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.

Dragging up the old Infiltrate argument. I'm firmly on the side of "ICs join units BEFORE deployment."

However, the new SM book has an interesting special for Shadow Captain Shrike, called "See, But Remain Unseen": "Before deploying, he may only join squads of Jump Infantry."
So what does this mean? Shrike MAY join a unit before deployment.
Is this an exception to the rule? (It's not worded like an exception, which would say something like, "Unlike other ICs...".)

Does this mean that Shrike allows a unit of Jump Infantry that doesn't have Infiltrate to Infiltrate? Looks like yes....
Anyone else have thoughts?

If he gets joined to the squad before deployment then all is fine. The problem with other ICs and infiltrators is that you can't join them to the squad during deployment because they get processed at different times.

That was my take on it as well.
As usual they could have phrased it way clearer ...

As I see it it does not change RAW that ICs with Infiltrate cannot join units without Infiltrate during deployment due to being deployed/joining units after the non infiltrating unit has already been deployed. But, it certainly does allow Shrike to join a unit of Jump Infantry prior to Deployment, though it could have been worded so much better.

Due to RAW Shrike is now the exception, not the rule though the poor wording can be used to support other arguments for RAI to the contrary.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
"Before deploying, he may only join squads of Jump Infantry."

As you have quoted it, that rule is not a permission to do anything. It's a restriction. It is saying that the only unit type that Shrike may join before deployment is Jump Infantry. It doesn't cover whether or when he has permission to actually join units before deployment in the first place.

Without the 'only' in there, you would suddenly have a statement of permission.

 insaniak wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
"Before deploying, he may only join squads of Jump Infantry."

As you have quoted it, that rule is not a permission to do anything. It's a restriction. It is saying that the only unit type that Shrike may join before deployment is Jump Infantry. It doesn't cover whether or when he has permission to actually join units before deployment in the first place.

Without the 'only' in there, you would suddenly have a statement of permission.

Not quite true. The statement still gives him permission to join squads of Jump Infantry prior to Deployment. It would have been clearer if it said, "Before deploying, he may join squads of Jump Infantry." "Only" does not remove the permission granted to join Jump Infantry prior to deploying, it just states that is the only unit he is able to join prior to deploying.

I disagree. The 'only' makes it a completely different statement. It makes it a reference to what should be an existing permission, rather than permission by itself, because imposing a limitation (which is what the 'only' does) makes no sense without prior permission.

'...may join squads of jump infantry.' - is permission to join squads of jump infantry.
'...may only join squads of jump infantry.' - assumes that you have permission to join squads from elsewhere, but that in this particular case that permission is altered to only allow you to join that particular unit type.

It's just a side-effect of the current dev team for some inexplicable reason not realising (despite it being an issue ever since 3rd edition, and it having actually been specifically addressed in an errata last edition) that the rules don't actually contain permission to join units before deployment.

 insaniak wrote:
I disagree. The 'only' makes it a completely different statement. It makes it a reference to what should be an existing permission, rather than permission by itself, because imposing a limitation (which is what the 'only' does) makes no sense without prior permission.

'...may join squads of jump infantry.' - is permission to join squads of jump infantry.
'...may only join squads of jump infantry.' - assumes that you have permission to join squads from elsewhere, but that in this particular case that permission is altered to only allow you to join that particular unit type.

It's just a side-effect of the current dev team for some inexplicable reason not realising (despite it being an issue ever since 3rd edition, and it having actually been specifically addressed in an errata last edition) that the rules don't actually contain permission to join units before deployment.

This does all make sense, Insaniak.
However, taken that way, Shrike's special rule is completely useless. It may as well not be in the codex. It doesn't prevent Shrike from joining a normal unit during deployment. Giving Shrike Infiltrate is mostly useless as well, considering nothing else except Scouts have Infiltrate (and they really DON'T complement Shrike's abilities).

I would think the best way to play this would have Shrike be an exception to the normal Infiltrate-deployment order, with the basis being his (very silly) rule. Any thoughts on this HIWPI idea?

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
However, taken that way, Shrike's special rule is completely useless. It may as well not be in the codex. It doesn't prevent Shrike from joining a normal unit during deployment. Giving Shrike Infiltrate is mostly useless as well, considering nothing else except Scouts have Infiltrate (and they really DON'T complement Shrike's abilities).

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't advocate playing RAW in this instance any more than I did for the last iteration of the codex where Shrike's rule (aside from for the latter part of 6th after they erratad the IC rules) was equally useless by RAW.

It's just frustrating that this is a known issue with the current rules, and GW just don't seem to care enough about what they are doing to take the time to fix it.


Allowing Shrike to join units pre-game is the obvious house rule to get around this issue and make his rule actually work. It would just be nice to not need that house rule in the first place.

I don't see the problem, it clearly says: "before deployment"

The problem is that it restricts who he can join before deployment rather than granting permission to join anyone before deployment.

A restriction does not in itself grant permission in other circumstances. A rule that says 'You may not eat cookies after 9pm' does not intrinsically mean that you can eat cookies at any other time. You still need permission to eat cookies at 7pm.

I disagree and I would word it differently.
"Before dinner, you may only eat cookies."
In my opinion and understanding that is permission to eat cookies before dinner.

Kangodo wrote:
I disagree and I would word it differently.
"Before dinner, you may only eat cookies."
In my opinion and understanding that is permission to eat cookies before dinner.

But that is not permission to eat cookies before dinner. That is a restriction to eat not cookies before dinner.

 insaniak wrote:
The problem is that it restricts who he can join before deployment rather than granting permission to join anyone before deployment.

A restriction does not in itself grant permission in other circumstances. A rule that says 'You may not eat cookies after 9pm' does not intrinsically mean that you can eat cookies at any other time. You still need permission to eat cookies at 7pm.

Again, not quite.

A better analogy would be, "Before going to bed, he may only eat one chocolate chip cookie."

Notice the similar sentence structure, "Before deploying, he may only join squads of Jump Infantry."

It both grants permission while putting on a restriction. As written it allows him to eat one chocolate chip cookie before going to bed. To further the analogy it exists in a world where kids are not allowed to eat a treat before bed, but little Johnny is allowed to only eat one, not one treat, but one chocolate chip cookie before he has to go to bed. Because, he is special.

You keep leaving out the "may" which grants him permission to perform the exclusive action of joining Jump Infantry before deploying. This "may only join" allows him to join only Jump infantry before deployment.

When does it happen, "Before deploying"
What can he do, "he may join squads"
under what restrictions, "only squads of jump infantry"

So, "Before deploying, he may only join squads of Jump Infantry."

Kangodo wrote:
I disagree and I would word it differently.
"Before dinner, you may only eat cookies."
In my opinion and understanding that is permission to eat cookies before dinner.

It's not. It's a restriction. If you eat before dinner, the only thing you can eat is cookies. But that isn't permission to eat. Just telling you what can potentially be eaten.

 insaniak wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
I disagree and I would word it differently.
"Before dinner, you may only eat cookies."
In my opinion and understanding that is permission to eat cookies before dinner.

It's not. It's a restriction. If you eat before dinner, the only thing you can eat is cookies. But that isn't permission to eat. Just telling you what can potentially be eaten.

It's amusing to me that if I was being this pedantic I'd be getting cussed and insulted left and right.
Not that I disagree with you, just something I noticed.

 Happyjew wrote:
But that is not permission to eat cookies before dinner. That is a restriction to eat not cookies before dinner.

And disallowing everything EXCEPT one thing is the same as giving permission to do that thing.

 insaniak wrote:
It's not. It's a restriction. If you eat before dinner, the only thing you can eat is cookies. But that isn't permission to eat. Just telling you what can potentially be eaten.

Could you turn that into a normal sentence where everyone would agree that it's not a permission?
Because honestly, you probably can't, since everyone would see that as permission.

Kangodo wrote:
And disallowing everything EXCEPT one thing is the same as giving permission to do that thing.

Lack of prohibition is not permission, unless permission is already the default state.

If I don't tell you not to eat my cookies, that doesn't give you permission to do so.

Could you turn that into a normal sentence where everyone would agree that it's nor a permission?
Because honestly, you can't, since everyone would see that as permission.

Quite clearly 'everyone' doesn't, or we wouldn't be having this conversation...

I'd just like to say that I absolutely love how this suddenly turned into us trying to find ways to eat cookies all day.

To be clear, the real issue here is simply with GWs casual approach to writing rules. You're absolutely correct that a lot of people would read this a permission... And clearly that's how GW intend it. But that doesn't actually make it so. Rules should actually say what they mean, rather than just infer it.

Bojazz wrote:
I'd just like to say that I absolutely love how this suddenly turned into us trying to find ways to eat cookies all day.

Would you like a cookie?

rigeld2 wrote:
It's amusing to me that if I was being this pedantic I'd be getting cussed and insulted left and right.

Most of the time when you argue for silly-RaW, you do so in dead HIWPl earnest.

Insaniak's position is more like, "well obviously that's not what they meant and we won't play it that way, but what they actually WROTE technically is..."

Pyrian wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's amusing to me that if I was being this pedantic I'd be getting cussed and insulted left and right.

Most of the time when you argue for silly-RaW, you do so in dead HIWPl earnest.

That's absolutely not true. I don't always voice HIWPI but no, that's just not true. How often have you asked how I would play it? I think I've been asked... Twice? Ever?
Edit: and even then - that's cause for cussing and insults?

rigeld2 wrote:

Pyrian wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's amusing to me that if I was being this pedantic I'd be getting cussed and insulted left and right.

Most of the time when you argue for silly-RaW, you do so in dead HIWPl earnest.

That's absolutely not true. I don't always voice HIWPI but no, that's just not true. How often have you asked how I would play it? I think I've been asked... Twice? Ever?
Edit: and even then - that's cause for cussing and insults?

Be clever. Get a female or cute (or best both) avatar and people will be 74,47% nicer.

Also did you know that 87% of all statistics used by people are made up on the spot?

My source says 63.9 percent. Your information must be outdated.

rigeld2 wrote:
My source says 63.9 percent. Your information must be outdated.

Odd. Last I checked it 31.4% :/

 insaniak wrote:
To be clear, the real issue here is simply with GWs casual approach to writing rules. You're absolutely correct that a lot of people would read this a permission... And clearly that's how GW intend it. But that doesn't actually make it so. Rules should actually say what they mean, rather than just infer it.

Re ic's joining units to infiltrate, I am firmly on the side that if one party does not have infiltrate, it can't happen.
But ...

I think this is a matter for combat squads.
The way they are split (or not) now, happens before deployment and shrike is getting permission to join a jump pack unit at that point and a restriction that it may only be a jump unit.

He joins before deployment, therefore the whole lot can infiltrate.

 fuusa wrote:

He joins before deployment, therefore the whole lot can infiltrate.

Except combat squads are decided before warlord traits are even rolled, so he would only have a 5-man unit to join.

 fuusa wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
To be clear, the real issue here is simply with GWs casual approach to writing rules. You're absolutely correct that a lot of people would read this a permission... And clearly that's how GW intend it. But that doesn't actually make it so. Rules should actually say what they mean, rather than just infer it.

Re ic's joining units to infiltrate, I am firmly on the side that if one party does not have infiltrate, it can't happen.
But ...

I think this is a matter for combat squads.
The way they are split (or not) now, happens before deployment and shrike is getting permission to join a jump pack unit at that point and a restriction that it may only be a jump unit.

He joins before deployment, therefore the whole lot can infiltrate.

That makes even less sense. If he's not part of the unit at time of deployment, if does not have infiltrate.

 Mulletdude wrote:
Except combat squads are decided before warlord traits are even rolled, so he would only have a 5-man unit to join.

I don't see a problem with the timing, it seems to me, a clear exception.
The choice to combat squad, includes the option to not do it as well, so he can join a full strength unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Coyote81 wrote:
That makes even less sense. If he's not part of the unit at time of deployment, if does not have infiltrate.

The rules as they stand prevent an ic from joining a unit to infiltrate if 1 part does not have the usr.
Shrikes rule, gives him the option to avoid the normal requirements for joining a unit, ie he is already joined before being deployed with them.