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.

IA11 Eldar Corsair venoms are open topped dedicated transports and they have scout

Here is an example;

1. Deploy A Venom which has the Scout rule. Dedicated Transporting Unit X inside, which does not have Scout rule.
2. Redeploy the Venom 12" as per scout rule.
3. Player turn 1 move the Venom 6" then disembark the Unit X within 6"
4. Unit X then assaults Enemy unit Y

According to RAW a unit that has Scout redeployed cannot assault, however in this example the Venom has scout redeployed. Not Unit X.

Furthermore, Unit X doesn't have the Scout rule. The transport Venom does. If the Unit X did have the Scout special rule then it would convey that rule to the transport, as per the Scout rule.

According to the Scout rule, a transport does not lose the Scout rule when passengers without the scout rule embark inside it.

The counter argument

If you were to argue that the Unit X has also Scout redeployed along with the Venom transport, where are the rules for this?

As stated above, the Unit X inside the Venom does not have the Scout rule and the transport Venom does not convey it to the Unit X.

The Venom Scout redeploys 12" because it is a vehicle as per the Scout rules, however if you argue that the unit X inside also Scout redeployed, then surely you've just broken the game as the Scout rules state that infantry units can only Scout redeploy 6"...

The Unit X's deployment has not changed, they're still in the same state; embarked upon the Venom.

Unit X also has not moved, as the Scout redeployment is deployment and not movement, it does not follow any of the rules for movement.

Some will argue the 'real life', 'realistic' or 'physics' argument. None of which has any place in these discussions in my opinion.
Such arguments include the fact that while the Venom Scout redeployed, the unit X inside also had to get from point A (their original deployment embarked inside the Venom) to point B (their new position on the board embarked inside the Venom).
However, there are no rules RAW that support the Unit X has ever being anywhere other than embarked upon the Venom. Unit X was never on the board and never Scout Redeployed.


The clincher?

Some will argue that this is not the 'intent' of the rules writers. Or not RAI, regardless of what is rules as written on the page or RAW.

How are we to judge intent in this case? One very compelling example is available;

Games Workshop released a formation for Orks, The Blitz Brigade, what is interesting about this formation is not that it gave Battle Wagons the Scout rule. But that GW also added a rule along with it which very specifically states that the units inside those Scouting Battle wagons were not allowed to assault turn 1.

"Know Yer Limitz: Infantry units that begin the game embarked upon a Battlewagon from this Formation cannot charge on the first turn if their Battlewagon made a Scout redeployment."

Think about that for a moment.

GW wrote a rule, to specifically tell us the players that even though these assault vehicles now had Scout, they were not allowed to assault turn 1.

Let that sink in.

Why would GW write that?

Quite obviously, that normally if you have Scout on an Assault vehicle then you are normally allowed to assault turn 1 after Scout redeploying, and GW felt the need to curb the power of these new Scouting Battle wagons by preventing them from assaulting turn 1.

Is that evidence enough of intent?

Check out the formation over at the awesome blood of kittens site for info:
http://bloodofkittens.com/formation-compendium-2/

real world uses

The sky is falling!

Does this break the game? As in, does this allow some ridiculously overpowered combination to allow turn 1 assaults for GREAT JUSTICE!

I've no idea, i'm terrible at this game and just a rules lawyer.

A couple of potential ideas for the tabletop include;

Tantalus/Venoms/Raiders filled with Juicy Eldar assault units - gain Scout rule through Eldrad's warlord trait for D3 units scouting.

Eldar Corsairs Venoms come with Scout as standard. Fill to the brim with Reavers + Haywire grenades. Go nuts.

Landspeeder Storms and Scouts with Krak grenades. (can they take Meltabombs?)

LandRaiders and Assault Terminators (Off the top of my head as a non Adeptus Astarte player I don't know how to get the LR Scout, but i'm sure it is doable).

Yes, this entirely legal

It's why the battle wagon formation explicitly disallows assault

As above the Venom has scout redeployed not the unit within.

 FlingitNow wrote:
As above the Venom has scout redeployed not the unit within.

So the models "inside" the Venom should stay where they were after the Venom redeploys because they don't technically have Scout.

Yes they stay where they were. In other words not on the board and instead inside the Venom. As Nos points out check the Ork Battlewagon formation in Waaagh Ghazgul for RaI where it has an extra rule (called "Know your limits") exists purely to stop this from working for that specific formation.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes they stay where they were. In other words not on the board and instead inside the Venom. As Nos points out check the Ork Battlewagon formation in Waaagh Ghazgul for RaI where it has an extra rule (called "Know your limits") exists purely to stop this from working for that specific formation.

The logic is: The Venom Scouted; the embarked unit cannot charge Turn 1.
Or: The Venom Scouted; the embarked unit does not Scout with it and stay where the Venom was before it redeployed.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes they stay where they were. In other words not on the board and instead inside the Venom. As Nos points out check the Ork Battlewagon formation in Waaagh Ghazgul for RaI where it has an extra rule (called "Know your limits") exists purely to stop this from working for that specific formation.

The logic is: The Venom Scouted; the embarked unit cannot charge Turn 1.
Or: The Venom Scouted; the embarked unit does not Scout with it and stay where the Venom was before it redeployed.

If that were true then why would the Ork "Blitzbrigade" Formation have the "Know Yer Limitz" rule at all? The formation gives all the battlewagons the Scout special rule, and "Know Yer Limitz" says: "Infantry units that begin the game embarked upon a Battlwagon from this formation cannot charge on the first turn if their Battlewagon made a scout redeployment". That rule would have absolutely no function if that action was already disallowed by the rules by default.

A unit inside a transport that makes a scout redeployment remains embarked on the transport, and are allowed to assault on their first turn, barring other restrictions (such as the Know Yer Limitz rule).

Bojazz wrote:
If that were true then why would the Ork "Blitzbrigade" Formation have the "Know Yer Limitz" rule at all? The formation gives all the battlewagons the Scout special rule, and "Know Yer Limitz" says: "Infantry units that begin the game embarked upon a Battlwagon from this formation cannot charge on the first turn if their Battlewagon made a scout redeployment". That rule would have absolutely no function if that action was already disallowed by the rules by default.

Wouldn't be the first time GW has given models/units rules that serve no function.

No arguments there, but generally when that happens it's because of copy-pasting rules throughout codices, like with Eldar Battle Focus on Jetbikes. This is an instance of a unique special rule calling out a very specific situation that's not applicable anywhere else. It could only have been introduced with the intention of restricting something that is otherwise allowed. Namely, assaulting on turn 1 from a transport that scouted.

Bojazz wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes they stay where they were. In other words not on the board and instead inside the Venom. As Nos points out check the Ork Battlewagon formation in Waaagh Ghazgul for RaI where it has an extra rule (called "Know your limits") exists purely to stop this from working for that specific formation.

The logic is: The Venom Scouted; the embarked unit cannot charge Turn 1.
Or: The Venom Scouted; the embarked unit does not Scout with it and stay where the Venom was before it redeployed.

If that were true then why would the Ork "Blitzbrigade" Formation have the "Know Yer Limitz" rule at all? The formation gives all the battlewagons the Scout special rule, and "Know Yer Limitz" says: "Infantry units that begin the game embarked upon a Battlwagon from this formation cannot charge on the first turn if their Battlewagon made a scout redeployment". That rule would have absolutely no function if that action was already disallowed by the rules by default.

A unit inside a transport that makes a scout redeployment remains embarked on the transport, and are allowed to assault on their first turn, barring other restrictions (such as the Know Yer Limitz rule).

The unit inside the transport has Scouted. Unless its position on the table remains the same during the Scout phase, it Scouted and therefore, cannot charge that Turn. This comes down to the same argument with a Stormsurge and a Tidewall.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes they stay where they were. In other words not on the board and instead inside the Venom. As Nos points out check the Ork Battlewagon formation in Waaagh Ghazgul for RaI where it has an extra rule (called "Know your limits") exists purely to stop this from working for that specific formation.

The logic is: The Venom Scouted; the embarked unit cannot charge Turn 1.
Or: The Venom Scouted; the embarked unit does not Scout with it and stay where the Venom was before it redeployed.

If that were true then why would the Ork "Blitzbrigade" Formation have the "Know Yer Limitz" rule at all? The formation gives all the battlewagons the Scout special rule, and "Know Yer Limitz" says: "Infantry units that begin the game embarked upon a Battlwagon from this formation cannot charge on the first turn if their Battlewagon made a scout redeployment". That rule would have absolutely no function if that action was already disallowed by the rules by default.

A unit inside a transport that makes a scout redeployment remains embarked on the transport, and are allowed to assault on their first turn, barring other restrictions (such as the Know Yer Limitz rule).

The unit inside the transport has Scouted. Unless its position on the table remains the same during the Scout phase, it Scouted and therefore, cannot charge that Turn. This comes down to the same argument with a Stormsurge and a Tidewall.

So then, why do the transport rules say "Models firing out of a vehicle that moved at Combat Speed count as having moved that turn."

Surely, if what you're saying was true, there would be no need for that rule? As the passengers would have actually moved.

The restriction on the Ork battle wagon formation seems to make it clear that absent that restriction, a first turn charge would have been allowed. (Thus, absent that restriction, it IS allowed for the corsairs.)

That FW book is full of poor wording. It just further shows neither GW or FW writers are proficient in technical writing.

Trying to claim that a vehicle that Scouted but the occupants inside don't count as having Scouted...well, good luck in your local area with that one.

 Sarigar wrote:
That FW book is full of poor wording. It just further shows neither GW or FW writers are proficient in technical writing.

Trying to claim that a vehicle that Scouted but the occupants inside don't count as having Scouted...well, good luck in your local area with that one.

If that wasn't the intended functionality of the rule, why would the Ork example contain a specific restriction against it?

Why can skitarii grant scout to fortifications? Let's face it. If gw could write rules better than half assed, all the war machine, infinity and X wing players in my area would still be playing 40k. Those games literally came about thru sheer gw incompotence.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
That FW book is full of poor wording. It just further shows neither GW or FW writers are proficient in technical writing.

Trying to claim that a vehicle that Scouted but the occupants inside don't count as having Scouted...well, good luck in your local area with that one.

If that wasn't the intended functionality of the rule, why would the Ork example contain a specific restriction against it?

Did he not just say something about poor wording?

Maybe the rule team is super good at being redundant and doesn't like to release FAQ's or Errata

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
That FW book is full of poor wording. It just further shows neither GW or FW writers are proficient in technical writing.

Trying to claim that a vehicle that Scouted but the occupants inside don't count as having Scouted...well, good luck in your local area with that one.

If that wasn't the intended functionality of the rule, why would the Ork example contain a specific restriction against it?

Did he not just say something about poor wording?

Maybe the rule team is super good at being redundant and doesn't like to release FAQ's or Errata

If the Ork example didn't exist, the 'poor wording' excuse might hold water. But the existence of the restriction on the Battlewagon formation shows clearly that without such a restriction, the rules support the Corsairs being able to assault after the Scout.

If your group wants to house rule it another way, that's fine. But the evidence seems to show that both RAW and RAI support the Great Corsair Scout Assault.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
That FW book is full of poor wording. It just further shows neither GW or FW writers are proficient in technical writing.

Trying to claim that a vehicle that Scouted but the occupants inside don't count as having Scouted...well, good luck in your local area with that one.

If that wasn't the intended functionality of the rule, why would the Ork example contain a specific restriction against it?

Did he not just say something about poor wording?

Maybe the rule team is super good at being redundant and doesn't like to release FAQ's or Errata

So your persuasive argument - as you have no rules based argument , as already proven this thread - is that this is a redundant rule. Despite there being no rule for the ork rule to be redundant with?

It's not a persuasive argument, at all.

Again: prove the unit inside has made a scout redeploy. Bear in mind the infantry unit may only redeploy 6" if they are among a scout redeploy all of their very own, thus restricting the vehicle as well prove this. Oh, and if they don't have scout, can the vehicle move at all?

It can under the actual written rules of course. My local group is utterly fine with this.

So, you're position is that the rules allow it. Where does the rules allow a vehicle with Scout redeploy and the occupants inside the vehicle do not count as redeploy, yet benefit from the new position (IE: they utilize the new position IOT to achieve a turn 1 assault as the new vehicle position would be set up outside of your deployment zone) Using wording from an Ork codex is not a rule citation since you are not using an Ork army. Rulebook citation and the FW Doom of Mymear citation would be required as relevant rules. I've not seen any rule debate other than the absence of a rule and RaI. So, it's not much of a persuasive debate to have and not one I'll be entertaining. If you're local group allows it, cool. It has no bearing on me.

In regards to the 'why' give a Venom Scout. Well, one would be to Scout and the other is to Outflank. The Cloud Dancer unit has Outflank as does Hornets. Deep Strike is peppered in there as well. The intent from FW could be to give this army the ability to attack the opposing army from multiple directions. Except for the Wasp formation; FW forgot to give them the ability to Deep Strike which is the crux of their special formation rule. Yeah, FW/GW and clear writing...

 Sarigar wrote:
So, you're position is that the rules allow it. Where does the rules allow a vehicle with Scout redeploy and the occupants inside the vehicle do not count as redeploy, yet benefit from the new position (IE: they utilize the new position IOT to achieve a turn 1 assault as the new vehicle position would be set up outside of your deployment zone) Using wording from an Ork codex is not a rule citation since you are not using an Ork army. Rulebook citation and the FW Doom of Mymear citation would be required as relevant rules. I've not seen any rule debate other than the absence of a rule and RaI. So, it's not much of a persuasive debate to have and not one I'll be entertaining. If you're local group allows it, cool. It has no bearing on me.

In regards to the 'why' give a Venom Scout. Well, one would be to Scout and the other is to Outflank. The Cloud Dancer unit has Outflank as does Hornets. Deep Strike is peppered in there as well. The intent from FW could be to give this army the ability to attack the opposing army from multiple directions. Except for the Wasp formation; FW forgot to give them the ability to Deep Strike which is the crux of their special formation rule. Yeah, FW/GW and clear writing...

In general the rules give you permission to assault any turn you want. You have to prove the Scout restriction applies to the embarked unit. So is the embarked unit scouting? Nothing I can find says it is and if it is it us restricted to a 6" redeploy. Is that what you are saying that the Venom can ONLY scout 6" and then ONLY if the unit within has scout? If so please prove that.

 Sarigar wrote:
So, you're position is that the rules allow it. Where does the rules allow a vehicle with Scout redeploy and the occupants inside the vehicle do not count as redeploy, yet benefit from the new position

I think you're the one who needs to provide evidence for your point. You need to show that the occupants of a vehicle count as making a scout redeploy, despite the fact they they lack the scout rule and (even if they did) wouldn't be allowed to make a scout move over 6".

 Sarigar wrote:
Using wording from an Ork codex is not a rule citation since you are not using an Ork army.

Irrelevant. The citation refers to the Scout rules and is equally applicable here. Unless you're trying to argue that the Ork codex isn't part of 40k?

 Sarigar wrote:
So, you're position is that the rules allow it. Where does the rules allow a vehicle with Scout redeploy and the occupants inside the vehicle do not count as redeploy, yet benefit from the new position (IE: they utilize the new position IOT to achieve a turn 1 assault as the new vehicle position would be set up outside of your deployment zone) Using wording from an Ork codex is not a rule citation since you are not using an Ork army. Rulebook citation and the FW Doom of Mymear citation would be required as relevant rules. I've not seen any rule debate other than the absence of a rule and RaI. So, it's not much of a persuasive debate to have and not one I'll be entertaining. If you're local group allows it, cool. It has no bearing on me.

I've proven the unit inside has not used the Scout rule. This is evident in that on,y the vehicle needs to use it.

Or do you believe otherwise? If so, then follow the tenets , as you agreed to do when posting here.

Btw I am not making a persuasive argument. My argument is based on actual rules . Yours, on the other hand, is neither rules based not persuasive. It's just I don't want this to work

The rules writing is utterly clear. The vehicle has scout. Nothing ambiguous about that.

So, it comes down to this: You indicate the Scout rules are sufficient and require no further explanation. My position is there needs to be some rule which tell me how the two units interact in this situation.

Agreed that the vehicle has Scout. The only additional rule citation anyone posted was an Ork detachment rule which specifically forbids it. The Venom needs an explicit explanation such as the Ork detachment. There is no explicit explanation, and no way to determine if it is allow or not allowed.

I disagree with allowing the turn 1 assault based on two premises: (1) no explicit explanation and (2) extremely shoddy writing in that book to begin with (Warp Hunters, Wasp Formation lacking Deep Strike rules, Corsairs as an Ally Detachment being allowed despite requiring a Prince who must be a Warlord,Corsair Formation actual name, etc...)

If I "just don't want this to work", that already exists; a 34 point Inquisitor with 3 Servo Skulls. Granted, it has no bearing on YMDC, but just evidence that I don't think it is any type of game breaking mechanic.

So you believe turn one assault requires an explicit rule?

Why?

The vehicle has scout. The unit embarked has NOT used the scout rule. The unit embarked may therefore assault

The unit has not altered where they were deployed - embarked. This is indisputable

The scout rule for vehicles does not tell you the unit embarked has also made a scout redeploy. Therefore it does not. This is indisputable.

Your position has no rules backing - as despite requests you have failed to support it with any rules - and your explanation of the ork rule is not persuasive. All in all, 1/10 for effort.

 Sarigar wrote:
So, it comes down to this: You indicate the Scout rules are sufficient and require no further explanation. My position is there needs to be some rule which tell me how the two units interact in this situation.

Agreed that the vehicle has Scout. The only additional rule citation anyone posted was an Ork detachment rule which specifically forbids it. The Venom needs an explicit explanation such as the Ork detachment. There is no explicit explanation, and no way to determine if it is allow or not allowed.

I disagree with allowing the turn 1 assault based on two premises: (1) no explicit explanation and (2) extremely shoddy writing in that book to begin with (Warp Hunters, Wasp Formation lacking Deep Strike rules, Corsairs as an Ally Detachment being allowed despite requiring a Prince who must be a Warlord,Corsair Formation actual name, etc...)

If I "just don't want this to work", that already exists; a 34 point Inquisitor with 3 Servo Skulls. Granted, it has no bearing on YMDC, but just evidence that I don't think it is any type of game breaking mechanic.

You keep trying to shift the burden of proof, but I'm afraid it's still on you.

Being allowed to assault on turn 1 is the norm. If you're going to say that a unit can't assault on turn 1 because a different unit made a Scout move, *you* need to provide evidence for this.

 Sarigar wrote:
So, it comes down to this: You indicate the Scout rules are sufficient and require no further explanation. My position is there needs to be some rule which tell me how the two units interact in this situation.

Agreed that the vehicle has Scout. The only additional rule citation anyone posted was an Ork detachment rule which specifically forbids it. The Venom needs an explicit explanation such as the Ork detachment. There is no explicit explanation, and no way to determine if it is allow or not allowed.

I disagree with allowing the turn 1 assault based on two premises: (1) no explicit explanation and (2) extremely shoddy writing in that book to begin with (Warp Hunters, Wasp Formation lacking Deep Strike rules, Corsairs as an Ally Detachment being allowed despite requiring a Prince who must be a Warlord,Corsair Formation actual name, etc...)

If I "just don't want this to work", that already exists; a 34 point Inquisitor with 3 Servo Skulls. Granted, it has no bearing on YMDC, but just evidence that I don't think it is any type of game breaking mechanic.

So you believe they also can't assault turn 2 as there is no specific explanation of that either.

The rules are a permissive rule set. We have general permission to assault. This then requires a specific restriction to not be true. You don't need further explicit permission to assault when it is raining out side, or on a Tuesday or when another unit in your army makes a Scout redeploy.

If you believe that the unit embarked is either also making a scout redeploy or is also effected by the restriction on assaulting then you need to prove it. So do you have ANY rules that state or even imply the above is true?

I've indicated my reason; lack of explanation for how the two units interact.

By your rules interpretation, Scout is only required on the vehicle and has absolutely no bearing on any unit inside the transport.

This combination has existed since the Craftworld Codex was released in April 2015.

Eldrad Warlord Trait: An Eye on Distant Events, d3 units in the ARMY gain Scout.

DE: Fast Attack Raiders. Scout is given to DE Raider (d3 units).

Place D-Scythe Wraithguard (or Eldar assault units) inside DE Raider (they are Battle Brothers).

Scout redeploy 12" with DE Raider.

Turn 1, move up 6", disembark 6" and either assault (Banshees, Wraithblades, Scorpions, Seer Council)
or
Turn 1, move up 6" disembark 6" and utilize D-Scythes in opponent's deployment zone turn 1.

I've not utilized this nor have seen/read online where this is actually occurring. If you can find where this is being utilized as an accepted interpretation, I believe it would greatly strengthen the OP position.

 Sarigar wrote:
I've indicated my reason; lack of explanation for how the two units interact.

By your rules interpretation, Scout is only required on the vehicle and has absolutely no bearing on any unit inside the transport.

Correct because scout never states that it has a bearing on other units in your army. That is how rules work. They tell where they apply they don't give a full list of every incidence when they don't apply. Why do you think Scout does interact with the embarked unit?

See my previous post. I was editing it when you replied.

DE: Fast Attack Raiders. Scout is given to DE Raider (d3 units). 

Place D-Scythe Wraithguard (or Eldar assault units) inside DE Raider (they are Battle Brothers). 

Scout redeploy 12" with DE Raider. 

Turn 1, move up 6", disembark 6" and either assault (Banshees, Wraithblades, Scorpions, Seer Council) 
or 
Turn 1, move up 6" disembark 6" and utilize D-Scythes in opponent's deployment zone turn 1. 

I've not utilized this nor have seen/read online where this is actually occurring. If you can find where this is being utilized as an accepted interpretation, I believe it would greatly strengthen the OP position. 

I'm not even sure how you think the Scytheguard example is expected to play out? Are you now stating they can't fire?