or house rule it within their club (and not try to get pissed off when they play at another club that follows the rules).

I agree, the rules are the rules. IF someone wants to play to a house rule with constenting partners then thats up to them, but that doesn't change the answer to this question.

Indeed. RaW its as clear as day. The poll should be Renamed "Should Shrike & additional squad infiltrate on Deployment?" and moved to Proposed rules, but thats just me ofc.

I'm just amused that 7 people so far have voted for option 4, despite it not actually being true...

insaniak wrote:I'm just amused that 7 people so far have voted for option 4, despite it not actually being true...

If Nurglich did it intentionally as as test to see how many people pay any attention at all when voting in these polls then hes a genius. Or he just made a very convincing mistake...

Hymirl wrote:

insaniak wrote:I'm just amused that 7 people so far have voted for option 4, despite it not actually being true...

If Nurglich did it intentionally as as test to see how many people pay any attention at all when voting in these polls then hes a genius. Or he just made a very convincing mistake...

I think the answer to that is either 42, or Emperor Knows.

From the INAT FAQ

SM.92.02 – Q: Can Shrike join a unit before the game
and use his ‘Seen, But Remain Unseen’ ability to allow
them all to infiltrate?
A: Yes, Shrike may nominate a unit he is going to join and
together they may infiltrate [clarification].

So that's how we'll be doing it at Adepticon. Personally, I agree with #3 above. The rules wording is a little weird but it's clear how GW intended for the rule to be applied. If they only intended for the unit to outflank then they would have written it that way.

-Me Whacks head against wall-

Adepticon =/= GW. As a tournament they can play it however they want. If you want to actually play by the rules, then they cannot

Also the utterly incorrect 4th option has 8 votes now >.>

Brian P never said that Adepticon = GW. He just mentioned for the discussion that its going to be played that way. A lot of people like to know how things are being played at the largest 40k tourney in the States, and arguably the world. The UKGT also ruled this way.

While neither = GW official, you have 2 major tourney circuts ruling one way on said issue. Sometimes, its ok to let go a little bit and go with what the major circuts are doing, when GW itself is rather lacking in its FAQ process.

I know a lot of people want to stick to their guns on an issue when they feel its right. Unfortunatly, you have a majority against the RAW and going with the RAI. When its not game breaking and clear to so many.. it is ok to go with the RAI of an issue.

What would be the point of the rule if the unit he joins can't infiltrate?

If they wanted to allow him & a unit to Outflank then Shrike's rule would say "Outflank"

-= The Most Pointless Rules Argument Ever =-

I have (thankfully) never met a 'real' person that thinks it should be interpreted like that.

Boss Longgrim wrote:What would be the point of the rule if the unit he joins can't infiltrate?

If they wanted to allow him & a unit to Outflank then Shrike's rule would say "Outflank"

-= The Most Pointless Rules Argument Ever =-

I have (thankfully) never met a 'real' person that thinks it should be interpreted like that.

Exactly.

That's why I think some on this thread on 'leaning' toward TFG status.

Gwar! wrote:
Adepticon =/= GW. As a tournament they can play it however they want. If you want to actually play by the rules, then they cannot

Yeah! What do the organizers of one of the biggest independent 40k tournaments in the U.S. know about 40k? ...Jerks.

...and John Spencer just packs boxes...

Pfffft... the nerve of these people! Trying to tell us how to play the game that their company designed and released.

Boss Longgrim wrote:What would be the point of the rule if the unit he joins can't infiltrate?

If they wanted to allow him & a unit to Outflank then Shrike's rule would say "Outflank"

-= The Most Pointless Rules Argument Ever =-

I have (thankfully) never met a 'real' person that thinks it should be interpreted like that.

Now, lets stop and consider for a moment that:
a) You didnt write the rules, so you have no right to say what the intent was
b) have you considered that maybe the intent was that Shrike could either Infiltrate Alone, or Confre the Infiltrate Rule to a Unit in reserve, thereby allowing them to outflank? This seems the most logical "intent" since that's what the rules actually let him do.

Alpharius wrote:Exactly.

That's why I think some on this thread on 'leaning' toward TFG status.

Good Sir, if you are going to make an attack on my Character, I would prefer it if you outright named me rather than hiding behind some semblance of anonymity.

DebonaireToast wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
Adepticon =/= GW. As a tournament they can play it however they want. If you want to actually play by the rules, then they cannot

Yeah! What do the organizers of one of the biggest independent 40k tournaments in the U.S. know about 40k? ...Jerks.

...and John Spencer just packs boxes...

Pfffft... the nerve of these people! Trying to tell us how to play the game that their company designed and released.

Yes, how dare people who didn't write the rules tell us what the intent is!

As said before Adepticon has as much bearing on this as your local club or a Snail (i.e. None).

John Spencer is by the very definition of his job, a Box packer. People have risen him to the level of "He Declares what RaI is!" when he should be answering people as to what the actual rules are. Last I checked, he is supposed to answer rules questions, not make up house rules that everyone must then follow.

Until the heads at Games Workshop Rules development get off their asses and release an official errata (not FAQ, as said before even GW admit they are worthless) then people should, In my humble opinion, stick to playing by the rules rather than spew off "THIS IS HOW YOU MUST PLAY IT THE ALMIGHTY JOHN/YAKFACE SAYS SO HURRR!" on the internet.

Alpharius wrote:Exactly.

That's why I think some on this thread on 'leaning' toward TFG status.

Gwar! wrote:Good Sir, if you are going to make an attack on my Character, I would prefer it if you outright named me rather than hiding behind some semblance of anonymity.

I already did that, and was warned against further statements.

So, here I implied nothing. If you inferred something, well, maybe that says something about you?

Alpharius wrote:

Alpharius wrote:Exactly.

That's why I think some on this thread on 'leaning' toward TFG status.

Gwar! wrote:Good Sir, if you are going to make an attack on my Character, I would prefer it if you outright named me rather than hiding behind some semblance of anonymity.

I already did that, and was warned against further statements.

So, here I implied nothing. If you inferred something, well, maybe that says something about you?

Pointless post for a pointless quote.

Marius Xerxes wrote:I know a lot of people want to stick to their guns on an issue when they feel its right. Unfortunatly, you have a majority against the RAW and going with the RAI. When its not game breaking and clear to so many.. it is ok to go with the RAI of an issue.

A couple of dozen people on an internet forum does not a majority of the world's gamers make. And thats if we generously assume that those couple of dozen make informed choices, considering that now 10 people have voted for an option that references a rule that doesn't actually exist - we can safely assume that isn't even the case.

And besides, no matter how popular a house rule is it still remains a house rule. IF at some point GW release an FAQ or errata changing it so that he does infiltrate a unit I'll be among the happest at a badly written rule being improved but that doesn't change what it currently is.

Again, if people want to play to a house rule like the adepticon does then great, do it. I probably would too, but I don't try to pretend that I'm playing it the way the rule actually works and neither would I get upset about that. I really don't understand the hostility here...