Is it possible to split a squad during movement?

smold said:

No, the most you can do is split an attached hero off.

And even then you can't split it halfway through a movement. A hero must be split from a squad upon activation.

That would be the famed "loophole move" =D

Oh, right. I'd forgotten about that!

Now there might be various views on the following:
A Hero can only split from a unit if you activate the Hero first. This is based on the fact that it is stated in the rulebook that it is the Hero who seperates from the unit.
This means that you can't have a Recon Ranger unit with (say) Joe and then move the recon unit and leaving Joe behind and for him to activate as your next card.

Nah, that's ridiculous. Of course you can activate the Recon Boys and have them leave Joe behind, stil unactivated.

Loophole Master said:

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it is ridiculous* (I did mention there would be various views on the subject, didn't I?).
My view on this is based on the text in the rulebook.

Original Rulebook, Page: 14
"A hero and his squad may decide to break off during the game. From then on, the hero operates alone as a separate unit. He cannot later rejoin that squad , and he cannot join any other squad during the game. When the hero breaks off from his squad , separate the two unit cards to show that they are acting independently. The two units are activated normally from then on, and no longer share any cover values, health points, abilities, and so on."

Revised Rulebook, Page:19
"A hero and his squad may decide to separate during the game. From then on, the hero operates alone as a separate unit. He cannot later join that squad , and he cannot join any other squad during the game. When the hero separates from his squad , separate the two unit cards to show that they are acting independently. The two units activate independently from then on, and they no longer share any cover values, health points, abilities, etc. The two units can still share the same space (since heroes are allowed to share a space with any friendly unit)."

I've put the important parts in bold and from those segments it appears it is the Hero who takes the initiative to leave the unit and in my view that can only be done if it is the hero who activates.

This will never be a rule I'll enforce onto an opponent during a game but it is the way I activate my units when I wish to sepereate a hero from a unit.

* Thinking about it for many people anything they don't agree with is by default ridiculous.

It's ridiculous because the rules don't mention anything to that effect, and it's something that wouldn't make any sense.

"When the hero breaks off from the squad" is not the same as saying "the hero must be activated to break off from the squad", and even then it wouldn't mean it's ONLY the hero that must take the initiative of breaking off. If the squad decides to move and the hero stays put, he has effectively broken off from the squad, and yet it was done in the squad's activation.

Despite the less than clear wording, I tend to agree with Loopy.

It seems to me only fair that both the hero and the squad can decide to split on their activation, and not necessarily the hero only - as it also can be inferred from the "A hero and his squad may decide to break off during the game" phrasing.

Read again the first line quoted: "A hero and his squad may decide to break off during the game..." A hero or squad..

Major Mishap said:

So in your world the words "and" and "or" mean the same thing?

Like I pointed out before, it is my view on the Hero rule and I don't enforce it for my opponents.
For me it presents an extra tactical element during gameplay as you have to plan your activations a bit more.

Loophole Master said:

+1

Wombattangofoxtrot said:

+1

Where I play, we split the hero an unit in its activation time, an both act separatedly that time, but in the same activation. In later turns they are activated separetedly.

You can do that if you want to, but it is definitely against the rules. You're effectively activating two units simulatenously, and that is not allowed in normal circumstances.

Will FFG ever post an 'official rules clarifications and errata thread'?

i have yet to play a game of DT (approx. 75% done with core set painting), i've read through the rules and seen everything posted here. and i have to agree with loop. there's technically not a rule governing the situation. all you can argue is what's written, not what's intended.

abstract and fluffy: the hero can just as easily say "i'm not following you" as he can say "i'm going in, sit tight!"

/part-time rules lawyer, mostly specialize in Bird Law.

Well the question is how often is that an issue? I woluld never want to split my Joe and his BBQ Boys! Let's not destroy the party!

Well, once the hero has already lost all of his extra health, it's usually a good idea to split them. You gain an extra activation, can move to different areas of the map, and you force the opponent to split his fire among two targets instead of a single one.

For some heroes, that can work, though sometimes the extra firepower combined is worth it. I'd amend it to say wounds gone and one-shot abilities used as a general guide, though.

For others, like Johnny One-Eye, it would be a mistake unless you put them with a unit that couldn't benefit from their constant ability addition (which would also have been a mistake most of the time).

Lara goes the opposite direction, as she can be worth keeping with a squad to allow her to use the squad to soak up casualties and allow her the use of cover to keep her around.

[rules text ] " A hero and his squad may decide to separate during the game. From then on, the hero operates alone as a separate unit. He cannot later join that squad, and he cannot join any other squad during the game. When the hero separates from his squad ..."

While the first part of the text suggests that the squad and the Hero can "decide to" separate the following parts only explicitly mention the hero separating from the squad.

To separate a Hero from a squad you would have to move it out of the squad. While that doesn't necessarily mean you also have to activate it, it seems more intuitive to me to assume it is indeed activated than not, no matter if separation eats any action points or not. (This could remind of a unit becoming activated and yet there is still nothing forcing it to waste it's AP:s.)

I agree that this is not crystal clear (almost nothing is in the rules) and at this point a matter of taste. I'd advise people to play it the way they feel it's intuitive to them, and can appreciate it doesn't have to be the same for everyone. To me the Hero-focus they put in the latter text is a sign of their intention with what they are trying to express - if the hero hadn't such a key role in the separation I would fathom they wouldn't have centred on him/her. Instead they would have written something like "any of the separated units". Now they don't. They write about a Hero wandering off, as the verb "to separate" suggests (s)he is the one performing in some kind of activity, while the rest of the Squad sits passively. Now somebody might argue that a hero can "separate" by doing nothing and being left behind by the Squad, suggesting the Squad is the active party. However, that person would have a strange understanding of what the word "separating" entails in every day common usage...

I would be the person who suggested that sentence could just as much mean "the hero doesn't move with the squad", and I don't think I have a strange understanding of the language. "When the thrusters separate from the rocket", it is the rocket that's moving, the thrusters just let go....

Often times in the rules, they will chose to focus on describing a specific situation, but as long as they don't specifically says otherwise, that doesn't mean different situations are not possible.

Ulrike Meinhof said:

If you finish the sentence When the hero separates from his squad ...seperate the two unit cards to show they are acting independently. (So far no activations have taken place) The two units activate independently from then on, and they no longer share any cover values, health points, abilities, etc. (now I think it is the time to activate one of the units independently from the other). And it does not say you have to activate one over the other. It even continues to say that the two units can share the same space.

You added the part To separate a Hero from a squad you would have to move it out of the squad. At no place in the rules does it say anything about moving the hero from the squad. It just says separate the cards to show they are no longer joined.

You're saying that neither the hero not the squad need to be activated in order to separate? I find that very wrong. NOTHING else in the game happens without activating the affected unit.

Imagine you have a hero with no extra health left, attached to a last surviving soldier. They have already been activated this round, but then a Wildfire shows up and opens up sustained fire against them. The pair is SURE to be wiped out, but then what does the hero do? Separates spontaneously form the soldier. Now suddenly the Wildfire needs to chose between one of the targets, leaving the other untouched.

That is a move that should require the activation of one of the parts.

Loophole Master said:

I agree it could mean what you suggest, as there is still lacking a clarification. Thus, what should be discussed is not what something could mean in the rulebook. It should be what is intended . As we can't read minds we can only use the language as "hints" of intention. Not the best of approaches, but the only one around involving reason if we're to use it to figure out what the rules actually are or not. To do that one would also need to consider what is probable or not. Whatever one would conclude we would still not be 100% certain about it, but at least there would have been a good discussion with arguments and some clear and easy to follow steps of reasoning, which tend to be more usable than people's gut feeling.

Now, as for he rocket example: Yes, I see your point with the example, and it is a very good example you come up with as well. However, when sentient beings like people separate it is a different story: The word implies something else than in the rocket scenario. For example, it often implies a conscious decision being made and some kind of activity.

If you and a friend walk on the street and the friend suddenly runs away from you, you didn't separate even if the result is that the both of you are now separate(d) . Your friend did the separating. What I argue is that a parallel situation arises with the hero: The activity of x, where x is doing something to leave a group, call it separation/leaving/running away or whatever, seems t o be done by the hero in the rules given their latter language.

Now, does the latter language correct the first one that's used? Or is it just an example that means nothing? That is up next:

Loophole Master said:

I don't argue against your conclusion there, as it is totally sound. Then again, it doesn't negate the fact that just because something could be possible due to loopholes in the rules or poorly and/or unclear wording in them, it shouldn't necessarily be considered to be probable that it is the game designers intention. One must not confuse "possibility to x" due to it not being explicitly resolved in the rules with "it is probably x". Only way to find out is a ruling in the end, but until that happens we still resort to reason.

As I argue in my first post in this thread it seems strange to name-drop a hero in the latter wording if focus should not be put on the hero and if it is not the hero that is doing the moving-away-from-the-squad. Them focusing on the hero seems to suggest that that unit is the one that is leaving the squad, suggesting the squad is left behind by the hero, suggesting the hero is doing something while the squad sits passive.

I ask the qustion again: If not so, why on earth would they not have written "any of the separated units" or "any of the two units" instead of using a very explicit example where they just talk about the hero?

You say they are giving an example. Sure, that is one way of reading it. Then again, it often says in the rules when they give an example, either with text and or/visually. There is nothing in the text suggesting it is such an example. If it is an example why doesn't it say "Example" or "for example" in the text? If it really is an example then it melds perfectly with the actual rules text, which would further explain why none of us can say for sure what is going on.

What you do here is take two things that are not explicit and read them into the text. You must do that to come to your conclusion. The first one is that it is an example, the second is that any unit can wander off. My point is that there is more in the text that suggests the contrary than what supports your conclusion. What I do is the inverted: I mainly try to draw a conclusion of what is expressed in the rules instead of what seems to be omitted . Overall, I dare say that my approach is the one that is generally correct (although that proves nothing it still says something about the probable).

That is not to say you are incorrect. I'm only claiming that what little logic can be used in this case probably speaks against it. The fault lies with the people that wrote the poorly worded rules. Clearly this discussion, and many other interesting ones, prove how a comprehensive ruleset would help mroe hardcore players.

Loophole Master said:

I stand corrected on that and agree with that the Hero doesn't need to leave the square. (Although in most cases (s)he would wander off, at least when I would have played it) Then again, it doesn't have any impact on the fact that something is still happening in the game when the separation is ongoing, even if it would be true that there are no AP:s used up and no activation is happening.

Loopholes Example

I do however find Loophole Masters (your) example very colourful and interesting as it easily proves how strange and non-intuitive it would be to assume that a Hero that is leaving the Squad is not activating . Wouldn't you agree with the example? Or do you find the example flawed? I sure don't. I think it's spot on and solid. It also tells us something about the overall gameflow. It suggest there is an activation going on, but, it still doesn't tell us if the Squad or the Hero has to activate. That will however be solved below:

Inverse wording

Something that struck me is that nobody has mentioned the obvious here. On page 18 in the revised rules one can read:

1) Even when heroes have not joined a squad....
2) ... a hero can join a squad....
3) When a hero joins a squad....
4) A hero cannot join a squad in the middle of a game.

So, in at least 4 places on the same page it is explicitly written that the hero is the one that is joining the squad. Thee is not a single line in the rules suggesting that "a squad joins a hero". True? Yes.

If you agree with the above, would it then not be logical to conclude that the one and only entity that has the power to join someting is also the one and only entity that has the power to leave what was joined? To me that seems perfectly intuitive and actually seals the deal in this discussion: It makes it even more obvious what the rule designers probably intend.

As shown, the rules are hero centric when it comes to adding heroes to squads. They are so explicitly. The Hero is joining the Squad, so naturally, the Hero would be the one that is leaving it given the fact that rules are often written to be as KISS-able as possible.