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.

This is more of a "how the heck do I do this" kind of question.

Say I'm playing a game in Escallation and I have a Chaplain, a Squad of Marines, and a Land Raider Crusader.

At deployment can I say that I want ot have the Chaplain join the marine squad and have them be in the land raider and thus keep them in reserve?

Can this mean that I just have to make one roll for them to come onto the table?  If not can I do this with just a marine/scout/vet squad in the LRC?

Or am I stuck deploying the squads as normal and rolling for the LRC in reserve?

Thanks

Posted by Voodoo Boyz on 05/31/2006 11:10 AM
Or am I stuck deploying the squads as normal and rolling for the LRC in reserve?

Yep. You can not join units held in reserve and when units do come on they come on separately.

That is exactly correct.

Another reason to hate escalation!

Not entirely correct.

You may keep any unit you like in reserve. The wording is you may deploy infantry, and what you don't deploy is held in reserve. I doubt that was their intent, but that's what it says.

But you'd still have to make 3 reserve rolls, and couldn't get in the LRC until it moved out (meaning you couldn't move 12" and get in.

Sorry for the simple questions but I'm new to playing in any kind of Escallation game.

Lets say I have the scenario above. LRC, Chaplain, Marine Squad.

Lets say I get really lucky and all 3 come in on the second turn.

Can I put the LRC down on the table at the table edge, put down the Chappy, and Marine Squad. Then in the movement phase after deploying reserves, join the chaplain to the marine squad, embark on the LRC, then move the LRC up 6" and fire the weapons?

Just putting the LR on the table would count as movement because movement counts from the board edge. You could move it on about 7-8 then move your unit to within 2" then board the LR. The length of the Landraider itself is about 6' anywho so it could problay move its full 12' and the unit move on 6' and board on second thought.

Posted By mauleed on 05/31/2006 12:17 PM

Not entirely correct.

You may keep any unit you like in reserve. The wording is you may deploy infantry, and what you don't deploy is held in reserve. I doubt that was their intent, but that's what it says.

But you'd still have to make 3 reserve rolls, and couldn't get in the LRC until it moved out (meaning you couldn't move 12" and get in.

Not entirely correct on your part there Ed.  The word may can also mean "to be allowed or permitted to" and does not necessarily indicate a choice in the matter.  For example, a parent may tell their misbehaving child that he "may go to his room and think about what he's done" without giving him a choice in the matter.  All they have done is stated the one action that he may, or is allowed or permitted to do.

Except that the next sentence specifically states what to do with the units you do not deploy, so clearly there is an option.

Regardless, if you want to play the "may=must" game, then all of the sudden every unit must move 6" every turn (because it may move 6") and every gun must fire every turn, and smoke launchers must be used immediately, etc, etc.

The game simply can not function with may meaning must in the rules.

Posted By Ghaz on 05/31/2006 9:03 PM
For example, a parent may tell their misbehaving child that he "may go to his room and think about what he's done" without giving him a choice in the matter.  All they have done is stated the one action that he may, or is allowed or permitted to do.

Actually, wouldn't the parent then be guilty of intending something other that what he/she actually said? The parent is indeed literally giving the child a choice. Without knowing the intent behind the sentence, we do not know whether that choice is intentional or a mistake in verbage. At face value, the choice has been given.

The parent should instead say, "You will (or must) go to your room....", thereby removing any question of intent from the statement.

Posted by mauleed on 06/01/2006 7:13 AM
Except that the next sentence specifically states what to do with the units you do not deploy, so clearly there is an option.

Not really. They're simply telling you what happens to units that are not allowed or permitted to be deployed. Nothing more.

Posted by blue loki on 06/01/2006 10:07 AM
Actually, wouldn't the parent then be guilty of intending something other that what he/she actually said? The parent is indeed literally giving the child a choice.

No.  They have given them exactly ONE option they are allowed or permitted to do.  There is no "or" in that sentence.  They have not been permitted to do anything other than to go to their room.

There is no question that one of the meanings of "may" is must. And it is clearly the less used meaning.

But more importantly, if may means must in the rules, the game simply can not function. Take two seconds and crack the book open, replacing may with must and you'll quickly give up any notion otherwise.

In this situation it works perfectly fine. There is also no indication that it indicates a choice in this matter.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you claiming that the meaning of the word changes at various points in the rules?

The notion that words have no consistent meaning in the rules is an even bigger can of worms, but go ahead and run with it. But I doubt many will follow.

Yes, a word can change meaning depending on how it's used. Where has GW ever said that a word will always use the same definition in all of their publications? It's no different than reading a book or a magazine. You have to take the context of the sentence to determine the author's intent.

It's ambiguous language, we've done this one before.  No result.

 

-Ghaz burn removed on further reading of the thread.  (As he's potentially doing devil's advocate, not necessarily arguing intent.)

 

Argument 1: No. The word "may" implies they don't have to start on the board.
Argument 2: Yes. The word "may" is there due to the possibilty of the infantry unit deep striking.

I think each interpretation is correct. Pick one you and your friends agree with.

As for putting a unit on the board edge when it comes on reserves, I play it as counting as moving 0", not the distance of its length. This means the front of a land raider can end up around 18" from the board edge. This also means you cannot move your marines into the land raider and then move off, as the land raider has already moved.

Posted by Moz on 06/01/2006 11:31 AM
Ghaz burn removed on further reading of the thread. (As he's potentially doing devil's advocate, not necessarily arguing intent.)

No I'm not playing 'devil's advocate'. When I read the passage in question, I do not see where the rules indicate that you have a choice in the matter. The first paragraph tells me what one option certain units are permitted to do and the second paragraph tells me what units not covered by the first paragraph are permitted to do.

Well Ghaz, at best for you to be correct the word "may" could only be defined as "must".

I can't imagine how you're going to show that it can only mean must here.

And again, if you did, good luck with the rest of the game. Guess everyone must deepstrike their terminators now.

You can't deep strike your terminators in escalation though because you "must" deploy them on the board .

I guess that means that termies just disappear in a plume of logic instead of getting deployed.

Seriously though, this is just something you have to figure out with whomever you are playing with.

Sure, everything is something you must figure out with the guy you're playing with.

But anyone that I'm playing with that insists may=must is in for one heck of an interesting game when I start making him do everything the book says he may do.

Posted by mauleed on 06/02/2006 6:41 AM
Well Ghaz, at best for you to be correct the word "may" could only be defined as "must".

No. For me to be correct the word "may" does not have to be defined as "must". I can be correct with the defintion that I have given meaning "to be allowed or permitted to". However for you to be correct, you have to find where they give you an alternative option that you are allowed or permitted to do. It's still a choice, but with only one option to choose.

back to the original question

 

is the crusader just a heavy choice anybody can ride in or is it a dedicated transport for a specific unit?

 

the difference is that since heavy's are thier own seperate unit in the FOC  they come in on a seperate reserve roll.

 

if you have a unit that has a dedicated transport it is part of the unit choice in the FOC.

 

say a 10 man squad of tac marines and thier rhino.

when you place your "troop choice" you are not allowed to only place parts of it.

a dedicated transport can act independant of the squad it is assigned to carry and does not have to start in the same location as the squad in escalation but it still must be placed at the same time as the squad it is assigned to as they together make up one choice from the FOC.

so no placing units at the start of the game who have a transport in escalation.

 

the only real difference between using a raider as a transport is that other transports do not count as scoring units to hold table quarters and such where as raiders always do.

 

the one exception to this rule in escalation is the tau pathfinder team which scouts and has a vehicle as part of it's team.