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.

there IS a rule that says all units of type A must deploy

Please quote this rule for me; I can't find it.

That's not proof that you can choose to not deploy them... it's merely proof that IF you don't deploy them, they are in Reserve...

Right, the phrasing of the Escalation rule "infantry may deploy" is not definitive enough to prove for sure whether or not you can choose to deploy basic infantry. That's what I've been saying all along. The argument that units not deployed to into reserve is meant to show that it doesn't create a contradiction in the rules if they choose not to deploy. I was taking the "may choose" position in order to show that it is a consistent, possible interpretation of the Escalation rules (not the correct one).

It would be more accurate to say that the rules "infantry may deploy" and "units not deployed are in reserve" have two possible outcomes:
1. Units can choose not to deploy and can go into reserve instead.
2. All basic infantry units must deploy.

Both outcomes are consistent with the rules as stated. An argument for either conclusion has to assume some kind of unstated condition, and so is unsound. The rule is ambiguous and needs to be clarified in an FAQ.

That's my argument.

BGB pg 81: in the set up box, bullet 2, BGB pg. 82: in both set up boxes bullets 3, and 2 respectively, BGB pg 83..... etc.

 

I can see already that you are going to refute that these bullets mean a player MUST deploy units. If you take that refutation to be true, then nobody EVER HAS to deploy anything and the game become unplayable, and the resrves rule becomes meaningless.

 

The reality is that you aren't allowed to deploy contrary to the set up rules unless a mission rule states otherwise (reserves, escalation).

 

If escalation said Infantry units without a transport MUST be deployed at the start of the game then those unit type that DO have the reserves rule wouldn't be able to use it, and we'd be having this debate about that.

Both outcomes are consistent with the rules as stated. An argument for either conclusion has to assume some kind of unstated condition, and so is unsound. The rule is ambiguous and needs to be clarified in an FAQ.

Unless the 'assumed' condition is that, at the start of the game, all units must deploy. Without a rulebook with me, I can't check and see if that's the case, but it could be, ie. the rules say that under normal circumstances, you must deploy all units at the start of the game.

In that case, an argument might look like:

P1. All units must deploy at the start of a game.
P2. Under Escalation Rules, only basic infantry units may deploy at the start of a game.
P3. Units not deployed are in Reserve.

Conclusion: Only basic infantry units deploy at the start of a game under Escalation rules; other units are in Reserve.

Again, I don't know if P1 is true by the rules without my book, but I'm sure someone can check it. It may well follow as a closed world assumption from the Reserve rules, ie. unless the Reserve rules permit it, it can be assumed that you must deploy all units at the start of the game. Otherwise, the rule is indeed ambiguous.

But there's nothing saying that undeployed infantry units go into Reserves; you can choose not to deploy any of your "start on table" assets and simply leave them on deck all game.

Relic's formulation is clearest and can be used to show that, since the Premise 1 that Relic states does not exist to my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong), if you assume it is true, you get one outcome from the Escalation rules. If you do not assume it is true, then you get the other outcome from the Escalation rules. Without this rule, there is no way to get a sound conclusion.

LordHat's bullet points don't cover the situation as a general rule--the Reserve rules (which, we are told, are always used in conjunction with the Escalation rules) state quite clearly that a unit in reserve doesn't deploy. So, once again, if you assume that they can choose then they don't have to deploy. If you assume that they must deploy then they must deploy.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 02/23/2006 4:13 PM


LordHat's bullet points don't cover the situation as a general rule

 

 

This is correct; They are specific rules: specific to the scenario. Reserves and Escalation are exceptions to these rules, and as such exceptions they clearly define how and to whom these exceptions are applied.

 

The fact is there is no "deployment rule". Deployment is unique to each scenario, and therefor you can't deviate from the deployment procedure listed in each scenario, except when prompted to by the scenario exceptions and the rules they provide.

 

When the Scenario says to take turns deploying units in this order, until all units are deployed, that is what you do. If the scenario has Escalation as a rule, then effectively all units except infantry without a transport gain "compulsory reserves". Since escalation does not go on to state, or even imply, that infantry without a transport gain the "voluntary reserves" rule, then you have to default back to the set up rules for their deployment.

 

Again, the usage of the word "may" instead of "must", is to make sure that an infantry unit without transports can take advantage of any reserves rule it may already have.

Relic's formulation is clearest and can be used to show that, since the Premise 1 that Relic states does not exist to my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong), if you assume it is true, you get one outcome from the Escalation rules. If you do not assume it is true, then you get the other outcome from the Escalation rules. Without this rule, there is no way to get a sound conclusion.

I think I have it. As I said in my last post, the argument can essentially be boiled down to assuming P1 from my last argument: 'All units must be deployed at the start of the game.' If you assume that this is true, then Escalation does not allow you to choose to not deploy basic infantry, because of the following argument.

P1. All units must deploy at the start of a game.
P2. Under Escalation Rules, only basic infantry units may deploy at the start of a game.
P3. Units not deployed are in Reserve.

Conclusion: Only basic infantry units deploy at the start of a game under Escalation rules; other units are in Reserve.

On the other hand, if you do not assume that all units must be deployed at the start of the game, then the above argument does not apply, and the use of the word 'may' in the Escalation rules suggests that you can choose to deploy or not deploy. As Flavius has said, it is ambiguous if you do not assume that all units must deploy at the start of the game.

I can't find a rule that states that all units must be deployed at the start of the game. However, I do find that in the description of all five basic missions, it says 'players take turns deploying one unit at a time, until their army is fully deployed', or 'players take turns deploying one unit at a time, until all available models are on the tabletop'. To me, that says it pretty clearly - the rules for all missions require you to deploy all units. Reserves, Deep Strike, and Escalation provide exceptions to this rule.

Good argument Relic, extended from LordHat's use of the Set Up rules for how to deploy.

But what is an "available" model? The reserve rules tell us that units in reserve are not deployed but "become available" later on in the game. Therefore (and I can show this more explicitly on request) a unit in reserve is not "available" for deployment.

So the Set Up rules don't say that all units must be deployed, they say that all "available" units must be deployed. In other words, all units that are not in reserve must be deployed.  Which leads us back around again to the same problem: if you assume that units can choose in Escalation, then they are not available, and don't have to be deployed under the set-up rules.

And, again the disclaimer, I'm not saying this conclusion is correct. I'm saying that the rules don't prohibit this reading (and aren't definite enough on any other reading) so it is impossible to determine which conclusion is correct.

I'm done arguing.... only people looking to tweak an advantage out of this rule can argue that the word "may" gives a unit the reserve rule if they don't already have it.

BASIC PREMISE OF SET UP:

If the unit does not have the reserve rule in any of it's forms, it is deployed at set up.Apply exceptions here. Until the word "may" has a defintion in the game meaning "Has reserves", infantry units without transports deploy normally.

 

So the Set Up rules don't say that all units must be deployed, they say that all "available" units must be deployed. In other words, all units that are not in reserve must be deployed. Which leads us back around again to the same problem: if you assume that units can choose in Escalation, then they are not available, and don't have to be deployed under the set-up rules.

That would be true, but for the fact that the only rationale there can be for assuming I can choose is that I believe units are not automatically 'available' for deployment at the start of the game. Therefore, I can only choose to make them 'unavailable' (ie. in Reserve) if I assume that they are not automatically 'available'.

The rules, however, don't give me that option. They say 'deploy all available models'. The only time a model is 'unavailable' is if it is in Reserve. But the rules for Escalation only say that models not deployed are in Reserve, ie. unavailable for deployment. This is circular - in essence, it says that models that are not deployed are unavailable for deployment. Therefore, I must assume that all models at the start of an Escalation game are 'available', because the rules only say that models that are not deployed are in Reserve and unavailable. The Escalation rules go on to say that I can only deploy basic infantry - this then makes all other kinds of units unavailable for deployment, and the Reserves rule tells me what happens to them. It doesn't, however, invalidate the availability status of other units.

Put in argument form, it looks like:

P1. All units are either available for deployment or unavailable for deployment at the start of the game.
P2. The rules only say that units in Reserve are unavailable for deployment.
P3. The Escalation rules say that units not deployed are in Reserve.

Conclusion: Under the Escalation rules, only units that are not deployed are unavailable for deployment.

This is a trite argument, but it then leads into:

P1. Under the Escalation rules, only units that are not deployed are unavailable for deployment.
P2. Under the Escalation rules, all units that are not basic infantry are not deployed.

Conclusion: Under the Escalation rules, units that are basic infantry are available for deployment.

And since the rules tell you you must deploy all available models, that's what you must do.

The second argument is not trite at all, IMO. It is the gist of the disagreement.

But the conclusion of the second argument as stated doesn't follow logically from the premises. The conclusion of the second argument--based on the premises here--should read "All units that are not basic infantry are unavailable for deployment."

(Take another look, cancel the terms "are not deployed" and that's what's left.)

We already knew that from the Escalation rules: it's the contrapositive of the statement "only basic infantry may be deployed."

Forgot to add a third premise, which would then read:

P1. Under the Escalation rules, only units that are not deployed are unavailable for deployment.
P2. Under the Escalation rules, all units that are not basic infantry are not deployed.
P3. All units are either available for deployment or unavailable for deployment at the start of the game.

Conclusion: Under the Escalation rules, all units that are not basic infantry are unavailable for deployment; all units that are basic infantry are available for deployment.

Posted By Relic_OMO on 02/23/2006 7:20 PM
Forgot to add a third premise, which would then read:

P1. Under the Escalation rules, only units that are not deployed are unavailable for deployment.
P2. Under the Escalation rules, all units that are not basic infantry are not deployed.
P3. All units are either available for deployment or unavailable for deployment at the start of the game.

Conclusion: Under the Escalation rules, all units that are not basic infantry are unavailable for deployment; all units that are basic infantry are available for deployment.

Your conclusion is still slightly flawed. You are assuming that since it does not specifically state that basic infantry are unavailable, then they must be available. Based on the three premises above, this is simply not true. Basic infantry might be available and they might be unavailable; the state of availability of basic infantry remains unknown.

Your conclusion is still slightly flawed. You are assuming that since it does not specifically state that basic infantry are unavailable, then they must be available. Based on the three premises above, this is simply not true. Basic infantry might be available and they might be unavailable; the state of availability of basic infantry remains unknown.

Well, actually, I am assuming that units are either available or unavailable for deployment. If there is a way that they can be neither available or unavailable, then by all means, show me how. I am also assuming that units are either basic infantry or not basic infantry. Again, this is a simple statement of A/not A - they must be one or the other.

The premises then state that only units that are not deployed are unavailable. This follows because of the first argument - the rules say that units that are not deployed are in Reserve, and the rules only say that units that are in Reserve are unavailable for deployment. Therefore, if only units that are in Reserve are unavailable for deployment, all other units must be available for deployment.

Essentially, this is a method of proving an assumption we all make - that you must deploy all units at the start of the game. This is not actually stated in the rules, but every mission does say that you must deploy all available models. A model must therefore be either available or unavailable for deployment. What models are unavailable for deployment? Only those that are in Reserve. (The rules do not state any other way that a model becomes unavailable for deployment.) Therefore, what models are available for deployment? Those that are not in Reserve. Under Escalation rules, what models are in Reserve? Those that are not deployed. This is a circular premise that basically states, 'only models that are not deployed are unavailable for deployment, and are therefore in Reserve'. The only way to make a model unavailable for deployment is for it to be in Reserve, and thus not deployed. All other models are considered to be available for deployment. Without any other rules or directions, the number of models that are therefore unavailable for deployment is zero. Only models that are in Reserve are unavailable for deployment, and in the absence of any other rules, there are no models in Reserve.

The Escalation rules also tell us, however, that only basic infantry may be deployed. This is the rule that tells us that models that are not basic infantry are not available for deployment, in the specific circumstance of an Escalation game. Therefore there are now models that are not deployed, and they go into Reserve, making them unavailable for deployment. Deep Striking is similar - the rule for Deep Strike gives us the option to put models in Reserve, thereby making them unavailable for deployment. Essentially, the rules only say that models in Reserve are unavailable for deployment - they give no other general way of making a model unavailable for deployment. And the only way of putting a model in Reserve is not to deploy it, meaning that in the absence of any way that tells you how not to deploy a model, no models are in Reserve. Deep Strike and Escalation give ways of making them unavailable, so in those circumstances we can or must do so. Otherwise, we must assume that all models are available for deployment, since there is no way of making them unavailable.

Posted By Relic_OMO on 02/23/2006 7:20 PM
P2. Under the Escalation rules, all units that are not basic infantry are not deployed.

Conclusion: Under the Escalation rules, all units that are not basic infantry are unavailable for deployment; all units that are basic infantry are available for deployment.

The problem with your premises is right here: "all units that are not basic infantry are not deployed" does not necessarily also mean "all units that are basic infantry are deployed". Basic infantry could be either deployed or not deployed, but your premises do not tell us which one applies to them. Your premises only tell us what happens to units that are not basic infantry. I'm not saying there are more than two different "states" of deployment or availability, I'm simply saying that, by your premises, which "state" applies is not defined.

The argument flows something like this: "all fruits that are not apples are not on the table" does not mean that "all fruits that are apples are on the table". The table could be completely empty, but we are not given enough information to say one way or the other.

 

EDIT: In order to complete your argument, you need a fourth premise that proves something like "All units not specifically stated as being unavailable for deployment are, by default, available for deployment". Without this fourth premise, we do not know the availability of units that are not specifically declared unavailable, they might be available or unavailable for some other reason.

The problem with your premises is right here: "all units that are not basic infantry are not deployed" does not necessarily also mean "all units that are basic infantry are deployed". Basic infantry could be either deployed or not deployed, but your premises do not tell us which one applies to them. Your premises only tell us what happens to units that are not basic infantry. I'm not saying there are more than two different "states" of deployment or availability, I'm simply saying that, by your premises, which "state" applies is not defined.

Read this argument then, which is what I have amended it to:

P1. Under the Escalation rules, only units that are not deployed are unavailable for deployment.
P2. Under the Escalation rules, all units that are not basic infantry are not deployed.
P3. All units are either available for deployment or unavailable for deployment at the start of the game.

Conclusion: Under the Escalation rules, only units that are not basic infantry are unavailable for deployment; all units that are basic infantry are available for deployment.

I'm not saying that there is an equivalence between 'all units that are not basic infantry are not deployed' and 'all units that are basic infantry are deployed'. I am saying that only models that are not deployed are unavailable for deployment. While that statement might seem obvious and stupid, it is important, because of the fact that only models that are not deployed are unavailable for deployment. This stems from the idea that the only way for a model to be unavailable for deployment in the rules is for it to be in Reserve. No other method is described. That means that unless a model is in Reserve, it is available for deployment. When is a model in Reserve? Under the basic rules, never. There is no way for a model to be in Reserve unless it is permitted or required to be so by another rule. Escalation and Deep Strike provide ways for models to be in Reserve, and hence, unavailable for deployment. In other words, in the absence of any other directions, the only way to create the condition of being unavailable for deployment is to not be deployed, and the only way to not deploy is to be unavailable for deployment. This is a circular argument that can only be made sense of when other directions are added, eg. under Escalation rules, units that are not basic infantry are not deployed.

Let me put it this way.

1. A model must be either available for deployment or unavailable for deployment.
2. A model is only unavailable for deployment if it is in Reserve. (Again, no other method of being unavailable for deployment is described.)
3. If a model is in Reserve, it is unavailable for deployment.
4. If a model is not in Reserve, it is available for deployment.

Sorry for the delay--needed a night of rest before being able to deal with triple premises.

There's still a logical error--the conclusion doesn't follow logically from the premises.

Let A= "non-transported, basic infantry" Let B= "available for deployment/deployed" (accepting with no problem that all available units must be deployed in all known scenarios)

Premise 1: "only units that are not deployed are unavailable for deployment" = "If not B, then not B"
Premise 2 "all units that are not basic infantry are not deployed" = "If not A then not B"
Premise 3 "All units are either available for deployment or unavailable for deployment at the start of the game" = "If A or not A then B or not B"

Putting it in propositional calculus kind of reveals how premises 1 and 3 aren't really saying anything. If you cancel out all the like terms to get to a conclusion you arrive at "If not A, then not B" which we already knew from the escalation rules.

The conclusion is actually two conclusions: "If not B, then not A" and "All A are B" neither of which which can be logically derived from the premises.

...or to put it in plain language without all the Bs and As... (next post)

"only units that are not deployed are unavailable for deployment"
plus
"all units that are not basic infantry are not deployed"
gives the conclusion
"all units that are not basic infantry are unavailable for deployment" (which is the contrapositive of premise 1)
that conclusion plus the premise
"All units are either available for deployment or unavailable for deployment at the start of the game"
gives the conclusion
"All basic infantry are either available for deployment or unavailable for deployment at the start of the game."

So even with the circular statements about availablity, you can't get to a conclusion about the availability status of basic infantry from the available premises. To get there you need a statement about all basic infantry--which isn't in the rules.

We could also take the shortcut that the classical logicians figured this out a long time ago--circular premises don't advance
an argument.

The conclusion is actually two conclusions: "If not B, then not A" and "All A are B" neither of which which can be logically derived from the premises.

Actually, when I was going back over this I noticed that this is actually one conclusion. They are contrapositives (logical equivalents) of each other.

So even with the circular statements about availablity, you can't get to a conclusion about the availability status of basic infantry from the available premises. To get there you need a statement about all basic infantry--which isn't in the rules.

Look at it without the Escalation rules then. All I am trying to do with these convolutions is prove the premise mentioned on page 2: All units must deploy at the start of the game. Once that is shown, the Escalation problem is solved.

There is no statement that says, all units must deploy at the start of the game. However, there is a statement that says that all available units must be deployed. Therefore, what is required is to show that all units are available for deployment. And that then leads to the idea that the only way for a model to be unavailable for deployment is for it to be in Reserve. So when is a model not deployed? When it is unavailable for deployment. When is it unavailable for deployment? When it is in Reserve. When is it in Reserve? Never, since the Reserve rules mention no way of placing models in reserve without any other directions.

In other words:

P1. A unit is either available for deployment or unavailable for deployment. "Either A or not A."
P2. A unit is only unavailable for deployment if it is in Reserve. "All not A are R."

Conclusion: A unit that is not in Reserve is available for deployment. "If not R, then A."

What this means is that if a unit is not in Reserve, it is available for deployment, and, since we are told to deploy all available models, we must deploy all units at the start of the game.

And I still say that your argument doesn't say anything, Relic.

I agree that units not deployed are in reserve and all units that are not in reserve must be deployed. Using the translation spelled out in your post here, I agree that If not A then R.

"Either A or not A." doesn't say anything. In if/then construction this argument says "If A or not A then A or not A." There's no point in even saying this in argumentative terms.
"All not A are R"--or more properly "If not A then R" is in the rules. I already agree with that.
"If not R then A" is the contrapositive of "If not A then R." The one doesn't follow logically as a conclusion from the other, rather they mean exactly the same thing--and it's something that I already agree with.

In order to get to "all infantry must deploy" you need to get to *that* conclusion. Honestly I don't think it's possible to get there based on the rules given without a logical error.

The point is, however, that there is no way for a unit to be in Reserve unless you are told you have the option of putting them there. And the only way known to have a unit unavailable for deployment is for it to be in Reserve.

If a unit that is not in Reserve is available for deployment (as we agree), then all units are available for deployment. Reserve only tell us what happens to units that are not deployed. The only way to not deploy a unit is to consider it unavailable for deployment, and it is not considered unavailable for deployment until it is in Reserve, which only happens when the rules tell us something is in Reserve, or that we have the option of putting it in Reserve. Once it is shown that all units, in all scenarios, are considered available for deployment, then the rules tell us that we must deploy all available units, so everything must deploy.

Put more simply, unless it can be shown that there is a way for a unit to be unavailable for deployment without being in Reserve, then all units are considered available for deployment, and must deploy. If we can agree on that, then there is no problem with the Escalation rules.

Posted by Flavius Infernus on 02/26/2006 3:35 PM
In order to get to "all infantry must deploy" you need to get to *that* conclusion. Honestly I don't think it's possible to get there based on the rules given without a logical error.

Using that argument, I would therefore be able to place any unit in Reserve in any mission, regardless. Is that what you're trying to say?

Again, I am not arguing that the rules allow you to voluntarily keep units in reserve. I am arguing that the escalation rules don't give enough information to determine whether or not you can voluntarily keep units in reserve, and that neither conclusion can be reached without an argument from ignorance fallacy.

"...only basic infantry units that do not have dedicated transports may be deployed at the start of the game, unless the mission rules state otherwise. All units not deployed are in reserve and will arrive in accordance with the normal Reserves rules."

This part of the Escalation rules, because it uses the word "may" and talks about the units that *don't* deploy, makes an exception to the ordinary "all units must deploy" rules. The thing in question is that it's not clear here whether or not the exception to the general "all units must deploy" rule extends to include basic infantry or not because of the use of the word "may" in the escalation rules.

So if you assume that this exception extends to basic troops, then you can keep them in reserve. If you assume that it doesn't then they can't. Neither conclusion has more logical merit than the other, and neither can be shown without making an assumption.

Posted by Flavius Infernus on 02/26/2006 10:24 PM
I am arguing that the escalation rules don't give enough information to determine whether or not you can voluntarily keep units in reserve, and that neither conclusion can be reached without an argument from ignorance fallacy.

And exactly how does the wording of Escalation change anything? Or do you have the same problem concerning Reserves in all of the missions where it is not specified, regardless of whether or not Escalation is in play.

This part of the Escalation rules, because it uses the word "may" and talks about the units that *don't* deploy, makes an exception to the ordinary "all units must deploy" rules.

From what I see, it can only be read as an exception if you assume that you don't have to deploy all units at the start of a game. That's an assumption that has no basis in the rules. The rules say you must deploy all available units, and all units are available.

Gah! I lost my post!

I mean; one guy is wrong an the other is right.
I'll be back.

Okay.
All units are available at the beginning of the game.
Some units may be unavailable to deploy due to certain rules.
Escalation is one such 'certain rule'.
Due to the specific rule some units may deploy.

That's as non-sensical as you get.
I agree.