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.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Spoiler:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
In the transport. We have rules to measure to them. You can't physically put them in the transport, so the only option to have the game continue is to take the models off the board, but the unit is demonstrably on the board.

Using the same justification, where are the models using GoI?
"In GoI".
'You can't physically put them in the Gate, so the only option to have the game continue is to take the models off the board, but the unit is demonstrably on the board.'

Sure, if you ignore the rest of the rules for GoI.

", remove the target and his unit from the board. It then immediately arrives anywhere on the board using the rules for Deep Strike."

That is all i have.
"arrives (...) using the rules for Deep Strike"
and
"deploy the squad as if it were deep striking onto that point."
Are completely different methods of arrival then?

Not completely different, but they are different.

But they both relate to the Deep Strike USR, correct?
One refers to "arriving" using DS, the other refers to "deploy" using DS, correct?

Correct.

Could i try to push understanding here one step further , and get you to find both of those in the Deep Strike Rules?

Spoiler:

In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in Reserve. When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve). Some units must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike.
Arriving by Deep Strike
Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves and then deploy them as follows:
• First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model’s final position. If a vehicle scatters when arriving via Deep Strike, do not change its facing – it must continue to face the same direction as it did before you rolled for scatter.
• Next, the unit’s remaining models are arranged around the first one. Models must be placed in base contact with the first model and begin to form a circle around it. When the first circle is complete, a further concentric circle must be placed with each model touching the circle inside it. Each circle must include as many models as will fit.
• Models deploying via Deep Strike treat all difficult terrain as dangerous terrain.
In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may (etc).
(Copied from BRB-Digital edition)

Would the above "distinction" between the two terms ("arriving" VS "deploy" using DS) signify these rules are calling out specific sections of the Deep Strike USR?
This is the part you will not agree with, but i'm curious as to why? It is logically completely sound.

You're told how to deploy, specifically - you pointed it out.
Arriving requires rolling for Reserves - explicitly (a fact you've continuously ignored/hand waved). Sure, GoI means you arrive immediately, but arrive immediately from where? The only logical answer, based on the Deep Strike rules is from Reserves. Not some magic limbo that isn't defined in the rules at all and you have to invent.

Arriving requires rolling for Reserves - agreed. I did not hand-wave it but agreed to its resolution previously:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Per RAW, the unit makes a Reserves roll to arrive by Deep Strike, Gate bypasses this requirement with its "immediately" timing. Still no conflict as the more specific rule trumps the less specific rule per RAW.

SJ

The wording "immediately" removes the requirement to roll (as specified in the rules for Reserves)
You probably missed my post explaining the wording here, drowned out by many other posts:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure, GoI means you arrive immediately, but arrive immediately from where? The only logical answer, based on the Deep Strike rules is from Reserves. Not some magic limbo that isn't defined in the rules at all and you have to invent.

That is if you want to use 'all' the rules for DS, but i am only using "Arriving by Deep Strike", where the only reference to Reserves is how you roll the Dice for arrival (which we have ignored) and where you go to if you have Misshaped (Which does not imply you were there to begin with)
So we are not told where we are arriving from.

 Happyjew wrote:
Off the table. They are not on the table (having been removed) and they are not in reserves, as you are never told to put the unit in reserve.

Though the way I usually see it actually played is the first model is moved while the rest of the unit patiently awaits teleportation in their starting location.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rigeld2 wrote:

As for this one, i think the emphasis was (IMHO) misplaced:

Spoiler:

When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported.

"Making a note", to me, means that it is not actually happening, so you must write it down least you forget (that even though it is not happening, it *should* be that way).

The unit isn't actually on the table? So you can't actually measure to it? Funny, the actual rules disagree with you.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Of course the models were removed from the table. Units are composed of models, if you remove the unit, logically you must remove the models. However, since I removed the unit from the table (as per the rules), where are they - casualties, or in reserves, as I have been told that these are the only two options for models removed.

The unit is on the board, embarked in the vehicle, as demonstrated by the fact I can measure to it.
Continuing with your assertion that the unit isn't on the board, how do you measure to something that isn't on the board?

You are claiming that the measurement rule fails here, but i see absolutely no requirement of that Unit being "on the board":

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting) (that is off the board), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull."

I have added the underlined. It does not make the rule incorrect. There is no contradiction if the specified Unit is not on the board, you've made a Note of where it is...

blaktoof wrote:
deep strike does not follow the steps of being in deep strike reserves.

It doesn't?

So Deep Striking explicitly follows the steps for arriving from Deep Strike Reserves. It says so in that rule right there.

deep strike reserves is a method of entering from reserves by deepstrike.

Incorrect. DSR is Reserves where you will be arriving by Deep Strike.

reserves (not ongoing reserves) are models that did not begin the game deployed on the table as per the RaW under reserves.

The limitation you're asserting never actually exists in the rules

I am starting to think many of the players who think deep strike = deep strike reserves haven't actually read the reserves rules and noticed that it is a different special rule that allows some models an alternate way to arrive from reserves if they have certain rules (Outflank, DS, infililtrate)

Pot, kettle. What you're saying isn't anywhere near factual.

why? Because it doesnt say it arrives immediately from deep strike reserves, an example of what you want is under the rules for conjuration where it explicitly states "they count as coming from reserves, and arrive by deepstrike"

it says they arrive by deepstrike, which doesn't mean they went to reserves. You have failed to cite a single rule proving they came from deep strike reserves.

Except I have, and you've ignored it. That's okay - you consistently do so instead of admitting you're wrong.

Arriving by Deep Strike necessarily uses the rules for Deep Strike which requires (as in, not optional) arriving from Reserves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Arriving requires rolling for Reserves - agreed. I did not hand-wave it but agreed to its resolution previously:

Great! So you agree we have to roll for Reserves. Which means that the unit must be in Reserves to roll for them. Agreed?

rigeld2 wrote:

As for this one, i think the emphasis was (IMHO) misplaced:

Spoiler:

When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported.

"Making a note", to me, means that it is not actually happening, so you must write it down least you forget (that even though it is not happening, it *should* be that way).

The unit isn't actually on the table? So you can't actually measure to it? Funny, the actual rules disagree with you.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Of course the models were removed from the table. Units are composed of models, if you remove the unit, logically you must remove the models. However, since I removed the unit from the table (as per the rules), where are they - casualties, or in reserves, as I have been told that these are the only two options for models removed.

The unit is on the board, embarked in the vehicle, as demonstrated by the fact I can measure to it.
Continuing with your assertion that the unit isn't on the board, how do you measure to something that isn't on the board?

You are claiming that the measurement rule fails here, but i see absolutely no requirement of that Unit being "on the board":

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting) (that is off the board), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull."

I have added the underlined. It does not make the rule incorrect. There is no contradiction if the specified Unit is not on the board, you've made a Note of where it is...

The unit isn't off the board - even in that sentence it says it's embarked. "Where is the unit?" The answer cannot be off the board, the answer must be "It's embarked in that transport." Your addition does significantly change the rule, despite your assurance that it doesn't.

Rigeld2

your first point

When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve).

has to do with reserves, and units arriving from reserves by deep strike.

it does not have to do with deep strike and units arriving by deep strike from deep strike reserves.

You seem to think it states deep strike= deep strike reserves, when it does not say that at all.

It is a rule on units in reserves(which gating units are not..) and them arriving from reserves by deep strike. There are many ways you can arrive from reserves if you have certain rules, one of them is deepstrike.

all the rest of your points are completely invalid and worthless statements in relation to a rules discussion as they have no bearing on rules, intended rules, or anything other than your personal feelings.

blaktoof wrote:
Rigeld2

your first point

When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve).

has to do with reserves, and units arriving from reserves by deep strike.

You said, and I quote:

deep strike does not follow the steps of being in deep strike reserves.

We know, from the above rules quote that you re-quoted, that arriving by Deep Strike (from Reserve) is sometimes call Deep Strike Reserve. Thus proving your statement untrue.

It is a rule on units in reserves(which gating units are not..) and them arriving from reserves by deep strike. There are many ways you can arrive from reserves if you have certain rules, one of them is deepstrike.

all the rest of your points are completely invalid and worthless statements in relation to a rules discussion as they have no bearing on rules, intended rules, or anything other than your personal feelings.

So this isn't valid and it's completely worthless?

Arriving by Deep Strike necessarily uses the rules for Deep Strike which requires (as in, not optional) arriving from Reserves.

Do you have something to disprove it other than "Nuh uh. It's invalid and worthless."?

rigeld2 wrote:
Great! So you agree we have to roll for Reserves. Which means that the unit must be in Reserves to roll for them. Agreed?

If it had to roll for arrival, sure.
GoI removes the need for any roll, so why do we need to qualify this roll?

We know exactly what to Roll: It is specified in the rules for Reserves. ("roll a D6 for each unit...")

rigeld2 wrote:
The unit isn't off the board - even in that sentence it says it's embarked. "Where is the unit?" The answer cannot be off the board, the answer must be "It's embarked in that transport." Your addition does significantly change the rule, despite your assurance that it doesn't.

Incorrect.
"Where is the unit?"

remove it from the table and place it aside

It is "placed aside" (if that does not mean "off the board" then that's also fine)

I've made a note of where it's embarked and "If (I) need to measure a range involving the embarked unit..." i also know what to do. But it is "placed aside" by RaW.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Great! So you agree we have to roll for Reserves. Which means that the unit must be in Reserves to roll for them. Agreed?

If it had to roll for arrival, sure.
GoI removes the need for any roll, so why do we need to qualify this roll?

We know exactly what to Roll: It is specified in the rules for Reserves. ("roll a D6 for each unit...")

It removes the need to roll, but not the reason for the rolls existence.

If you automatically hit something, does that mean you didn't have to target them?

rigeld2 wrote:
The unit isn't off the board - even in that sentence it says it's embarked. "Where is the unit?" The answer cannot be off the board, the answer must be "It's embarked in that transport." Your addition does significantly change the rule, despite your assurance that it doesn't.

Incorrect.
"Where is the unit?"

remove it from the table and place it aside

It is "placed aside" (if that does not mean "off the board" then that's also fine)

I've made a note of where it's embarked and "If (I) need to measure a range involving the embarked unit..." i also know what to do. But it is "placed aside" by RaW.

The models are, necessarily (because they normally can't physically embark). But the actual unit is demonstrably on the board.
Does the unit contribute to the Psychic dice pool?
Can they fire?
Can they use area of effect rules?

The answer is yes to all of these - something that isn't true of units that are not on the board.

Blaktoof, your inability to read to actual rules is astounding. Please actually read the Deep Strike USR. You know, the rule you just made a false statement about? The rule that tells us in no uncertain terms that Deep Strike is also known as Deep Strike Reserves? You know, that point you keep missing that we keep pointing out to you and BlackTalos?

Its a very easy concept, printed in the BRB, both physical and digital. Please try to actually read the rules.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Blaktoof, your inability to read to actual rules is astounding. Please actually read the Deep Strike USR. You know, the rule you just made a false statement about? The rule that tells us in no uncertain terms that Deep Strike is also known as Deep Strike Reserves? You know, that point you keep missing that we keep pointing out to you and BlackTalos?

Its a very easy concept, printed in the BRB, both physical and digital. Please try to actually read the rules.

SJ

Deep Strike Reserves is independent from having the Deep Strike USR and being able to arrive by Deep Strike. It has been proven enough times that your inability to read 'to' actual rules is astounding.

Its a very easy concept, printed in the BRB, both physical and digital. Please try to actually read the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Great! So you agree we have to roll for Reserves. Which means that the unit must be in Reserves to roll for them. Agreed?

If it had to roll for arrival, sure.
GoI removes the need for any roll, so why do we need to qualify this roll?

We know exactly what to Roll: It is specified in the rules for Reserves. ("roll a D6 for each unit...")

It removes the need to roll, but not the reason for the rolls existence.

If you automatically hit something, does that mean you didn't have to target them?

Strawman. If you automatically hit something, does that mean you didn't have to roll To Hit?

Same answer as here: you probably had to, but it is no longer relevant.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The unit isn't off the board - even in that sentence it says it's embarked. "Where is the unit?" The answer cannot be off the board, the answer must be "It's embarked in that transport." Your addition does significantly change the rule, despite your assurance that it doesn't.

Incorrect.
"Where is the unit?"

remove it from the table and place it aside

It is "placed aside" (if that does not mean "off the board" then that's also fine)

I've made a note of where it's embarked and "If (I) need to measure a range involving the embarked unit..." i also know what to do. But it is "placed aside" by RaW.

The models are, necessarily (because they normally can't physically embark). But the actual unit is demonstrably on the board.
Does the unit contribute to the Psychic dice pool?
Can they fire?
Can they use area of effect rules?

The answer is yes to all of these - something that isn't true of units that are not on the board.

Why do you think that the answer to those is a Yes?
Because we are specifically told "(including those embarked on Transports)" (Oh, because they're not actually "on the tabletop")
Because of the rules found under "Fire Points".
Because "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit".

None of those require the presence of the Unit on the board. If anything, they are explaining to you how things work because these Units are not on the board...

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Great! So you agree we have to roll for Reserves. Which means that the unit must be in Reserves to roll for them. Agreed?

If it had to roll for arrival, sure.
GoI removes the need for any roll, so why do we need to qualify this roll?

We know exactly what to Roll: It is specified in the rules for Reserves. ("roll a D6 for each unit...")

It removes the need to roll, but not the reason for the rolls existence.

If you automatically hit something, does that mean you didn't have to target them?

Strawman. If you automatically hit something, does that mean you didn't have to roll To Hit?

Same answer as here: you probably had to, but it is no longer relevant.

Not a strawman. You said you get to ignore the fact that you're rolling to arrive from Reserves because you don't have to roll. And while it isn't relevant (normally) in the To Hit instance, it's absolutely relevant here.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The unit isn't off the board - even in that sentence it says it's embarked. "Where is the unit?" The answer cannot be off the board, the answer must be "It's embarked in that transport." Your addition does significantly change the rule, despite your assurance that it doesn't.

Incorrect.
"Where is the unit?"

remove it from the table and place it aside

It is "placed aside" (if that does not mean "off the board" then that's also fine)

I've made a note of where it's embarked and "If (I) need to measure a range involving the embarked unit..." i also know what to do. But it is "placed aside" by RaW.

The models are, necessarily (because they normally can't physically embark). But the actual unit is demonstrably on the board.
Does the unit contribute to the Psychic dice pool?
Can they fire?
Can they use area of effect rules?

The answer is yes to all of these - something that isn't true of units that are not on the board.

Why do you think that the answer to those is a Yes?
Because of the rules found under "Fire Points".
Because we are specifically told "(including those embarked on Transports)" (Oh, because they're not actually "on the tabletop")
Because "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit".

None of those require the presence of the Unit on the board. If anything, they are explaining to you how things work because these Units are not on the board...

So they're on the board (because they can effect the board in multiple ways) but they're not really on the board.
Yeah, that makes sense and is totally supported by rules. It's not that the unit is on the board and the rules have to explain interactions with embarked units - especially parentheticals that must be able to removed from a sentence without changing its meaning.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Great! So you agree we have to roll for Reserves. Which means that the unit must be in Reserves to roll for them. Agreed?

If it had to roll for arrival, sure.
GoI removes the need for any roll, so why do we need to qualify this roll?

We know exactly what to Roll: It is specified in the rules for Reserves. ("roll a D6 for each unit...")

It removes the need to roll, but not the reason for the rolls existence.

If you automatically hit something, does that mean you didn't have to target them?

Strawman. If you automatically hit something, does that mean you didn't have to roll To Hit?

Same answer as here: you probably had to, but it is no longer relevant.

Not a strawman. You said you get to ignore the fact that you're rolling to arrive from Reserves because you don't have to roll. And while it isn't relevant (normally) in the To Hit instance, it's absolutely relevant here.

Indeed, you get to ignore the fact that you're rolling To Hit, because you don't have to roll. That is indeed correct.
You get to ignore the fact that you are placed on the ground floor, because you're not arriving in Ruins
You get to ignore the fact that you're rolling a save, because you don't have to roll when you suffer a Deathblow (D-weapon)

Should i continue?

If a rule removes a restriction, why would the requirements of the restriction still exist?

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The unit isn't off the board - even in that sentence it says it's embarked. "Where is the unit?" The answer cannot be off the board, the answer must be "It's embarked in that transport." Your addition does significantly change the rule, despite your assurance that it doesn't.

Incorrect.
"Where is the unit?"

remove it from the table and place it aside

It is "placed aside" (if that does not mean "off the board" then that's also fine)

I've made a note of where it's embarked and "If (I) need to measure a range involving the embarked unit..." i also know what to do. But it is "placed aside" by RaW.

The models are, necessarily (because they normally can't physically embark). But the actual unit is demonstrably on the board.
Does the unit contribute to the Psychic dice pool?
Can they fire?
Can they use area of effect rules?

The answer is yes to all of these - something that isn't true of units that are not on the board.

Why do you think that the answer to those is a Yes?
Because of the rules found under "Fire Points".
Because we are specifically told "(including those embarked on Transports)" (Oh, because they're not actually "on the tabletop")
Because "If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit".

None of those require the presence of the Unit on the board. If anything, they are explaining to you how things work because these Units are not on the board...

So they're on the board (because they can effect the board in multiple ways) but they're not really on the board.
Yeah, that makes sense and is totally supported by rules. It's not that the unit is on the board and the rules have to explain interactions with embarked units - especially parentheticals that must be able to removed from a sentence without changing its meaning.

No, they're not on the board, but they (the vehicle) can effect the board in multiple ways, yes.

The parentheticals were to imply more meaning, but they're not needed.

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull."

The above does not require "the embarked unit" to be present on the board. It tells you how to measure to something "not on the board".

 BlackTalos wrote:
Indeed, you get to ignore the fact that you're rolling To Hit, because you don't have to roll. That is indeed correct.
You get to ignore the fact that you are placed on the ground floor, because you're not arriving in Ruins
You get to ignore the fact that you're rolling a save, because you don't have to roll when you suffer a Deathblow (D-weapon)

Should i continue?

If a rule removes a restriction, why would the requirements of the restriction still exist?

It's not removing a restriction - rolling to arrive isn't a restriction. It's part of the instruction on arriving. You don't have to roll, but that doesn't mean you're not arriving.

No, they're not on the board, but they (the vehicle) can effect the board in multiple ways, yes.

The vehicle is not effecting the board in multiple ways.
The vehicle does not shoot out of firing points.
The vehicle does not contribute psychic dice.
The vehicle does not have a banner (or whatever).

The embarked unit does.

The parentheticals were to imply more meaning, but they're not needed.

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull."

The above does not require "the embarked unit" to be present on the board. It tells you how to measure to something "not on the board".

So we'll just ignore the parenthetical you quoted earlier?

Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop (including those embarked on Transports) and adds that many dice to their Warp Charge pool.

For the sentence to be grammatically correct, we must be able to remove the parenthetical without changing the meaning of the sentence.

Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop and adds that many dice to their Warp Charge pool.

Oh look. Either a) embarked units are on the tabletop or b) the sentence isn't grammatically correct. Since we can't assume b) then a) must be true.

Except, as the rule states, the unit is not on the board.

I do not understand why you try to refute this, when the rules explicitly, with zero ambiguity, state this.

The unit is not on the board. THe rules then give you ways to interact with a unit not on the board, because otherwise we would have a gap

This does not alter the FACT, indisputable in RAW, that they are most certanily NOT on the board.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except, as the rule states, the unit is not on the board.

I do not understand why you try to refute this, when the rules explicitly, with zero ambiguity, state this.

The unit is not on the board. THe rules then give you ways to interact with a unit not on the board, because otherwise we would have a gap

This does not alter the FACT, indisputable in RAW, that they are most certanily NOT on the board.

So embarked units do not, in fact, contribute psychic dice?
Or is that sentence grammatically incorrect?
If the unit is not on the board, how are you selecting it to fire from a firing point?
If the unit is not on the board, how is its banner being used?

I do not understand why you try to refute this given that the rules explicitly, with zero ambiguity, state this. The embarked unit is on the board.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except, as the rule states, the unit is not on the board.

I do not understand why you try to refute this, when the rules explicitly, with zero ambiguity, state this.

The unit is not on the board. THe rules then give you ways to interact with a unit not on the board, because otherwise we would have a gap

This does not alter the FACT, indisputable in RAW, that they are most certanily NOT on the board.

So embarked units do not, in fact, contribute psychic dice?
Or is that sentence grammatically incorrect?
If the unit is not on the board, how are you selecting it to fire from a firing point?
If the unit is not on the board, how is its banner being used?

I do not understand why you try to refute this given that the rules explicitly, with zero ambiguity, state this. The embarked unit is on the board.

this rule, yet again wrote:When the unit embarks, remove it {a reference to the unit} from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported.

My addition in {}, in case the subject of "it" was somehow unclear. Note that it *cannot* refer to models, but the set of models known as "the unit". No other parsing is possible. None.

So that line does not exist? Or will you actually adderss this point, rather than handwave it away?

Your argument is devolving rapidly here, take a step back, rather than answer with sarcastic posts.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Blaktoof, your inability to read to actual rules is astounding. Please actually read the Deep Strike USR. You know, the rule you just made a false statement about? The rule that tells us in no uncertain terms that Deep Strike is also known as Deep Strike Reserves? You know, that point you keep missing that we keep pointing out to you and BlackTalos?

Its a very easy concept, printed in the BRB, both physical and digital. Please try to actually read the rules.

SJ

Deep Strike Reserves is independent from having the Deep Strike USR and being able to arrive by Deep Strike. It has been proven enough times that your inability to read 'to' actual rules is astounding.

Its a very easy concept, printed in the BRB, both physical and digital. Please try to actually read the rules.

Is there anyway I can get you to correct your grammar so you point is intelligible? As it stands, you seem you be missing words or have used the wrong words due to auto correct, I'm assuming?

I'm pretty sure you meant to say that despite the Deep Strike USR specifically stating in the second sentence of the first paragraph that Deep Strike is also known as Deep Strike Reserves, that you do not have to be in Reserves nor have the Deep Strike USR in order to Deep Strike or be in Deep Strike Reserves. Because if that was what you were trying to say, the we would be in agreement. If not, please fix your typos.

SJ

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Indeed, you get to ignore the fact that you're rolling To Hit, because you don't have to roll. That is indeed correct.
You get to ignore the fact that you are placed on the ground floor, because you're not arriving in Ruins
You get to ignore the fact that you're rolling a save, because you don't have to roll when you suffer a Deathblow (D-weapon)

Should i continue?

If a rule removes a restriction, why would the requirements of the restriction still exist?

It's not removing a restriction - rolling to arrive isn't a restriction. It's part of the instruction on arriving. You don't have to roll, but that doesn't mean you're not arriving.

Permission then. You don't have to roll, which means you just "deploy them as follows:".

You are arriving because GoI tell you to arrive, not because you are rolling to arrive.

rigeld2 wrote:

No, they're not on the board, but they (the vehicle) can effect the board in multiple ways, yes.

The vehicle is not effecting the board in multiple ways.
The vehicle does not shoot out of firing points.
The vehicle does not contribute psychic dice.
The vehicle does not have a banner (or whatever).

The embarked unit does.

(including those embarked on Transports) contributes psychic dice. They are not on the table.
"a single passenger can fire out of each Fire Point". He is not on the table.
"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit" (cause the embarked Unit has a banner). The embarked Unit is not on the table.

Every "not on the table" is RaW by the way: "remove it from the table and place it aside"

rigeld2 wrote:

The parentheticals were to imply more meaning, but they're not needed.

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull."

The above does not require "the embarked unit" to be present on the board. It tells you how to measure to something "not on the board".

So we'll just ignore the parenthetical you quoted earlier?

Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop (including those embarked on Transports) and adds that many dice to their Warp Charge pool.

For the sentence to be grammatically correct, we must be able to remove the parenthetical without changing the meaning of the sentence.

Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop and adds that many dice to their Warp Charge pool.

Oh look. Either a) embarked units are on the tabletop or b) the sentence isn't grammatically correct. Since we can't assume b) then a) must be true.

I did not think you were referring to those, of course those are RaW and of crucial importance...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except, as the rule states, the unit is not on the board.

I do not understand why you try to refute this, when the rules explicitly, with zero ambiguity, state this.

The unit is not on the board. THe rules then give you ways to interact with a unit not on the board, because otherwise we would have a gap

This does not alter the FACT, indisputable in RAW, that they are most certanily NOT on the board.

So embarked units do not, in fact, contribute psychic dice?
Or is that sentence grammatically incorrect?
If the unit is not on the board, how are you selecting it to fire from a firing point?
If the unit is not on the board, how is its banner being used?

I do not understand why you try to refute this given that the rules explicitly, with zero ambiguity, state this. The embarked unit is on the board.

this rule, yet again wrote:When the unit embarks, remove it {a reference to the unit} from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported.

My addition in {}, in case the subject of "it" was somehow unclear. Note that it *cannot* refer to models, but the set of models known as "the unit". No other parsing is possible. None.

So that line does not exist? Or will you actually adderss this point, rather than handwave it away?

Your argument is devolving rapidly here, take a step back, rather than answer with sarcastic posts.

I've acknowledged the fact that the models in the unit is set aside - it's a physical requirement as they can't physically embark in the vehicle.
That doesn't change the fact - undeniable - that the rules refer to the embarked unit as being on the table. As I've demonstrated.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Blaktoof, your inability to read to actual rules is astounding. Please actually read the Deep Strike USR. You know, the rule you just made a false statement about? The rule that tells us in no uncertain terms that Deep Strike is also known as Deep Strike Reserves? You know, that point you keep missing that we keep pointing out to you and BlackTalos?

Its a very easy concept, printed in the BRB, both physical and digital. Please try to actually read the rules.

SJ

Deep Strike Reserves is independent from having the Deep Strike USR and being able to arrive by Deep Strike. It has been proven enough times that your inability to read 'to' actual rules is astounding.

Its a very easy concept, printed in the BRB, both physical and digital. Please try to actually read the rules.

Is there anyway I can get you to correct your grammar so you point is intelligible? As it stands, you seem you be missing words or have used the wrong words due to auto correct, I'm assuming?

I'm pretty sure you meant to say that despite the Deep Strike USR specifically stating in the second sentence of the first paragraph that Deep Strike is also known as Deep Strike Reserves, that you do not have to be in Reserves nor have the Deep Strike USR in order to Deep Strike or be in Deep Strike Reserves. Because if that was what you were trying to say, the we would be in agreement. If not, please fix your typos.

SJ

"Deep Strike Reserves is independent from having the Deep Strike USR and being able to arrive by Deep Strike." Is grammatically correct, or do you have trouble with complex phrases? I will split it up to help with your understanding of the phrase:

-Deep Strike Reserves is independent from having the Deep Strike USR.
-Deep Strike Reserves is independent from being able to arrive by Deep Strike.

Rigeld - So youre changing the rule as written then to state "the unit is not put aside, the models are"?

Because the rule *never* confines itself to the model. It explicitly - as already given above - states the unit is removed.

Do you disagree the unit is removed? If so, please explain how the "it" suddenly refers to the models. And not, as English requires, the subject which is the unit.

At least one par tof your "proof" requires that GW are using grammatically correct English as regards parentheticals - an unsafe assumption given the absolutely explicit rule above.

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Indeed, you get to ignore the fact that you're rolling To Hit, because you don't have to roll. That is indeed correct.
You get to ignore the fact that you are placed on the ground floor, because you're not arriving in Ruins
You get to ignore the fact that you're rolling a save, because you don't have to roll when you suffer a Deathblow (D-weapon)

Should i continue?

If a rule removes a restriction, why would the requirements of the restriction still exist?

It's not removing a restriction - rolling to arrive isn't a restriction. It's part of the instruction on arriving. You don't have to roll, but that doesn't mean you're not arriving.

Permission then. You don't have to roll, which means you just "deploy them as follows:".

You are arriving because GoI tell you to arrive, not because you are rolling to arrive.

You don't have to roll, but that alleviates all other requirements? Seriously? And you're saying that's not handwaving things away?

rigeld2 wrote:

No, they're not on the board, but they (the vehicle) can effect the board in multiple ways, yes.

The vehicle is not effecting the board in multiple ways.
The vehicle does not shoot out of firing points.
The vehicle does not contribute psychic dice.
The vehicle does not have a banner (or whatever).

The embarked unit does.

(including those embarked on Transports) contributes psychic dice. They are not on the table.
"a single passenger can fire out of each Fire Point". He is not on the table.
"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit" (cause the embarked Unit has a banner). The embarked Unit is not on the table.

Every "not on the table" is RaW by the way: "remove it from the table and place it aside"

I've demonstrated that you're incorrect on the Psychic dice - demonstrably so.

Cite permission to nominate a unit that is not on the table. As soon as you do, I'm going to start nominating units that are in Reserve. There are weapons with infinite range.
The embarked unit is being transported - it's on the table.

rigeld2 wrote:

The parentheticals were to imply more meaning, but they're not needed.

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle’s hull."

The above does not require "the embarked unit" to be present on the board. It tells you how to measure to something "not on the board".

So we'll just ignore the parenthetical you quoted earlier?

Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop (including those embarked on Transports) and adds that many dice to their Warp Charge pool.

For the sentence to be grammatically correct, we must be able to remove the parenthetical without changing the meaning of the sentence.

Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop and adds that many dice to their Warp Charge pool.

Oh look. Either a) embarked units are on the tabletop or b) the sentence isn't grammatically correct. Since we can't assume b) then a) must be true.

I did not think you were referring to those, of course those are RaW and of crucial importance...

So you're saying the sentence is not grammatically correct?

Fine - nomiunate a unit in reserves.

I will then require you to measure to the unit. Infinite range or not, you must still comply with this requirement. The fire point rules show how to do this for an embarked unit. NOw show how this applies to a unit in reserves.

Seirously, youre making totally debunked arguments now. As in, 2 edition old arguments about units being off table (embarked) vs off table (in reserves)

Again, you have no rule to allow you to ignore that the unit , while embarked, is removed from the table. This is proven. Address it, or concede that you cannot do so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, you have no rule to allow you to ignore that the unit , while embarked, is removed from the table. This is proven. Address it, or concede that you cannot do so.

I have of course. You just like to ignore that fact.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, you have no rule to allow you to ignore that the unit , while embarked, is removed from the table. This is proven. Address it, or concede that you cannot do so.

I have of course. You just like to ignore that fact.

"like" implies emotion, and the potential for bias in my arguments. Youre better than using that as an argument technique - thats more the style of posters on ignore.

I am applying a simple rule, and asking why somehow the rule is not correct.

Page and graph where the unit that is off the tabke - explicitly so - is explicitly on the table. Humour me - if you've already proven it, this should be easy to find an explicit reference that the unit is on the board.

If you can find it, t still does not help you, you realise? This does not prove thata unit off the board is in reserve - all it proves is that this unit is simultaneously ON and OFF the board. Not that being off the board means you must be in reserves.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, you have no rule to allow you to ignore that the unit , while embarked, is removed from the table. This is proven. Address it, or concede that you cannot do so.

I have of course. You just like to ignore that fact.

"like" implies emotion, and the potential for bias in my arguments. Youre better than using that as an argument technique - thats more the style of posters on ignore.

I am applying a simple rule, and asking why somehow the rule is not correct.

Page and graph where the unit that is off the tabke - explicitly so - is explicitly on the table. Humour me - if you've already proven it, this should be easy to find an explicit reference that the unit is on the board.

Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop and adds that many dice to their Warp Charge pool.

The parenthetical I removed (which must be removable to be grammatically correct) is "(including those embarked on Transports)". Since it's removable, it proves that units embarked on Transports are on the tabletop, according to the rules.

If you can find it, t still does not help you, you realise? This does not prove thata unit off the board is in reserve - all it proves is that this unit is simultaneously ON and OFF the board. Not that being off the board means you must be in reserves.

The tangent started because the assertion was made that units in vehicles were off the board as evidence that there were more than two options (dead, reserves).
I've proven that this isn't true, and that those are the only two options. I've further proven that GoI uses the rules for Deep Strike which include rolling to arrive from Reserves (the roll is skipped, but there's no conflict with arriving from Reserves).
I'm sure you already knew that though - since you've been reading my posts.

And clearly you have been reading my posts, yes? Not just quote snipping, which is incredibly irritating? A fact you are aware of....

Here, I'll requote it for you:

At least one par tof your "proof" requires that GW are using grammatically correct English as regards parentheticals - an unsafe assumption given the absolutely explicit rule above.

So, given I've shown the explicit rule that shows they are OFF the board, and you have at best an *implication* that, IF GW understand how to use correct English (unsafe), the unit is counted for warp charges - I would suggest the OFF the board side is more persuasive.

You have not proven those are the only two options. Explcitly, without ambiguity, an embarked unit is off the board, and is neither dead nor in reserves.

You have not overturned the explicit rule. You have, at best, shown they are OFF and ON the board at the same time (gee, I already mentioned this..you were reading my entire post, yes?) - whcih does not, in anyway, DISprove that they are OFF the board and there is THEREFORE an "off the board" state that is neither Reserves nor Dead

You are disproven, utterly, because you fail to overturn the explicit rule, or even address it. Stop with the tangent, as it is proven that there is a "3rd state" that is neither Reserves nor Dead.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Indeed, you get to ignore the fact that you're rolling To Hit, because you don't have to roll. That is indeed correct.
You get to ignore the fact that you are placed on the ground floor, because you're not arriving in Ruins
You get to ignore the fact that you're rolling a save, because you don't have to roll when you suffer a Deathblow (D-weapon)

Should i continue?

If a rule removes a restriction, why would the requirements of the restriction still exist?

It's not removing a restriction - rolling to arrive isn't a restriction. It's part of the instruction on arriving. You don't have to roll, but that doesn't mean you're not arriving.

Permission then. You don't have to roll, which means you just "deploy them as follows:".

You are arriving because GoI tell you to arrive, not because you are rolling to arrive.

You don't have to roll, but that alleviates all other requirements? Seriously? And you're saying that's not handwaving things away?

Any requirements linked to the need to roll, yes, of course. The RaW is this:

Arriving by Deep Strike
Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves and then deploy them as follows:
• First, place one model

GoI:

"arrives (...) using the rules for Deep Strike"

But it removes the permission to roll for arrival, so what are the rules you are following?

Arriving by Deep Strike
deploy them as follows:
• First, place one model

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

No, they're not on the board, but they (the vehicle) can effect the board in multiple ways, yes.

The vehicle is not effecting the board in multiple ways.
The vehicle does not shoot out of firing points.
The vehicle does not contribute psychic dice.
The vehicle does not have a banner (or whatever).

The embarked unit does.

(including those embarked on Transports) contributes psychic dice. They are not on the table.
"a single passenger can fire out of each Fire Point". He is not on the table.
"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit" (cause the embarked Unit has a banner). The embarked Unit is not on the table.

Every "not on the table" is RaW by the way: "remove it from the table and place it aside"

I've demonstrated that you're incorrect on the Psychic dice - demonstrably so.

Spoiler:

NOMINATE A UNIT TO SHOOT
During the Shooting phase, a unit containing models armed with ranged weapons can be nominated to make shooting attacks.

Cite permission to nominate a unit that is not on the table. As soon as you do, I'm going to start nominating units that are in Reserve. There are weapons with infinite range.
The embarked unit is being transported - it's on the table.

As Nos has said: You can pick any Unit.
Pick the Unit in Reserves. Now select where that unit is measuring from, and determine its line of sight.
Pick the Unit off the table, Noted to be in Rhino 1. Now select where that unit is measuring from, and determine its line of sight: "Ranges and line of sight are measured from the Fire
Point itself."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop and adds that many dice to their Warp Charge pool.

The parenthetical I removed (which must be removable to be grammatically correct) is "(including those embarked on Transports)". Since it's removable, it proves that units embarked on Transports are on the tabletop, according to the rules.

The tangent started because the assertion was made that units in vehicles were off the board as evidence that there were more than two options (dead, reserves).
I've proven that this isn't true, and that those are the only two options. I've further proven that GoI uses the rules for Deep Strike which include rolling to arrive from Reserves (the roll is skipped, but there's no conflict with arriving from Reserves).
I'm sure you already knew that though - since you've been reading my posts.

The parenthetical is an additional piece of information. The rule is changed without it. It would not be needed otherwise.

And indeed, as we have proved again that the Unit is "place it aside" and not on the board, the same can be said for Units using GoI.
There are indeed more than two options (dead, reserves).

 BlackTalos wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Blaktoof, your inability to read to actual rules is astounding. Please actually read the Deep Strike USR. You know, the rule you just made a false statement about? The rule that tells us in no uncertain terms that Deep Strike is also known as Deep Strike Reserves? You know, that point you keep missing that we keep pointing out to you and BlackTalos?

Its a very easy concept, printed in the BRB, both physical and digital. Please try to actually read the rules.

SJ

Deep Strike Reserves is independent from having the Deep Strike USR and being able to arrive by Deep Strike. It has been proven enough times that your inability to read 'to' actual rules is astounding.

Its a very easy concept, printed in the BRB, both physical and digital. Please try to actually read the rules.

Is there anyway I can get you to correct your grammar so you point is intelligible? As it stands, you seem you be missing words or have used the wrong words due to auto correct, I'm assuming?

I'm pretty sure you meant to say that despite the Deep Strike USR specifically stating in the second sentence of the first paragraph that Deep Strike is also known as Deep Strike Reserves, that you do not have to be in Reserves nor have the Deep Strike USR in order to Deep Strike or be in Deep Strike Reserves. Because if that was what you were trying to say, the we would be in agreement. If not, please fix your typos.

SJ

"Deep Strike Reserves is independent from having the Deep Strike USR and being able to arrive by Deep Strike." Is grammatically correct, or do you have trouble with complex phrases? I will split it up to help with your understanding of the phrase:

-Deep Strike Reserves is independent from having the Deep Strike USR.
-Deep Strike Reserves is independent from being able to arrive by Deep Strike.

Ohhhhhh, I see! You were just supporting my position, which had me confused. That makes sense, now.

SJ

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Indeed, you get to ignore the fact that you're rolling To Hit, because you don't have to roll. That is indeed correct.
You get to ignore the fact that you are placed on the ground floor, because you're not arriving in Ruins
You get to ignore the fact that you're rolling a save, because you don't have to roll when you suffer a Deathblow (D-weapon)

Should i continue?

If a rule removes a restriction, why would the requirements of the restriction still exist?

It's not removing a restriction - rolling to arrive isn't a restriction. It's part of the instruction on arriving. You don't have to roll, but that doesn't mean you're not arriving.

Permission then. You don't have to roll, which means you just "deploy them as follows:".

You are arriving because GoI tell you to arrive, not because you are rolling to arrive.

You don't have to roll, but that alleviates all other requirements? Seriously? And you're saying that's not handwaving things away?

Any requirements linked to the need to roll, yes, of course. The RaW is this:

Arriving by Deep Strike
Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves and then deploy them as follows:
• First, place one model

SNIP.

Why are you only applying some of the Deep Strike rule? You're making an assumption that's all that applies without rules support.
In addition, the only thing you're allowed to do is skip the roll, not anything else. You're skipping more than the need to roll with your interpretation. As I've said before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And clearly you have been reading my posts, yes? Not just quote snipping, which is incredibly irritating? A fact you are aware of....

Here, I'll requote it for you:

At least one par tof your "proof" requires that GW are using grammatically correct English as regards parentheticals - an unsafe assumption given the absolutely explicit rule above.

Given that you edited that sentence in after I replied to another post...
No, assuming GW uses grammatically correct English is never an "unsafe assumption." Words mean things. To begin with the assumption that they don't use grammatically correct English leads to a slippery slope - many of the discussions in here revolve around grammar and with this statement you've literally nullified all of them. Even ones that you've participated in.

So, given I've shown the explicit rule that shows they are OFF the board, and you have at best an *implication* that, IF GW understand how to use correct English (unsafe), the unit is counted for warp charges - I would suggest the OFF the board side is more persuasive.

And I've explained that the models are off the board because it's physically impossible for them to be on the board - but that the unit is on the board.

You have not proven those are the only two options. Explcitly, without ambiguity, an embarked unit is off the board, and is neither dead nor in reserves.

Only if you begin to assume GW don't write grammatically correct sentences. Which is an assumption that has no basis in fact and leads to significant problems.

You have not overturned the explicit rule. You have, at best, shown they are OFF and ON the board at the same time (gee, I already mentioned this..you were reading my entire post, yes?) - whcih does not, in anyway, DISprove that they are OFF the board and there is THEREFORE an "off the board" state that is neither Reserves nor Dead

Screw it, I'll give up this tangent - not because you're correct but because you refuse to actually see my point and would rather instead get snippy.

You are disproven, utterly, because you fail to overturn the explicit rule, or even address it. Stop with the tangent, as it is proven that there is a "3rd state" that is neither Reserves nor Dead.

Your absolute statements are, as always, rude and incorrect. But as I said, I'm done with this tangent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
As Nos has said: You can pick any Unit.
Pick the Unit in Reserves. Now select where that unit is measuring from, and determine its line of sight.
Pick the Unit off the table, Noted to be in Rhino 1. Now select where that unit is measuring from, and determine its line of sight: "Ranges and line of sight are measured from the Fire
Point itself."

So you agree that a barrage weapon with infinite range could be fired from Reserves?

rigeld2 wrote:

Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop and adds that many dice to their Warp Charge pool.

The parenthetical I removed (which must be removable to be grammatically correct) is "(including those embarked on Transports)". Since it's removable, it proves that units embarked on Transports are on the tabletop, according to the rules.

The tangent started because the assertion was made that units in vehicles were off the board as evidence that there were more than two options (dead, reserves).
I've proven that this isn't true, and that those are the only two options. I've further proven that GoI uses the rules for Deep Strike which include rolling to arrive from Reserves (the roll is skipped, but there's no conflict with arriving from Reserves).
I'm sure you already knew that though - since you've been reading my posts.

The parenthetical is an additional piece of information. The rule is changed without it. It would not be needed otherwise.

Then the sentence is in fact grammatically incorrect according to you? A simple yes or no is sufficient.

But again, I'm done with this tangent. I literally couldn't care less.

But please, remember this next time you bring up correct grammar in an argument - you've literally just defeated your own arguments in multiple threads.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Indeed, you get to ignore the fact that you're rolling To Hit, because you don't have to roll. That is indeed correct.
You get to ignore the fact that you are placed on the ground floor, because you're not arriving in Ruins
You get to ignore the fact that you're rolling a save, because you don't have to roll when you suffer a Deathblow (D-weapon)

Should i continue?

If a rule removes a restriction, why would the requirements of the restriction still exist?

It's not removing a restriction - rolling to arrive isn't a restriction. It's part of the instruction on arriving. You don't have to roll, but that doesn't mean you're not arriving.

Permission then. You don't have to roll, which means you just "deploy them as follows:".

You are arriving because GoI tell you to arrive, not because you are rolling to arrive.

You don't have to roll, but that alleviates all other requirements? Seriously? And you're saying that's not handwaving things away?

Any requirements linked to the need to roll, yes, of course. The RaW is this:

Arriving by Deep Strike
Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves and then deploy them as follows:
• First, place one model

SNIP.

Why are you only applying some of the Deep Strike rule? You're making an assumption that's all that applies without rules support.
In addition, the only thing you're allowed to do is skip the roll, not anything else. You're skipping more than the need to roll with your interpretation. As I've said before.

Covered before, but you just changed the subject:

 BlackTalos wrote:

Snip

But they both relate to the Deep Strike USR, correct?
One refers to "arriving" using DS, the other refers to "deploy" using DS, correct?

Could i try to push understanding here one step further , and get you to find both of those in the Deep Strike Rules?

Spoiler:

In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in Reserve. When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve). Some units must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike.
Arriving by Deep Strike
Roll for the arrival of all Deep Striking units as specified in the rules for Reserves and then deploy them as follows:
• First, place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model’s final position. If a vehicle scatters when arriving via Deep Strike, do not change its facing – it must continue to face the same direction as it did before you rolled for scatter.
• Next, the unit’s remaining models are arranged around the first one. Models must be placed in base contact with the first model and begin to form a circle around it. When the first circle is complete, a further concentric circle must be placed with each model touching the circle inside it. Each circle must include as many models as will fit.
• Models deploying via Deep Strike treat all difficult terrain as dangerous terrain.
In the Movement phase during which they arrive, Deep Striking units may (etc).
(Copied from BRB-Digital edition)

Would the above "distinction" between the two terms ("arriving" VS "deploy" using DS) signify these rules are calling out specific sections of the Deep Strike USR?
This is the part you will not agree with, but i'm curious as to why? It is logically completely sound.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
As Nos has said: You can pick any Unit.
Pick the Unit in Reserves. Now select where that unit is measuring from, and determine its line of sight.
Pick the Unit off the table, Noted to be in Rhino 1. Now select where that unit is measuring from, and determine its line of sight: "Ranges and line of sight are measured from the Fire
Point itself."

So you agree that a barrage weapon with infinite range could be fired from Reserves?

Oh indeed! When you've shown me how you measure its range, let me know. Don't forget:
"When checking range, simply measure from each firer to..."
Regardless of the value of the "range".

I can do that for fire points, can you do it for this unit?

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop and adds that many dice to their Warp Charge pool.

The parenthetical I removed (which must be removable to be grammatically correct) is "(including those embarked on Transports)". Since it's removable, it proves that units embarked on Transports are on the tabletop, according to the rules.

The tangent started because the assertion was made that units in vehicles were off the board as evidence that there were more than two options (dead, reserves).
I've proven that this isn't true, and that those are the only two options. I've further proven that GoI uses the rules for Deep Strike which include rolling to arrive from Reserves (the roll is skipped, but there's no conflict with arriving from Reserves).
I'm sure you already knew that though - since you've been reading my posts.

The parenthetical is an additional piece of information. The rule is changed without it. It would not be needed otherwise.

Then the sentence is in fact grammatically incorrect according to you? A simple yes or no is sufficient.

But again, I'm done with this tangent. I literally couldn't care less.

But please, remember this next time you bring up correct grammar in an argument - you've literally just defeated your own arguments in multiple threads.

The sentence is correct Grammatically. What does this prove?
I was not even paying attention to that tangent, and did not read your "parenthetical" argument as i did not find it relevant, so this defeats nothing, just shows i'm getting tired.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Covered before, but you just changed the subject:
But they both relate to the Deep Strike USR, correct?
One refers to "arriving" using DS, the other refers to "deploy" using DS, correct?

Could i try to push understanding here one step further , and get you to find both of those in the Deep Strike Rules?

Spoiler:

In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in Reserve. When placing the unit in Reserve, you must tell your opponent that it will be arriving by Deep Strike (sometimes called Deep Strike Reserve). Some units must arrive by Deep Strike. They always begin the game in Reserve and always arrive by Deep Strike.

So we know (factually) that to Deep Strike (which is what GoI is telling you to do) you must be in Reserve. Right there. In your quote.

First, emphasizing with white and grey is the opposite of useful, as I've pointed out before.
Second, the fact that the unit is arriving by Deep Strike does not mean you get to ignore parts of the rule you deem unworthy. You must roll for the arrival. GoI allows you to skip the roll, but not the reason for it.
You can skip a roll To Hit, but you were still shooting a weapon.

The sentence is correct Grammatically. What does this prove?

Not if you insist that removing the parenthetical changes the meaning of the sentence (which you said it did).

I was not even paying attention to that tangent, and did not read your "parenthetical" argument as i did not find it relevant, so this defeats nothing, just shows i'm getting tired.

Thanks for not reading my posts! It actually was relevant, which you'd have know if you had, I dunno, actually read things. That you even responded to. So I'm not sure how to take that.