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.

Actually you are the one that doesn't understand.

Where in the Divination rule does it say that you can violate the deployment rules?

You give the following answer.

'The rule lets me place my unit anywhere in the deployment zone, so I can supercede all the deployment rules.'

There is nothing in the rule that specifically lets you violate the deployment rules, you assume it lets supercede the deployment rules because it say the only restriction is that the unit may not be moved "outside it's deployment zone."

If your interpetation is correct, you can reposition a unit in impassible terrian as long as it is not "outside it's deployment zone."

If your interpetation is correct, you can reposition a unit in base to base with an opposing units as long as it not "outside it's deployment zone."

You are using the not "outside it's deployment zone" statement to say that all deployment rules have been superceded.

Rules are superceded when old rules are made obsolute and replaced with newer versions. Sometimes in a codex this is done on a specific basis.  An example of this would the Trukk Boyz "Bailin' out" rule. This is not the case with Divination rule. It is merely an addition to the deployment rules, no rules can be violated and nothing is superceded.

...except for the part where it says you can "reposition" units in your deployment zone.

That is the point, Tau-Cent. The use of the word "reposition" is a specific rule that means that it is not deployment, and so is not subject to any of the deployment restrictions.

And, again, the fact that it creates a lot of conflicts and wonky situations does not change the fact that it's the most accurate literal reading of the rule.

I agree with Tau-cent and Samwise to an extent.  But one question was raised in my mind (well, there's lots, but one pertinent to this discussion):

Forces deploy, infilitrators placed*, eldrad's repositioning (*= unless the repositioning takes place before infilitrators which I'm not sure is the case).

Since Cleanse does not allow you to be within 18"(?) of an enemy unit, if a sm player has infilitrated out of LOS and within 12" of you, does that mean that the eldar's deployment zone is now further restricted?  Gah, I need a picture.  Or do you ignore the infilitrating unit based on the scenario rule of "no unit within 18" " as long as you remain out of LOS and 12" of the infilitrators?  If not and you're playing Cleanse and left a spot open in your back corner that was behind a level3 hill, the sm could infilitrate there and force an extra 18" space effectively moving your eldar force into a very small space if you repositioned any of them.

If you are going to squish the eldar's effective deployment zone by the use of infilitrators, it seems to make more sense to me to reposition the eldar before placing infilitrators.   If eldrad had divined that the enemy was going to put infilitrators at spot X, he could deploy a unit at spot X to keep them from being there.

Infiltrators "deploy."

The 12" and 18" is a restriction of the Infiltrate rule. Divination is not subject to that restriction.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 01/18/2007 5:25 AM
Infiltrators "deploy."

The 12" and 18" is a restriction of the Infiltrate rule. Divination is not subject to that restriction.

But it seems to me that repositioning is subject to the scenario rules as Samwise pointed out.  If that is the case, then in Cleanse you cannot be within 18" of an enemy unit when deploying.  So when repositioning do you just ignore the infilitrators or treat them as enemy units that you cannot be within 18" of?  They have the infilitration limitations, but they are still "enemy units" for purposes of your "redeployment."

You cannot "deploy" within 18" during the deployment phase.

Repositioning is not deployment.

So then you can reposistion to be just outside of 1" of infilitrators?

If so, does this force the infilitrators to be reposistioned as they are no longer obeying the infilitration rules?

Nope, because repositioning occurs after both players have deployed (according to the Divination rules). Infiltration is part of deployment, so its rules and restrictions are done and over with by the time you get to Divination.

Flavius

If the restrictions of the scenario deployment rules do not apply because Divination occurs after the end of the deployment phase, then do any other rules apply to repositioning?

Can one place figure BtB with an opposing unit?

Can you say with certainty that scenario restrictions on deployment only apply to deployments during the deployment phase and not to similar actions that may occur at the end of the deployment phase?

 

Flavius, please reference a page number that says reposition does not follow deployment rules.

Oh wait…you can't. Because it's not in the rulebook. And instead of using it in a way that meshes with all current rules, you want to make up your own definition. How about this. Maybe they don't use the term redeploy because it happens outside of the deployment phase, and you can't deploy outside of the deployment phase unless that specific unit has a special rule i.e. deep strike. So by "reposition" they mean "deployment outside of the deployment phase".

The fact is, without a clear understanding of what GW means by "reposition" you can't just use it to break other rules. Could it mean what you say? Sure…but there are plenty of other workable definitions of the word that are just as likely that DON'T break game mechanics.

Nope.



According to the RAW, yes.



Yep, I can say it with 100% certainty based on a literal reading of the rules. Any other conclusion requires some kind of assumption or unsound argument.

Sounds like to me that reposition is meant to shift around your deployment, which leads to some potentially broken game rules reguarding where you can and can not deploy mostly in relation to other units. I would tend to think that in fluff... eldrad isn't really moving units around, but in fact already moved them to the repositioned places before the battle even started before enemy deployment, before any enemy infiltrated in, but clearly it happens after the infilitrators and scuttling because from a game mechinics point of view thats the only way the eldrad player would benefit from repositioning. By doing this its reasonable to assume that you can move the models anywhere you want as if the enemy didn't exist, but within the normal guidelines of the rest of the rules (i.e. impassible terrain) as far as base to base. Thats a hard one, the eldar rule says anywhere in your deployment zone.... thats pretty powerful. If the opponent is foolish enough to chance having his infiltrating unit in your deployment zone ... they risk b2b contact. Its preventable by your opponent so therefore its not "broken" and thus its fine to do. If a FAQ comes out it'll no doubt say 1" away because GW doesn't beleive that people who play their game could be intelligent, so they'll come out with a ruling with stupid reasoning. I personally like escalation with tau pathfinders and their devilfish comes into play seperately.. thats so stupid I can't even see straight. I think reading diviination literally is quite fine as is.

Yep, I can say it with 100% certainty based on a literal reading of the rules. Any other conclusion requires some kind of assumption or unsound argument.

No, based on 1 definition of a term that is not defined by GW.  Ok, using your logic, positioning has a different defenition then deployment, but no amount of logic can tell us WHAT the difference is.  Language is inconsistant at best. 

Example...if someone had called you 'gay' 20 years ago, you would likely have responded with something like "thank you".  Today your more likely to respond with a fist in thier nose...or at least if you still said 'thank you' you're doing it for different reasons...but you get my point.

Yeah, but it is defined in the dictionary, and using the dictionary definition, the meaning is clear.

We have to use a dictionary where terms aren't defined in the rules. Unless we agree (assume) that words have a determinable meaning and that the meanings of those words can be determined using a source such as a dictionary, it is impossible to say anything for sure about any rule.

Ok. Here some D.I.G. certified opinionated or your money back thoughts.

Divination allows the 'repositioning' of 1d3+1 Eldar units after deployment.

Divination would not be superceding anything about deployment since it does not happen during the deployment phase. Therefore all arguments regarding the rules for deployment are moot. Divination allows you to move your models somewhere else in your deployment zone.

Now look PAST the deployment rules for a minute and go into the "no model may be within 1" of another model" ruling. The one NOT in the deployment rules, the one in the rules after that.

That's where the Divination would need to be referred. Regardless of deployment or otherwise no model may occupy the same space and no model may be within 1" unless in combat.

So. Divination happens after deployment. Therefore all actual deployment rules are ignored entirely, not superceded.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 01/18/2007 11:06 AM

No, based on 1 definition of a term that is not defined by GW.

Yeah, but it is defined in the dictionary, and using the dictionary definition, the meaning is clear.

We have to use a dictionary where terms aren't defined in the rules. Unless we agree (assume) that words have a determinable meaning and that the meanings of those words can be determined using a source such as a dictionary, it is impossible to say anything for sure about any rule.

There is nothing inherent in the dictionary definition that tells us that it ignores depolyment, or any other rules.  In fact, when I looked up the definition of "reposition" one of them is "to put back in it's original position"  So...I think I will have my opponent use that definition...it's a valid definition from an unabriged dictionary...

Posted By Sinjin on 01/18/2007 12:12 PM

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 01/18/2007 11:06 AM

No, based on 1 definition of a term that is not defined by GW.

Yeah, but it is defined in the dictionary, and using the dictionary definition, the meaning is clear.

We have to use a dictionary where terms aren't defined in the rules. Unless we agree (assume) that words have a determinable meaning and that the meanings of those words can be determined using a source such as a dictionary, it is impossible to say anything for sure about any rule.

There is nothing inherent in the dictionary definition that tells us that it ignores depolyment, or any other rules.  In fact, when I looked up the definition of "reposition" one of them is "to put back in it's original position"  So...I think I will have my opponent use that definition...it's a valid definition from an unabriged dictionary...

and you need to read the post directly above you D.I.G spelled i out as plain as day and you need to stop this senseless prattle and give it a rest for the love of god

 

it isnt that hard

 

your making it worse by trying to find flaws in everything gw does if you dont like it dont play the game.. they sure as hell arent perfect but name one game that is beside maybe tic tac toe

I hate to get sucked back into this, but I just can't let it drop.

Deploy: To position (troops) in readiness for combat, as along a front or line.
American Heritage Dictionary

Deploy: • verb 1 bring or move into position for military action
Oxford English Dictionary

Of all the definitions, these seem like the most appropriate to the situation we are discussing.  I found this passage concerning the writing of Warwick Tie, a New Zealand Legal Scholar and I believe it sums up our argument nicely.

"Tie identifies the key tension as one between closure and critique. Closure -- with judicial pronouncements that provide resolutions - is a product of legal orthodoxy, while critique of that closure is a hallmark of new approaches that "appreciate the historically contingent and provisional nature of all legally-erected horizons" (p. 2). It is, he writes later, a tension "between the conservation of meaning (through the exercise of legal judgement) and the transformation of the processes through which meaning is constructed" Either extreme carries risks. At one end is the danger of a totalizing discourse that silences any alternative ideas; at the other is the danger of interminable fragmentation. For Tie, managing the tension between
closure and critique is essential, since it cannot be safely ignored or satisfactorily resolved."

Flavius,

   I appreciate your comment about the conservation of meaning in regards to the "scout" rule for example, but your repeated insistence that deploying and positioning are different acts is a judgement, namely your judgement.  By definition deploying is the act of positioning troops, which is why I see no difference between re-deploying and repositioning, and no reason for the exemptions that you claim.  The reason that I included the above quote is that in this case the only official resolution will come in an F.A.Q.  My contention is that the two actions are the same, placing the models on the table.  Yours seems to be that if they were the same, they would only use one word for both situations.  We have constructed the meaning for this statement differently.  Your argument relys on the conservation of meaning assumption, which I don't see applying to this situation.   It assumes intent because they didn't use the same word, even though the two words are synonyms and can be used interchangeably without affecting the meaning.

   What I object to is your insistance that your take on the meaning is the only correct one.  Your argument is based on assumptions, especially the one that you are in a position to make that judgement with "100% certainty."  This is a grey area, you see the black in there, and I see the white.  There is no more reason for me to accept your judgement than for you to accept mine.  Until there is some sort of official ruling on this matter, I think would be an issue that needs to be diced off on.  I know that if I were in a game situation like this with you, I would suggest the dice off, so that we could get beyond the impasse and start playing the game.

Samwise.

No to beat this really dead and bloodied horse but,

your definitions are sound and do in fact make sense. However, they are real world definitions attempting to be applied to game logic. It just cannot be done. To me it is clearly spelled out in the rules for Divination. The repositioning happens after deployment. Therefore it is NOT deployment.

If we all could let go of the deployment aspect of this argument all together then I feel that a consensus can be reached. I say this with confidence since, by GW's newest rulings you take the literal RAW. The literal RAW in this case is that the effects of Divination happen AFTER deployment, therefore no matter how many different defintions you find in the dictionary for repositioning and deployment the RULE (the only thing that should be taken into effect) states that it happens AFTER deployment.

P1--Deployment during the game has clear and concise rules as to how, when and where you deploy your units.
P2--(paraphrased) Divination allows the repositioning of 1d3+1 Eldar units AFTER deployment.

C1--The deployment rules do not apply to the Divination's repositioning of the Eldar units.

Now that's the basis. I do not have my rulebook in front of me at the moment so if anyone would like to correct and clarify those specific entries for me then go ahead.

Lastly, as to the "can you position your models on top of the enemy? Within 1"? On impassable terrain?" the answer is NO. The deployment rules are not the only place that state that you can or cannot do such acts.

Impassable terrain is just that, impassable. You cannot be within 1" of an enemy model without being in combat. You cannot occupy the same space as another model friendly or enemy.

Just because the Divination repositioning happens after deployment and ignores those rules doesn't mean the other rulings on this are also ignored.

Again, I do not have the rulebook in front of me if anyone would like to edit and/or clarify then by all means do so.

Posted By The Drop Zone on 01/18/2007 8:31 PM

and you need to read the post directly above you D.I.G spelled i out as plain as day and you need to stop this senseless prattle and give it a rest for the love of god

it isnt that hard

your making it worse by trying to find flaws in everything gw does if you dont like it dont play the game.. they sure as hell arent perfect but name one game that is beside maybe tic tac toe

If you wish to turn this into a personal attack, I am more than willing to oblige.

I have no problems with GW and I like their game.  I don’t like playing against cheese monkey players that cheat to win against 12 year olds.

Now back to the topic.

D.I.G is incorrect.  He's says because the reposition happens at the end of the deployment phase, scenario deployment restrictions do not apply.  There is nothing in the rules to explicitly support this argument.

If that is how rules are going to be applied, then since reposition doesn't happen in any defined phase of the game, none of the rules for other phases apply.  Including the rules pertain to being with 1" of an enemy etc etc.

Reposition is an addition to the deployment rules, you can not violate any of the deployment criteria when you redeploy.

 

I concur completely with what DIG said about deployment being separate and reaching consensus if we can all just get to that point.

Sam:


I'm using exactly three assumptions, the three assumptions without which deductive reading of the rules is not possible:
(1) the meanings of words can be determined, either from definitions in the rules themselves, or from an outside source such as a dictionary. Meaning of specialized terms is conserved within and across documents in the ruleset. (The conservation of meaning assumption)
(2) Things not specifically allowed by a rule (or logically derived from rules) are not valid rules. (The closed world assumption)
(3) Documents and rules in the ruleset are organized in a heirarchy with specific rules overriding general rules in a consistent way (The heirarcy of documents assumption).

Beyond these three, I don 't use any assumptions. I would rather not use these if I could, but without these assumptions no consistent application of any rule is possible.



This would be a grey area if it weren't for deductive logic.

The problem is that, in order for someone to agree with your conclusion, Sam, that person would have to agree with your assumption that deployment = positioning. This conclusion is not supported by a literal reading of the rules.

In order to agree with my conclusion, all you have to do is apply deductive logic to the rules as written. Since these rules are consistent and known to produce sound conclusions--that can be known to be 100% true--nobody has to agree with me about anything (other than the three basic assumptions about the rules). Any person comes to the same 100% certain conclusion by using logic without any need for agreement.

That is why there is more reason to accept my conclusion (not judgement) than yours, Sam. My conclusion is derived in a sound deductive argument from the rules as written, while yours is based on an assumption not supported by the rules.

Please provide the spot in the rules where it states that it even happens in the deployment phase?

It seems that you are assuming that since it says after deployment it must mean in the deployment phase.

 

EDIT: I want to provide the rule again.

Divination P. 51 eldar Codex  "After both sides have deployed at the start of the game, the eldar player may reposition D3+1 units in his army.  No unit may be moved out of its deployment zone."

This does NOT happen in the Deployment phase. It happens sometime afterwards before the start of the game.

Since there are no rules denoting this new 'phase' then you must use the rules as written within the Divination explanation. Which are, put your eldar units anywhere within your deployment zone.

How is that an incorrect statement? Please show me where it states that this happens IN the deployment phase, ie. something in the rules other than your assumption.

 

Maybe you could provide a reference that says scenerio deployment restriction are limited only to the deployment phase?

Posted By Tau-Cent on 01/19/2007 9:40 AM
Maybe you could provide a reference that says scenerio deployment restriction are limited only to the deployment phase?

Why would that be needed? And why would that even remotely be in question?

I guess maybe I am confused. When deploying you do so in the deployment phase? When do you not deploy in the deployment phase?

Posted By DaIronGob on 01/19/2007 9:45 AM

Why would that be needed? And why would that even remotely be in question?

I guess maybe I am confused. When deploying you do so in the deployment phase? When do you not deploy in the deployment phase?

 

In the case of the Divination rule.  Perhaps even in the case of the Deceivers and Calidus Assassins repositioning rules.  I would have check the exact wording on those rules.

There is nothing to say that scenerio deployment restrictions are limited to the deployment phase.  It just happens to be that in a typical game there are no deployments in any other phases, including the indefined period at the end the deployment phase before the start of the game.

 

 

Posted By DaIronGob on 01/19/2007 9:45 AM

Why would that be needed? And why would that even remotely be in question?

I guess maybe I am confused. When deploying you do so in the deployment phase? When do you not deploy in the deployment phase?

 

In the case of the Divination rule.  Perhaps even in the case of the Deceivers and Calidus Assassins repositioning rules.  I would have check the exact wording on those rules.

There is nothing to say that scenerio deployment restrictions are limited to the deployment phase.  It just happens to be that in a typical game there are no deployments in any other phases, including the indefined period at the end the deployment phase before the start of the game.

 

 

DIG is right again. This is covered by the closed world assumption.

The rules don't say anything about deployment restrictions applying to any other actions that take place during the game outside of deployment. Therefore, the restrictions don't apply to anything except deployment.

This is an example of the fallacy called " argument from ignorance." You can only draw conclusions from the *presence* of evidence, not the absence of evidence. The absence of a rule doesn't lead to any valid conclusion.

This is the logical equivalent of saying "the rules don't restrict my grots from having plasma cannons, therefore they can have plasma cannons."

Well tau-cent is coming up with well formed arguments, I may be confused as to the intent of those arguments but those questions are well posed.

However, we are dealing with a stricter RAW now that GW has embraced it and stated several times to do what the rules say rather than what they don't.

Flavius

In your quest for retorical purity you are missing the point.

1) There are scenerio deployment restrictions.
2) The rulebook does not state during which phase of the game those restrictions apply.
3) All it implies is that they apply upon the act of deployment.
4) That the act of deployment typically only occurs during the deployment phase is irrelevant. (For example DH can shoot in enemies movement phase, it is still shooting, the phase is irrelevant. You can even shoot during deployment phase if you have auspexes.  It is still shooting, even if it is not occuring during the shooting phase.)
5) If reposition is a type a form of deployment, even if it occurs outside the deployment phase, those limits would have to apply.

The only item that remains in contention is #5. Is Divination/repositioning etc a type of deployment action?   Many of us seem to think so.