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.

So now that units in reserve can't combat squad, does this mean in DoW that any unit not on the board may not combat squad? The rules for DoW state that a unit not placed on the board moves onto it turn one just as if they were reserved but does not state that they actually are reserved.

What points of view are there on this? That is a pretty big setback for a lot of Marine builds if so.

well units that enter on t1 arent actually held in reserve are they?

That is my thinking. They are not actually reserved, simply coming on the board as if they had been reserved.

"All units that were not deployed, and were not declared to be in reserve..."
Rule Book, p.93

now if only I knew what that meant ... my rulebook ... somewhere ... ...

whats that quote meant for?

So the logical conclusion is that the units that arrive on the first turn are neither deployed nor held in reserve, so they can't use the combat squad rules anyway?

It is from the dawn of war deployment, saying who can come on first turn. It specifies that they are not in reserve pretty clearly. I was just putting it up there to back up what people were saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They can combat squad, because the FAQ just states that you can't combat squad in reserve, nothing else.

Acidwraine wrote:It is from the dawn of war deployment, saying who can come on first turn. It specifies that they are not in reserve pretty clearly. I was just putting it up there to back up what people were saying.

Don't forget, it also states that the units in question were never deployed either, so how can they combat squad? This is an honest question.

BuFFo wrote:

Acidwraine wrote:It is from the dawn of war deployment, saying who can come on first turn. It specifies that they are not in reserve pretty clearly. I was just putting it up there to back up what people were saying.

Don't forget, it also states that the units in question were never deployed either, so how can they combat squad? This is an honest question.

Good call, upon looking at C:SM it is when you deploy, and it specifically states you must do it when you deploy.

But from that, you never could come off the table in combat squads, new FAQ aside.

The FAQ says that you can't combat squad if placed in reserve. The Combat Squad rules specify that it's done when the unit is deployed.

The DoW rules state that the unit moves onto the table from the board edge as if it had been held in reserve. So, either the units come onto the table without being deployed (and thus don't trigger the conditions to combat squad); or you recognized that both being deployed and being forbidden to combat squad are consequences of moving onto the table as if they were in reserves.

Right.

My interpretation is that it is not reserves and that the unit is being deployed turn one, therefore can combat squad.

wait so in DoW any unit that is not initially deployed is not able to combat squad if it walk in on the first turn?

im mean thats what DoW is pretty much stating...i dont think its a matter of just saying the units not initially deployed "are not in reserve". i think its more like "All units that were not DEPLOYED, and were not declared to be in reserve..." that indicates units outside the "1 HQ and 2 Troops" are unable to combat squad as combat squading happens when you deploy the unit.

Putting a unit on the table by deploying it, as no unit can come on with out been deployed right? Even reservered units are deployed when put on the table. Yes you can Combat Squad, by waking on in DoW as long as you don't declare the Unit is in reserve. As DoW say they move on just like units moving on in from reserve and reserved units are deployed when they come on the table.

. . .I'm gonna hold off until I have my codex in hand. . .

Noir wrote:Putting a unit on the table by deploying it, as no unit can come on with out been deployed right? Even reservered units are deployed when put on the table.

"Arriving from Reserves" actually only uses the word "deployed" once (and never "deploy" or any variation), when referencing placing models before the game started (i.e. during deployment).

Reserves are indeed, deployed, but it seems that units that walk on "as if from reserves" actually only arrive.
Not sure if or who that helps, but. . .yea.

/shrug

damn...puma changed it on me

I think it is interesting that folks are taking the answer to a very specific FAQ question and applying it to a general ruling elsewhere in the game.

The FAQ question asked if you could split up a squad in reserve, half in a drop pod and half entering play. And the answer was no, you cannot combat squad in reserve.

For half the people that read this, it's not an issue. They read, "You cannot combat squad in reserve." Which no one was doing anyway. They were combat squadding at deployment, like the Combat Squad rule says.

The other half are reading it as, "You cannot combat squad if you have been placed in reserve." Period. A specific answer to a specific question applied generally to all combat squads and all reserve units.

It makes sense to me that you cannot combat squad in reserve, but that you can combat squad from reserve. If you hold a unit back in reserve, then deploy them, you may combat squad them.

Also, the FAQs aren't Errata. I use them like anyone else does, but that's exactly what they are - frequently asked questions. If you had asked, "Can you use the combat squad rule if you're arriving from reserves?" and they answered this way, I would agree with you. But they're answering a question about splitting a unit that is in reserve, not arriving from reserve. The two concepts are very different.

puma713 wrote:I think it is interesting that folks are taking the answer to a very specific FAQ question and applying it to a general ruling elsewhere in the game.

The FAQ question asked if you could split up a squad in reserve, half in a drop pod and half entering play. And the answer was no, you cannot combat squad in reserve.

For half the people that read this, it's not an issue. They read, "You cannot combat squad in reserve." Which no one was doing anyway. They were combat squadding at deployment, like the Combat Squad rule says.

This is exactly the way the rule worked pre-FAQ; correct.

puma713 wrote:The other half are reading it as, "You cannot combat squad if you have been placed in reserve." Period. A specific answer to a specific question applied generally to all combat squads and all reserve units.

The FAQ is being read this way because it is exactly what it says(as written).

puma713 wrote:It makes sense to me that you cannot combat squad in reserve, but that you can combat squad from reserve. If you hold a unit back in reserve, then deploy them, you may combat squad them.

Also, the FAQs aren't Errata. I use them like anyone else does, but that's exactly what they are - frequently asked questions. If you had asked, "Can you use the combat squad rule if you're arriving from reserves?" and they answered this way, I would agree with you. But they're answering a question about splitting a unit that is in reserve, not arriving from reserve. The two concepts are very different.

I wholly agree that this is how the Combat squad rules *Should* work, and is how they *Used to* work.

We will not get in to the validity of the FAQs as rule(YMDC Says they is so they is; you may want to edit that bit out before a mod gets you).

The problem with the FAQ is they took a question with a very specific situation and answered it in a broad sweeping fashion. While the 2 concepts are different the answer was actually more to the question not asked than it was to the question actually asked.

The disconnect between the Question and the answer is about equal to the following:
Q: What is the difference between an orange?
A: A telephone pole, silly, because a motorcycle has no doors.

There is little to no connection between the answer and the question yet the answer does have relevance in other areas(although they may not be known to the reader). The FAQ for Combat Squading half in reserve is also disconected in its answer, but its answer is no less definitive: should you place a Squad in reserves you may not combat squad them(excepting for Drop pods, because the combat squad rules specifically allow that).

Kommissar Kel wrote:

puma713 wrote:The other half are reading it as, "You cannot combat squad if you have been placed in reserve." Period. A specific answer to a specific question applied generally to all combat squads and all reserve units.

The FAQ is being read this way because it is exactly what it says(as written).

And I'm sure you're aware that inflection and tone can make the exact same sentence read two different ways to two different people.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

puma713 wrote:It makes sense to me that you cannot combat squad in reserve, but that you can combat squad from reserve. If you hold a unit back in reserve, then deploy them, you may combat squad them.

Also, the FAQs aren't Errata. I use them like anyone else does, but that's exactly what they are - frequently asked questions. If you had asked, "Can you use the combat squad rule if you're arriving from reserves?" and they answered this way, I would agree with you. But they're answering a question about splitting a unit that is in reserve, not arriving from reserve. The two concepts are very different.

I wholly agree that this is how the Combat squad rules *Should* work, and is how they *Used to* work.

We will not get in to the validity of the FAQs as rule(YMDC Says they is so they is; you may want to edit that bit out before a mod gets you).

The problem with the FAQ is they took a question with a very specific situation and answered it in a broad sweeping fashion. While the 2 concepts are different the answer was actually more to the question not asked than it was to the question actually asked.

The disconnect between the Question and the answer is about equal to the following:
Q: What is the difference between an orange?
A: A telephone pole, silly, because a motorcycle has no doors.

There is little to no connection between the answer and the question yet the answer does have relevance in other areas(although they may not be known to the reader). The FAQ for Combat Squading half in reserve is also disconected in its answer, but its answer is no less definitive: should you place a Squad in reserves you may not combat squad them(excepting for Drop pods, because the combat squad rules specifically allow that).

And you don't know any more than I do what the author meant. He could've meant: No, because squads placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads (in reserve). You apply logic to the statement. Just like the Marneus Calgar answer. Everyone is taking it to mean that they don't take No Retreat! wounds. Why? It doesn't say anything about No Retreat! It says something about becoming Fearless. But, people apply logic to the statement and realize that they were probably talking about No Retreat wounds, since making them Fearless doesn't make much sense. The same follows for the Combat Squad rules. They just upend combat squads because of a poorly-worded FAQ? Or should we, as intelligent individuals, apply a little logic and maybe discuss what they may have meant?

There are plenty of mispelled words in the FAQs too. Are we to create meanings for these words, since they're not in the dictionary and we must take the FAQ as sacrosanct? Or do we have a discourse about what the words actually were supposed to mean?

And about the FAQ vs. Errata - I don't really care one way or the other (I don't even play Marines), but I think a Codex holds more weight than an FAQ. Especially when GW places a caveat on their own rulings:

Games Workshop wrote:
The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kommissar Kel wrote:
We will not get in to the validity of the FAQs as rule(YMDC Says they is so they is; you may want to edit that bit out before a mod gets you).

And the Tenets of YMDC state that the FAQs are "official sources of information". Not that they're more valid than Errata. Even GW explains the difference.

I actually agree with your interpretation as what the FAQ should have said.

However; we must read the plain text as plain text. We are not interpreting "The Gospel, according to St GW". We are reading a plain text statement that happens to change the basic rules of a special rule(admittedly due to poor choice of words on the author's part). Even though that sweeping rules change actually has very little to do with the actual question asked, it is the new standing law, and we must abide by it(in a tournament setting at least).

In friendly play of course we are all free to do with that ruling as we please; be that interpret it to our own liking or ignore it altogether.

Also; I am well aware of the GW caveat. I issued that warning more for your own sake: YMDC is not primarily for friendly issues(especially not in cases like this), but instead for Tourney level rulings. Friendly issues can be resolved with a coin-toss, or simply making something up. Tourney level issues need a grounding in what the rules say and what they mean, and ultimately are decided using the FAQs(not just the errata; the whole darn thing) because that is what most official events(even RTTs) use for rulings.

Reecius wrote:Right.

My interpretation is that it is not reserves and that the unit is being deployed turn one, therefore can combat squad.

You're good.

'Rolling for Reserves' (pg 94) says:

"Once all of the unit have been rolled for, the player picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it, moving it onto the table as described later."


And the Dawn of War rules (pg 93) say:

"All units that were not deployed, and were not declared to be in reserve during deployment, must enter...just like units moving in from Reserve."


Since units moving on turn 1 from Dawn of War are moving on just like units in reserve and units in reserve are 'deployed' by moving onto the table, your units are being deployed by moving onto the table. Since they were never put into reserves there's no way any interpretation of that FAQ can touch you (barring a dense tournament judge, of course).

Sorry, I'm with Puma on this. Here is the full text of the FAQ question (my emphasis):

Q: Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man squad and then put a combat squad in it, deploying the other combat squad on the table, or leave it in reserve but not in the Drop Pod? (p69)

A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads.

Everyone is reading this to mean that no squad that was ever in reserve may combat squad. I suppose that is one possible reading of it. But you cannot assert that as the only reading. You can just as easily read it as "you may not split squads into combat squads while in reserve."

Which, as Puma pointed out, is the interpretation that is entirely consistent with the Codex RAW for combat squads. One makes the decision to combat squad when you deploy the unit. IIRC, the codex specifically cites drop pods as an example where you combat squad once they have landed. If they wanted to override the RAW they would have errated it or made it more specific.

Placing the Same emphasis on in reserve still validates the rest of the sentence as an Absolute. The only way to read the sentence any other way is to re-arrange the sentence. This is the English language, and a Statement in the English language. Sentence structure and the order of the words actually matter.

The sentence: "Squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads." is an absolute there is no variation on meaning in the English language without completely changing the sentence.

You are trying to read it for what you want it to say and are more than willing to both re-arrange the sentence and add words that have nothing to do with the sentence as is.

Thanks Yak!

That would have been gakky for Vanilla Marines.

Kommissar Kel wrote: The only way to read the sentence any other way is to re-arrange the sentence.

You're kidding right?

That's the entire reason the Marneus Calgar debate is a debate at all. Because of the inflection of the word "choose". If you read it differently, the entire sentence changes. This can be said for many sentences in the English language that don't need to be re-arranged. Besides, I didn't do any re-arranging in my post or in my opinion.

Kommissar Kel wrote:The sentence: "Squads that are placed in reserve may not break down into combat squads." is an absolute there is no variation on meaning in the English language without completely changing the sentence.

Again, incorrect. You are privy to the Hive Guard debate as well, aren't you? A poorly worded rule that sparked a poll by Yakface in YMDC. The sentence reads awkwardly, but if you read it just right, it makes sense. This is the exact same. I read the exact same FAQ answer that you do, but I get a different meaning. I'm not here trying to waste yours or my time - I don't believe it means what you're saying it means. Yet, I read the same sentence. If we read the exact same sentence and came to the same conclusion, what are we talking about?

Kommissar Kel wrote:You are trying to read it for what you want it to say and are more than willing to both re-arrange the sentence and add words that have nothing to do with the sentence as is.

What are you talking about? I don't know about Kolath, but I couldn't care less if people Combat Squad from reserve. In fact, it's probably better for me if you were right. Unfortunately, I don't believe you are. And, for the final time, I never re-arranged the sentence, nor did I add words.

Now, who is trying to read it for what you want it to say?

So, this means DoA lists cannot combat squad if deep-striking? Bummer for them.

Puma: All references to re-arranging the sentence to fit desired read was leveled at kolath; who did just that.

As far as the other rules that needed interpretation that is due to fuzzy wording, and certain words that do have different meaning depending on how they are said(in conversational English). I am aware of them and I am aware of why they are debatable.

This sentence is not debatable. Speak it out loud to yourself or a friend several times. Do it again several times attempting to add emphasis on different portions of the sentence. All instances will lead you to the same conclusion: no Combat squading for units held in reserve(excepting of course Drop podded units).

C:SM p51 wrote:
The decision to split the unit into combat squads, as well as which models go into each combat squad, must be made when the unit is deployed. [...] The one exception to this is a unit that arrives by Drop Pod. The player can choose to split such a unit into combat squads when it disembarks from the Drop Pod.

BRB p94 wrote:Rolling for reserves [...] Once all the units have been rolled for, the player picks any one of the units arriving and deploys it, moving it onto the table as described later.

Regardless of claims that I am twisting the words around, I will appeal to my codex and the BRB. Combat squading occurs at deployment (NOT the deployment phase, but any time a unit "deploys" onto the table). There is a specific exception for drop pods because they constitute a transport that deploys specially. I fail to see how this one FAQ question about a very specific question could countervene the RAW for how the combat squad rule works.

You are absolutely correct, that is how the rule has worked since it was first in the Space marine Codex.

Unfortunately with the new FAQ that is not how it works anymore(in a tournament setting which uses the GW FAQs).

As I said earlier there is a great disconnection between the question and the Answer in this FAQ. And the answer makes a sweeping rules change. It is the interpretation of the author that once a unit is held in reserve it is no longer eligible to combat squad, and that is the ruling that this author has handed down to us, the players.

Now, there is still the possibility that the Author of the FAQ did not mean what he typed, but rather was trying to convey what we know should be the answer(that you cannot combat squad while in reserve). But until the next FAQ update with a rewording of the answer we are stuck with this one.

I agree, you have to take the sentence for what is. Maybe that was not the intent but we won't know until the FAQ is revised.