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.

Looking for other views on this since a number were quite suprised by a recent battle report of mine.  In our area: you 'may' deploy infantry units is taken to mean that you can choose wether or not to deploy an infantry unit if you wish.  This could lead to a player choosing to deploy nothing at all, even without the assistance of droppods or transports.

Thoughts?

 

 

It can be read either way... I tend to think that, the way it is worded, all they are saying is that basic Infantry are the only troops that are deployed, not that you can choose whether to deploy them.

It's the difference between "Only basic infantry may be deployed" and "Basic infantry may be deployed"

The first says 'You can not deploy anything other than basic infantry' while the the second says 'You can choose whether or not to deploy basic infantry'

I don't have the rulebook with me; but the reserves rules might help out here. Is there anything in there that states you are allowed to keep units in reserve that would normally be set up? This would support the idea that 'may' means 'may choose to deploy or not deploy as you see fit': i.e. that you are allowed to keep units off the board.

I just read the Escalation rules and it says MAY be deployed at the start of the game, unless mission states otherwise.

So you could start with an empty deployment zone.

Ahoj!
This boils down to difference between British and American English.
In UK English may means can.
Go with what Insaniak wrote.

Borys

Close, Borys, but actually it doesn't boil down to a difference between "may" and "can." Either word would leave the same ambiguity.

In both American and British English they mean the same thing. "Can" also means some additional things that "may" does not mean, but everything that "may" means is also meant by "can." (And, yes, that means that the whole thing your third grade teacher taught you about the difference between them is total BS.)

In British English, I am told, "may" also has some very strong connotations of "must," which means something totally different. But even so, it's impossible to say for sure what this sentence in the rules means.

However in english, both British and American, a word with multiple definitions, is defined by usage. GW seems very big on using this method to define their rules. The escalation rules define certain points which are contradictory to normal deployment.

"ONLY infantry.....may be deployed at the beginning of the game." "Everthing else is held in reserve." Granted "is deployed" would have been clearer, but nowhere does it say "Only infantry may be deployed OR held in reserve at the beginning of the game."

Units without the reserve rule may not be held in reserve EVEN IF THE OPTION IS THERE, unless the scenario specifically tells you to.

 

Flav, That's bologna.

If British may=must, then the whole rule system won't work. Start reading the rules and replace may with must and see how long it takes for you to agree.

You'd be claiming that infiltrators must set up just outside 18", that bikes must turbo boost every turn, etc.

Not that this necessarily means anything but I just want to point out how easily GW could have worded the rule to make it clear (if that was their intention):

How it is printed:

"In a mission using the Escalation rule, 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".


How it could have been written if GW intended it that way:

"In a mission using the Escalation rule, only basic infantry units that do not have dedicated transports are deployed at the start of the game, unless the mission rules state otherwise".


Just wanted to throw that out even though it doesn't really add to the argument in anyway.

I "may" choose to stick my hand in a blender and turn it on. Then again, I "may not".

So, I "may" choose to place my gene stealers on the board without any support, or I "may not".


Gazzor

Posted By Gazzor on 02/22/2006 2:49 PM
I "may" choose to stick my hand in a blender and turn it on. Then again, I "may not".

So, I "may" choose to place my gene stealers on the board without any support, or I "may not".


Gazzor

 

Try this scenario Gaz:

 

There is a law that says "Everyday, every citizen must put his hand and 2 other things in his blender and turn it on. This must be done at 7:00 am. On mondays only their hands may be put in the blender at 7:00 am, the other 2 things must wait until at least 9:00 am, before they can be placed in the blender.

The exception for the latter does not constitute an exception for the former.

Flav, That's bologna.

Either way, it's still an ambiguous rule. I've never really gotten a straight answer on how strong the "must" implications are supposed to be or how the construction works. Mostly I'm just throwing in the extra info to support the idea that this particular rule can't be resolved by clarifying a difference between British and American usage.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=may&r=66

may¹  (m)
aux.v. Past tense might (mt)

1. To be allowed or permitted to: May I take a swim? Yes, you may.
2. Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility: It may rain this afternoon.
3. Used to express a desire or fervent wish: Long may he live!
4. Used to express contingency, purpose, or result in clauses introduced by that or so that: expressing ideas so that the average person may understand.
5. To be obliged; must. Used in statutes, deeds, and other legal documents.

Any of those defintions of the word may could possibly be used in this case, and not all of them would allow a choice to be made in the matter (particularly 1 and 5).  

I feel that the "may" is written to allow the possibility of the infantry unit deep striking, rather than allow you to keep non-deep striking infantry in reserve.

Gah... darn post-eating forum...


Basically,
Only Basic Infantry are allowed to be deployed at the start of the game

which is a very different rule from :
Basic Infantry are allowed to deploy at the start of the game, or are allowed to be held in Reserve.

Its pretty clearly evident that the following rules quote and the accompanying defination of the word "may". Merely tells us that you deploy basic infantry that meet the requirements for escalation. I don't see where "may" is a proper term for a boolean argument.  So if someone "chooses" to not deploy their infantry then they are not using the proper defination of the word "may" and would be in violation of the rules.

"In a mission using the Escalation rule, 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".

Posted By Ghaz on 02/22/2006 8:43 PM

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=may&r=66

may¹  (m)
aux.v. Past tense might (mt)

1. To be allowed or permitted to: May I take a swim? Yes, you may.
2. Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility: It may rain this afternoon.
3. Used to express a desire or fervent wish: Long may he live!
4. Used to express contingency, purpose, or result in clauses introduced by that or so that: expressing ideas so that the average person may understand.
5. To be obliged; must. Used in statutes, deeds, and other legal documents.

Any of those defintions of the word may could possibly be used in this case, and not all of them would allow a choice to be made in the matter (particularly 1 and 5).  

From page 84 of the Warhammer 40,000 4th edition rulebook, substituting the above definition #1 for the word may:

"In a mission using the Escalation rule, only basic infantry units that do not have dedicated transports are allowed or permitted to be deployed at the start of the game, unless the mission rules state otherwise".

40K is a permissive rules set. You can only do what the rules allow or permit you to do. Using the definition that I've used for the word may, where do the rules allow or permit you to do anything other than deploy your basic infantry units at the start of the game?

Using the definition that I've used for the word may, where do the rules allow or permit you to do anything other than deploy your basic infantry units at the start of the game?

Well the overarching Reserve rule would permit or allow you keep your basic infantry in reserve--unless the Escalation rule is requiring that they be deployed, which it might be doing. The phrasing isn't clear enough to determine one way or the other

Actually the Reserves rule doesn't allow you to put a unit into reserve. It's dependent on the mission.

I misspoke (mis-wrote?). The rule that allows you to put units in reserve is in the next part of the Escalation rules: "All units not deployed are in reserve and will arrive in accordance with the normal Reserve rules."

So in the Escalation rules you are permitted/allowed to deploy basic troops. Any units you don't deploy are in reserve. Basic troops are units, so if you don't deploy them, according to the Escalation rules they are in reserve.

...or at least, that is one possible reading of the rules. In the other reading "may" means "must" and the only units not deployed are transported infantry and non-basic-infantry units.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 02/23/2006 12:14 AM
I misspoke (mis-wrote?). The rule that allows you to put units in reserve is in the next part of the Escalation rules: "All units not deployed are in reserve and will arrive in accordance with the normal Reserve rules."

That does not allow you to place units into reserve. That simply tells you what happens to units that could not be deployed. So far nothing states that the rules allow or permit you to do anything other than deploy your basic infantry units at the start of the game.

what happens to units that could not be deployed.

If it clearly said this, there would be no issue. But unfortunately the rule says what happens to units that *are not* deployed, not units that *could not* be deployed.

As others have pointed out, saying that you are permitted to deploy something is not the logical equivalent of saying that you must deploy all of them--especially when the rules present putting them in reserve as an alternative.

As others have pointed out, saying that you are permitted to deploy something is not the logical equivalent of saying that you must deploy all of them--especially when the rules present putting them in reserve as an alternative.

1) Warhammer 40,000 is a permissive rules set. You can only do what the rules permit you to do.

2) Where do the rules permit you to put basic infantry units into reserve? So far you've not proven that you can.

Proof that you can do it:

P1: "Units not deployed are in reserve."
P2: A basic (non-transported) infantry unit is a unit

conclusion: A basic (non-transported) infantry unit that is not deployed is in reserve.

Both premises are known to be true. The conclusion follows logically, so must also be true. Premise 1 is the permissive part of the rule that allows (in the absence of a specific exception) any unit to be kept in reserve.

A rule that allows some units of a particular type to be deployed is not the same as a rule requiring all units of that type to be deployed. Your logical flaw, Ghaz, is in a misreading of how the logic of the rule breaks down. Using your phrasing:

"In a mission using the Escalation rule, only basic infantry units that do not have dedicated transports are allowed or permitted to be deployed at the start of the game, unless the mission rules state otherwise".

in propositional calculus is the logical equivalent of

"If deployed, then basic (non-transported) infantry."

According to the rules of logic, this statement cannot be taken to mean

"If basic (non-transported) infantry, then deployed."

The logic just doesn't allow that.

Actually the logic is this:

 

if basic infantry unit, then deploys first turn

if basic infantry unit with  reserves rule, then deploys later than first turn if x. x= player's choice.

if basic infantry unit given reserves rule by scenario, then deploys later than first turn if x. x= scenario conditions.

 

AS has been said the scenario only states that infantry are the only units allowed to deploy "normally". It does NOT say that they are allowed to be held in reserve if they don't have the rule.

your premise one was printed so that rules lawyers like us would know what to do with the units that do not deploy regularly. 

Trying to avoid getting to technical here, but it has to do with the difference between "only" and "all." The semantics really do go like this:

Only A may B = If B then A = If not A then B *but* does not equal "If A then B"

For example, if I say "only police officers may wear a police uniform" then you know that (unless somebody is breaking the rules) if you see somebody wearing a police uniform, that is a police officer (If B then A). You also know that if you see somebody who is not a police officer, then that person is not allowed to wear a police uniform. (If not A then B).

But if you see somebody who is not wearing a police uniform, you don't know for sure whether or not that person is a police officer, because the rule doesn't cover that condition. It could be a plainclothes officer. The fact that one group has permission to do something does not mean that all members of that group must do the thing.

Similarly a rule that says "only units of type A may deploy" means "If a unit is deployed, it is type A" and it means "if it is not deployed, then it is not type A." But it does not mean "all units of type A must deploy." There can be units of this type that don't deploy under this semantic formula--just like the plainclothes officer.

if basic infantry unit, then deploys first turn

That's funny, my rulebook says "only infantry unit deploys first turn." Last time I checked, that was different from "all infantry units deploy first turn.

your premise one was printed so that rules lawyers like us would know what to do with the units that do not deploy regularly

Begging the question. This is only true if you assume that your conclusion is true. I don't find any restriction in my rulebook that says basic, non-transported infantry are required to deploy.

Posted By Flavius Infernus on 02/23/2006 2:29 PM
Trying to avoid getting to technical here, but it has to do with the difference between "only" and "all." The semantics really do go like this:

Only A may B = If B then A = If not A then B *but* does not equal "If A then B"

For example, if I say "only police officers may wear a police uniform" then you know that (unless somebody is breaking the rules) if you see somebody wearing a police uniform, that is a police officer (If B then A). You also know that if you see somebody who is not a police officer, then that person is not allowed to wear a police uniform. (If not A then B).

But if you see somebody who is not wearing a police uniform, you don't know for sure whether or not that person is a police officer, because the rule doesn't cover that condition. It could be a plainclothes officer. The fact that one group has permission to do something does not mean that all members of that group must do the thing.

What if there was a second rule that said Police Officers must ALWAYS wear their uniform?

 

Similarly a rule that says "only units of type A may deploy" means "If a unit is deployed, it is type A" and it means "if it is not deployed, then it is not type A." But it does not mean "all units of type A must deploy."   But as you just said "if it is not deployed then it is not type A", AND there IS a rule that says all units of type A must deploy, and there are rules that say when units of type A may be deployed irregularly. Nothing in the escalation rule says that type A units may break this first rule, outside of have the other rules.

 

Escalation specifically mentions which units are held in reserve regardless of having the reserves rule. Anything that may deploy, must, per the basic rules. Anything that may deploy, but has reserves as a rule, can be held in reserve per the basic rules.

 

 

 

Proof that you can do it:

P1: "Units not deployed are in reserve."
P2: A basic (non-transported) infantry unit is a unit

conclusion: A basic (non-transported) infantry unit that is not deployed is in reserve.

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...

ok I'll concede that.... but I guess I missed your stance on this topic..... care to restate it?