The FAQ question is being read to infer a particular process. In this case that the Marines are "leaving behind" units.

I don't think that the answer was written to be a rule entry and was meant to be illustrative. Jervis (and in this instance I as IIRC this was from the first version of the FAQ that Jervis and I compiled... Neal can clarify if this answer went through subsequent editing afterwards but I don't think it did) could have used language to indicate that the transports were just not taken and that would lend a different meaning in the context of this argument but not change the meaning or the intent of the FAQ answer.

The special rule of marines is about the army selection process. It hasn't got anything at all to do with deployment. Nothing.

The FAQ, however, is about deployment. Are you saying that marines got a new special rule in the FAQ?

I think he's just saying that the FAQ is about clarifying the special rule, which in the rulebook does not unambiguously define when the decision to leave out rhinos is made. i.e. the FAQ could in hindsight have been worded to be more clear that it applies only to marine transport, but ultimately says "you have to pick whether you want to replace rhinos with drop pods at army selection, but can also choose to leave them behind at deployment".

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Rhinos aren't mentioned; A portion of the formation could also be some razorbacks.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Like I said, he's saying the FAQ should have been worded to more accurately reflect its intention to clarify the special rule (which is specific to rhinos).

He may of course correct me if I'm wrong.

You're right that "a portion" is a vague term of reference and might mean lots of things, including (but not limited to) that any units in the formation can be left behind. So it's not a great FAQ. I'm not overly bothered TBH, since it's specific to the marines. You have to try pretty hard to extrapolate it to all formations in all armies being able to leave any unit behind, even if that is what Jervis/whoever wrote the FAQ thought the wider context was at the time.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I agree it would be a stretch... If we didn't have other corroborating evidence in addition.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Understood, though I think Neal might disagree there given his earlier comments in this thread and elsewhere.

So, as the FAQ are in the process of being reviewed and this is evidently still contentious, how should we proceed? While I am sure Tournament organisers can 'clarify' areas they feel strongly about, it is obviously preferable that people have a single uniform understanding.


=================

One issue that this has raised is the best position in the FAQ to locate any comments on this (and other) subjects. For example, just assuming for the moment that the ruling actually *was* in favour of all armies discarding units at the start of a game, where would this FAQ be referenced against: under formations (1.2.1), in the 5 min warmup (6.1.3), in the garrison setup (6.1.5) or reserve setup (6.1.6); or against the question that related to the marine list (6.3.1)?
(And note that positioning the FAQ that prohibits such practicies is equally difficult).

Or perhaps we need a separate index that lists the relevant section containing particular replys? I would certainly find such an index usefull as the answers to particular questions are not always where I expect to find them. This is because of the style of prose used in writing the rules (and thence the FAQ), which while intended to make the game 'playable' has caused significant misunderstandings in the past.

FAQ Intent: This one I can settle, because I wrote the FAQ. The FAQ was intended to distinguish between the Marine-specific choices in the transport rule which occur during army selection and the deployment choices which are allowed to all armies. In other words, it's compare and contrast "X is how the Marine part works; Y is how it works for everyone else."

Obviously, it could still be questioned as to whether Jervis understood it the same way when he vetted the FAQs.


"It's not explicitly allowed in the rules": There is simply no way the rules are going to delve into every situation they create. A major design concept of the game is "simple rules to create complex situations and decisions," which is the exact opposite. Even without that design concept, though, it's simply not a reasonable expectation for every possible permutation to be explored.

Lots of things are allowed, even though they are not explicitly stated as being allowed in the rules and may be counter-intuitive. Several distasteful situations were so universally agreed as allowed under the rules, despite a lack of being explicitly allowed, that the rules had to be modified to exclude them.

• It was not stated explicitly that a Fearless unit could move in base contact after being broken but everyone agreed it was allowed and necessitated the revision to the Fearless rule.
• The old "token" assaults were not explicitly allowed, but were used so frequently that they required a rule modification.
• Aircraft approach moves don't explicitly state you can end the move with units facing in opposite directions, but it is allowed.
• It's not stated in the intermingling rules that you can break a formation that is otherwise out of range, but you can "roll up" a flank by doing so.
• The hit allocation rules don't say you can "stretch" the range on weapons and it is counter-intuitive, but it is a result of applying the RAW.
• It's not stated you can make a Withdrawal move towards the enemy, but it is allowed.
• Nothing says you can take a Daemon Pact without any Daemons, but you can (and you might roll a 6 on Strategy to gain a daemon pool).
• Nothing said you could drop an injured Greater Daemon and re-summon a different one at full strength, but it had to be restricted.

I feel like the FAQ quoted is a bit of a gotcha. It still doesn't feel right (to me at least) to discard units at the beginning of the game in order to gain deployment options (other than Marines) and it appears that quite a few people contributing to this thread feel the same way. If the ability to discard units does become codified, then I can see a lot of groups around the world house ruling to disallow it, which would be a further disappointing fracturing of the rules. That's my 2c/p, for what they're worth.

I'd agree with Matt.

IMO, there's a big difference between a Tactical or Devastator formation assuming another legal configuration in deployment and a Guardian or Imperial guard formation assuming a configuration that cannot be created any other way.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

its not just not explicitly stated, it is entirely unsupported. there is no portion of the rules that in any way deal with deploying less than the full purchased formation. the only time where such a thing is mentioned, is again, in the marine special rules, which refers to a single instance where it is allowed. it certainly doesnt then mean that it is allowed in other instances, infact, quite the opposite. if the marines did not need a special rule to allow them to do so, they wouldnt have the special rule allowing them to do so.



i've removed the "these were things you used to be able to do but we changed the rules so you couldnt" because they contribute nothing to either side of the arguement
of the remaining instances, i will note, however, that every single one of these things is something that while not explicitly discussed in the rules, is covered by following the rules that ARE written down. you can stretch range because the rulebook says how the rules work. you can withdraw towards the enemy because they tell you to move and dont tell you where.
the 'dropping units for fun and profit' thing is not following any rules written down, it is at best, ignoring the rules that are written, if not creating entirely new rules. "these rules do not specifically allow battlecannons to shoot at ork boyz but we can" is not the same as "the rules do not in any way discuss the ability to choose not to roll an armour save but we are going to pretend that it does because thats what we want it to say"

to put it another way, each of these examples is of a rule allowing you to do something by saying how the rule works, and the circumstances then being applied to those rules
the 'dropping units' thing, is the opposite. the rules do not say you can do something, the rules do not say you cannot do something, but there is no framework that you're following here, you're just making things up

a rulebook is a list of rules. it is a collection of things you can do, not a list of detailed exceptions of what you cant do, and everything else is fair game.

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

It's not unsupported; jervis has been quoted as saying its allowed.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Regardless of the FAQs context or whether it proves Jervis intent or not the fact is that nobody plays that you can leave units behind (SM transport excepted) and therefore the subsequent lists, issues that have been addressed with the published lists and all playtesting have both has been done without this ability.

Everybody plays the game without this ability and it is fine without it so we don't need to retroactively allow something (even if it was Jervis intent) when it doesn't improve the game in any way

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Shrug. I don't think it'll harm the game to allow it because it seems to be a near universal drawback, even in Rug's examples I don't really see much of an upside.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I am not sure this is entirely true; Rug at least has enquired about this in the past in UK-Tourney circles, while earlier threads (and the existance of this FAQ) suggest that others may well have played this way. I trust Neal enough to suggest that the idea was tested in his circle back in 2008 when the FAQ was introduced. And, while there are obviously a number of people opposed to the concept, others seem to be abivolent either way.

The real question is how to resolve this issue? While tournament organisers can obviously declare a number of 'clarifications' on contentious topics like this, CAP-CAP, barging etc, ideally we need to come to a concensus on how to move forward.

At the very least I think the FAQ might need revising - but then that is what is happenning anyway. So, is this the point at which we consider a poll to try to find some unanimity?