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.

U02dah4 wrote:
Because you can deploy models at step 10 prior to 11 and also because deployment and deploy armies are not the same term so could well refer to different things. Deployment is not defined so its not that far a reach to say it could just as easily cover deploying models to reserve or transports as the default deploy armies step.

A better question might be why should step 10not be considered part of deployment. (Without the circular argument if defining step 11 as deployment without evidence)

Nothing tells you to deploy anything at step 10. The word deploy isn't even used.

dode74 wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Because you can deploy models at step 10 prior to 11 and also because deployment and deploy armies are not the same term so could well refer to different things. Deployment is not defined so its not that far a reach to say it could just as easily cover deploying models to reserve or transports as the default deploy armies step.

A better question might be why should step 10not be considered part of deployment. (Without the circular argument if defining step 11 as deployment without evidence)

Nothing tells you to deploy anything at step 10. The word deploy isn't even used.

No step 10 says that is when players note down units that will start in a location other than the battlefield etc...

if you look at the rules that give you permission to do so e.g. Death from above and teleport strike (Page 125 sm codex) they state first two words during deployment

"during deployment, if every model in the unit has this ability you can set it up in a teleportarium chamber instead of setting it up on the battlefield"

since step 10 is when your told to put them in reserves and the rules that give you permission to do so only occur during deployment step 10 is deployment

U02dah4 has a point. Any counter arguments?

I agree with dode74, the word "deploy" isnt even used in step 10. In addition, core rules p.256 say :

Strategic reserves : Units that are not deployed at the start of the battle.

In step 10 you declare strategic reserves (they are not deployed), declare what units start the battle in a location other than the battlefield (they are not deployed), and you declare which units start the battle embarked within transport models (they are not deployed yet).

In step 11 you deploy the rest of your army, including transports. Step 11 is deployment. Step 10 is just declaration, not deployment. The more specific matched play rules override the general rules which allow units to start the battle in a location other than the battlefield. GW didnt bother to rewrite all those different rules to match the new 9th rules.

 p5freak wrote:
I agree with dode74, the word "deploy" isnt even used in step 10. In addition, core rules p.256 say :

Strategic reserves : Units that are not deployed at the start of the battle.

In step 10 you declare strategic reserves (they are not deployed), declare what units start the battle in a location other than the battlefield (they are not deployed), and you declare which units start the battle embarked within transport models (they are not deployed yet).

In step 11 you deploy the rest of your army, including transports. Step 11 is deployment. Step 10 is just declaration, not deployment. The more specific matched play rules override the general rules which allow units to start the battle in a location other than the battlefield. GW didnt bother to rewrite all those different rules to match the new 9th rules.

It sounds like there’s nothing to stop you “declaring” in step 10 that you will combat be squading a unit and that half of it is going in a transport/reserves and then in step 11 when you “deploy” is when that those units *actually* enter transports/reserves. After all step 10 is only about declarations.

U02dah4 wrote:
No step 10 says that is when players note down units that will start in a location other than the battlefield etc...

if you look at the rules that give you permission to do so e.g. Death from above and teleport strike (Page 125 sm codex) they state first two words during deployment

"during deployment, if every model in the unit has this ability you can set it up in a teleportarium chamber instead of setting it up on the battlefield"

since step 10 is when your told to put them in reserves and the rules that give you permission to do so only occur during deployment step 10 is deployment

You're working backwards. The mission rules modify the abilities rather than the abilities modifying the mission rules. Same with any deepstrike stratagem which would, without the mission rules, allow you to deepstrike T1. So when you use the stratagem you do set up the units in their appropriate locations (transports, teleportarium etc) but the timing is modified by the mission rules.

RAW you cannot combat squad at all if you have anything going into reserves using "set up" wording.

Combat Squads is at the beginning of deployment before any units have been set up. Deployment is step 11. Teleportarium (and similar) is during deployment. That's fine, and in isolation it works.

However, it's the mission packs which change it (like it changes the ability to deepstrike to "not turn 1") because you deploy on step 11 but the missions all require that you declare transports and reserves at step 10. So you'd put units in reserves and then combat squad them.

If the rule allowing you to put a unit in reserves tells you to "set up" that unit in step 10 (using a stratagem or the Teleportarium which tells you to "set up") you can't Combat Squat at all because that has to happen "before any units have been set up", and you've already set stuff up so you can't use Combat Squads.

Aash wrote:
It sounds like there’s nothing to stop you “declaring” in step 10 that you will combat be squading a unit and that half of it is going in a transport/reserves and then in step 11 when you “deploy” is when that those units *actually* enter transports/reserves. After all step 10 is only about declarations.

Apart from Combat Squads having to happen "At the start of deployment, before any units have been set up". Nothing is being deployed in Step 10 - it is being declared in reserves and set up. I don't think you can reasonably argue (without other clarification from GW) that the deployment phase is anything other than the only step which mentions actually deploying anything.

Except as quoted already the deep strike abilities specify that you deploy in the teleportarium or high in the sky during deployment.

Yet the only time you have permission to put them there is 10 ergo 10 is deployment

You conclude that is not true because 11 is deployment but do not substantiate this so create a circular argument.


You also conclude that

"RAW you cannot combat squad at all if you have anything going into reserves using "set up" wording."

(That is only true if you define deployment as 11 not if you define it as 10 and 11)

You write

"If the rule allowing you to put a unit in reserves tells you to "set up" that unit in step 10 (using a stratagem or the Teleportarium which tells you to "set up") you can't Combat Squat at all because that has to happen "before any units have been set up", and you've already set stuff up so you can't use Combat Squads"

Well in 99% of games either you or your opponent will deploy in a teleportarium etc...so you are effectively concluding combat squads does nothing. So while that statement us correct if 11 is deployment....

If you are concluding combat squads does nothing then there is something wrong with your argument certainly on an intention basis

You conclude with "I don't think anyone can reasonably argue" with your definition of step 11 being the deployment phase while multiple people have reasonably argued with you.

As making step 10 deployment causes all the rule transports reserves combat squads to function normally while making it 11 causes rules not to function and again you have no supportive evidence to support your claim other than the names sound similar and that you have permission to deploy in 11 which is not proof of what you claim. Furthermore within the deploy armies step the word deploy is never used outside the subtitle so it doesn't give you any more permission to deploy than 10 does. (They both give you permission to set up, neither explicitly mention deploying, reasonably they both must allow you to deploy)

The only reasonable argument when there are two options and one is game breaking and causes clearly unintended effects is to go with the one that doesn't cause rules not to function


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aash wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
I agree with dode74, the word "deploy" isnt even used in step 10. In addition, core rules p.256 say :

Strategic reserves : Units that are not deployed at the start of the battle.

In step 10 you declare strategic reserves (they are not deployed), declare what units start the battle in a location other than the battlefield (they are not deployed), and you declare which units start the battle embarked within transport models (they are not deployed yet).

In step 11 you deploy the rest of your army, including transports. Step 11 is deployment. Step 10 is just declaration, not deployment. The more specific matched play rules override the general rules which allow units to start the battle in a location other than the battlefield. GW didnt bother to rewrite all those different rules to match the new 9th rules.

It sounds like there’s nothing to stop you “declaring” in step 10 that you will combat be squading a unit and that half of it is going in a transport/reserves and then in step 11 when you “deploy” is when that those units *actually* enter transports/reserves. After all step 10 is only about declarations.

There's plenty to stop that (now yes GW could have written it that way and it could function but they didnt)

In step 11 you only have permission to deploy units in your deployment zone - nowhere else

"11 deploy armies
The players alternate setting up their remaining units one at a time starting with the defender. A players models must be set up wholly within their deployment zone."

The abilities that deepstrike must be declared step 10 as that is the only time you are allowed to "start the battle in a location other than the battlefield". Which are abilities that themselves self define as during deployment.

Except as quoted already the deep strike abilities specify that you deploy in the teleportarium or high in the sky during deployment.

Yet the only time you have permission to put them there is 10 ergo 10 is deployment

This is the circular argument. It ignores the fact that mission rules modify abilities and claims that abilities define mission rules. It's backwards.

The substantive argument for step 11 being deployment is that it is literally called "deploy armies". The substantive argument against step 10 being deployment is that it does not mention deploy, deployment, deploying or any other variant of the word.

The only reasonable argument when there are two options and one is game breaking and causes clearly unintended effects is to go with the one that doesn't cause rules not to function

Well there's an RAI vs RAW argument if ever there was one!

Don't get me wrong: I would *very much* like step 10 to be deployment since it fixes the issues. But claiming it is broken if you interpret it RAW does not make RAW incorrect, merely broken. Which I agree it is.

At the very least I think we could agree that an FAQ here would be useful.

Thats not a substantive argument

Deploy armies does not guarenteeably equal during deployment

During deployment could potentially be defined as steps 9-11, 10-11 or 11 only. only in 11 only would you be correct and there is no direct quote supporting such a definition.

Step 9 says "choose deployment zone" it has deployment in the title it also has "deployment" in its text twice by your logic step 9 has just as much if not more right to be the start of deployment. (Which would be fine by my argument as it changes nothing) and why shouldn't deployment start with choosing your deployment zone its logically consistent if arbitrary but no more arbitrary than yours.


As to RAW vs RAI the convention is follow RAW till it doesn't work then go to RAI.

The RAW doesn't work because deployment is undefined-(you claim to know it but your claim is predicated on intention you can provide no quote supporting your definition) my definition is equally valid although the during deployment part of deepstrikers provides some actual suppporting evidence but this is indirect supporting 10 being during but not excluding 9, I can provide no definitive quote either as it is undefined.

The RAW by your definition if 11 further doesn't work as by your own admission it makes combat squads not function.

So yes we are in RAI territory there is no RAW answer as their is no definition and both our arguments are RAI.

And RAI one argument functions and one doesn't - there's no contest. So 9 and or 10 is during deployment as functionally it makes no difference whether we define 9 or 10 as the start of deployment in these interactions.

It's a far more substantive argument than your own. It may not guarantee that step 11 is the deployment phase, but it carries far more weight than your own "but it could be...". To claim that anything other than the "deploy armies" step is the "deployment phase" is very weak without further clarification that it is the case. I'm quite content to agree to disagree on that.

As to RAW vs RAI the convention is follow RAW till it doesn't work then go to RAI.

And yet GW tell you otherwise when you write to them: follow RAW even if you don't like the result.


I am interested in what RAW is, and RAW prevents it working. RAI you can do interpret it however you want within reason - it's just another term for HIWPI until it's clarified as to the intent. HIWPI is that Combat Squads happens at the start of step 10.

When you use weasel words and say it "may not guarentee" you acknowledge your answer isn't RAW.

When you say "it carries far more weight than your own" you say that based on no evidence you are RAW or you are not and you are not, you have acknowledged this with your weasel words. If its RAW their is no questioning it.

You have interpreted it one way without supporting evidence your argument then follows I am right so any counter argument has less weight because I am right. (Despite no evidence presented that you are right, evidence that your not right in the form of deep strike rules and the fact following your interpretation causes the rules to not work.

As to your GW quote yes we follow RAW when possible their is no RAW in this instance because the term referred to in the RAW has not been defined.

What you are doing is following your interpretation even though you acknowledge that the outcome of your interpretation is that the rules don't work.

Then you conclude that "HIWPI is that combat squads happens at the start of 10" because that is obviously the intention. So why not just acknowledge that as the likely RAI in the absence as RAW.

But if you want to say its neither RAI or RAW but HIWPI then you atleast got to the right outcome.

It's not weasel words to say that the step with deployment in it is most likely the deployment phase. Saying something is "more likely" than your non-interpretation is not weasel words either. The supporting evidence is the words on the page. There are very many cases all over the rules in which words can mean something other than intended (most words have multiple meanings, after all), but we all take the most likely meaning to be the case. So that's what I am saying: RAW is most likely what I have said.

Here's the thing: RAI is not at question here - at least not by me - because neither you nor I have any idea what the intention is. RAW is at question. And RAW most likely works as I have stated. You don't like it, but I don't particularly care. The rules, as written, don't work; reminds me a bit of Assault Weapons in 8th and a whole host of other broken rules. But none of us played the RAW Assault Weapons in 8th - we all played it as if they worked. Was that RAI? On balance it probably was, but that is speculation (which is the best we can do with RAI short of clarification). But it absolutely was HIWPI.

So we'd both play it the same. You claim the intent is that we play it the way we would play it. I claim nothing about intent (because neither you nor I are psychic) and only about the written word.

If the RAW is in question and you're having to use phrases like "RAW is most likely what I have said" it means you can't apply the rules advice provided by GW in their standard response. That only works when the RAW is clear, which it isn't in this case. So I'm not sure what relevance the GW response has here.

It is raw or it is not, if you have to say most likely you are not dealing with RAW you are weaseling to add weight to one interpretation and claim that is stronger when you lack evidence to support your position.

It sounds like you don't understand what RAW means it means the rules as written - no interpretation required - it is the most solid of arguments - anyone presented with the quote will agree because it is clear what it says.

The second you have to interpret and there is a valid counter interpretation you are dealing with rules as intended RAI. Which of those interpretations is correct. Rai is less good because noone can know gw intention for sure but a good RAI argument supports itself with evidence - does it function? is it consistent with the other rules? does it cause the game to break or not function in some way? Is there another rule worded exactly the same with a faq. These are objective things. Rai arguments are always imperfect but some are better than others a weak argument tends to be along the lines of, it works that way, because it does, because the other argument is wrong or it says something similar to another rule, or is consistent with the fluff. These arguments have no substance and are just opinion.

We are not having a RAW argument because their is no RAW in this case the keypoint is not defined we agree on that. We are arguing RAI vs RAI

We are left with two interpretations one that works and one that does not in two ways.

I hold with an interpretation advocating deployment starting at 9/10 this works in all situations (strong argument) and is consistent with other rules (strong argument) and has no counter evidence to it (strong argument) (saying its wrong because the other interpretation is right is circular and not an argument). (A strong RAI argument)

you hold the other is most likely (weak RAI argument opinion) because it uses the word deployment (a weak RAI argument similar wording ) ignoring that 9 also does so (invalidates your secomd weak argument), ignoring that it is inconsistent with the wording of deepstrike rules (huge weakness) and that it makes combat squading impossible (so weak theirs no case ). Which you then have to conclude that HIWPI you won't follow because it doesn't work. So a weak argument with a bunch of holes that even you don't want to follow but you still consider to be stronger.

The most likely RAI given the two alternatives is that it starts at 9/10 as this has none of the problems the problems 11 has and also features the word deployment if you start deployment at step 9. Both are RAI but they are most certainly not equally likely based on the presented evidence.



Yes the assault weapons ruling in 8th was a RAI ruling - the RAW was inconsistent with other rules and caused them not to function and the intent of what the rule was meant to do was clear.

We only drop to HIWPI when both RAW and RAI fail to come up with an effective solution that is not the case hear one RAI argument functions one doesn't and its proponent even advocates ignoring it so we don't need to drop that far.

No, I disagree that the keypoint is not defined. I think you are making a HUGE stretch to make your point. I think it is clearly the Deploy Armies step, and I think you are attempting to cast doubt on that in order to attempt to widen definitions and make your own interpretation (i.e. your own HIWPI) work. You're then attempting to add validity to that by trying to claim that this somehow makes it RAI rather than HIWPI. It's not - there's minimal evidence supporting your position, and your own definition requires evidence.

Regardless, we're going in circles and I am content to agree to disagree rather than waste both of our time.

Very well if the keypoint is defined provide the direct quote explicitly stating what steps count as during deployment

If you cannot the keypoint is not defined their is no stretch

The fact you think it is the deploy armies step is irrelevant
The fact you think it a huge stretch is irrelevant I can say I think yours is and I have a case given yours doesnt work.

I cast doubt only because you have not made an evidence supported argument and the one you have made is full of holes and therefore worth doubting if you have more evidence supply it.

Yes my argument is RAI as is yours the only difference is mine is minimally supported by your admission and yours has not only no support but doesn't work