My friend and I are currently having a disagreement with regards to Praetorians and night scythes.
My understanding is that Praetorians cannot be transported by a Night Scythe due to being a jumping unit, praetorians can however buy a night scythe to act as anti air without it taking up a force org spot much like a squad of 30 ork warriors can buy but not enter a truk.
His argument is that as the praetorians (in a judicator battalion) are allowed to buy a night scythe that automatically means they are allowed use it as transport, however disagrees when I say that jet pack units can't be transported as he believes the codex explicitly says they can be.
Could somebody give some clarity here as having a unit of str 7 AP2 weapons being able to fly across the board in 1 turn AND assault in the same phase isn't ludicrous for 200 points.
Praetorian are jump infantry which mean they are bulky as per the rules book. Nothing forbid a Night Scythe to transport Bulky models. Just that they take 2 space instead of 1.
The question is why can he assault after disembarking? I have the Necron codex right in front of me and nothing should allow him to do so.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Nothing allows non infantry models to embark in general , which is the issue
You are right but in this case Praetorians are Jump "infantry". and the night scythe is a dedicated transport for the Pratorians as per the Necron Codex
Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or
Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity.
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can
only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that
have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly
Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as
explained in the vehicle’s entry.
So per the rules you deploy the Praetorians 'inside' the Night Scythe.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Nothing allows non infantry models to embark in general , which is the issue
You are right but in this case Praetorians are Jump "infantry". and the night scythe is a dedicated transport for the Pratorians as per the Necron Codex
Yes, they are jump infantry. They are not infantry. Being a dedicated transport provides no specific permission to embark
nosferatu1001 wrote: Nothing allows non infantry models to embark in general , which is the issue
You are right but in this case Praetorians are Jump "infantry". and the night scythe is a dedicated transport for the Pratorians as per the Necron Codex
Yes, they are jump infantry. They are not infantry. Being a dedicated transport provides no specific permission to embark
There are no rules for embarking during deployment.
The rules that we have allow us to deploy models 'inside' transports so I will follow those.
Spoiler:
Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or
Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity.
HANZERtank wrote: Page 80 BRB, Only Infantry models may embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
These are the rules for embarking
Spoiler:
Embarking
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its
Access Points in the Movement phase – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests should
be taken as normal. The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of
range, the entire unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, remove it from the table
and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. If the players need to
measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is
measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.
This does not happen during deployment since per the rules you are not allowed to make any moves.
During deployment you deploy the praetorians 'inside' the Night Scythe.
Spoiler:
Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or
Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity.
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can
only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that
have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly
Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as
explained in the vehicle’s entry.
So per RAW I deploy the praetorians inside their dedicated transport.
So your saying I can put a wraithnight inside a falcon as long as its during deployment. Nothing says I cant do that, just as nothing says I can't put praetorians in a night scythe.
Also on page 80, A transport can carry a single Infantry unit... not jump infantry or jetpack infantry.
So to summarise, Praetorians may not embark upon a Night Scythe because they are Jump Infantry. They may however be deployed inside the Night Scythe regardless of the Jump Infantry restriction on general embarking because deploying inside a transport is not the same as embarking.
HANZERtank wrote: So your saying I can put a wraithnight inside a falcon as long as its during deployment. Nothing says I cant do that, just as nothing says I can't put praetorians in a night scythe.
Also on page 80, A transport can carry a single Infantry unit... not jump infantry or jetpack infantry.
Please clarify whether a Wraithknight is bulky, extremely bulky, etc. and how that figures into the transport capacity.
Xenophon00 wrote: I don't understand the big argue here. Night Scythe is a dedicated transport for the Praetorians. That is where the bulky rule matter.
That's not the issue. The general rules for transport capacity state:
"Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise."
Praetorians are Jump Infantry and so unless stated otherwise cannot embark upon their Night Scythe.
Xenophon00 wrote: I don't understand the big argue here. Night Scythe is a dedicated transport for the Praetorians. That is where the bulky rule matter.
That's not the issue. The general rules for transport capacity state:
"Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise."
Praetorians are Jump Infantry and so unless stated otherwise cannot embark upon their Night Scythe.
Point to the place in the rules where the praetorians go through a process of embarking onto a night scythe during deployment.
There is no such process of embarking during deployment.
When I look at the rules, I find rules that point out how the praetorians are deployed 'inside' the night scythe at deployment.
I also find rules for embarking that can only be followed during player turns and not during deployment.
I follow the rules. I deploy the praetorians 'inside' their dedicated transport during deployment.
HANZERtank wrote: So your saying I can put a wraithnight inside a falcon as long as its during deployment. Nothing says I cant do that, just as nothing says I can't put praetorians in a night scythe.
Also on page 80, A transport can carry a single Infantry unit… not jump infantry or jetpack infantry.
Nope cos those are beast.
But praetorians are jump infantry whi are also not allowed.
HANZERtank wrote: So your saying I can put a wraithnight inside a falcon as long as its during deployment. Nothing says I cant do that, just as nothing says I can't put praetorians in a night scythe.
Also on page 80, A transport can carry a single Infantry unit… not jump infantry or jetpack infantry.
Nope cos those are beast.
But praetorians are jump infantry whi are also not allowed.
HANZERtank wrote: So your saying I can put a wraithnight inside a falcon as long as its during deployment. Nothing says I cant do that, just as nothing says I can't put praetorians in a night scythe.
Also on page 80, A transport can carry a single Infantry unit… not jump infantry or jetpack infantry.
Nope cos those are beast.
But praetorians are jump infantry whi are also not allowed.
Point to the rules where this is not allowed.
Page 80 "A transport can carry a single Infantry unit.." this says infanty and doesn't say any other type of unit. And if you argue they're not embarked they're deployed I say they cant disembark as the rules clearly say inly a unit that start embarked upon a vehicle can disembark.
col_impact wrote: Point to the place in the rules where the praetorians go through a process of embarking onto a night scythe during deployment.
When I look at the rules, I find rules that point out how the praetorians are deployed 'inside' the night scythe at deployment.
I also find rules for embarking that can only be followed during player turns and not during deployment.
I follow the rules. I deploy the praetorians 'inside' their dedicated transport during deployment.
I'm not sure why you're quoting me to point this out given my initial post; I see your point per strict RAW, though I don't agree with it as RAI.
By strict RAW a Jump Infantry unit may not perform the act of embarking upon a transport, though there is no restriction from them being embarked[i/] provided they [i]deployed in the transport.
Common sense would suggest that not being able to embark would preclude a unit from being embarked, but I suppose that comes under RAI.
col_impact wrote: Point to the place in the rules where the praetorians go through a process of embarking onto a night scythe during deployment.
When I look at the rules, I find rules that point out how the praetorians are deployed 'inside' the night scythe at deployment.
I also find rules for embarking that can only be followed during player turns and not during deployment.
I follow the rules. I deploy the praetorians 'inside' their dedicated transport during deployment.
I'm not sure why you're quoting me to point this out given my initial post; I see your point per strict RAW, though I don't agree with it as RAI.
By strict RAW a Jump Infantry unit may not perform the act of embarking upon a transport, though there is no restriction from them being embarked[i/] provided they [i]deployed in the transport.
Common sense would suggest that not being able to embark would preclude a unit from being embarked, but I suppose that comes under RAI.
RAI??!!
You do realize that praetorians are specifically allowed the night scythe as a dedicated transport. I think it is abundantly clear what RAI is. Namely that the praetorians can indeed ride along in their dedicated transport.
Luckily, strict RAW allows the praetorians to start the game deployed in their dedicated transport without a hitch.
HANZERtank wrote: So your saying I can put a wraithnight inside a falcon as long as its during deployment. Nothing says I cant do that, just as nothing says I can't put praetorians in a night scythe.
Also on page 80, A transport can carry a single Infantry unit… not jump infantry or jetpack infantry.
Nope cos those are beast.
But praetorians are jump infantry whi are also not allowed.
Point to the rules where this is not allowed.
Page 80 "A transport can carry a single Infantry unit.." this says infanty and doesn't say any other type of unit. And if you argue they're not embarked they're deployed I say they cant disembark as the rules clearly say inly a unit that start embarked upon a vehicle can disembark.
Jump infantry have permission to be be carried in a transport by being infantry.
Spoiler:
Jump units therefore share two
sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry
would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
I am not saying they are not embarked. I am saying the rules RAW allow units to start the game embarked upon transports all the while skipping the process of embarking which by definition in the rules can only occur during player turns and not during deployment. If you feel otherwise, point to a rule for embarking which supports what you are trying to argue.
So if I follow these rules about embarking and deployment, nothing says I can't start a warhound titan in a taurox. On page 132 models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their transport capacity. Tourox has transport capacity of 12 models and a warhound is one model. Seeing as we can disregard only infantry models may be embarked during deployments is totally leagal.
HANZERtank wrote: So if I follow these rules about embarking and deployment, nothing says I can't start a warhound titan in a taurox. On page 132 models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their transport capacity. Tourox has transport capacity of 12 models and a warhound is one model. Seeing as we can disregard only infantry models may be embarked during deployments is totally leagal.
Is a warhound an infantry unit? Transports carry infantry per the rules. So your example runs against the rules and is totally illegal.
Praetorians are infantry.
Spoiler:
Jump units therefore share two
sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry
would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
HANZERtank wrote: So if I follow these rules about embarking and deployment, nothing says I can't start a warhound titan in a taurox. On page 132 models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their transport capacity. Tourox has transport capacity of 12 models and a warhound is one model. Seeing as we can disregard only infantry models may be embarked during deployments is totally leagal.
Is a warhound an infantry unit? Transports carry infantry per the rules.
Praetorians are infantry.
No, they are jumping infantry which the BRB explicitly prohibits.
HANZERtank wrote: So if I follow these rules about embarking and deployment, nothing says I can't start a warhound titan in a taurox. On page 132 models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their transport capacity. Tourox has transport capacity of 12 models and a warhound is one model. Seeing as we can disregard only infantry models may be embarked during deployments is totally leagal.
Is a warhound an infantry unit? Transports carry infantry per the rules.
Praetorians are infantry.
No they are jump infantry which arw a diff unit type.
HANZERtank wrote: So if I follow these rules about embarking and deployment, nothing says I can't start a warhound titan in a taurox. On page 132 models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their transport capacity. Tourox has transport capacity of 12 models and a warhound is one model. Seeing as we can disregard only infantry models may be embarked during deployments is totally leagal.
Is a warhound an infantry unit? Transports carry infantry per the rules.
Praetorians are infantry.
No, they are jumping infantry which the BRB explicitly prohibits.
Start pointing to rules and quoting rules. The rules do not say what you think they say.
I, on the other hand, have been freely quoting rules from the BRB and I have traced a clear line of permission to deploy praetorians 'inside' their night scythe dedicated transport.
HANZERtank wrote: So if I follow these rules about embarking and deployment, nothing says I can't start a warhound titan in a taurox. On page 132 models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their transport capacity. Tourox has transport capacity of 12 models and a warhound is one model. Seeing as we can disregard only infantry models may be embarked during deployments is totally leagal.
Is a warhound an infantry unit? Transports carry infantry per the rules.
Praetorians are infantry.
No they are jump infantry which arw a diff unit type.
Wrong. They are infantry. They are also jump.
Spoiler:
Jump units therefore share two
sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry
would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
HANZERtank wrote: So if I follow these rules about embarking and deployment, nothing says I can't start a warhound titan in a taurox. On page 132 models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their transport capacity. Tourox has transport capacity of 12 models and a warhound is one model. Seeing as we can disregard only infantry models may be embarked during deployments is totally leagal.
Is a warhound an infantry unit? Transports carry infantry per the rules.
Praetorians are infantry.
No, they are jumping infantry which the BRB explicitly prohibits.
Start pointing to rules and quoting rules. The rules do not say what you think they say.
I, on the other hand, have been freely quoting rules from the BRB and I have traced a clear line of permission to deploy praetorians 'inside' their night scythe dedicated transport.
HANZERtank wrote: So if I follow these rules about embarking and deployment, nothing says I can't start a warhound titan in a taurox. On page 132 models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their transport capacity. Tourox has transport capacity of 12 models and a warhound is one model. Seeing as we can disregard only infantry models may be embarked during deployments is totally leagal.
Is a warhound an infantry unit? Transports carry infantry per the rules.
Praetorians are infantry.
No they are jump infantry which arw a diff unit type.
Wrong. They are infantry. They are also jump.
Spoiler:
Jump units therefore share two
sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry
would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
That's a very high horse you have there what breed is it? I'm currently at work so don't have the BRB on me however I believe it is in Vehicles > Transports > Transport capacity > second paragraph.
So were in the rules does it explicitly say jump cannot embark. To my knowledge it says only infantry can. Well under the rules for jump infantry it tells you to treat them as infantry and jump for rules purposes, they just have the bulky rule (so obvious rai they are meant to able to embark, or thered be no point to the bulky rule...)
Sorry maybe im just using my brain, but it seems pretty clear cut. Jump/jet are just sub-types added to the main unit type of infantry, just with some modifiers to their rules. It doesnt vhange the fact they are still infantry. I hope no one tries to play like this, im pretty sure id just pick my models up and go home if someone tried to pull this crap in a game...seriously with all the actual broken rules in this game do the rule lawyers have to actively misinterpret the few working rules just to have something new to fight over?
Could the "jump infantry = infantry" crowd explain why the Storm Raven has a specific rule allowing jump infantry to embark if all infantry can anyway?
Or why we don't see jump equipped death company charging out of Land Raiders?
There may be a case for Praetorians deploying inside their transport, but jump infantry can never go through the embark process mid-game and it is wrong to use jump = infantry as a justification to do so.
After the whole Ghost ark fiasco (Capacity 10 Only warriors and IC can embark but warriors are 10+) we also have praetorians can get a DT but cannot embark.
overlordweasel wrote:So were in the rules does it explicitly say jump cannot embark.
Wrong way round. Where does it say tJump units CAN embark?
overlordweasel wrote:To my knowledge it says only infantry can.
Yes, and in a permissive set that is what you need. Something telling you you can. Not something telling you you cannot.
overlordweasel wrote:Well under the rules for jump infantry it tells you to treat them as infantry and jump for rules purposes, they just have the bulky rule (so obvious rai they are meant to able to embark, or thered be no point to the bulky rule...)
Shucks, so those vehicles where jump infantry CAN embark, because they have a specific rule allowing this allowing it. Like Storm Ravens. So the bulky rule has a purpose. Oh, and with some super heavy vehicles that can transport any unit type.
overlordweasel wrote:Sorry maybe im just using my brain, but it seems pretty clear cut.
Insult noted, and ignored.
overlordweasel wrote:Jump/jet are just sub-types added to the main unit type of infantry, just with some modifiers to their rules. It doesnt vhange the fact they are still infantry. I hope no one tries to play like this, im pretty sure id just pick my models up and go home if someone tried to pull this crap in a game...seriously with all the actual broken rules in this game do the rule lawyers have to actively misinterpret the few working rules just to have something new to fight over?
Seriously, this is the best you can do in following the tenets?
The rules allow infantry to embark. They do not allow jump units to embark. A unit that is both Jump and Infantry only has one set of permissions, trouble is it needs two.
Agree with the above. Pretorians are jump infantry, which being a type of infantry, can potentially embark. However the night sythe is a special transport.
Units that start ebarked on a night sythe are not actually in the vehicle. They use the invasion Beamer to come out of reserves. This is illustrated by the fact that if he night sythe blows up without on loading passengers they don't take any hits just stay in ongoing reserves.
To the original post. The situation you describe is full of inconsistency. A night sythe does not allow your pretorians to assualt after arriving from reserve. Flyers cannot start on the board, so must arrive turn 2 or later. So if this person wants to run Pretorians in a night sythe he can but certainly cannot have it on the board turn 1, when he does arrive he will have to wait to assualt just like everyone else, so assualt turn 3 best case.
Also even a min squad of Pretorians is more than 70 points(28 pts per model if memory serves) at work so can't check my codex. A night sythe is 130. So the unit is more than 200 points, 270 if my math is good.
Also their weapons are s6 ap2 12" range with only 1 shot, hardly op. Again no codex so not checking. Even if s7 not a big deal, 5 shots...boo hoo
The point about joining the Pretorians with a night sythe is null. It is clear to me that they can indeed by embarked on a night sythe provided they don't exceed the modle capacity(as mentioned they are counted as bulky). However
Automatically Appended Next Post: Jump inf have the permissions to use both inf rules and jump rules. BRB.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You keep saying they have to "embark" and I don't even see that hey have to due to the invasion Beam. So even if by some slowed(that is an insult) logic jump infantry cannot join in teansports(even though they clearly can as the rules for jump inf state that they have both jump and inf rules) these jump infantry could because it's not a regular transport, it's a night sythe. Which is now over costed and not worth bringing anyway.
The counter argument rule for some pro-Preatorian in Night Scythes:
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
Simply, there is a stated restriction that you cannot embark with anything other than normal Infantry unless stated otherwise.
The counter argument rule for con-Preatorian in Night Scythes:
Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement Phase
This informs us that the Movement Phase is the only time you may choose to Embark or Disembark units.
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its Access Points in the Movement Phase
The rules define the term Embark or Embarking as a set action that is only done in the movement phase. This tells us we cannot Embark during deployment.
The fuzzy:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as explained in the vehicle's entry.
We are told that a Dedicated Transport may carry the unit that selected it, but does not say that they embark onto it, but are already being carried.
This fuzzy section of the rules that isn't defined effectively leaves a large enough hole for a Preatorian to be carried by their Dedicated Transport, but not be subjected to the embarking rule.
Edit:
I don't have time to write the whole rule, but to summarize, the Invasion Beams rule allows for units to disembark even when zooming and do not count as inside the Night Scythe when it is destroyed, instead being in Ongoing Reserves.
Epartalis- so jump pack assault marines can embark a land raider? That's your conclusion?
Jump infantry follow the rules for jump units and infantry units. I can carry an infantry unit - check. Can I carry a jump unit? Page and graph please.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Epartalis- so jump pack assault marines can embark a land raider? That's your conclusion?
Jump infantry follow the rules for jump units and infantry units. I can carry an infantry unit - check. Can I carry a jump unit? Page and graph please.
No, however, if they purchased a Land Raider as a Dedicated Transport, the Land Raider may carry them from deployment due to embarking only being able to be done in the Movement Phase.
There is no restriction for being able to carry any unit type, only that you can only embark with basic Infantry without specific permission.
HANZERtank wrote: Completely forgot about the invasion beams, anyone got the actuall rule?
It's only fluff that supports the concept of the Invasion Beams allowing it making it pointless for this discussion. Well, that and the previous codex.
"Invasion Beams: A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a Night Scythe can disembark either before or after it has moved (including pivoting on the spot), even though it is Zooming, so long it has not moved more than 36" in that Movement phase. If a unit disembarks from a Night Scythe after it has moved 24" or more, models in the unit can only
fire Snap Shots until the start of their next turn. Units embarked on a Night Scythe ignore all effects of damage on passengers. If a Night Scythe is destroyed, the units embarked upon it suffer no damage or ill effects – instead they are immediately placed into Ongoing Reserves"
Essentially, Invasion Beams allow a unit to disembark from a Zooming Flyer as if it was Hovering up to a certain speed. They also protect the models from each receving a Railgun to the face when the Flyer dies. It does not affect Transport Capacity.
What I think what happened is that there was a mixup between the translation from previous codex to this one. Night Scythes used to be able to carry Jump Infantry and Jet Bikes. Someone asked, "What did Praetorians get?" and put Night Scythes as Dedicated Transports. Someone asked, "What is the capacity of a Night Scythe?" and put 15, but didn't ask if it had any special allowances. And so, we get Jump Infantry who have a Dedicated Transport that they cannot Embark upon.
An Errata should be written to allow the Night Scythe to Embark both Jump and Jet Pack Infantry, because this affects Destroyer Lords, too. But I guess, they are too busy writing up Age of Sigmar to worry about piddly little things like that.
As for the concept that you can deploy units in to transports without Embarking, let me point out how useless that would be since in order to get out of a Night Scythe, you either Disembark (which only an Embarked unit can do) or by having it destroyed and then go into Ongoing Reserves (which would defeat the purpose of putting them in the Night Scythe in the first place).
HANZERtank wrote: Completely forgot about the invasion beams, anyone got the actuall rule?
As for the concept that you can deploy units in to transports without Embarking, let me point out how useless that would be since in order to get out of a Night Scythe, you either Disembark (which only an Embarked unit can do) or by having it destroyed and then go into Ongoing Reserves (which would defeat the purpose of putting them in the Night Scythe in the first place).
Embark (and Embarking) are defined terms in the rules, embarked is not. Semantics, certainly, but then again, they left the holes in there.
HANZERtank wrote: Completely forgot about the invasion beams, anyone got the actuall rule?
As for the concept that you can deploy units in to transports without Embarking, let me point out how useless that would be since in order to get out of a Night Scythe, you either Disembark (which only an Embarked unit can do) or by having it destroyed and then go into Ongoing Reserves (which would defeat the purpose of putting them in the Night Scythe in the first place).
Embark (and Embarking) are defined terms in the rules, embarked is not. Semantics, certainly, but then again, they left the holes in there.
Without an actual other definition changing it, "Embarked" would mean "having gone through the Embarking process" in standard English.
Or that's just a logical leap. The rules of the game lead to things that don't make sense. If a unit starts the game 'embarked' in a vehicle, did it ever perform the 'embark' action? No. It doesn't make sense but that's what the rules say.
Zimko wrote: Or that's just a logical leap. The rules of the game lead to things that don't make sense. If a unit starts the game 'embarked' in a vehicle, did it ever perform the 'embark' action? No. It doesn't make sense but that's what the rules say.
That is not a logical leap, that is English's use of tenses. And as I said, we don't have any other defitinion to work with, so we use the rules we have.
So, either deploying in to a Transport uses a sufficient form of Embarking to achieve its results so you can be considered Embarked and can Disembark, but is limited to all the restrictions of Embarking; or it does not use any form of Embarking and then you can't get off without killing the Transport.
Argument: Only Infantry units (not including Jump or Jet Pack) can embark onto a transport.
Counter-argument: The unit is not embarking, they are starting the game already on the transport.
Counter-counter-argument: Unless otherwise specified vehicles can only carry Infantry. Jump Infantry is not Infantry. They are Infantry and Jump. Night Scythe does not specify it can carry Jump. Ergo, only Infantry can start in the transport.
Zimko wrote: Or that's just a logical leap. The rules of the game lead to things that don't make sense. If a unit starts the game 'embarked' in a vehicle, did it ever perform the 'embark' action? No. It doesn't make sense but that's what the rules say.
That is not a logical leap, that is English's use of tenses. And as I said, we don't have any other defitinion to work with, so we use the rules we have.
So, either deploying in to a Transport uses a sufficient form of Embarking to achieve its results so you can be considered Embarked and can Disembark, but is limited to all the restrictions of Embarking; or it does not use any form of Embarking and then you can't get off without killing the Transport.
You choose.
I choose option C: The Praetorians began the game 'inside' the transport as is allowed by the BRB. Thus they are embarked without ever having performed an embarkation move. (col_impact quoted and explained all this on the first page).
Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or
Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity.
Regardless of anything else, the bolded part above keeps this rule from being used to allow praetorians to deploy in the night scythe. As the night scythe has to start in reserves, it's never in your deployment zone during deployment.
I choose option C: The Praetorians began the game 'inside' the transport as is allowed by the BRB. Thus they are embarked without ever having performed an embarkation move. (col_impact quoted and explained all this on the first page).
And where does it state that beginning the game inside a Transport is considered Embarked? Where does it state it bypasses the Embarking process when it does? Why is it possible to ignore the unit types allowed by Transport Capacity, but not the actual Transport numbers?
I choose option C: The Praetorians began the game 'inside' the transport as is allowed by the BRB. Thus they are embarked without ever having performed an embarkation move. (col_impact quoted and explained all this on the first page).
And where does it state that beginning the game inside a Transport is considered Embarked? Where does it state it bypasses the Embarking process when it does? Why is it possible to ignore the unit types allowed by Transport Capacity, but not the actual Transport numbers?
Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement Phase
Until you can prove you can embark outside the Movement Phase, it is possible to be embarked without embarking.
Really, this is proof that GW have failed on multiple levels of rules writing.
However, regardless of crazy RAW, that HIWPI is that Preatorians can be embarked on a Night Scythe.
Why is it possible to ignore the unit types allowed by Transport Capacity, but not the actual Transport numbers?
I don't have a good answer for this. It seems to be a loophole with Dedicated Transports. I'll just quote Nilok above for this.
Nilok wrote:
The fuzzy:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as explained in the vehicle's entry.
We are told that a Dedicated Transport may carry the unit that selected it, but does not say that they embark onto it, but are already being carried.
This fuzzy section of the rules that isn't defined effectively leaves a large enough hole for a Preatorian to be carried by their Dedicated Transport, but not be subjected to the embarking rule.
And where does it state that beginning the game inside a Transport is considered Embarked?
It doesn't. What else could being 'inside' the transport mean though?
Without the rule translating "in the Transport means Embarked", it doesn't officially mean Embarked. This is what I was talking about having a different definition from the normal.
Until the rule is found that says otherwise, "Embarked" means the past tense of Embark or Embarking, and just being in it does not officially qualify.
Where does it state it bypasses the Embarking process when it does?
When it told me I could put the unit inside the transport.
Incorrect. Without a defined answer to the first question, you do not have this answer defined for this follow up question. Indeed, these two questions were actually one in the same, though this one is more about the full process.
Why is it possible to ignore the unit types allowed by Transport Capacity, but not the actual Transport numbers?
I don't have a good answer for this. It seems to be a loophole with Dedicated Transports. I'll just quote Nilok above for this.
Nilok wrote:
The fuzzy:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as explained in the vehicle's entry.
We are told that a Dedicated Transport may carry the unit that selected it, but does not say that they embark onto it, but are already being carried.
This fuzzy section of the rules that isn't defined effectively leaves a large enough hole for a Preatorian to be carried by their Dedicated Transport, but not be subjected to the embarking rule.
It still does not actually answer the Transport Capacity question, nor does it address the concept of actually translating "in a Transport" to being Embarked.
If you want to bypass the Embarking and Transport Capacity rules to get a unit in a Transport, fine, I won't stop you, but I will never consider it Embarked, so expect an issue getting it out through any method other than Explodes or Crash and Burn.
If you want to bypass the Embarking and Transport Capacity rules to get a unit in a Transport, fine, I won't stop you, but I will never consider it Embarked, so expect an issue getting it out through any method other than Explodes or Crash and Burn.
The rules bypass the embarking step for all units. Any unit that starts the game embarked on a transport has gotten there without actually going through embarking since embarking is a process that only happens in movement.
If you want to argues that the praetorians are not considered embarked then you are logically arguing that no unit in the game is considered embarked.
The praetorians are simply following the rules that all units who would start the game in their dedicated transport have to follow.
If you feel otherwise find rules for embarking that the player uses during deployment.
The praetorians have permission to be on their dedicated transport here
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can
only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that
have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly
Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as
explained in the vehicle’s entry.
col_impact wrote: The praetorians have permission to be on their dedicated transport here
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can
only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that
have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly
Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as
explained in the vehicle’s entry.
I'm not seeing any permission in the quoted rule. Only a restriction on other units being carried at deployment.
col_impact wrote: The praetorians have permission to be on their dedicated transport here
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can
only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that
have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly
Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as
explained in the vehicle’s entry.
I'm not seeing any permission in the quoted rule. Only a restriction on other units being carried at deployment.
Per English, that rule grants broad permission ("the only limitation") for a dedicated transport to carry the unit it was selected with. If you try to limit the praetorians from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met.
A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity.
So Praetorians are Jump Infantry. Can Infantry be in a transport? Yes so long as they don't exceed the maximum number of models. Can Jump units be in a transport? No, unless the transport specifically allows it.
Since Praetorians have two unit types and one of those is forbidden from being carried by Night Scythes then they cannot be carried.
A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity.
So Praetorians are Jump Infantry. Can Infantry be in a transport? Yes so long as they don't exceed the maximum number of models. Can Jump units be in a transport? No, unless the transport specifically allows it.
Since Praetorians have two unit types and one of those is forbidden from being carried by Night Scythes then they cannot be carried.
Praetorians are not forbidden from being on their dedicated transport. You are trying to apply a limitation beyond the "only limitation" and are breaking the rules. They are restricted from embarking onto a transport during movement phases when embarking is something that a unit actually has permission to do.
Charistoph wrote: If you want to bypass the Embarking and Transport Capacity rules to get a unit in a Transport, fine, I won't stop you, but I will never consider it Embarked, so expect an issue getting it out through any method other than Explodes or Crash and Burn.
The rules bypass the embarking step for all units. Any unit that starts the game embarked on a transport has gotten there without actually going through embarking since embarking is a process that only happens in movement.
That isn't what I said. You are saying they are in the transport, but you have yet to point out that this means they are Embarked. Or in other words, Embarked has not been replaced with any other definition, so may only be taken to be a past tense form of Embark. This is standard English.
col_impact wrote: If you want to argues that the praetorians are not considered embarked then you are logically arguing that no unit in the game is considered embarked.
I am not, you are. You are stating that a unit starts in a transport without Embarking. And per the rules of English which have as yet to be countered, one cannot be Embarked without having gone through Embarking at some point previous.
col_impact wrote: The praetorians have permission to be on their dedicated transport here
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as explained in the vehicle’s entry.
A restriction does not mean permission when a general permission is already in play. There already exists general permission for a unit to start in a transport. By stating only one unit may be aboard at a certain time, places a restriction on that general permission.
However, none of this states that a unit being carried by the Transport is considered Embarked.
col_impact wrote: If you want to argues that the praetorians are not considered embarked then you are logically arguing that no unit in the game is considered embarked.
I am not, you are. You are stating that a unit starts in a transport without Embarking. And per the rules of English which have as yet to be countered, one cannot be Embarked without having gone through Embarking at some point previous.
You need to point to a rule in the BRB which defines embarking during employment, and you cannot. Pointing vaguely to "some point previous" is inventing rules or otherwise house-ruling. Per strict RAW the embarking process never happens and it is skipped in game terms. We lack rules for resolving embarking during deployment.
nosferatu1001 wrote: You're taking a rule out of context, to turn a restriction into a permission
It can only carry infantry unless told otherwise. That's it.
The rules say otherwise.
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it).
A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity.
So Praetorians are Jump Infantry. Can Infantry be in a transport? Yes so long as they don't exceed the maximum number of models. Can Jump units be in a transport? No, unless the transport specifically allows it.
Since Praetorians have two unit types and one of those is forbidden from being carried by Night Scythes then they cannot be carried.
Praetorians are not forbidden from being on their dedicated transport. You are trying to apply a limitation beyond the "only limitation" and are breaking the rules. They are restricted from embarking onto a transport during movement phases when embarking is something that a unit actually has permission to do.
And the rule I quoted says that vehicles can only carry Infantry. So if you put Praetorians into a transport (dedicated or otherwise) that does not specify Jump units can be carried, then you have broken a rule.
nosferatu1001 wrote: You're taking a rule out of context, to turn a restriction into a permission
It can only carry infantry unless told otherwise. That's it.
The rules say otherwise.
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it).
So I can take a Command Squad, give them all Bikes, and then start them inside their Razorback?
A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity.
So Praetorians are Jump Infantry. Can Infantry be in a transport? Yes so long as they don't exceed the maximum number of models. Can Jump units be in a transport? No, unless the transport specifically allows it.
Since Praetorians have two unit types and one of those is forbidden from being carried by Night Scythes then they cannot be carried.
Praetorians are not forbidden from being on their dedicated transport. You are trying to apply a limitation beyond the "only limitation" and are breaking the rules. They are restricted from embarking onto a transport during movement phases when embarking is something that a unit actually has permission to do.
And the rule I quoted says that vehicles can only carry Infantry. So if you put Praetorians into a transport (dedicated or otherwise) that does not specify Jump units can be carried, then you have broken a rule.
Wrong. I have applied this rule.
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it).
You are wrongfully trying to apply a limitation beyond "the only limitation"
A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity.
So Praetorians are Jump Infantry. Can Infantry be in a transport? Yes so long as they don't exceed the maximum number of models. Can Jump units be in a transport? No, unless the transport specifically allows it.
Since Praetorians have two unit types and one of those is forbidden from being carried by Night Scythes then they cannot be carried.
Praetorians are not forbidden from being on their dedicated transport. You are trying to apply a limitation beyond the "only limitation" and are breaking the rules. They are restricted from embarking onto a transport during movement phases when embarking is something that a unit actually has permission to do.
And the rule I quoted says that vehicles can only carry Infantry. So if you put Praetorians into a transport (dedicated or otherwise) that does not specify Jump units can be carried, then you have broken a rule.
Wrong. I have applied this rule.
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it).
You are wrongfully trying to apply a limitation beyond "the only limitation"
So I can take a 5 man Command Squad, give them all bikes, and put them in their Dedicated Razorback?
A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity.
So Praetorians are Jump Infantry. Can Infantry be in a transport? Yes so long as they don't exceed the maximum number of models. Can Jump units be in a transport? No, unless the transport specifically allows it.
Since Praetorians have two unit types and one of those is forbidden from being carried by Night Scythes then they cannot be carried.
Praetorians are not forbidden from being on their dedicated transport. You are trying to apply a limitation beyond the "only limitation" and are breaking the rules. They are restricted from embarking onto a transport during movement phases when embarking is something that a unit actually has permission to do.
And the rule I quoted says that vehicles can only carry Infantry. So if you put Praetorians into a transport (dedicated or otherwise) that does not specify Jump units can be carried, then you have broken a rule.
Wrong. I have applied this rule.
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it).
You are wrongfully trying to apply a limitation beyond "the only limitation"
So I can take a 5 man Command Squad, give them all bikes, and put them in their Dedicated Razorback?
Happyjew wrote: The rules say that vehicles can only carry infantry.
Praetorians are infantry. They are also jump. Their unit type is "jump infantry"
Spoiler:
Jump units therefore share two
sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry
would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
The rules also say this.
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it).
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, so prove that jump units may be carried. Or can i assault having run, the turn I disembark from a land raider?
Again, your insistence on taking a rule out of context is not helpful to your arguments credibility.
I am not taking any rule out of context. Here is the full rule
Spoiler:
Dedicated Transports
Sometimes a unit entry will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be
selected together with the unit. These Dedicated Transports do not use up a
slot on the force organisation chart, but count as having the same role as the
unit they were bought for all other rules purposes.
For example, a Rhino bought for a Space Marine Tactical Squad (troops)
counts as a unit of troops, but one bought for a unit of Space Marine
Sternguard Veteran Squad (elites) counts as elites.
Other vehicles may also have a Transport Capacity, but they are chosen
separately as normal, have a role and occupy a force organisation chart slot of
their own.
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can
only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that
have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly
Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as
explained in the vehicle’s entry.
My argument strictly adheres to the rules and in their full context. The problem with your argument is that you are not adhering to the rules.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, so prove that jump units may be carried. Or can i assault having run, the turn I disembark from a land raider?
Again, your insistence on taking a rule out of context is not helpful to your arguments credibility.
I am not taking any rule out of context. Here is the full rule
Spoiler:
Dedicated Transports
Sometimes a unit entry will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be
selected together with the unit. These Dedicated Transports do not use up a
slot on the force organisation chart, but count as having the same role as the
unit they were bought for all other rules purposes.
For example, a Rhino bought for a Space Marine Tactical Squad (troops)
counts as a unit of troops, but one bought for a unit of Space Marine
Sternguard Veteran Squad (elites) counts as elites.
Other vehicles may also have a Transport Capacity, but they are chosen
separately as normal, have a role and occupy a force organisation chart slot of
their own.
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can
only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that
have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly
Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as
explained in the vehicle’s entry.
My argument strictly adheres to the rules and in their full context. The problem with your argument is that you are not adhering to the rules.
Then why are you breaking the rule that vehicles can only carry Infantry?
col_impact wrote: If you want to argues that the praetorians are not considered embarked then you are logically arguing that no unit in the game is considered embarked.
I am not, you are. You are stating that a unit starts in a transport without Embarking. And per the rules of English which have as yet to be countered, one cannot be Embarked without having gone through Embarking at some point previous.
You need to point to a rule in the BRB which defines embarking during employment, and you cannot. Pointing vaguely to "some point previous" is inventing rules or otherwise house-ruling. Per strict RAW the embarking process never happens and it is skipped in game terms. We lack rules for resolving embarking during deployment.
I haven't really said anything about it, yet. What I have said is that you are saying you do not need to Embark the units during deployment. At which point, if you do not Embark the units, they cannot be Embarked due to the rules of English and no other redefinition in the rulebook.
If they are not Embarked, they cannot get out through the Disembark process. Which means the only way they can get out of the Vehicle is if it Explodes! or Crashes and Burns! Any other method is Disembarking, which again, requires the unit to be Embarked to do so. Even Wrecked! requires the unit to Disembark.
But being carried by a Transport or deployed or placed in a Transport isn't Embarked any more than deploying a unit in to a Transport is Embarking.
But that's only if you really want to get picky about wording.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, so prove that jump units may be carried. Or can i assault having run, the turn I disembark from a land raider?
Again, your insistence on taking a rule out of context is not helpful to your arguments credibility.
I am not taking any rule out of context. Here is the full rule
Spoiler:
Dedicated Transports
Sometimes a unit entry will include a transport option, allowing a vehicle to be
selected together with the unit. These Dedicated Transports do not use up a
slot on the force organisation chart, but count as having the same role as the
unit they were bought for all other rules purposes.
For example, a Rhino bought for a Space Marine Tactical Squad (troops)
counts as a unit of troops, but one bought for a unit of Space Marine
Sternguard Veteran Squad (elites) counts as elites.
Other vehicles may also have a Transport Capacity, but they are chosen
separately as normal, have a role and occupy a force organisation chart slot of
their own.
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can
only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that
have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly
Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as
explained in the vehicle’s entry.
My argument strictly adheres to the rules and in their full context. The problem with your argument is that you are not adhering to the rules.
Then why are you breaking the rule that vehicles can only carry Infantry?
I would appreciate it if you would please post the rule you are referencing. Currently the only rule restricting Jump and Jet Pack Infantry is embarking: getting into the transport in the movement phase.
Permission for all (Normal, Jump, and Jet Pack) Infantry to be in transports and Restricting all other unit types:
Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. The entire unit must be embarked on the Transport if any part of it is - a unit cannot be partially embarked or be spread across multiple Transports.
This informs us that no units other than Infantry, of all types, may be embarked in a Transport and also defines "embarked" as being inside the transport, instead of having performed an embark action in the movement phase. If it was the other way, any unit that stated in a vehicle at the start of the game would be unable to disembark. It is also stated below for Reserves deployment, that they are deployed embarked.
I believe the rule you are misremembering is the next paragraph:
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
This rule only restricts normal Infantry to embarking, it does not restrict Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from being already embarked in a transport prior to the start of the game.
It then goes on to define what embark/embarking is:
Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase. They cannot voluntarily embark and disembark in the same turn. However, they can embarked and them be forced to disembark if their Transport is destroyed.
This tells us the embarking is only done in the movement phase.
Finally, the permission to have units, including Jump and Jet Pack infantry in their Dedicated Transport without embarking on the table via deployment:
Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity.
And the permission for reserves:
Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserves are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserves, in which case they will arrive together.
This final permission show that the unit is already embarked on the vehicle and not subject to the embark/embarking rule, which as I already showed, only happens in the movement phase. This also shows that all units that are deployed in transports, but have not performed an embarking in the movement phase, still count as embarked.
This shows a clear line of permission to have Jump or Jet Pack Infantry inside a transport, they simply cannot embark into it, which cannot be done. This also prevents the Bike country argument as they are not Infantry in any regard.
Final Thoughts:
After reviewing all of the rules again, I have found that not only is there a clear line of permission to have units embarked on their Dedicated Transport for Jump or Jet Pack Infantry, but the rules for deployment also permit for vehicles to have such Jump and Jet Pack Infantry embarked at the start of the game without it being a Dedicated Transport, so long as the bulky or very bulky units can fit within the Transport Capacity and specific restrictions.
Ah, so your issue is that you believe "infantry" actually says "Infantry of all types", despite the rules saying nothing of the kind
Jump infantry is a specific type of Jump unit. Same as jump cavalry or jump MC would be specific types of Jump units
You have Jump and Infantry. You have permission to carry infantry, please show how you have permission to carry units that are also Jump. Page and graph. Note: the rule starting "A transport can..." does NOT provide this permission.
If we are playing the uses the rules for infantry card, walkers use the rules for infantry in the movement phase. If so walkers can embark into a vehicle as they follow the rules for infantry at that point. Then they can be inside as we are saying anything can be in a transport as long as it has a way to get inside.
I'd treat it as Praetorians cannont deploy inside the vehicle similar to how Necron warrior squads with more than 10 models can't take their own transport.
If you look at entries like for a drop pod, they even refer to units inside the vehicle at the start of the game as being "embarked upon them".
Dozer Blades wrote: The only dedicated transport for a walker I can think of off the top of my head is a drop pod.
The Ghost Arc's transport capacity has nothing to do with this discussion.
It does, as its another case of a dedicated transport where "the only limtation", as out-of-context-quoted by col_impact, isnt truly the only limitation
Its almost like the whole set of rules has to be read together, to show it is a restriction and not permission.
I would appreciate it if you would please post the rule you are referencing. Currently the only rule restricting Jump and Jet Pack Infantry is embarking: getting into the transport in the movement phase.
Permission for all (Normal, Jump, and Jet Pack) Infantry to be in transports and Restricting all other unit types:
Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. The entire unit must be embarked on the Transport if any part of it is - a unit cannot be partially embarked or be spread across multiple Transports.
This informs us that no units other than Infantry, of all types, may be embarked in a Transport and also defines "embarked" as being inside the transport, instead of having performed an embark action in the movement phase. If it was the other way, any unit that stated in a vehicle at the start of the game would be unable to disembark. It is also stated below for Reserves deployment, that they are deployed embarked.
No, it does not define Embarked anything other than the normal having been through Embarking. It says that an Infantry unit may be CARRIED, not Embarked.
It then says that an entire unit must Embark together. So, I guess that means I can have the Transport partially Carry a unit since that is no more forbidden than carrying a unit that cannot Embark.
Nilok wrote: I believe the rule you are misremembering is the next paragraph:
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
This rule only restricts normal Infantry to embarking, it does not restrict Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from being already embarked in a transport prior to the start of the game.
Standard English rules state otherwise. Embarked means to have been through the Embarking process.
The only thing you've done is define a difference between "Carry"/"Be Deployed in to" and Embark. And then you want to go back and say that Embark is equal to "Carry" or "Be Deployed in to". It doesn't work that way.
Nilok wrote: Finally, the permission to have units, including Jump and Jet Pack infantry in their Dedicated Transport without embarking on the table via deployment:
Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity.
Too bad that being "deployed inside" a Transport doesn't count as Embarking so the unit can then Disembark later on.
Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserves are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserves, in which case they will arrive together.
This final permission show that the unit is already embarked on the vehicle and not subject to the embark/embarking rule, which as I already showed, only happens in the movement phase. This also shows that all units that are deployed in transports, but have not performed an embarking in the movement phase, still count as embarked.
Standard English rules state otherwise. Being Embarked means you have at one point gone through the Embarking process. So, you're still stuck there.
Nilok wrote: Final Thoughts:
After reviewing all of the rules again, I have found that not only is there a clear line of permission to have units embarked on their Dedicated Transport for Jump or Jet Pack Infantry, but the rules for deployment also permit for vehicles to have such Jump and Jet Pack Infantry embarked at the start of the game without it being a Dedicated Transport, so long as the bulky or very bulky units can fit within the Transport Capacity and specific restrictions.
Dedicated Transports have no more permission to Embark units than any other Transports. They are restricted from carrying any other unit when deploying, but gain benefits by doing so, like being able to Infiltrate, Scout, and Outflank if their purchasing unit has the capacity to do so on their own.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Ah, so your issue is that you believe "infantry" actually says "Infantry of all types", despite the rules saying nothing of the kind
Jump infantry is a specific type of Jump unit. Same as jump cavalry or jump MC would be specific types of Jump units
You have Jump and Infantry. You have permission to carry infantry, please show how you have permission to carry units that are also Jump. Page and graph. Note: the rule starting "A transport can..." does NOT provide this permission.
Jump Units (underlined for clarity):
Unlike most other unit type categories, 'Jump' is not a classification in and of itself, Instead, you'll find it occurs before another category - commonly Infantry, sometimes Monstrous Creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things. Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
Jet Pack Units:
As with Jump units, 'Jet Pack' is not a classification in and of itself.
As stated by the rules, there is no such thing as a pure 'Jump' unit, instead, 'Jump' is a modifier to its base unit type. In this case Infantry, which is shares all rules and permissions granted to base Infantry with exceptions.
The critical thing is that there is a blanket permission under Transport Capacity for Infantry with no restrictions. However, under the embarking rule, there is a restriction for embarking models must be Infantry, but also excludes Jump and Jet Pack Infantry, showing that any rule affecting Infantry also affect Jump and Jet Pack Infantry unless a specific exception is stated.
If this restriction was stated in the Transport Capacity, or placing unit in Transports during deployment counted as embarking, then Jump and Jet Pack units could not start deployed inside a Transport.
HANZERtank wrote: If we are playing the uses the rules for infantry card, walkers use the rules for infantry in the movement phase. If so walkers can embark into a vehicle as they follow the rules for infantry at that point. Then they can be inside as we are saying anything can be in a transport as long as it has a way to get inside.
Using the rules for infantry is not the same as having permission to use the rule set, or be counted as Infantry. There is a difference between "Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry" and "Walkers move using the movement rules for Infantry."
As you can see, there is no permission to count Walkers as Infantry.
Nilok wrote: The critical thing is that there is a blanket permission under Transport Capacity for Infantry with no restrictions. However, under the embarking rule, there is a restriction for embarking models must be Infantry, but also excludes Jump and Jet Pack Infantry, showing that any rule affecting Infantry also affect Jump and Jet Pack Infantry unless a specific exception is stated.
Incorrect. The 'Transport Capacity' section of the rules is where it says "... Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry)..." The Embarking rules are a few sections further down in the rules in the 'Embarking and Disembarking' section.
Charistoph, your argument seems to be highly based on "standard English" which has (sadly) little to do with the rule set of 40k.
Perhaps you could rewrite it to not rely on that so much.
Other than that, it seem your only argument is that you cannot be Embarked without Embarking, which would make sense if you were trying to use rule world example, but in the context of the rules, that is not a requirement. If it was, it would say for instance "Embarking Units count as Embarked".
If that is resolved, then you rest of your concerns also get resolved.
Nilok wrote: The critical thing is that there is a blanket permission under Transport Capacity for Infantry with no restrictions. However, under the embarking rule, there is a restriction for embarking models must be Infantry, but also excludes Jump and Jet Pack Infantry, showing that any rule affecting Infantry also affect Jump and Jet Pack Infantry unless a specific exception is stated.
Incorrect. The 'Transport Capacity' section of the rules is where it says "... Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry)..." The Embarking rules are a few sections further down in the rules in the 'Embarking and Disembarking' section.
That is a clear distinction indeed. This shows, as you say, that Jump and Jet Pack infantry cannot embark. However, once again, read the bold text you find that unrelated to actually embarking, the only requirement is to be "a single Infantry unit" without restriction to be inside a Transport. If you can show that this unrestricted instance of Infantry is meant to be identical as the embark entry below it, "Only Infantry modes can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless otherwise specially stated otherwise", then my argument falls flat.
I don't think I understand your argument why praetorians should be able to get in the night scythe.
If your argument is that the rules allow praetorians on the night scythe, then where are they specifically stated to be able to break the restriction on jump and jet pack infantry not being allowed on transports? The rule on page 80 explicitly excludes jump and jet pack infantry unless given a specific exception in the rules such as a drop pod saying you can bring a dreadnought.
If your argument is that embarking and being deployed on are different, than why do the rules for other transports like drop pods mention units that start the game inside of them as being embarked upon them? They don't appear to be differentiating between deploying in something or embarking upon it.
lessthanjeff wrote: I don't think I understand your argument why praetorians should be able to get in the night scythe.
If your argument is that the rules allow praetorians on the night scythe, then where are they specifically stated to be able to break the restriction on jump and jet pack infantry not being allowed on transports? The rule on page 80 explicitly excludes jump and jet pack infantry unless given a specific exception in the rules such as a drop pod saying you can bring a dreadnought.
If your argument is that embarking and being deployed on are different, than why do the rules for other transports like drop pods mention units that start the game inside of them as being embarked upon them? They don't appear to be differentiating between deploying in something or embarking upon it.
Because being embarked does not carry any restrictions. The second paragraph that covers the actual act of embarking is the restriction for Jump and Jet Pack infantry given. Embark and embarking is then later defined as something that can only be done in the Movement Phase. Finally, units that start deployed or embarked in Transports prior to the start of the game do not go through the embarking process.
This is honesty a case of Games Workshop stupidly cutting rules from 7th edition and redefining terms as rules. If they did not foolishly define "embark" later on as an action that can only be done in the Movement Phase and instead called it something like "Load Up", it such a blatant hole would not form.
Regardless, I don't think Jump or Jet Pack Infantry should be deployed inside of transport at the start of the game save for the Preatorians and their Dedicated Transport which had a rule omitted from the previous codex, in my opinion, erroneously.
That's why I'm saying look at the entry for a drop pod. It refers to units that began the game on the transport as embarked upon it. If embarking only happens in the movement phase as you're claiming, how did they embark upon it before the game began? I don't think there is a distinction between embarking on and being deployed on. If there is, games workshop isn't showing that distinction in their rule writing.
The rules for transports limit the act of embarking not being embarked. That is the difference. If you have to adhere to the tenets of embarking then you can never start embarked as the unit can only embark in the movement phase. This is a restriction and if you are stating you need specific override for jump infantry then you need one for embarking out side of the movement phase. You either need to follow all the rules or none per the blanket over ride of the only restriction clause under dedicated transports rules.
So when the rules say "... Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry)..." we're left with two options:
1.) The author was using the real world definition of 'embark' or...
2.) GW for some unfathomable reason decided to put a restriction on embarking in the 'Transport Capacity' section of the rules instead of in the 'Embarking and Disembarking' section that they hadn't even covered yet.
I know which makes more sense to me. Like Sigmund Freud said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and with GW sometimes a word is just a word and not some allusion to a rule.
Nilok, I was at work all day so was unable to respond to your earlier post.
The rule I was referring to is the one you quoted, including the bold section - transports can only carry Infantry.
This means if you are any of the following {Jump. Jet Pack, Artillery, Bike, Jetbike, Eldar Jetbike, Jet Pack, Monstrous Creature, Cavalry, Flying Monstrous Creature, Gargantuan Creature, Vehicle, Super-heavy Vehicle, Flying Gargantuan Creature} you need specific permission to be carried by a transport.
Happyjew wrote: Nilok, I was at work all day so was unable to respond to your earlier post.
The rule I was referring to is the one you quoted, including the bold section - transports can only carry Infantry.
This means if you are any of the following {Jump. Jet Pack, Artillery, Bike, Jetbike, Eldar Jetbike, Jet Pack, Monstrous Creature, Cavalry, Flying Monstrous Creature, Gargantuan Creature, Vehicle, Super-heavy Vehicle, Flying Gargantuan Creature} you need specific permission to be carried by a transport.
Thats fine, work has to been done.
I disagree with your list however, since the Unit Type for Jump and Jet Pack specifically state that there is no such thing as a pure Jump or Jet Pack unit, instead Jump and Jet Pack are modifiers to other unit types such as Infantry, Monstrous Creature, and Gargantuan Creature and as such, follow all rules governing their base Unit Type. If a rule references an Infantry Unit Type, it also applies to Jump Infantry and Jet Pack Infantry. The only time this isn't the case is when Jump and Jet Pack are specifically restricted in regards to Infantry, or their other base Unit Type.
Unlike most other unit type categories, 'Jump' is not a classification in and of itself, Instead, you'll find it occurs before another category - commonly Infantry, sometimes Monstrous Creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things. Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
Happyjew wrote: Nilok, I was at work all day so was unable to respond to your earlier post.
The rule I was referring to is the one you quoted, including the bold section - transports can only carry Infantry.
This means if you are any of the following {Jump. Jet Pack, Artillery, Bike, Jetbike, Eldar Jetbike, Jet Pack, Monstrous Creature, Cavalry, Flying Monstrous Creature, Gargantuan Creature, Vehicle, Super-heavy Vehicle, Flying Gargantuan Creature} you need specific permission to be carried by a transport.
Thats fine, work has to been done.
I disagree with your list however, since the Unit Type for Jump and Jet Pack specifically state that there is no such thing as a pure Jump or Jet Pack unit, instead Jump and Jet Pack are modifiers to other unit types such as Infantry, Monstrous Creature, and Gargantuan Creature and as such, follow all rules governing their base Unit Type. If a rule references an Infantry Unit Type, it also applies to Jump Infantry and Jet Pack Infantry. The only time this isn't the case is when Jump and Jet Pack are specifically restricted in regards to Infantry, or their other base Unit Type.
Unlike most other unit type categories, 'Jump' is not a classification in and of itself, Instead, you'll find it occurs before another category - commonly Infantry, sometimes Monstrous Creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things. Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
Right there is no such thing as pure Jump or pure Jet Pack, however, units with those unit types have to follow two sets of rules - those that govern Infantry and those that govern Jump/Jet Pack. Infantry has permission to be carried by a transport. Jump and Jet Pack do not. Therefore, Jump Infantry has one rule that allows them to be in transports and one rule that does not. As such in order to break no rules, Jump Infantry can not be carried by a transport (unless otherwise specified).
Happyjew wrote: Nilok, I was at work all day so was unable to respond to your earlier post.
The rule I was referring to is the one you quoted, including the bold section - transports can only carry Infantry.
This means if you are any of the following {Jump. Jet Pack, Artillery, Bike, Jetbike, Eldar Jetbike, Jet Pack, Monstrous Creature, Cavalry, Flying Monstrous Creature, Gargantuan Creature, Vehicle, Super-heavy Vehicle, Flying Gargantuan Creature} you need specific permission to be carried by a transport.
Thats fine, work has to been done.
I disagree with your list however, since the Unit Type for Jump and Jet Pack specifically state that there is no such thing as a pure Jump or Jet Pack unit, instead Jump and Jet Pack are modifiers to other unit types such as Infantry, Monstrous Creature, and Gargantuan Creature and as such, follow all rules governing their base Unit Type. If a rule references an Infantry Unit Type, it also applies to Jump Infantry and Jet Pack Infantry. The only time this isn't the case is when Jump and Jet Pack are specifically restricted in regards to Infantry, or their other base Unit Type.
Unlike most other unit type categories, 'Jump' is not a classification in and of itself, Instead, you'll find it occurs before another category - commonly Infantry, sometimes Monstrous Creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things. Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
Right there is no such thing as pure Jump or pure Jet Pack, however, units with those unit types have to follow two sets of rules - those that govern Infantry and those that govern Jump/Jet Pack. Infantry has permission to be carried by a transport. Jump and Jet Pack do not. Therefore, Jump Infantry has one rule that allows them to be in transports and one rule that does not. As such in order to break no rules, Jump Infantry can not be carried by a transport (unless otherwise specified).
Infantry have permission to be in Transports, however, Jump Infantry and Jet Pack Infantry have no restriction to being in Transports, but instead a specific restriction that they cannot embark. If this restriction was called in the first paragraph, I wouldn't have an argument to stand on since it would override their Infantry permissions for being carried in a Transport and wouldn't be able to also use the hole in deployment allowing models to be deployed in Transports without having them embark.
Nilok wrote:Charistoph, your argument seems to be highly based on "standard English" which has (sadly) little to do with the rule set of 40k.
Perhaps you could rewrite it to not rely on that so much.
I'm not the one who started using it as a reference. Please refer to Col_Impact for the one is started using it as a standard.
And well, how can we really ignore the rules for English when we're dealing with a game written in English by an English company, unless specifically directed to?
Nilok wrote:Other than that, it seem your only argument is that you cannot be Embarked without Embarking, which would make sense if you were trying to use rule world example, but in the context of the rules, that is not a requirement. If it was, it would say for instance "Embarking Units count as Embarked".
If that is resolved, then you rest of your concerns also get resolved.
Well, no one has actually shown me how a unit can be Embarked without using the standards for Embarking. We've seen how units can be deployed in to a Transport, and we've see a unit start the game being carried by a Transport, but unless they are actually connected together with Embarking, either by just following standards or just flat ignoring the Movement Phase for it (which actually happens a lot in 40K rules), they cannot be considered "Embarked".
Nilok wrote:Because being embarked does not carry any restrictions. The second paragraph that covers the actual act of embarking is the restriction for Jump and Jet Pack infantry given. Embark and embarking is then later defined as something that can only be done in the Movement Phase. Finally, units that start deployed or embarked in Transports prior to the start of the game do not go through the embarking process.
And where does it state that there is no relationship between embark, embarking, and embarked? This has not been presented as yet, just assumptions and a desire to ignore it to prove your point.
Nilok wrote:This is honesty a case of Games Workshop stupidly cutting rules from 7th edition and redefining terms as rules. If they did not foolishly define "embark" later on as an action that can only be done in the Movement Phase and instead called it something like "Load Up", it such a blatant hole would not form.
Or maybe there is a refusal for some to just make the proper connections, just to be able to create a state that you desire. Unfortunately, this state comes with its own problems, as I have taken the time to point out.
Nilok wrote:Regardless, I don't think Jump or Jet Pack Infantry should be deployed inside of transport at the start of the game save for the Preatorians and their Dedicated Transport which had a rule omitted from the previous codex, in my opinion, erroneously.
I agree that the Night Scythe should be errata'd to carry both Jump and Jet Pack Infantry. And if someone asked before a game, I would even allow it.
But that's for people I'm around and gaming with and can make those types of agreements with.
CaptainSuperglue wrote:Sigh.... more arguments about praetorians....
Just give up guys, its obvious that whoever wrote the praetorian rules has no idea how the game is played, their transport and close combat options are both utterly buggered. You can make a good argument that they can't get out of their flyer, can't fight in hand to hand combat and that they can't even deploy on the board at all.
There is no correct answer, other than the writer of the rules totally messed this unit up, work it out with whoever you are playing before the game, and ask to drop them from your list if you're not both on the same page with them.
Actually, the rules for the Praetorians are fine the way they are. What problems have been brought up either involve putting words in to the rules that do not actually exist, or with another unit's rules entirely. The Praetorians have zero problems with the Night Scythe. It's the Night Scythe that has a problem with Praetorians.
I did not ask about Jump Infantry, Jump Monstrous Creatures, or Jump Gargantuan Creatures. I asked about Jump units.
Absent specific permission from a vehicle, can a Jump unit be carried by a transport?
Jump Units wrote:'Jump' is not a classification in and of itself.
Asking just for Jump Unit rules is asking an incomplete question, as the rules never refer to a 'Jump Unit' outside the main description and telling us there is no such thing as a 'Jump' unit. This is shown when it clarifies that Jump [Infantry] and Jet Pack Infantry cannot embark on Transport.
In fact, a 'Jump' unit cannot even move, or be legally playing in 40k. However, a Jump Infantry unit, or Jump Monstrous Creature can.
Edit: Unless your argument is that since it says 'Jump' instead a completely writing 'Jump Infantry' that you can embark with Jump Infantry?
I did not ask about Jump Infantry, Jump Monstrous Creatures, or Jump Gargantuan Creatures. I asked about Jump units.
Absent specific permission from a vehicle, can a Jump unit be carried by a transport?
Jump Units wrote:'Jump' is not a classification in and of itself.
Asking just for Jump Unit rules is asking an incomplete question, as the rules never refer to a 'Jump Unit' outside the main description and telling us there is no such thing as a 'Jump' unit. This is shown when it clarifies that Jump [Infantry] and Jet Pack Infantry cannot embark on Transport.
In fact, a 'Jump' unit cannot even move, or be legally playing in 40k. However, a Jump Infantry unit, or Jump Monstrous Creature can.
And what does the second to last sentence in the first paragraph for Jump units say? "Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type."
As such, permission has been shown for Infantry units to be carried by transports. No permission has been shown for Jump units to be carried by transports. You must follow both rules. If A has permission and B does not have permission, then AB does not have permission.
I did not ask about Jump Infantry, Jump Monstrous Creatures, or Jump Gargantuan Creatures. I asked about Jump units.
Absent specific permission from a vehicle, can a Jump unit be carried by a transport?
Jump Units wrote:'Jump' is not a classification in and of itself.
Asking just for Jump Unit rules is asking an incomplete question, as the rules never refer to a 'Jump Unit' outside the main description and telling us there is no such thing as a 'Jump' unit. This is shown when it clarifies that Jump [Infantry] and Jet Pack Infantry cannot embark on Transport.
In fact, a 'Jump' unit cannot even move, or be legally playing in 40k. However, a Jump Infantry unit, or Jump Monstrous Creature can.
And what does the second to last sentence in the first paragraph for Jump units say? "Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type."
As such, permission has been shown for Infantry units to be carried by transports. No permission has been shown for Jump units to be carried by transports. You must follow both rules. If A has permission and B does not have permission, then AB does not have permission.
Unfortunately, that is an incorrect assessment.
A more accurate statement is thus:
A has permission to be carried and embark.
B follows all rules of A if together
AB thus can be carried, but is restricted from being able to embark.
Infantry can be carried and embark, Jump units follow the rules of their base type, Jump Infantry can be carried but not embark.
If you are saying Jump Infantry cannot be carried because it has 'Jump' in it, you are not following the "Jump Infantry follow all rules of Jump units and Infantry".
Jump Units wrote:Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
So why can Prats take a NS as a transport if they can't ride in it ? Is there any other such unit? Is there a walker with a dedicated transport besides dreadnaughts ?
It's the same people here trying to tell us what we can and can't do and they have no official capacity whatsoever.
A unit can be Embarked without ever Embarking even using standard English:
A baby begins its life embarked in its mother. The baby never undertook an embarking action.
Nonetheless, given the niche advantages of having a non-embarked Praetorian with a dedicated Nightscythe (e.g., a non-org fast attack choice, or tRget designated shenanigans in a Judicator Battalion), I have opted to not request permission in my games to have a Praetorian begin embarked until/unless errataed to allow it.
In fairness, however, it should be noted that with the expiry of prior errata, nothing can ever embark upon a Nightscythe, though Warriors and Immortals unequivocally may begin embarked at the start of the game.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, but neither do you dozer. It's a discussion, do you understand that concept? It's in the tenets. Your remarks add nothing of any use.
Nilok - it states they follow the rules for Jump UNITS and for infantry
Dozer Blades wrote: So why can Prats take a NS as a transport if they can't ride in it ? Is there any other such unit? Is there a walker with a dedicated transport besides dreadnaughts ?
It's the same people here trying to tell us what we can and can't do and they have no official capacity whatsoever.
Command Squad upgraded to have Bikes or Jump Packs can still take a Dedicated Transport. Assault Marines I believe can purchase a Dedicated Transport even if they have Jump Packs.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, but neither do you dozer. It's a discussion, do you understand that concept? It's in the tenets. Your remarks add nothing of any use.
Nilok - it states they follow the rules for Jump UNITS and for infantry
Jump
Units
Jump units have no permission to be carried.
Proven.
The rules for Jump are a modifier to the base type and follow all the rules of said type. As such, Jump Infantry follow all the rules for Infantry, including being carried.
Unless you are saying Jump Units without a base type, in which case they do not even have the rule for movement, and you would be correct. That said, I don't know of any Jump Units without a base type. If you find one, please tell me where to find it.
The codex allows them to take Night Scythes. It's a dedicated transport option for the unit. We're not really disputing or even talking about that, though. And Battlescribe carries no real weight in a discussion about what the rules say.
Dozer Blades wrote:So why can Prats take a NS as a transport if they can't ride in it ?
I can think of two. Both involve including a slotless Flyer. The first is just being able to include one more Flyer for AA in to the army. The other involves the Judicator Battalion, which then becomes a member of the Formation, and gaining all the benefits thereof.
Those are in game reasons. Developmental reasons, I cannot say anything other than what I said before: Praetorians used to be able to take the Night Scythe as a Dedicated Transport back when the Night Scythe could carry Jump Infantry and Jet Bikes as part of its Transport Capacity rules.
Dozer Blades wrote:Is there any other such unit? Is there a walker with a dedicated transport besides dreadnaughts ?
None that I am aware of, though there could be some Forgeworld units that qualify.
Dozer Blades wrote:It's the same people here trying to tell us what we can and can't do and they have no official capacity whatsoever.
True enough. What we can do (and stick to) is quote the rules and precedents from other rules. Not everyone sticks to that, though, and some like to think their view are the rules and try to push them as such.
sieGermans wrote:A unit can be Embarked without ever Embarking even using standard English:
Really? Not that I have ever heard. Usually in those cases, it involves "starts the scene/game/etc" in such a situation. In those cases, they do not ever try to bypass the normal restrictions for the action, except in this specific situation.
sieGermans wrote:A baby begins its life embarked in its mother. The baby never undertook an embarking action.
I have never heard it told that way, to be honest. I can tell you that my wife never considered our child as "embarked". My wife considered herself pregnant and carrying our child, but never really embarked. I'm not sure she'd like to be considered a boat or a plane...
It's not like "embarked" in real life means the exact same thing in the game, either.
sieGermans wrote:In fairness, however, it should be noted that with the expiry of prior errata, nothing can ever embark upon a Nightscythe, though Warriors and Immortals unequivocally may begin embarked at the start of the game.
Dozer Blades wrote:It's been shown already for specific conditions.
Not according to some, and that's part of the issues.
Either the units can be embarked, which means they still have to follow the restrictions to embark in the first place, or they just start in the Transport, at which point, they are not actually embarked, so cannot get off, and can only get out when the Vehicle explodes.
duffster240 wrote:Battlescribe allows them to take Night Scythes
And we all know that Battlescribe is the beginning and end of authority of 40K... [/sarcasm]
The codex allows them to take Night Scythes. That is not under discussion. What is under discussion is if Praetorians can start the game embarked on the Night Scythe.
Point to the rules for embarking that are used during deployment.
There are none.
We cannot follow rules that do not exist.
There is a hole in the rules.
So every unit that starts the game embarked upon their dedicated transport is in the same boat as the praetorians on the night scythe - embarked upon the dedicated transport without having to go through the process of embarking. Technically, all units are deployed 'in' their dedicated transport at the start of the game and none of them go through an actual process of embarking to get there.
Point to the rules for embarking that are used during deployment.
There are none.
We cannot follow rules that do not exist.
There is a hole in the rules.
So every unit that starts the game embarked upon their dedicated transport is in the same boat as the praetorians on the night scythe - embarked upon the dedicated transport without having to go through the process of embarking. Technically, all units are deployed 'in' their dedicated transport at the start of the game and none of them go through an actual process of embarking to get there.
So you've said. We've also seen them allow you to ignore certain timing aspects of the rules when the timing doesn't work, such as being able to be repositioned via Deep Strike rules with Gate of Infinity without having permission to ignore the fact that one has to be in Deep Strike Reserves to actually use the Deep Strike Rule.
So, either a unit can be embarked on a Transport while ignoring the Movement Phase stipulation, but still follow the other rules for embarking.
OR
They do not really embark at all, and are just "deployed in" or "carried by" their Transport, at which point, they not really Embarked at all, so cannot get out short of the Transport blowing up around them.
That's basically what it boils down to.
You can do what you want, but which one sounds less like a cheating cheese-fest and actually violating the fewest rules and still allow everything to work practically?
You can do what you want, but which one sounds less like a cheating cheese-fest and actually violating the fewest rules and still allow everything to work practically?
It's fairly obvious RAI that the praetorians do indeed get to ride in their dedicated transport that is on their Army List Entry. GW is clearly endorsing praetorians riding in night scythes by providing that option on the Army List Entry. Duh!
The cheating cheese-fest comes in when non-Necron players want to derail the ability of the praetorians to ride in their dedicated transport based on some technicality.
Luckily, strictest RAW reading of all rules considered do allow the praetorians to indeed ride in their dedicated transport. Yay for loopholes!
I think the cheesiness is on your side. Obviously praetorians can ride in the dedicated transport on their army list entry. It's silly to think otherwise and cheese-mongering to deny a Necron player from doing that. Luckily RAW is on the side of the Necron player who would straightforwardly deploy the praetorians inside the night scythe and play according to GW endorsement.
So yeah, I am pointing my finger at you and saying you are the cheese-mongerer in this debate.
If GW is providing an option for praetorians to have a dedicated transport I do indeed think it is RAI that praetorians can ride along in their dedicated transport. Luckily RAW supports that interpretation as well.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, but neither do you dozer. It's a discussion, do you understand that concept? It's in the tenets. Your remarks add nothing of any use.
Nilok - it states they follow the rules for Jump UNITS and for infantry
Jump
Units
Jump units have no permission to be carried.
Proven.
The rules for Jump are a modifier to the base type and follow all the rules of said type. As such, Jump Infantry follow all the rules for Infantry, including being carried.
Unless you are saying Jump Units without a base type, in which case they do not even have the rule for movement, and you would be correct. That said, I don't know of any Jump Units without a base type. If you find one, please tell me where to find it.
Again, you're being deliberately obtuse it seems
The rules you even quoted state that jump infantry follow the rules for both jumpUNITS as well as Infantry.
Meaning they follow two sets of rules
I have permission to carry infantry
I do not have permission to carry jump units.
Proven, again. Stop ignoring this section of the rules, it's pretty clear that you don't get to ignore jump as a distinction in and of itself
You can do what you want, but which one sounds less like a cheating cheese-fest and actually violating the fewest rules and still allow everything to work practically?
It's fairly obvious RAI that the praetorians do indeed get to ride in their dedicated transport that is on their Army List Entry. GW is clearly endorsing praetorians riding in night scythes by providing that option on the Army List Entry. Duh!
If it was obvious, than it would be RAW, and this wouldn't be brought up every other month.
The cheating cheese-fest comes in when non-Necron players want to derail the ability of the praetorians to ride in their dedicated transport based on some technicality.
Only by ignoring the Transport Capacity rules or:
Luckily, strictest RAW reading of all rules considered do allow the praetorians to indeed ride in their dedicated transport. Yay for loopholes!
Putting yourself in a position so that you cannot get cannot out of the Scythe without it crashing.
If you really want to get picky, those are the results.
I think the cheesiness is on your side. Obviously praetorians can ride in the dedicated transport on their army list entry. It's silly to think otherwise and cheese-mongering to deny a Necron player from doing that. Luckily RAW is on the side of the Necron player who would straightforwardly deploy the praetorians inside the night scythe and play according to GW endorsement.
So yeah, I am pointing my finger at you and saying you are the cheese-mongerer in this debate.
If GW is providing an option for praetorians to have a dedicated transport I do indeed think it is RAI that praetorians can ride along in their dedicated transport. Luckily RAW supports that interpretation as well.
I can field a unit of 20 Warriors. They can have a Ghost Ark as a Dedicated Transport. By your interpretation, I can put all 20 in there.
But let's get more fun, I used to run Templars, so a Crusader Squad of 20, and they can take a Razorback as a Dedicated Transport. I could fit all 20 if them, plus the Chaplain, in to a Transport that can only carry 6. Or, hey, Guard Infantry blob squads in a Chimera.
Now tell me it is not a cheesefest to ignore embarking and transport restrictions when deploying in to a Dedicated Transport.
Part of the English language is to substitute words to not be repetitive. In this case, I do firmly believe that the concept of "deploying in to" a Transport is a way for them to say "embark outside of movement". I also believe they made a copying error when bringing the Night Scythe over, and that is the true RAI.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, but neither do you dozer. It's a discussion, do you understand that concept? It's in the tenets. Your remarks add nothing of any use.
Nilok - it states they follow the rules for Jump UNITS and for infantry
Jump
Units
Jump units have no permission to be carried.
Proven.
The rules for Jump are a modifier to the base type and follow all the rules of said type. As such, Jump Infantry follow all the rules for Infantry, including being carried.
Unless you are saying Jump Units without a base type, in which case they do not even have the rule for movement, and you would be correct. That said, I don't know of any Jump Units without a base type. If you find one, please tell me where to find it.
Again, you're being deliberately obtuse it seems
The rules you even quoted state that jump infantry follow the rules for both jumpUNITS as well as Infantry.
Meaning they follow two sets of rules
I have permission to carry infantry
I do not have permission to carry jump units.
Proven, again. Stop ignoring this section of the rules, it's pretty clear that you don't get to ignore jump as a distinction in and of itself
Not at all, I simply disagree with how you are interpreting it. Though stating "Proven" constantly does little to have a good discussion.
First, you are you are stating that even though we are told Jump Infantry follow all rules of both Jump and Infantry, you are putting forwards that they are not subject to a rule unless it calls both types. In other words, if something only affects Jump Units, it could not apply given your reasoning since it would also have to specifically call out the base type as well.
Next, the wording on the two paragraphs for Transport Capacity are radically different in structure and effect.
For the first paragraph:
A transport can carry a single Infantry unit
For the second paragraph:
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
As you can see, the first paragraph is a blanket permission to all Infantry units, without restriction. The second paragraph regarding embark[ing], on the other hand, specifies the call to only Infantry and further restricts Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from embarking.
Finally, we are told in Embarking and Disembarking, models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, which isn't done during deployment. In Deployment, units are deployed inside their Transport if on the table, or start embarked inside it if in reserves. As they are never called to embark, the rules in the second paragraph never get called.
Nilok wrote: As you can see, the first paragraph is a blanket permission to all Infantry units, without restriction. The second paragraph regarding embark[ing], on the other hand, specifies the call to only Infantry and further restricts Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from embarking.
Finally, we are told in Embarking and Disembarking, models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, which isn't done during deployment. In Deployment, units are deployed inside their Transport if on the table, or start embarked inside it if in reserves. As they are never called to embark, the rules in the second paragraph never get called.
The downside with separating "embark" from being "deployed in" is that such units are no longer "embarked", so they cannot "disembark". If they cannot "disembark" they cannot voluntarily leave the Transport, and are equally stuck if the Transport is simply Wrecked, since units are forced to Disembark from the Wrecked Transport.
So, as I said earlier, take your pick as to which standard you wish to go by. Myself, I'm going to go with the least headaches and rules-lawyering. I might ask my local group if they will grant Night Scythes the capacity to carry Jump and Jet Pack Infantry and get a consensus from there, but that's about it, and it would only apply for my group.
Nilok wrote: As you can see, the first paragraph is a blanket permission to all Infantry units, without restriction. The second paragraph regarding embark[ing], on the other hand, specifies the call to only Infantry and further restricts Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from embarking.
Finally, we are told in Embarking and Disembarking, models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, which isn't done during deployment. In Deployment, units are deployed inside their Transport if on the table, or start embarked inside it if in reserves. As they are never called to embark, the rules in the second paragraph never get called.
The downside with separating "embark" from being "deployed in" is that such units are no longer "embarked", so they cannot "disembark". If they cannot "disembark" they cannot voluntarily leave the Transport, and are equally stuck if the Transport is simply Wrecked, since units are forced to Disembark from the Wrecked Transport.
So, as I said earlier, take your pick as to which standard you wish to go by. Myself, I'm going to go with the least headaches and rules-lawyering. I might ask my local group if they will grant Night Scythes the capacity to carry Jump and Jet Pack Infantry and get a consensus from there, but that's about it, and it would only apply for my group.
The least headache and rules-lawyering is to simply follow the obvious RAI that the praetorians can indeed ride along in the dedicated transport on their Army List Entry. Simple. Straightforward.
Nilok wrote: As you can see, the first paragraph is a blanket permission to all Infantry units, without restriction. The second paragraph regarding embark[ing], on the other hand, specifies the call to only Infantry and further restricts Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from embarking.
Finally, we are told in Embarking and Disembarking, models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, which isn't done during deployment. In Deployment, units are deployed inside their Transport if on the table, or start embarked inside it if in reserves. As they are never called to embark, the rules in the second paragraph never get called.
The downside with separating "embark" from being "deployed in" is that such units are no longer "embarked", so they cannot "disembark". If they cannot "disembark" they cannot voluntarily leave the Transport, and are equally stuck if the Transport is simply Wrecked, since units are forced to Disembark from the Wrecked Transport.
So, as I said earlier, take your pick as to which standard you wish to go by. Myself, I'm going to go with the least headaches and rules-lawyering. I might ask my local group if they will grant Night Scythes the capacity to carry Jump and Jet Pack Infantry and get a consensus from there, but that's about it, and it would only apply for my group.
I disagree. The reason why 'embark' is not solely used in the English case is because there is a rules definition that further defines it as only being in the Movement phase. However, the termed 'embarked' is not further defined by the rules and is instead use as a synonym for being carried as it is used in the first paragraph specifically talking about units being carried.
I do agree, it is stupid, but the team at Games Workshop are not one for their technical writing skills. If they did not further define 'embark' in the rules, or made sure to have deployment count as 'embarking' then we wouldn't be in this mess.
Regardless, it seems you missed my earlier post that my argument for RAW is not my HIWPI. That being that Praetorians should be able to be deployed into their Dedicated Transport Night Scythe, but other Jump and Jet Pack Infantry may not without specific exception. My HIWPI argument is that they are the only unit that may select a Dedicated Transport, but unlike other units that can exclude themselves from being carried or embarking by taking extra wargear such as bikes and jump packs, Praetorians have no such options but are already excluded. You could argue that it was just a way to take more Night Scythes, however, I would argue if that was the case, it should have been a special rule to take a Night Scythe as a free slot per Preatorian instead of a Dedicated Transport.
Nilok wrote: As you can see, the first paragraph is a blanket permission to all Infantry units, without restriction. The second paragraph regarding embark[ing], on the other hand, specifies the call to only Infantry and further restricts Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from embarking.
Finally, we are told in Embarking and Disembarking, models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, which isn't done during deployment. In Deployment, units are deployed inside their Transport if on the table, or start embarked inside it if in reserves. As they are never called to embark, the rules in the second paragraph never get called.
The downside with separating "embark" from being "deployed in" is that such units are no longer "embarked", so they cannot "disembark". If they cannot "disembark" they cannot voluntarily leave the Transport, and are equally stuck if the Transport is simply Wrecked, since units are forced to Disembark from the Wrecked Transport.
So, as I said earlier, take your pick as to which standard you wish to go by. Myself, I'm going to go with the least headaches and rules-lawyering. I might ask my local group if they will grant Night Scythes the capacity to carry Jump and Jet Pack Infantry and get a consensus from there, but that's about it, and it would only apply for my group.
The least headache and rules-lawyering is to simply follow the obvious RAI that the praetorians can indeed ride along in the dedicated transport on their Army List Entry. Simple. Straightforward.
So GW obviously intended for Command Squads on bikes to be able to ride in their dedicated transport. As such, I can put 5 Very Bulky Bike models in a 6-man capacity Razorback, right? As long as they start the game there of course.
Nilok wrote: As you can see, the first paragraph is a blanket permission to all Infantry units, without restriction. The second paragraph regarding embark[ing], on the other hand, specifies the call to only Infantry and further restricts Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from embarking.
Finally, we are told in Embarking and Disembarking, models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, which isn't done during deployment. In Deployment, units are deployed inside their Transport if on the table, or start embarked inside it if in reserves. As they are never called to embark, the rules in the second paragraph never get called.
The downside with separating "embark" from being "deployed in" is that such units are no longer "embarked", so they cannot "disembark". If they cannot "disembark" they cannot voluntarily leave the Transport, and are equally stuck if the Transport is simply Wrecked, since units are forced to Disembark from the Wrecked Transport.
So, as I said earlier, take your pick as to which standard you wish to go by. Myself, I'm going to go with the least headaches and rules-lawyering. I might ask my local group if they will grant Night Scythes the capacity to carry Jump and Jet Pack Infantry and get a consensus from there, but that's about it, and it would only apply for my group.
The least headache and rules-lawyering is to simply follow the obvious RAI that the praetorians can indeed ride along in the dedicated transport on their Army List Entry. Simple. Straightforward.
So GW obviously intended for Command Squads on bikes to be able to ride in their dedicated transport. As such, I can put 5 Very Bulky Bike models in a 6-man capacity Razorback, right? As long as they start the game there of course.
If they upgrade to bikes, they are no longer infantry but are instead a bike unit. They upgraded themselves into an option that prevents them from riding in the dedicated transport. The option to have a dedicated transport still needs to be on the Army List Entry if they chose not to have bikes. The default command squad can ride along in the dedicated transport. Simple.
Happyjew wrote: So GW obviously intended for Command Squads on bikes to be able to ride in their dedicated transport. As such, I can put 5 Very Bulky Bike models in a 6-man capacity Razorback, right? As long as they start the game there of course.
If they upgrade to bikes, they are no longer infantry but are instead a bike unit. They upgraded themselves into an option that prevents them from riding in the dedicated transport. The option to have a dedicated transport still needs to be on the Army List Entry if they chose not to have bikes. The default command squad can ride along in the dedicated transport. Simple.
Why are you applying a restriction when as you pointed out - the only restriction is that the unit that purchased the transport can start on it.
Happyjew wrote: So GW obviously intended for Command Squads on bikes to be able to ride in their dedicated transport. As such, I can put 5 Very Bulky Bike models in a 6-man capacity Razorback, right? As long as they start the game there of course.
If they upgrade to bikes, they are no longer infantry but are instead a bike unit. They upgraded themselves into an option that prevents them from riding in the dedicated transport. The option to have a dedicated transport still needs to be on the Army List Entry if they chose not to have bikes. The default command squad can ride along in the dedicated transport. Simple.
Why are you applying a restriction when as you pointed out - the only restriction is that the unit that purchased the transport can start on it.
RAW - By upgrading to bikes, they are losing their status as Infantry and have no permissions in any reading of the rule to either embark or be carried by a Transport.
HIWPI - A unit should be able to use a Dedicated Transport with their default wargear. Praetorians are the only unit that can select a Dedicated Transport but cannot embark on their Dedicated Transport. This is a case of Games Workshop failing at writing in multiple ways.
Nilok wrote: My HIWPI argument is that they are the only unit that may select a Dedicated Transport, but unlike other units that can exclude themselves from being carried or embarking by taking extra wargear such as bikes and jump packs, Praetorians have no such options but are already excluded. You could argue that it was just a way to take more Night Scythes, however, I would argue if that was the case, it should have been a special rule to take a Night Scythe as a free slot per Preatorian instead of a Dedicated Transport.
col_impact wrote: The praetorians have permission to be on their dedicated transport here
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as explained in the vehicle’s entry.
I'm not seeing any permission in the quoted rule. Only a restriction on other units being carried at deployment.
Per English, that rule grants broad permission ("the only limitation") for a dedicated transport to carry the unit it was selected with. If you try to limit the praetorians from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met.
So if you try to limit the Command Squad from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met..
col_impact wrote:The least headache and rules-lawyering is to simply follow the obvious RAI that the praetorians can indeed ride along in the dedicated transport on their Army List Entry. Simple. Straightforward.
Obvious RAI is that they cannot embark on to their Dedicated Transports and just use it as a call for air support. Simple and Straightforward.
It requires less rules-lawyering to say that don't get on than to say that "Deploying in" or "Carried by" have no relationship to "Embark".
Especially when if you do just "deploy" the unit into the Transport and did not "embark", then they are never "embarked". If they are not "embarked" than a whole host of rules and methods suddenly become unavailable to them.
Nilok wrote:I disagree. The reason why 'embark' is not solely used in the English case is because there is a rules definition that further defines it as only being in the Movement phase. However, the termed 'embarked' is not further defined by the rules and is instead use as a synonym for being carried as it is used in the first paragraph specifically talking about units being carried.
If you think that "embarked" has no relationship to "embark" and does not mean "having gone through the process of embarking" or "at one point did embark upon", especially when you admit that their is no other definition for it, than you are changing rules.
If you want to use it as a synonym for other things you must respect the relationship across the line. To say that being carried by a Transport is being "embarked" is to say that the unit did "embark to be carried" by the Transport. Especially when you have no exact rule translating it any other way.
I do agree it is a synonym. In fact, I've said as such several times by now. However, I'm not so willing to toss away a desired synonym's connection to its root word without direction as some are.
Nilok wrote:I do agree, it is stupid, but the team at Games Workshop are not one for their technical writing skills. If they did not further define 'embark' in the rules, or made sure to have deployment count as 'embarking' then we wouldn't be in this mess.
No argument there, but then, I guess Gate of Infinity and Veil of Darkness are useless since Deep Strike requires a unit to be in Deep Strike Reserves in order to work. Or similarly, instead recognize these rules allow us to bypass those restrictions which will not allow it to work as being implicit, and function normally.
In the case of Embarking, the restrictions for distance to the Transport and being in the Movement Phase are not required when placing a unit in a Transport to be embarked.
Nilok wrote:Regardless, it seems you missed my earlier post that my argument for RAW is not my HIWPI. That being that Praetorians should be able to be deployed into their Dedicated Transport Night Scythe, but other Jump and Jet Pack Infantry may not without specific exception. My HIWPI argument is that they are the only unit that may select a Dedicated Transport, but unlike other units that can exclude themselves by taking extra wargear such as bikes and jump packs, Praetorians have no such options but are already excluded. You could argue that it was just a way to take more Night Scythes, however, I would argue if that was the case, it should have been a special rule to take a Night Scythe as a free slot per Preatorian instead of a Dedicated Transport.
Actually, I DID argue that it was another way to take more Night Scythes. Along with the case of it being a bad cross edition translation which dropped some important features in the Night Scythe.
And there is nothing RAW that gives more permissions to a Dedicated Transport when it comes to putting units on a transport. The only thing that has been presented along those lines is a restriction preventing any other unit being carried by the transport. "May Only" has never been considered permissive and is implicitly restrictive. In fact, "may only" addresses permissions already existent and then limits them. Considering that units being put in to Transports during deployment is not anything new or otherwise restricted than normal, I don't see how it could be granting extra permissions.
Nilok wrote:I disagree. The reason why 'embark' is not solely used in the English case is because there is a rules definition that further defines it as only being in the Movement phase. However, the termed 'embarked' is not further defined by the rules and is instead use as a synonym for being carried as it is used in the first paragraph specifically talking about units being carried.
If you think that "embarked" has no relationship to "embark" and does not mean "having gone through the process of embarking" or "at one point did embark upon", especially when you admit that their is no other definition for it, than you are changing rules.
If you want to use it as a synonym for other things you must respect the relationship across the line. To say that being carried by a Transport is being "embarked" is to say that the unit did "embark to be carried" by the Transport. Especially when you have no exact rule translating it any other way.
I do agree it is a synonym. In fact, I've said as such several times by now. However, I'm not so willing to toss away a desired synonym's connection to its root word without direction as some are.
It has a relation, but only to the root meaning of the original word, sadly I am now rubbings against Tenet 6.
Embark: "go on board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle."
Thus the past tense, embarked, is "to be on board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle."
Also, as sieGermans said, it is possible to be embarked without embarking. The relationship of the words are not strong enough to say you need one without the other.
sieGermans wrote: A unit can be Embarked without ever Embarking even using standard English:
A baby begins its life embarked in its mother. The baby never undertook an embarking action.
Finally, since the rules are abstracted, even if a rule seems to imply an action takes place before, it is entirely possible to have the second action take place without the first. This is shown as you are never called to embark, in fact you are prevented from doing so in the rules, on Transports prior to the start of the game but you are stilled embarked on said transport, however, I wouldn't doubt there are other actions that have similar messed up timing.
col_impact wrote: The praetorians have permission to be on their dedicated transport here
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can
only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that
have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly
Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as
explained in the vehicle’s entry.
I'm not seeing any permission in the quoted rule. Only a restriction on other units being carried at deployment.
Per English, that rule grants broad permission ("the only limitation") for a dedicated transport to carry the unit it was selected with. If you try to limit the praetorians from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met.
So if you try to limit the Command Squad from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met..
As a bike unit they would no longer have the broad permission to be carried on a transport. Praetorians and other units that follow the infantry unit rules have that broad permission.
col_impact wrote: The praetorians have permission to be on their dedicated transport here
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can
only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that
have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly
Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as
explained in the vehicle’s entry.
I'm not seeing any permission in the quoted rule. Only a restriction on other units being carried at deployment.
Per English, that rule grants broad permission ("the only limitation") for a dedicated transport to carry the unit it was selected with. If you try to limit the praetorians from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met.
So if you try to limit the Command Squad from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met..
As a bike unit they would no longer have the broad permission to be carried on a transport. Praetorians and other units that follow the infantry unit rules have that broad permission.
col_impact wrote: The praetorians have permission to be on their dedicated transport here
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can
only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that
have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly
Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as
explained in the vehicle’s entry.
I'm not seeing any permission in the quoted rule. Only a restriction on other units being carried at deployment.
Per English, that rule grants broad permission ("the only limitation") for a dedicated transport to carry the unit it was selected with. If you try to limit the praetorians from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met.
So if you try to limit the Command Squad from being carried by their dedicated transport then you have broken the rule by introducing something beyond "the only limitation" and the rule is clear that there is just the one limitation that needs to be met..
As a bike unit they would no longer have the broad permission to be carried on a transport. Praetorians and other units that follow the infantry unit rules have that broad permission.
Why are you applying an extra limitation?
I am not. They have simply lost their permission. Bike units are not infantry and do not follow the rules for infantry like Jump Infantry does.
Happyjew wrote: No you are applying an extra limitation - you are applying a limitation on the unit type that can embark.
As you pointed out the only limitation has been met - the unit that purchased the transport is on board at the start of the game.
I have not. Infantry are permitted to be carried on transports. Jump infantry follow the rules for infantry. Are bike units infantry? No. So they do not have the general permission.
Happyjew wrote: Jump Infantry also follow the rules for Jump units. Are Jump units Infantry? No. So they do not have the general permission.
The rules disagree with you.
Spoiler:
Unlike most other unit type
categories, ‘Jump’ is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you’ll find it
occurs before another category – commonly Infantry, sometimes Monstrous
Creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things. Jump units therefore share two
sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry
would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
This means that as jump infantry the praetorians have permission to be carried by a transport. Bike units do not.
Happyjew wrote: Jump Infantry also follow the rules for Jump units. Are Jump units Infantry? No. So they do not have the general permission.
The rules disagree with you.
Spoiler:
Jump units therefore share two
sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry
would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
Are you sure? I see in the rule you quoted:
share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules... and then in the second sentence follow the rules for Jump units.
So they follow two sets of rules - Jump unit rules and base type rules.
Does the base type allow for being in transport? Yes. No one is arguing that. Are Jump units allowed in transports? Only if the transport specifically allows it. The base rules do not allow for Jump units to be in transports, and the Night Scythe doesn't override this.
Happyjew wrote: Jump Infantry also follow the rules for Jump units. Are Jump units Infantry? No. So they do not have the general permission.
The rules disagree with you.
Spoiler:
Unlike most other unit type
categories, ‘Jump’ is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you’ll find it
occurs before another category – commonly Infantry, sometimes Monstrous
Creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things. Jump units therefore share two
sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry
would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
Are you sure? I see in the rule you quoted:
share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules... and then in the second sentence follow the rules for Jump units.
So they follow two sets of rules - Jump unit rules and base type rules.
Does the base type allow for being in transport? Yes. No one is arguing that. Are Jump units allowed in transports? Only if the transport specifically allows it. The base rules do not allow for Jump units to be in transports, and the Night Scythe doesn't override this.
You are lacking rules.
Following the infantry rules permission is granted for the praetorian to be carried on a transport. Show where that permission is taken away. It's up to you to actively take that permission away. The praetorian gets that permission as infantry. Infantry is their base type.
Happyjew wrote: Jump Infantry also follow the rules for Jump units. Are Jump units Infantry? No. So they do not have the general permission.
The rules disagree with you.
Spoiler:
Jump units therefore share two
sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry
would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
Are you sure? I see in the rule you quoted:
share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules... and then in the second sentence follow the rules for Jump units.
So they follow two sets of rules - Jump unit rules and base type rules.
Does the base type allow for being in transport? Yes. No one is arguing that. Are Jump units allowed in transports? Only if the transport specifically allows it. The base rules do not allow for Jump units to be in transports, and the Night Scythe doesn't override this.
I did not ask about Jump Infantry, Jump Monstrous Creatures, or Jump Gargantuan Creatures. I asked about Jump units.
Absent specific permission from a vehicle, can a Jump unit be carried by a transport?
Jump Units wrote:'Jump' is not a classification in and of itself.
Asking just for Jump Unit rules is asking an incomplete question, as the rules never refer to a 'Jump Unit' outside the main description and telling us there is no such thing as a 'Jump' unit. This is shown when it clarifies that Jump [Infantry] and Jet Pack Infantry cannot embark on Transport.
In fact, a 'Jump' unit cannot even move, or be legally playing in 40k. However, a Jump Infantry unit, or Jump Monstrous Creature can.
And what does the second to last sentence in the first paragraph for Jump units say? "Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type."
As such, permission has been shown for Infantry units to be carried by transports. No permission has been shown for Jump units to be carried by transports. You must follow both rules. If A has permission and B does not have permission, then AB does not have permission.
Unfortunately, that is an incorrect assessment.
A more accurate statement is thus:
A has permission to be carried and embark.
B follows all rules of A if together
AB thus can be carried, but is restricted from being able to embark.
Infantry can be carried and embark, Jump units follow the rules of their base type, Jump Infantry can be carried but not embark.
If you are saying Jump Infantry cannot be carried because it has 'Jump' in it, you are not following the "Jump Infantry follow all rules of Jump units and Infantry".
Jump Units wrote:Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, but neither do you dozer. It's a discussion, do you understand that concept? It's in the tenets. Your remarks add nothing of any use.
Nilok - it states they follow the rules for Jump UNITS and for infantry
Jump
Units
Jump units have no permission to be carried.
Proven.
The rules for Jump are a modifier to the base type and follow all the rules of said type. As such, Jump Infantry follow all the rules for Infantry, including being carried.
Unless you are saying Jump Units without a base type, in which case they do not even have the rule for movement, and you would be correct. That said, I don't know of any Jump Units without a base type. If you find one, please tell me where to find it.
Again, you're being deliberately obtuse it seems
The rules you even quoted state that jump infantry follow the rules for both jumpUNITS as well as Infantry.
Meaning they follow two sets of rules
I have permission to carry infantry
I do not have permission to carry jump units.
Proven, again. Stop ignoring this section of the rules, it's pretty clear that you don't get to ignore jump as a distinction in and of itself
Not at all, I simply disagree with how you are interpreting it. Though stating "Proven" constantly does little to have a good discussion.
First, you are you are stating that even though we are told Jump Infantry follow all rules of both Jump and Infantry, you are putting forwards that they are not subject to a rule unless it calls both types. In other words, if something only affects Jump Units, it could not apply given your reasoning since it would also have to specifically call out the base type as well.
Next, the wording on the two paragraphs for Transport Capacity are radically different in structure and effect.
For the first paragraph:
A transport can carry a single Infantry unit
For the second paragraph:
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
As you can see, the first paragraph is a blanket permission to all Infantry units, without restriction. The second paragraph regarding embark[ing], on the other hand, specifies the call to only Infantry and further restricts Jump and Jet Pack Infantry from embarking.
Finally, we are told in Embarking and Disembarking, models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase, which isn't done during deployment. In Deployment, units are deployed inside their Transport if on the table, or start embarked inside it if in reserves. As they are never called to embark, the rules in the second paragraph never get called.
I believe all of those points have been covered.
If your assessment is correct, any rule that calls for Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, or so on, would have no effect on Jump/Jet Pack Infantry, Monstrous Creatures, or so on and would be immune to them.
Show me where Jump units have permission to be carried. You have to satisfy both sets of rules. Or can models charge from an Assault Vehicle the turn they arrive from reserves?
Happyjew wrote: Show me where Jump units have permission to be carried. You have to satisfy both sets of rules. Or can models charge from an Assault Vehicle the turn they arrive from reserves?
See Nilok's post above yours. The points have been covered in this thread.
Happyjew wrote: Show me where Jump units have permission to be carried. You have to satisfy both sets of rules. Or can models charge from an Assault Vehicle the turn they arrive from reserves?
Your argument breaks many rules affecting Jump/Jet Pack Infantry, and makes Jump/Jet Pack Monstrous Creature immune to special rules such as Monster Hunter and more as stated in my post. The road goes both ways.
I would recommend reviewing your argument to fix these even more massive holes that, may after further review, effectively break the game.
Nilok wrote:
It has a relation, but only to the root meaning of the original word, sadly I am now rubbings against Tenet 6.
Embark: "go on board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle."
Thus the past tense, embarked, is "to be on board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle."
Also, as sieGermans said, it is possible to be embarked without embarking. The relationship of the words are not strong enough to say you need one without the other.
sieGermans wrote: A unit can be Embarked without ever Embarking even using standard English:
A baby begins its life embarked in its mother. The baby never undertook an embarking action.
Finally, since the rules are abstracted, even if a rule seems to imply an action takes place before, it is entirely possible to have the second action take place without the first. This is shown as you are never called to embark, in fact you are prevented from doing so in the rules, on Transports prior to the start of the game but you are stilled embarked on said transport, however, I wouldn't doubt there are other actions that have similar messed up timing.
Except for several important facts.
The relationship between "embark" and "embarked" has not been redefined in the rulebook. While "embark" has a specific definition in the rulebook, "embarked" has not been changed to mean anything else than either the past tense of "embark" or having the status of "did embark in the past". This really isn't reaching in to Tenet 6 other than just basic common sense.
Indeed, the rules are abstracted, however, even when they are, we tend to see that when restrictions are removed they are either explicit or a matter of impossible timing. Embarking during deployment without having access to a movement phase or having the models within 2" of the entry points would fall under the latter. The ability to embark on to a transport they would not otherwise be able to embark does not fall under either.
As much as you'd like, you cannot separate the relationship in a word's tenses. Being able to separate synonyms, most definitely, as col_impact has done. But the problem with separating the synonyms is that it can come back and bite you in the arse.
I have tried explaining it to you and others, and other than trying to convince me that "embarked" has no relationship with "embark" without actually quoting rules, neither of you have actually done anything to actually prove the points without it being turned in to a complete mess.
As a final note, I told sieGermans my wife would not appreciate being called a boat or a ship, and I would thank you not to make such a reference again. And that is not even considering that it is grossly inaccurate to say a child has boarded their mother when she is impregnated with them through natural means.
Nilok wrote:
It has a relation, but only to the root meaning of the original word, sadly I am now rubbings against Tenet 6.
Embark: "go on board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle."
Thus the past tense, embarked, is "to be on board a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle."
Also, as sieGermans said, it is possible to be embarked without embarking. The relationship of the words are not strong enough to say you need one without the other.
sieGermans wrote: A unit can be Embarked without ever Embarking even using standard English:
A baby begins its life embarked in its mother. The baby never undertook an embarking action.
Finally, since the rules are abstracted, even if a rule seems to imply an action takes place before, it is entirely possible to have the second action take place without the first. This is shown as you are never called to embark, in fact you are prevented from doing so in the rules, on Transports prior to the start of the game but you are stilled embarked on said transport, however, I wouldn't doubt there are other actions that have similar messed up timing.
Except for several important facts.
The relationship between "embark" and "embarked" has not been redefined in the rulebook. While "embark" has a specific definition in the rulebook, "embarked" has not been changed to mean anything else than either the past tense of "embark" or having the status of "did embark in the past". This really isn't reaching in to Tenet 6 other than just basic common sense.
Indeed, the rules are abstracted, however, even when they are, we tend to see that when restrictions are removed they are either explicit or a matter of impossible timing. Embarking during deployment without having access to a movement phase or having the models within 2" of the entry points would fall under the latter. The ability to embark on to a transport they would not otherwise be able to embark does not fall under either.
As much as you'd like, you cannot separate the relationship in a word's tenses. Being able to separate synonyms, most definitely, as col_impact has done. But the problem with separating the synonyms is that it can come back and bite you in the arse.
I have tried explaining it to you and others, and other than trying to convince me that "embarked" has no relationship with "embark" without actually quoting rules, neither of you have actually done anything to actually prove the points without it being turned in to a complete mess.
As a final note, I told sieGermans my wife would not appreciate being called a boat or a ship, and I would thank you not to make such a reference again. And that is not even considering that it is grossly inaccurate to say a child has boarded their mother when she is impregnated with them through natural means.
I never said it was, which is why this is hitting Tenet 6. To Embark is to board a vehicle, thus to be embarked is to be on a vehicle.
Again, you do not have permission to embark at any time other than the Movement phase. All models however, have the ability to be deployed unless explicitly stated otherwise, which you can do to models to put them inside Transports during deployment. If your statement if true, it is illegal to put units in Transports that are in reserve since they are stated to be embarked, but do not have permission to embark since you can only do so in the Movement phase.
Then we simply have a different view on how the language works. You view the past tense of the word to mean the previous one to have happened (to be embarked means to must have been embarking), while I view the past tense of the word to mean the next meaning (to be embarked means that you are on the vehicle, since it is after getting on it).
I did not see that reply and I meant no disrespect, nor did I know you even had a wife, however, you should be able to see the logic behind it. I will use machines and animals for reference to avoid offending you.
If you build a jet or truck on board a carrier, once assembled, the jet or truck would be embarked on the carrier, but have never performed an embarking since it began there and never existed prior to being embarked. The same is true for a mammal such as a dog, as the puppy is only truly conceived inside the mother and thus embarked within her without ever embarking (I just realized I made a pun).
Regardless, I realize that I have waded too far into real world examples. A far better way to explain it is with computer programming since programming and rules writing are very similar.
The embarking rule states you can only embark during the Movement phase.
The deployment rule for Transports lets you set the flag for your units to embarked in the Transport to avoid breaking the embarking rule.
You now have a unit embarked in a Transport without having to break the embarking rule and embark outside of the Movement phase.
The embarking rule states you can only embark during the Movement phase.
The deployment rule for Transports lets you set the flag for your units to embarked in the Transport to avoid breaking the embarking rule.
You now have a unit embarked in a Transport without having to break the embarking rule and embark outside of the Movement phase.
This is a nice articulation of the argument. Well done.
Again, you do not have permission to embark at any time other than the Movement phase. All models however, have the ability to be deployed unless explicitly stated otherwise, which you can do to models to put them inside Transports during deployment. If your statement if true, it is illegal to put units in Transports that are in reserve since they are stated to be embarked, but do not have permission to embark since you can only do so in the Movement phase.
Then we simply have a different view on how the language works. You view the past tense of the word to mean the previous one to have happened (to be embarked means to must have been embarking), while I view the past tense of the word to mean the next meaning (to be embarked means that you are on the vehicle, since it is after getting on it).
I did not see that reply and I meant no disrespect, nor did I know you even had a wife, however, you should be able to see the logic behind it. I will use machines and animals for reference to avoid offending you.
If you build a jet or truck on board a carrier, once assembled, the jet or truck would be embarked on the carrier, but have never performed an embarking since it began there and never existed prior to being embarked. The same is true for a mammal such as a dog, as the puppy is only truly conceived inside the mother and thus embarked within her without ever embarking (I just realized I made a pun).
Regardless, I realize that I have waded too far into real world examples. A far better way to explain it is with computer programming since programming and rules writing are very similar.
The embarking rule states you can only embark during the Movement phase.
The deployment rule for Transports lets you set the flag for your units to embarked in the Transport to avoid breaking the embarking rule.
You now have a unit embarked in a Transport without having to break the embarking rule and embark outside of the Movement phase.
All this, and you still have yet to address the basic principles of translation and assuming connections when you are not allowing others.
You say that you can disconnect "embark" and "embarked" without ever mentioning the permission to do so. You say that you can have other words synonymize with "embarked", but they cannot be done so for "embark", yet, have provided no quotes to support this. It has been said that a unit can be "embarked" on a Transport while ignoring its Transport Capacity, yet have yet to provide actual permission stating one can ignore the Capacity. A lot of what you are saying actually boils down to, "it doesn't say I can't", just because the limits are not otherwise expressed in every case.
So, again, I am telling you, you can choose to ignore the relationships between the words and how GW has actually used them all together, but it will break down and cause havoc in the system.
To go back to your analogy, a proper programmer would have provided a check for that Embarked flag to check if the unit was qualified to be in there and would have been able to Embark the Transport just as if it was the Movement Phase (Zooming Flyers being granted a partial exception here).
Otherwise, I could put Terminators in Rhinos, full-sized Crusader Squads in Razorbacks, and IG Blob Squads in Chimeras, just by putting the Transports in Reserve. Having units Embarked in Transports in Reserve has that check even less than even Deploying In to the Transport does, and it doesn't require any fancy words or anything like that. It just requires one simple concept, "embarked" doesn't mean that "one did embark previously", it means instead "I put it in there".
TL;DR: So, no. I do not have permission to separate the concept of "embarked" from "embark", even while considering it just a "flag" condition, so I will continue to treat it as connected. As such, I will continue to treat every instance of putting a unit in to a Transport as "embarking", even during Deployment (it was during a pre-deployment movement phase that the unit had, yeah), so that the standards will be maintained across the board and consistently through the game. Otherwise, the system breaks down with units not being able to get out of the Transports or allowing completely inappropriate units to be embarked that would never otherwise be able to have done so.
Again, you do not have permission to embark at any time other than the Movement phase. All models however, have the ability to be deployed unless explicitly stated otherwise, which you can do to models to put them inside Transports during deployment. If your statement if true, it is illegal to put units in Transports that are in reserve since they are stated to be embarked, but do not have permission to embark since you can only do so in the Movement phase.
Then we simply have a different view on how the language works. You view the past tense of the word to mean the previous one to have happened (to be embarked means to must have been embarking), while I view the past tense of the word to mean the next meaning (to be embarked means that you are on the vehicle, since it is after getting on it).
I did not see that reply and I meant no disrespect, nor did I know you even had a wife, however, you should be able to see the logic behind it. I will use machines and animals for reference to avoid offending you.
If you build a jet or truck on board a carrier, once assembled, the jet or truck would be embarked on the carrier, but have never performed an embarking since it began there and never existed prior to being embarked. The same is true for a mammal such as a dog, as the puppy is only truly conceived inside the mother and thus embarked within her without ever embarking (I just realized I made a pun).
Regardless, I realize that I have waded too far into real world examples. A far better way to explain it is with computer programming since programming and rules writing are very similar.
The embarking rule states you can only embark during the Movement phase.
The deployment rule for Transports lets you set the flag for your units to embarked in the Transport to avoid breaking the embarking rule.
You now have a unit embarked in a Transport without having to break the embarking rule and embark outside of the Movement phase.
All this, and you still have yet to address the basic principles of translation and assuming connections when you are not allowing others.
You say that you can disconnect "embark" and "embarked" without ever mentioning the permission to do so. You say that you can have other words synonymize with "embarked", but they cannot be done so for "embark", yet, have provided no quotes to support this. It has been said that a unit can be "embarked" on a Transport while ignoring its Transport Capacity, yet have yet to provide actual permission stating one can ignore the Capacity. A lot of what you are saying actually boils down to, "it doesn't say I can't", just because the limits are not otherwise expressed in every case.
So, again, I am telling you, you can choose to ignore the relationships between the words and how GW has actually used them all together, but it will break down and cause havoc in the system.
To go back to your analogy, a proper programmer would have provided a check for that Embarked flag to check if the unit was qualified to be in there and would have been able to Embark the Transport just as if it was the Movement Phase (Zooming Flyers being granted a partial exception here).
Otherwise, I could put Terminators in Rhinos, full-sized Crusader Squads in Razorbacks, and IG Blob Squads in Chimeras, just by putting the Transports in Reserve. Having units Embarked in Transports in Reserve has that check even less than even Deploying In to the Transport does, and it doesn't require any fancy words or anything like that. It just requires one simple concept, "embarked" doesn't mean that "one did embark previously", it means instead "I put it in there".
TL;DR: So, no. I do not have permission to separate the concept of "embarked" from "embark", even while considering it just a "flag" condition, so I will continue to treat it as connected. As such, I will continue to treat every instance of putting a unit in to a Transport as "embarking", even during Deployment (it was during a pre-deployment movement phase that the unit had, yeah), so that the standards will be maintained across the board and consistently through the game. Otherwise, the system breaks down with units not being able to get out of the Transports or allowing completely inappropriate units to be embarked that would never otherwise be able to have done so.
A proper programmer would try, however, as programming is usually done by many people that can not always be the case depending how the other people code the program. In this case, Games Workshop did not 'code' the game in such a sensible way.
This would be similar to someone coding the Embark class to rely on something in the Movement phase class, then the guy working on the Deployment class wouldn't be able to use the Embark class without also loading the Movement phase class and all of its required classes and instead is forced to make a work around based on the legal carry capacity of the vehicle, which would be the flags for Infantry and less than or equal to the Transport Capacity.
Your argument for having a max sized squad of Crusaders is a fallacy. It is undermined by the fact they exceed the maximum Transport Capacity of the vehicle which has nothing to do with embarking, so they could not even be legally deployed or embarked there, regardless of which side of the argument you are on.
So your argument is to ignore the rule stated the clearest in this discussion, "Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase." If you are going to follow RAW, which it sounds like you have been arguing, as closely as possible, you are actually breaking the rule since there is no Movement phase, or even movement during deployment. If that is what you are really arguing, you could just as easily say you could embark in the Shooting Phase by using a Run move if you are ignore that rule.
The idea of embarked units not being able to disembark due to never embarking is a concept wholly constructed by yourself, and is not present in the 'code' of the game, as they state in deployment, "Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity." Never is it stated that they 'embark', but instead are simply there. As I have stated, it is possible to be embarked without ever embarking in the real world.
That all said, you have never said if you are arguing RAW or HIWPI and would like to know your actual stance outside of this thought exercise.
Happyjew wrote: Show me where Jump units have permission to be carried. You have to satisfy both sets of rules. Or can models charge from an Assault Vehicle the turn they arrive from reserves?
See Nilok's post above yours. The points have been covered in this thread.
Hand waving away is not "covering" them
No, it would not break jump MC et al. Claiming so does not make it true.
A proper programmer would try, however, as programming is usually done by many people that can not always be the case depending how the other people code the program. In this case, Games Workshop did not 'code' the game in such a sensible way.
This would be similar to someone coding the Embark class to rely on something in the Movement phase class, then the guy working on the Deployment class wouldn't be able to use the Embark class without also loading the Movement phase class and all of its required classes and instead is forced to make a work around based on the legal carry capacity of the vehicle, which would be the flags for Infantry and less than or equal to the Transport Capacity.
True, not arguing that GWs writing is loss poor and the software wouldn't compile to save a life.
But has already been pointed out, they ignore their own rules often enough for precedence to allow it.
Your argument for having a max sized squad of Crusaders is a fallacy. It is undermined by the fact they exceed the maximum Transport Capacity of the vehicle which has nothing to do with embarking, so they could not even be legally deployed or embarked there, regardless of which side of the argument you are on.
Only if you didn't read the referenced material. Deploying in to a Transport must respect Transport Capacity, being embarked in Reserves under the combined unit rules doesn't say anything about having to follow Transport Capacity. "Embarked" is just a flag to you after all, and doesn't care about embarking rules and restrictions.
So your argument is to ignore the rule stated the clearest in this discussion, "Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase." If you are going to follow RAW, which it sounds like you have been arguing, as closely as possible, you are actually breaking the rule since there is no Movement phase, or even movement during deployment. If that is what you are really arguing, you could just as easily say you could embark in the Shooting Phase by using a Run move if you are ignore that rule.
Closer to the point about Gate of Infinity, Veil of Darkness, and Ghostwalk Mantle being able to ignore having to start in Deep Strike Reserves to redoloy themselves via Deep Strike in the middle of the game.
One either has to ignore the restriction or handwave the concept that they go to Deep Strike Reserves for a small segment of time. Except their rules do not tell us to do either.
How this relates to being embarked in deployment is that we handwave the concept that they did embark in the transport pre-battle and ignore the fact that we didn't oversee them do it in a Movement Phase where Zooming Flyers don't have to Zoom.
The idea of embarked units not being able to disembark due to never embarking is a concept wholly constructed by yourself, and is not present in the 'code' of the game, as they state in deployment, "Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity." Never is it stated that they 'embark', but instead are simply there. As I have stated, it is possible to be embarked without ever embarking in the real world.
No, that's not what I said.
I have said that "deploying in to" and "carried by" have as much relationship to "embarked" as to "embark".
The relationship between being "deployed in to" a Transport to "embarked" is never stated and just handwaved in to position by you and com_impact, without ever providing a quote to support this.
The Disembark rules state that a unit embarked may disembark from the Transport, but it gives no permission to do so for a unit "deployed in to" a Transport.
That all said, you have never said if you are arguing RAW or HIWPI and would like to know your actual stance outside of this thought exercise.
I have stated it already, but since you have already confused some of my statements, you probably ignored or confused those, too.
Happyjew wrote: Show me where Jump units have permission to be carried. You have to satisfy both sets of rules. Or can models charge from an Assault Vehicle the turn they arrive from reserves?
See Nilok's post above yours. The points have been covered in this thread.
Hand waving away is not "covering" them
No, it would not break jump MC et al. Claiming so does not make it true.
Perhaps you could elaborate on "hand waving".
Transport Capacity wrote:A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit
Monster Hunter wrote:A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls all failed To Wound rolls against Monstrous Creatures.
By making the argument that Transport Capacity, which specifies Infantry, only affects Infantry and not also Jump Infantry and Jet Pack Infantry, even though they are also told to follow the rules for Infantry, causes other rules that also do no call out both types to not affect them as well.
In the above example, since Monster Hunter does not give expressed permission to re-roll against Jump units, even though a Jump Monstrous Creatures follow all the rules Monstrous Creatures, it would not be affected by Monster Hunter. This would also be true for Infantry and other types.
The opposite reading of the rule would also occur, and anything outside the Jump and Jet Pack Unit Type profiles would have to specify Jump Infantry, Jump Monstrous Creature, etc, in order to be affected by said rule since there isn't permission for Infantry to be effected by it when it calls for Jump. The only rules that could affect them would be rules that affect all models or units, anything that specifies simply Infantry or Jump instead of also Jump Infantry by this argument could not affect Jump Infantry.
It really just causes a massive mess of the rules, which at the moment, I don't have time to go through the BRB to find the best examples.
You lack permission to carry a jump unit. You have confirmed it. You cannot deny this further.
I have confirmed nothing, I have simply shown what the logical conclusion of your argument is.
It is still up to you to show that it can affect a Jump Monstrous Creature as your argument disallows it.
Either Jump Infantry have permission to be carried since they follow the rules for Infantry and a Jump Monstrous Creature can be affected by Monster Hunter, or neither can.
Jump infantry cannot go inside dedicated transports unless the rules for it specifically say they can. In the BRB it says they can't. And in the necron codex it doesn't say they can. It's as simple as that. I don't understand the argument. Yes it says you can't take a transport, ok cool take one and it flys around empty.
@happyjew no unit in the game has unrestricted permission even infantry.
@nos Please post the rules you are using to make such statements. Without doing so, considering your single line answers, it does not actually lead to anything resembling a conversation. Plus it's in the tenets.
What does the line "The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it)." mean to you?
Gravmyr wrote: What does the line "The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it)." mean to you?
It tells me that the only limitation placed on the model by being considered a Dedicated Transport according to the rules is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it). It doesn't tell me to remove other limitations on the model due to other reasons (e.g., being a Transport, etc.).
Happyjew wrote: Nilok, do Jump units (in other words models that have the Jump unit type) have unrestricted permission to be carried on transports?
It's a simple yes or no question.
To phrase the question like that is to ask "Is the Earth flat or a perfect sphere?" or "You cannot turn on a red light in the US, yes or no?" Both answers are wrong.
Do Jump Infantry have permission to be carried? Yes.
Do Jump Monstrous Creatures have permission to be carried? No.
Do Jump Infantry have a restriction from embarking? Yes.
Happyjew wrote: Nilok, do Jump units (in other words models that have the Jump unit type) have unrestricted permission to be carried on transports?
It's a simple yes or no question.
To phrase the question like that is to ask "Is the Earth flat or a perfect sphere?" or "You cannot turn on a red light in the US, yes or no?" Both answers are wrong.
Do Jump Infantry have permission to be carried? Yes.
Do Jump Monstrous Creatures have permission to be carried? No.
Do Jump Infantry have a restriction from embarking? Yes.
Yes or no, is there a rule in the main rulebook that allows Jump units to be carried by transports?
@ghaz Which is a RAI argument which is probably true. Unfortunately what they wrote is that the only limitation of the dedicated transport is that only the unit that took the transport can start in it. If you apply any other limitation it is no longer the only limitation.
Yes or no, is there a rule in the main rulebook that allows Jump Infantry to be carried by transports?
Fixed that for you. The answer is yes. You need to stick to asking questions that are relevant to praetorians on night scythes.
I have a question for you. What is the unit type of Triarch Praetorians as indicated in the Necron codex - jump unit or jump infantry?
They are Jump Infantry. Which means they follow the rules for Jump units as well as the rules for Infantry.
Infantry has rulebook permission to be carried by transports. Do Jump units?
Happyjew, instead of trying to force the other people in the discussion to answer a question the way you want them to, explain your point and present your evidence and rules.
So you claim. However you've yet to show rulebook permission for Jump units to be carried by transports.
Nor have you shown that there is a restriction for Jump Infantry to be carried like they are restricted from embarking.
If you are applying a restriction to Jump Infantry from being carried, you are not following the rules of Infantry that grant them permission to be carried.
Gravmyr wrote: @ghaz Which is a RAI argument which is probably true. Unfortunately what they wrote is that the only limitation of the dedicated transport is that only the unit that took the transport can start in it. If you apply any other limitation it is no longer the only limitation.
You're still trying to make 'the only limitation of a dedicated transport' mean more than it does. It's still a Unit, its still a Vehicle, its still a Transport, and its still a Dedicated Transport. Each gives the unit certain benefits, restrictions, limitations, etc.. The "... only limitation of a Dedicated Transport..." doesn't mean it removes the limitations for being a Unit, or a Vehicle, or a Transport. If I were to say that the only limitation of a weapon with the 'Get's Hot!' rule was that it could wound the bearer on a 'To Hit' roll of a 1 mean the weapon now had infinite range? No, it wouldn't.
This is so cool that you guys have figured out that I can use pg. 82 to fit a 15 man unit of Death Company plus some IC into a Drop pod. The only limitation on it is that it can only carry the unit it was selected with ... AWESOME SAUCEM.
Now let me ask this ... if I were to bring say a 8 man squad of Death Company that had no Jump packs that took a DP as a DT, then threw Lemartes in there as an IC (He does have a JP) would you allow it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: In this case it also points out that not only is there RAW backing but there is no reason to assume anything other than the intent of giving them a DT is so they can use it.
Gravmyr wrote: Then you are redefining the definition of only. If something is the only something there cannot be others.
Where does it say that its only a 'Dedicated Transport'? It doesn't. It doesn't stop being a vehicle, or else we wouldn't have the rules telling us how it interacts with other units in the Shooting or Assault phase. It doesn't stop being a Transport, or else we wouldn't have rules for how friendly units interact with the dedicated transport. The rules say "... the only limitation of a dedicated transport..." and the only limitation that comes from being a dedicated transport is "... that only the unit that took the transport can start in it..." It doesn't remove limitations due to other reasons. You're position would make dedicated transports invulnerable and able to transport across the table at will as not being able to do so would be 'limitations'. So what are you using to decide not being able to carry Jump Infantry is a 'limitation' and not being invulnerable or unable to be anywhere on the table that you want it to be at isn't a 'limitation'?
OIIIIIIO wrote: This is so cool that you guys have figured out that I can use pg. 82 to fit a 15 man unit of Death Company plus some IC into a Drop pod. The only limitation on it is that it can only carry the unit it was selected with ... AWESOME SAUCEM.
Now let me ask this ... if I were to bring say a 8 man squad of Death Company that had no Jump packs that took a DP as a DT, then threw Lemartes in there as an IC (He does have a JP) would you allow it?
Actually, if you go by their interpretations, if the Transport is in Reserve, it doesn't even need to be Dedicated to be able to ignore the restrictions for Embarking. You just consider the unit "embarked" and there you go, it's in. "Embark" doesn't haven any active relationship with "embarked" after all, nor do any of "embark"'s synonyms.
Oddly enough, in these cases, you could put a Dread Knight in the Drop Pod, heck, you could put a C'TAN in a Drop Pod (wouldn't that by fun), since we can ignore all the other rules for embarking and Transport Capacity.
Too bad if the unit is deployed in to a deployed Transport, though. It's not "embarked" so it can't get out unless the Transport Explodes! And, of course, if the unit doesn't embark on its Dedicated Transport, and is just carried by the Transport, the same thing applies, too.
I wonder how a ship's captain or the customs people would feel about you trying to argue this to them, but that's a real world example, and not really useful in this case.
Ghaz wrote: So what are you using to decide not being able to carry Jump Infantry is a 'limitation' and not being invulnerable or unable to be anywhere on the table that you want it to be at isn't a 'limitation'?
The case being used is that they don't actually "embark" to do it, which allows them to ignore the restrictions that are associated with the word, such as Transport Capacity's rules that do not allow Jump and Jet Pack Infantry to embark on to Transports in normal situations.
If I tried to do this with one of my old school English teachers, I'd be lucky to end the year with an F.
OIIIIIIO wrote: This is so cool that you guys have figured out that I can use pg. 82 to fit a 15 man unit of Death Company plus some IC into a Drop pod. The only limitation on it is that it can only carry the unit it was selected with ... AWESOME SAUCEM.
Now let me ask this ... if I were to bring say a 8 man squad of Death Company that had no Jump packs that took a DP as a DT, then threw Lemartes in there as an IC (He does have a JP) would you allow it?
No. Raw, they are still subject to the maximum Troop Capacity of the drop pod. This loophole simply gets around the restriction of embarking, since that is only in the Movement phase.
OIIIIIIO wrote: This is so cool that you guys have figured out that I can use pg. 82 to fit a 15 man unit of Death Company plus some IC into a Drop pod. The only limitation on it is that it can only carry the unit it was selected with ... AWESOME SAUCEM.
Now let me ask this ... if I were to bring say a 8 man squad of Death Company that had no Jump packs that took a DP as a DT, then threw Lemartes in there as an IC (He does have a JP) would you allow it?
No. Raw, they are still subject to the maximum Troop Capacity of the drop pod. This loophole simply gets around the restriction of embarking, since that is only in the Movement phase.
Actually, considering a unit to be "embarked' while the Transport is in Reserves does not actually state anything regarding Transport Capacity. By the standards which you preach, one can put those 15 man units in to the Drop Pod with ICs, and it doesn't even have to be Dedicated!
OIIIIIIO wrote: This is so cool that you guys have figured out that I can use pg. 82 to fit a 15 man unit of Death Company plus some IC into a Drop pod. The only limitation on it is that it can only carry the unit it was selected with ... AWESOME SAUCEM.
Now let me ask this ... if I were to bring say a 8 man squad of Death Company that had no Jump packs that took a DP as a DT, then threw Lemartes in there as an IC (He does have a JP) would you allow it?
No. Raw, they are still subject to the maximum Troop Capacity of the drop pod. This loophole simply gets around the restriction of embarking, since that is only in the Movement phase.
Actually, considering a unit to be "embarked' while the Transport is in Reserves does not actually state anything regarding Transport Capacity. By the standards which you preach, one can put those 15 man units in to the Drop Pod with ICs, and it doesn't even have to be Dedicated!
The rules of Transport Capacity disagree with you.
Spoiler:
TRANSPORT CAPACITY
Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A
Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent
Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models
equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity. The entire unit must be embarked on the
Transport if any part of it is – a unit cannot be partially embarked or be spread across
multiple Transports.
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet
Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise. Some larger Infantry models count as
more than one model for the purposes of Transport Capacity, and this will be specified in
the model’s rules. Sometimes, there will be constraints on which types of models can
embark upon a particular vehicle, and this will be specified in the unit’s entry. Space
Marine Terminators, for example, cannot embark upon a Rhino or Razorback, although
they can be transported by a Land Raider.
Actually, considering a unit to be "embarked' while the Transport is in Reserves does not actually state anything regarding Transport Capacity. By the standards which you preach, one can put those 15 man units in to the Drop Pod with ICs, and it doesn't even have to be Dedicated!
The rules of Transport Capacity disagree with you.
Spoiler:
TRANSPORT CAPACITY
Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A
Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent
Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models
equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity. The entire unit must be embarked on the
Transport if any part of it is – a unit cannot be partially embarked or be spread across
multiple Transports.
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet
Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise. Some larger Infantry models count as
more than one model for the purposes of Transport Capacity, and this will be specified in
the model’s rules. Sometimes, there will be constraints on which types of models can
embark upon a particular vehicle, and this will be specified in the unit’s entry. Space
Marine Terminators, for example, cannot embark upon a Rhino or Razorback, although
they can be transported by a Land Raider.
Actually, considering how you and others keep interpreting things, I was actually referencing this:
BRB wrote:Combined Reserve Units During deployment, when deciding which units are kept as Reserves, you must specify if any of the Independent Characters in Reserve are joining a unit, in which case they must arrive together. Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together. In either case, when making a Reserve Roll (see below) for a combined unit, roll a single dice for the unit and/or its Independent Character/Transport vehicle.
Since you keep saying how much things are not actually connected, and considering another's use of just considering a unit as "flagged" "embarked" (which you endorsed), and no mention of Transport Capacity is mentioned here (unlike how "deploying in to" a Transport does), I was actually just taking the next step in the logical progression of this paradigm.
Gravmyr wrote: @happyjew no unit in the game has unrestricted permission even infantry.
@nos Please post the rules you are using to make such statements. Without doing so, considering your single line answers, it does not actually lead to anything resembling a conversation. Plus it's in the tenets.
What does the line "The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it)." mean to you?
The rules were already posted. The actual rules state that Jump infantry follow the rules for Jump units AND the rules for Infantry.
I am asking where Jump Units are given permission to be *carried*. Page and graph. We know Infantry units may be carried, that is not permission for Jump Units who happen to be Jump Infantry units to be carried. Otherwise I WILL be assaulting having arrived frmo reserve, as long as I disembarked from an Assault Vehicle that turn.
Gravmyr wrote: @happyjew no unit in the game has unrestricted permission even infantry.
@nos Please post the rules you are using to make such statements. Without doing so, considering your single line answers, it does not actually lead to anything resembling a conversation. Plus it's in the tenets.
What does the line "The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it)." mean to you?
The rules were already posted. The actual rules state that Jump infantry follow the rules for Jump units AND the rules for Infantry.
I am asking where Jump Units are given permission to be *carried*. Page and graph. We know Infantry units may be carried, that is not permission for Jump Units who happen to be Jump Infantry units to be carried. Otherwise I WILL be assaulting having arrived frmo reserve, as long as I disembarked from an Assault Vehicle that turn.
Enough handwaving please, page and graph.
I am not hand waving anything.
*Infantry have permission to be carried in Transports.
*Jump Units are not covered.
*Jump Infantry follows all rules of its types: Jump, not covered; Infantry, can be carried.
*Jump Infantry have a special restriction that they cannot embark.
Since Jump Infantry gain the permission from the rule affecting Infantry to be carried by Transports, they can, they do not gain half a permission to be in transports. The way they would be disallowed is if there was a restriction imposed by the Jump type, which there is none for being carried. Instead, the restriction is only for being able to embark.
You also have not refuted that your stance on the rule also states that Jump Monstrous Creatures are immune to rules that affect Monstrous Creatures, such as Monster Hunter, since it also does not mention the Jump type as well. I honestly don't want my Riptides to be immune to things like Bring it Down on top of their resilience.
So Jump Units do not have permission to be carried.
I have refuted it. I have permission to wound MCs, that is all I need to take action. You are confused as to how permissions and restrictions work in this game.
Again: you need permiwsison to be carried. Infantry has permission, but Jump Units do not. Therefore Jump Units may not be carried. Jumpt UNits DO EXIST, as the quoted rules prove.
Your argument, entire, is refuted. it has *exactly* the same validity as claiming a unit may assault having arrived from reserve, as long as it disembarked from an Assault Vehicle.
So Jump Units do not have permission to be carried.
I have refuted it. I have permission to wound MCs, that is all I need to take action. You are confused as to how permissions and restrictions work in this game.
Again: you need permiwsison to be carried. Infantry has permission, but Jump Units do not. Therefore Jump Units may not be carried. Jumpt UNits DO EXIST, as the quoted rules prove.
Your argument, entire, is refuted. it has *exactly* the same validity as claiming a unit may assault having arrived from reserve, as long as it disembarked from an Assault Vehicle.
Would you please stop your chest beating about 'refuting'.
By stating that Jump Infantry do not have permission means you are stating that models need to have permission for both types to be affected by a rule instead of Jump Infantry following both rules for their respective types and being affected by both.
Furthermore, you do not have permission to take action against Monstrous Creatures since "A unit that contains at least one models with this special rule re-rolls To Wound rolls against Monstrous Creatures." By your own logic, where is the permission to affect Jump Units? There is none, you are simply hand waving away a valid counter argument.
Your argument is not without merit, though it is not the only reading of the rule. Furthermore, it makes Jump and Jet Pack type units immune to rules that affect their base types. Does a rule only affect Infantry? Due to your interpretation, it cannot affect Jump or Jet Pack Infantry. Does a rule only affect Jump Units? Due to your interpretation, it cannot affect Jump Infantry and Jump Monstrous Creatures.
Finally, if what you are really saying was the case, why would the rules spell out that Jump and Jet Pack Infantry cannot embark? The first statement is a blanket permission to all Infantry, which would include Jump and Jet Pack Infantry, while the embark permission to a restrictive statement to "only Infantry".
So Jump Units do not have permission to be carried.
I have refuted it. I have permission to wound MCs, that is all I need to take action. You are confused as to how permissions and restrictions work in this game.
Again: you need permiwsison to be carried. Infantry has permission, but Jump Units do not. Therefore Jump Units may not be carried. Jumpt UNits DO EXIST, as the quoted rules prove.
Your argument, entire, is refuted. it has *exactly* the same validity as claiming a unit may assault having arrived from reserve, as long as it disembarked from an Assault Vehicle.
Would you please stop your chest beating about 'refuting'.
Nilok wrote:
You also have not refuted that your stance on the rule also states that Jump Monstrous Creatures are immune to rules that affect Monstrous Creatures, such as Monster Hunter, since it also does not mention the Jump type as well. I honestly don't want my Riptides to be immune to things like Bring it Down on top of their resilience.
Sorry, "my" chest beating? Hypocrite, much?
Nilok wrote:By stating that Jump Infantry do not have permission means you are stating that models need to have permission for both types to be affected by a rule instead of Jump Infantry following both rules for their respective types and being affected by both.
Do not put words into my mouth. I stated no such thing
I am stating that, in order for a Jump Unit to be Carried on a Transport, it must have Permisison in the Rules to do so.
Infantry have permission - not "blanket" permisison, JUST Infantry
Jump units - a defined unit in the rules, as has been posed ad nauseum, and you fail to recognise or simply handwave as somehow not being real - do not
Nilok wrote:Your argument is not without merit, though it is not the only reading of the rule.
It is the only reading of the rule consistent with how game permisisons operate.
nilok wrote:
Furthermore, it makes Jump and Jet Pack type units immune to rules that affect their base types. Does a rule only affect Infantry? Due to your interpretation, it cannot affect Jump or Jet Pack Infantry. Does a rule only affect Jump Units? Due to your interpretation, it cannot affect Jump Infantry and Jump Monstrous Creatures.
No, your "interpretation" is that they cannot be affected. The rules state otherwise.
nilok wrote:
Finally, if what you are really saying was the case, why would the rules spell out that Jump and Jet Pack Infantry cannot embark? The first statement is a blanket permission to all Infantry, which would include Jump and Jet Pack Infantry, while the embark permission to a restrictive statement to "only Infantry".
a) its a reminder, due to how English works
b) why do Storm Ravens then, apparently "usellessly", tell you that they can carry Jump Infantry?
Weight of evidence, including the entire game construction philoshopy, is against you.
So Jump Units do not have permission to be carried.
I have refuted it. I have permission to wound MCs, that is all I need to take action. You are confused as to how permissions and restrictions work in this game.
Again: you need permiwsison to be carried. Infantry has permission, but Jump Units do not. Therefore Jump Units may not be carried. Jumpt UNits DO EXIST, as the quoted rules prove.
Your argument, entire, is refuted. it has *exactly* the same validity as claiming a unit may assault having arrived from reserve, as long as it disembarked from an Assault Vehicle.
Would you please stop your chest beating about 'refuting'.
Nilok wrote:
You also have not refuted that your stance on the rule also states that Jump Monstrous Creatures are immune to rules that affect Monstrous Creatures, such as Monster Hunter, since it also does not mention the Jump type as well. I honestly don't want my Riptides to be immune to things like Bring it Down on top of their resilience.
Sorry, "my" chest beating? Hypocrite, much?
My statement has nothing about showing off or trying to outmatch you, you have not addressed the counter argument I put forewords and instead you called me a hypocrite without basis.
Nilok wrote:By stating that Jump Infantry do not have permission means you are stating that models need to have permission for both types to be affected by a rule instead of Jump Infantry following both rules for their respective types and being affected by both.
Do not put words into my mouth. I stated no such thing
I am stating that, in order for a Jump Unit to be Carried on a Transport, it must have Permisison in the Rules to do so.
Infantry have permission - not "blanket" permisison, JUST Infantry
Jump units - a defined unit in the rules, as has been posed ad nauseum, and you fail to recognise or simply handwave as somehow not being real - do not
You stated your argument for how you think the rules work and I have applied it, following the same logic you proposed, to other rules in the book that only apply to one Unit Type when a model is told to follow both Unit Types. By expanding your argument to other similar or identical rules, I am attempting to show you why it has more unintended side effects and breaks other rules. I would ask that you explain in detail why you believe that one rule cannot grant permission while another rule can. If you cannot resolve that they both work the same way, then there must be a problem in the logic behind it.
nilok wrote:
Furthermore, it makes Jump and Jet Pack type units immune to rules that affect their base types. Does a rule only affect Infantry? Due to your interpretation, it cannot affect Jump or Jet Pack Infantry. Does a rule only affect Jump Units? Due to your interpretation, it cannot affect Jump Infantry and Jump Monstrous Creatures.
No, your "interpretation" is that they cannot be affected. The rules state otherwise.
I would agree the rules say otherwise, but not based on your rational and explanation. Again, I would ask that you review your argument and re-present as a solid whole.
nilok wrote:
Finally, if what you are really saying was the case, why would the rules spell out that Jump and Jet Pack Infantry cannot embark? The first statement is a blanket permission to all Infantry, which would include Jump and Jet Pack Infantry, while the embark permission to a restrictive statement to "only Infantry".
a) its a reminder, due to how English works
b) why do Storm Ravens then, apparently "usellessly", tell you that they can carry Jump Infantry?
Weight of evidence, including the entire game construction philoshopy, is against you.
a) Then I ask, why is the reminder not used with "a single Infantry unit", which would include Jump Infantry, and instead "Only Infantry" which would restrict it to base infantry?
b) It could be argued that the Storm Raven rule is a reminder, however, it never grants them permission to embark, which is where Jump and Jet Pack Infantry are restricted.
Regardless, we both know is not how the indented RAI is meant to go, and this is also not HIWPI, as I have repeatedly stated. This is simply an examination of the reading the full extend of the rules and where they break down from Jump Infantry and Transports. No one should play the rules in such a way.
You said to stop "your chest beating" about refuting, when you are using the exact same phrases. It is hypocritical to ask another to stop when you are doing the same yourself (If I agree it is "chest beatin" - I dont, as it clearly isnt, Just correctly using words in English, that you are then applying emotional bias in to)
So no, I have every basis
Again, address the central argument, or I will not further attempt to engage, as it is not at all prooductoive
You are claiming, with zero rules basis, that Jump units have permission to be carried in a transport.
Show that permission, precisely. Page and graph.
This is now the 10th or so time that various posters have asked you to constrain your argument to this simple, single question, in various guises, so please, foer once, do so
Page and graph. No blocks of text unrelated to the subject, but page and graph
the consequences can be discussed later, and the error in your logic there determined. For now, FOCUS on this one point
Ghaz wrote: Where does it say that its only a 'Dedicated Transport'? It doesn't. It doesn't stop being a vehicle, or else we wouldn't have the rules telling us how it interacts with other units in the Shooting or Assault phase. It doesn't stop being a Transport, or else we wouldn't have rules for how friendly units interact with the dedicated transport. The rules say "... the only limitation of a dedicated transport..." and the only limitation that comes from being a dedicated transport is "... that only the unit that took the transport can start in it..." It doesn't remove limitations due to other reasons. You're position would make dedicated transports invulnerable and able to transport across the table at will as not being able to do so would be 'limitations'. So what are you using to decide not being able to carry Jump Infantry is a 'limitation' and not being invulnerable or unable to be anywhere on the table that you want it to be at isn't a 'limitation'?
Which does not follow what is said. You are changing the sentence, specifically adding the word additional or removing the word only. If it stated "the only additional limitation of a dedicated transport." or "the limitation of a dedicated transport." Then your reading would be correct but without that you are changing the sentence. Even taking into account the rest of the paragraph you cannot arrive to that reading via RAW only RAI. GW breaks it's own game on a regular basis and this is no exception, so don't say that it isn't what it says because it breaks the game. Please do not put words into my mouth. Be civil and read. I stated earlier their are no limitations and I meant it. A strict RAW reading makes any DT unreasonable as does stating that Praetorians cannot embark onto their DT. As absurd as it is, that is exactly what it states, that it can only carry the unit it was purchased for without any other limitation, that is what only means. The statement that it does not eliminate the other is disingenuous. You would need to prove that a blanket removal of denial is not an option in this game, which there is no way to prove as GW is basically god. They will do what they want and sometimes more.
So can someone explain to me why I shouldn't treat jump infantry as infantry in this case when my rulebook says the following:
'Jump' is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you'll find it occurs before another category - commonly infantry, sometimes monstrous creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things.
Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type.'
So Jump infantry abides by both the infantry rules and jump unit rules.
Nothing in the jump units rules prohibits you from embarking transports and nothing from transports says you can't transport a unit that is a jump unit, only that the model needs to be infantry, which a jump infantry unit is as stated in the quotation taken directly from the rulebook p.65. You cannot make a distinction between jump infantry and infantry here when the rulebook specifically tells you to treat it as both 'infantry' and 'jump unit'.
Nothing in the transport rules says you can ONLY be infantry, just that you at least need to be infantry.
DaPino wrote: So can someone explain to me why I shouldn't treat jump infantry as infantry in this case when my rulebook says the following:
'Jump' is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you'll find it occurs before another category - commonly infantry, sometimes monstrous creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things.
Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type.'
So Jump infantry abides by both the infantry rules and jump unit rules.
Nothing in the jump units rules prohibits you from embarking transports and nothing from transports says you can't transport a unit that is a jump unit, only that the model needs to be infantry, which a jump infantry unit is as stated in the quotation taken directly from the rulebook p.65. You cannot make a distinction between jump infantry and infantry here when the rulebook specifically tells you to treat it as both 'infantry' and 'jump unit'.
Nothing in the transport rules says you can ONLY be infantry, just that you at least need to be infantry.
Quoted for truth. It really isn't difficult, the rules explicitly state that you follow infantry rules and jump. Jump is not a type that can exist on its own, and follows the 'base' rules of the unit type. Jump is more like an ability than a type.
DaPino wrote: So can someone explain to me why I shouldn't treat jump infantry as infantry in this case when my rulebook says the following:
'Jump' is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you'll find it occurs before another category - commonly infantry, sometimes monstrous creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things.
Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type.'
So Jump infantry abides by both the infantry rules and jump unit rules.
Nothing in the jump units rules prohibits you from embarking transports and nothing from transports says you can't transport a unit that is a jump unit, only that the model needs to be infantry, which a jump infantry unit is as stated in the quotation taken directly from the rulebook p.65. You cannot make a distinction between jump infantry and infantry here when the rulebook specifically tells you to treat it as both 'infantry' and 'jump unit'.
Nothing in the transport rules says you can ONLY be infantry, just that you at least need to be infantry.
The rule that stops Jump units (and Jet Pack) infantry embarking is found in the Transport rules, (BRB, pg 80)
"Only Infantry models can embark upon transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
Didn't the previous thread on this fail to reach a conclusion?
DaPino wrote: So can someone explain to me why I shouldn't treat jump infantry as infantry in this case when my rulebook says the following:
'Jump' is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you'll find it occurs before another category - commonly infantry, sometimes monstrous creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things.
Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type.'
So Jump infantry abides by both the infantry rules and jump unit rules.
Nothing in the jump units rules prohibits you from embarking transports and nothing from transports says you can't transport a unit that is a jump unit, only that the model needs to be infantry, which a jump infantry unit is as stated in the quotation taken directly from the rulebook p.65. You cannot make a distinction between jump infantry and infantry here when the rulebook specifically tells you to treat it as both 'infantry' and 'jump unit'.
Nothing in the transport rules says you can ONLY be infantry, just that you at least need to be infantry.
The rule that stops Jump units (and Jet Pack) infantry embarking is found in the Transport rules, (BRB, pg 80)
"Only Infantry models can embark upon transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
Didn't the previous thread on this fail to reach a conclusion?
Well this might actually be the first time in the history of me visiting Dakka that someone actually convinced me with logic instead of me giving up because of stupidity or having to agree to disagree. Props to you sir.
@ghaz: I'm starting to wonder of you are reading what I am posting or just stopping once you have decided you understand what I am saying. Reading test what does my post above say in it's entirety about limitations? Secondly you are arguing against a position which I have already stated is absurd, which you would know if you read my entire post.
You need to put forth support for why you think the sentence reads the way you do when I have shown that said reading is a change in the wording of the rule. You cannot do so, from what I can tell as your response has been basically yun huh. What other rule in the book uses the wording only when other things still apply?
Frozocrone wrote: The rule that stops Jump units (and Jet Pack) infantry embarking is found in the Transport rules, (BRB, pg 80)
"Only Infantry models can embark upon transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
Didn't the previous thread on this fail to reach a conclusion?
Sadly, it's the "embark" that people are using to ignore the restriction against Jump and Jet Pack Infantry.
See, Embarking may only be performed in the Movement Phase. So, they get around this by saying things like "just say they are embarked" or "the unit is deployed in to the Transport" or "The Transport is carrying their Dedicated unit".
Of course, the restriction in Embarking and Disembarking is only if the models "voluntarily embark or disembark". Is deployment or declaration of embark voluntary on the part of the models or not?
I don't see it addressed as such, so I guess this restriction isn't as solid as they thought it was.
Agree with dapino and plenty of others. Pretorians are jump inf. jump inf are both inf and jump units. Since pretorians are inf they can ride in dedicated transports. this tactic won't win any gts and is not op at all so I'm not worried about it going forward.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned, looking at the book last night night sythes are listed under "fast attack", or at least that is the symbol on their data sheet. Further they are only a transport, not a dedicated transport. I don't think this changes anything but it is worth noting.
Epartalis wrote: Agree with dapino and plenty of others. Pretorians are jump inf. jump inf are both inf and jump units. Since pretorians are inf they can ride in dedicated transports. this tactic won't win any gts and is not op at all so I'm not worried about it going forward.
It's the Jump part of the Jump Infantry which disallows them to embark.
You can either choose to agree with some that being deployed in to a Transport is not embarking, but then it would mean they are not embarked when it comes time to get out, so they must wait until the ship crashes in order to get out, as disembarking is only done with embarked units.
Or, you can choose to agree with others that being deployed in to a Transport is embarking involuntarily, at which point, the Jump portion of their unit type would prevent them from doing so until the Night Scythe gains the ability to carry Jump Infantry once again.
Epartalis wrote: One thing I haven't seen mentioned, looking at the book last night night sythes are listed under "fast attack", or at least that is the symbol on their data sheet. Further they are only a transport, not a dedicated transport. I don't think this changes anything but it is worth noting.
It's not really worth mentioning. The defining of a Dedicated Transport is listed in purchasing unit's unit entry list/datasheet (i.e. "May select a Night Scythe as a Dedicated Transport"). Space Marine Terminators (all kinds) and Crusader Squads have been doing it to Heavy Support Land Raiders for a long time now.
Epartalis wrote: Agree with dapino and plenty of others. Pretorians are jump inf. jump inf are both inf and jump units. Since pretorians are inf they can ride in dedicated transports. this tactic won't win any gts and is not op at all so I'm not worried about it going forward.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned, looking at the book last night night sythes are listed under "fast attack", or at least that is the symbol on their data sheet. Further they are only a transport, not a dedicated transport. I don't think this changes anything but it is worth noting.
First, the transport rules are very clear that jump infantry units are not allowed to be inside a transport without a specific exception. I don't believe the DT rules, the night scythe's rules, or the pretorian rules provide a specific exception.
Many fast attack choices can be taken in an unbound army, or in a fast attack slot of a battle-forged army, but they can also be taken when a unit has the option to take them as a dedicated transport. If that happens they do not take up any FOC slots and their battlefirld role is what ever unit took it as a DT. So having a FA datasheet is not an issue.
I'm troubled that it not being a DT would not change anything for you. From what I read it seems you think jump infantry are allowed in any transport because they are infantry. This is troubling becouse the people you say you are agreeing with are saying that dedicated transports are special.
jump infantry and jet infantry are specifcally banned from entering transports.
No specific permission to over ride this ban exists.
this is a clear cut case of people not reading properly when they have been quoted rules that explicitly state "no jet pack infantry allowed in transports" but then try to argue how their jet pack infantry get to ride in transports.
No amount of reasonable factual rules quotes will work when people are coming up with arguements like that.
DJGietzen and easysauce, no one is arguing that Jump Infantry can embark in transports - the argument is whether they can be carried by transports.
The following arguments for the pro side are as follows:
1. Jump Infantry follow the rules for Infantry. Infantry can be carried. Jump does not restrict that permission, ergo they can be carried.
2. The only limitation on Dedicated Transports is that the unit that bought it and any attached ICs are the only ones allowed to start the game embarked. Since the only limitation is what unit can start on board, not allowing a unit due to model count or due to unit type is imposing additional limitations which breaks the aforementioned rule.
Though if the pro side disagrees please correct me.
Wow, seven pages and still going strong. A sure sign of sloppy rules writing!
Having read through all of this I'm in the "not possible" camp. There is no predecence of allowing non-pure infantry units in transports unless clearly specified otherwise. There is no reason to believe that to be intent here.
On the other hand, they are Necrons, the other pet faction of GW, so maybe anything is possible.
No rules quotes to support my view. Since page 2 everything is just re-iteration anyway.
Happyjew wrote: DJGietzen and easysauce, no one is arguing that Jump Infantry can embark in transports - the argument is whether they can be carried by transports.
The following arguments for the pro side are as follows:
1. Jump Infantry follow the rules for Infantry. Infantry can be carried. Jump does not restrict that permission, ergo they can be carried.
2. The only limitation on Dedicated Transports is that the unit that bought it and any attached ICs are the only ones allowed to start the game embarked. Since the only limitation is what unit can start on board, not allowing a unit due to model count or due to unit type is imposing additional limitations which breaks the aforementioned rule.
Though if the pro side disagrees please correct me.
1. Having a distinction between 'carried' models and 'embarked' models is dangerous and not in concert with the rest of the transport rules. For example...
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise... A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either before or after the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so long as the vehicle has not moved more than 6".
If we have a distinction between 'carried' models and 'embarked' models then a unit that is carried but not embarked will never be able to disembark.
2. This is not a specific override of the restrictions presented by the transport capacity rules. If we have 1 rule that food sold at McDonald's costs money, and a 2nd rule that states the only limitation on getting food in a drive through is that the order must be placed from a car, does not mean that orders placed in a McDonald's drive through will not cost money. Further more the DT rules do not allow anything to start the game embarked. The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it). Again, if we assume that a carried unit is not an embarked unit then the units that begin the game carried in a DT will never have embarked and will never be able to disembark.
Happyjew wrote: DJGietzen and easysauce, no one is arguing that Jump Infantry can embark in transports - the argument is whether they can be carried by transports.
The following arguments for the pro side are as follows:
1. Jump Infantry follow the rules for Infantry. Infantry can be carried. Jump does not restrict that permission, ergo they can be carried.
2. The only limitation on Dedicated Transports is that the unit that bought it and any attached ICs are the only ones allowed to start the game embarked. Since the only limitation is what unit can start on board, not allowing a unit due to model count or due to unit type is imposing additional limitations which breaks the aforementioned rule.
Though if the pro side disagrees please correct me.
1. Having a distinction between 'carried' models and 'embarked' models is dangerous and not in concert with the rest of the transport rules. For example...
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise... A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either before or after the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so long as the vehicle has not moved more than 6".
If we have a distinction between 'carried' models and 'embarked' models then a unit that is carried but not embarked will never be able to disembark.
2. This is not a specific override of the restrictions presented by the transport capacity rules. If we have 1 rule that food sold at McDonald's costs money, and a 2nd rule that states the only limitation on getting food in a drive through is that the order must be placed from a car, does not mean that orders placed in a McDonald's drive through will not cost money. Further more the DT rules do not allow anything to start the game embarked. The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it). Again, if we assume that a carried unit is not an embarked unit then the units that begin the game carried in a DT will never have embarked and will never be able to disembark.
Carried models are embarked upon their transports. Embarking does not happen however during deployment. Embarking only happens during movement phase by definition.
During deployment when something is deployed in a transport it is embarked upon that transport without having to go through embarking. That is RAW.
The rule says that jet/jump cannot embark unless otherwise specified.
I think having the night scythe as a dedicated transport is a good hint of specification that it can indeed use it as a dedicated transport. But this is HIWPI and not RAW.
I also wonder about the Hammerhead/transport variant that has two 'jet pack' drones attached to it. AFAIK they can disembark from their holding points, do they have specific permission to be embarked on their holding points? lol
Whacked wrote: I think having the night scythe as a dedicated transport is a good hint of specification that it can indeed use it as a dedicated transport.
Then why did they remove the wording from the 5th edition codex that clearly allowed it when they updated the codex?
The rule says that jet/jump cannot embark unless otherwise specified.
I think having the night scythe as a dedicated transport is a good hint of specification that it can indeed use it as a dedicated transport. But this is HIWPI and not RAW.
I also wonder about the Hammerhead/transport variant that has two 'jet pack' drones attached to it. AFAIK they can disembark from their holding points, do they have specific permission to be embarked on their holding points? lol
I'm fairly, almost, possibly sure that there is a rule that allows drones to embark on a fishtank
Whacked wrote: I think having the night scythe as a dedicated transport is a good hint of specification that it can indeed use it as a dedicated transport.
Then why did they remove the wording from the 5th edition codex that clearly allowed it when they updated the codex?
Why keep it as a dedicated transport if it cannot be used as a dedicated transport? The RAI is obvious that the praetorians can ride along in the night scythe. The rules even make this intent clear.
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can
only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that
have joined it).
Whacked wrote: I think having the night scythe as a dedicated transport is a good hint of specification that it can indeed use it as a dedicated transport.
Then why did they remove the wording from the 5th edition codex that clearly allowed it when they updated the codex?
Why keep it as a dedicated transport if it cannot be used as a dedicated transport? The RAI is obvious that the praetorians can ride along in the night scythe. The rules even make this intent clear.
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can
only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that
have joined it).
Exactly what I was thinking as well Col.
It's good that the drones have their own rule too.
With the writers they have, who says that Writer A even realized that Writer B removed the option to carry Jump Infantry? Regardless, as the rules stand it cannot carry Jump Infantry and there is no clear indication of what their intentions were (which doesn't change the rules anyway).
Ghaz wrote: With the writers they have, who says that Writer A even realized that Writer B removed the option to carry Jump Infantry? Regardless, as the rules stand it cannot carry Jump Infantry and there is no clear indication of what their intentions were (which doesn't change the rules anyway).
Wrong. As the rules stand, the night scythe can carry the praetorians.
Spoiler:
A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent
Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models
equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity.
col_impact wrote:
Carried models are embarked upon their transports. Embarking does not happen however during deployment. Embarking only happens during movement phase by definition.
Correction, "voluntary embarking" only happens during the Movement Phase by definition.
During deployment when something is deployed in a transport it is embarked upon that transport without having to go through embarking. That is RAW.
Where does it say it ignores embarking? This is only an assumption at this point.
And where does it state that deploying in to a Transport is embarked without embarking? You still haven't answered that, even after all this time.
col_impact wrote:
Why keep it as a dedicated transport if it cannot be used as a dedicated transport? The RAI is obvious that the praetorians can ride along in the night scythe. The rules even make this intent clear.
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can
only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that
have joined it).
Sorry, no matter how you try to push it, a limitation is not authority to ignore other limitations.
col_impact wrote:
Carried models are embarked upon their transports. Embarking does not happen however during deployment. Embarking only happens during movement phase by definition.
Correction, "voluntary embarking" only happens during the Movement Phase by definition.
During deployment when something is deployed in a transport it is embarked upon that transport without having to go through embarking. That is RAW.
Where does it say it ignores embarking? This is only an assumption at this point.
And where does it state that deploying in to a Transport is embarked without embarking? You still haven't answered that, even after all this time.
The rules for embarking are exceedingly clear that embarking only happens during the movement phase. Feel free to point to a definition of embarking that allows you to go through a process of embarking outside of a movement phase. If you cannot find such a rule then no embarking process happens per RAW.
Spoiler:
Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase.
col_impact wrote: The rules for embarking are exceedingly clear that embarking only happens during the movement phase. Feel free to point to a definition of embarking that allows you to go through a process of embarking outside of a movement phase. If you cannot find such a rule then no embarking process happens per RAW.
Spoiler:
Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase.
I've said it twice now, and I've bolded and colored it above. Now, can you point out where deploying in to a Transport is a "voluntary embark" for the models as opposed to a "previously performed embark" or "involuntary embark" (I think some Formations like the Skyhammer would fit in to this last one)?
If not, than we can drop the Movement Phase requirement from the discussion.
col_impact wrote: The rules for embarking are exceedingly clear that embarking only happens during the movement phase. Feel free to point to a definition of embarking that allows you to go through a process of embarking outside of a movement phase. If you cannot find such a rule then no embarking process happens per RAW.
Spoiler:
Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase.
I've said it twice now, and I've bolded and colored it above. Now, can you point out where deploying in to a Transport is a "voluntary embark" for the models as opposed to a "previously performed embark" or "involuntary embark" (I think some Formations like the Skyhammer would fit in to this last one)?
If not, than we can drop the Movement Phase requirement from the discussion.
Point to any rules for embarking besides the ones I have quoted which are required to take place during the movement phase. We cannot drop the rules for embarking that mention the movement phase because if we did that we would have no rules at all for embarking.
col_impact wrote: Point to any rules for embarking besides the ones I have quoted which are required to take place during the movement phase. We cannot drop the rules for embarking that mention the movement phase because if we did that we would have no rules at all for embarking.
Well, let's see, unless you are willing to ignore the tense rules of English, there is the rules for Combined Reserve Units which state:
BRB wrote:Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together.
Of course, there is also the possibility of synonyms, too, of which the following would apply:
BRB wrote:DEPLOYMENT ...Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity....
Of which, "deploying inside" is a synonym of "embarking", which would actually be important if they ever actually want to get out without having to kill their Transport.
And of course, the rules for Embarking and Disembarking only discuss "voluntarily" embarking and disembarking, and nothing in Deployment or other Mission Rules do not ever mention that placing a unit inside a Vehicle is "voluntary", so doesn't care about that section.
Of course, the Embarking rules do talk about being within 2" during the Movement Phase, but only list this as a "can", and not as, "this is the only method that may be used", either. Which allows Deployment and Combined Reserve Units sections to just allow you the player to just "declare it."
Unfortunately, as with much of GW rules, a lot of the rules are set up requiring either a full awareness of ALL the rules or to read between the lines and handwave your way around things.
Your approach is to handwave the restrictions against Jump and Jet Pack Infantry embarking so you can get what you want. This unfortunately, leads to many weird situations where units would be able to board a Transport before the game that they won't be able to board later in the game (assuming that one could do that with a Night Scythe in the first place, of course).
Whereas my approach is to handwave the timings of how embarking is defined, such as units deployed in to a Transport during Deployment or declared embarked in Reserves, they went through a pre-game Movement Phase embarking process to get in, as part of defining the narrative.
Edit: I did find a unit that can be a Jump Infantry unit AND take a Dedicated Transport that one could get back in to: The Blood Angels Command Squad. The unit can take Jump Packs AND a Dedicated Transport.
In Col_Impact's position, this squad can purchase Jump Packs and a Rhino, be deployed in said Rhino, Disembark during the game, but then can't get back in... Drop Pod would be included, too, but no one can get back in to a deployed Drop Pod. Razorbacks would also be possible, but are just a little too tight.
Your approach is to handwave the restrictions against Jump and Jet Pack Infantry embarking so you can get what you want. This unfortunately, leads to many weird situations where units would be able to board a Transport before the game that they won't be able to board later in the game (assuming that one could do that with a Night Scythe in the first place, of course).
Whereas my approach is to handwave the timings of how embarking is defined, such as units deployed in to a Transport during Deployment or declared embarked in Reserves, they went through a pre-game Movement Phase embarking process to get in, as part of defining the narrative.
My approach is strictest RAW and involves no handwaving. The rules as they are do not allow for an embarking process to happen at deployment. Jump pack infantry are restricted from embarking. But embarking per RAW does not happen at deployment.
So under drop pod rules for blood angels 7th it says
Transport Capacity: Ten models or one Dreadnought of any type. Once a Drop Pod lands, all passengers must disembark and no models can embark for the rest of the game.
The "10 models or one dreadnought" is how many the drop pod can hold But there is no specifically stated permission given for the dreadnought to embark onto the drop pod so how can the dreadnought be embarked on the drop pod?
More than just the movement phase it also requires you to have moved them to within 2" of an entry point. It requires that the transport not have moved a certain distance.... We all know the requirements of embarking and we know we cannot meet those requirements.
By the line of thinking that models have to have embarked to be embarked, we know all models that are deployed in dangerous or difficult terrain moved through that terrain. Will you hold that the required rolls be made for that? Did you allow jinking models to jink in the previous edition? There are a vast number of states that can be reached at deployment that generally require previous steps but which we willingly ignore. All of the rules for embarking regulate the act of embarking not the state of being embarked. You may look at that and say that they have to embark to be embarked but there is no rule controlling this. Without that it does not exist in a permissive ruleset, can anyone point out a time in the deployment rules that it even refer to deployment in a transport as embarking?
Gravmyr wrote: Without that it does not exist in a permissive ruleset, can anyone point out a time in the deployment rules that it even refer to deployment in a transport as deployment?
DEPLOYMENT wrote:Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity.
Frozocrone wrote: Those rules say that a Drop Pod can carry a Dreadnought.
Nightscythes do not have that specific permission for Praetorians.
But where is the permission for the Dreadnought to embark? There is nothing in that Transport capacity rule that gives any more permission that Praetorians being able to use the Night Scythe as a DT. Neither unit can embark, but both have permission to "carry" the unit.
Epartalis wrote:So Pretorians can take a night sythe as a dedicated transport.
They can deploy "inside" them per the above rule as long as they do not exceed the 15 model capacity.
They can then disembark at after they come in from reserves but cannot re embark in the night sythe due to them being jump infantry.
Is there something I'm missing RAW? RAI doesn't really concern me.
1st issue, the above rule about a unit deploying inside a transport only grants permission to deploy inside a transport that is in your deployment zone. The Night Scythe will be in reserves, not your deployment zone so that rule is moot for this specific situation. but could be important if we wanted to discuss non flyer transports.
2nd issue. They can not disembark. Either they have embarked before coming in from reserves or not. If claim they have embarked we must ask how a jump infantry unit was allowed to do that. If we claim they merely apear in the transport and have not technically embarked then they will never begin the movement phase embarked (and will never meet the requirements to disembark)
Fragile wrote:
Frozocrone wrote: Those rules say that a Drop Pod can carry a Dreadnought.
Nightscythes do not have that specific permission for Praetorians.
But where is the permission for the Dreadnought to embark? There is nothing in that Transport capacity rule that gives any more permission that Praetorians being able to use the Night Scythe as a DT. Neither unit can embark, but both have permission to "carry" the unit.
The drop pod's transport capacity specifically lists a dreadnought. This is a specific exception to the transport capacity rules. It is the transport capacity rules that bar non-infantry model from embarking. By listing the dreadnought in the drop pods's transport capacity they have given permission for a dreadnought to embark upon a drop pod. The Night Scythe has no exception to its transport capacity.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Potential scenario for those who would allow the praetorians in the night scythe. I am playing Inquisition. I have an inquisitor in Terminator Armour that has 3 acolyte henchmen. Those henchmen have a rhino as a dedicated transport. Can the inquisitor be deployed with the henchmen in this rhino?
Your approach is to handwave the restrictions against Jump and Jet Pack Infantry embarking so you can get what you want. This unfortunately, leads to many weird situations where units would be able to board a Transport before the game that they won't be able to board later in the game (assuming that one could do that with a Night Scythe in the first place, of course).
Whereas my approach is to handwave the timings of how embarking is defined, such as units deployed in to a Transport during Deployment or declared embarked in Reserves, they went through a pre-game Movement Phase embarking process to get in, as part of defining the narrative.
My approach is strictest RAW and involves no handwaving. The rules as they are do not allow for an embarking process to happen at deployment. Jump pack infantry are restricted from embarking. But embarking per RAW does not happen at deployment.
Where does it say that a unit may not embark during deployment? I see the one about "voluntary embarking". How does one define that? Where does it state that being embarked during deployment is voluntary for the models?
And, yes, you are trying to handwave the restrictions away.
Gravmyr wrote:More than just the movement phase it also requires you to have moved them to within 2" of an entry point. It requires that the transport not have moved a certain distance.... We all know the requirements of embarking and we know we cannot meet those requirements.
The rules state that a unit within 2" can embark. It does not state this as a requirement. The Reserves rules actually state that a unit can start embarked a transport, without being within 2" during the Movement Phase.
By the line of thinking that models have to have embarked to be embarked, we know all models that are deployed in dangerous or difficult terrain moved through that terrain. Will you hold that the required rolls be made for that? Did you allow jinking models to jink in the previous edition? There are a vast number of states that can be reached at deployment that generally require previous steps but which we willingly ignore. All of the rules for embarking regulate the act of embarking not the state of being embarked. You may look at that and say that they have to embark to be embarked but there is no rule controlling this. Without that it does not exist in a permissive ruleset, can anyone point out a time in the deployment rules that it even refer to deployment in a transport as embarking?
Embarked is a form of embark. We have not been told to separate this relationship, so we may not. A unit may not be embarked without taking embark in to consideration.
The rules state that a unit within 2" can embark. It does not state this as a requirement. The Reserves rules actually state that a unit can start embarked a transport, without being within 2" during the Movement Phase.
BRB wrote:The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of range, the entire unit must stay outside.
That reads as a requirement to me, that a must not a can.
Embarked is a form of embark. We have not been told to separate this relationship, so we may not. A unit may not be embarked without taking embark in to consideration.
Which is a logic argument not a rules argument would you care to back this up with a rule? We have also not been told by the rules that there is a relationship, that is a logical assumption nothing more. Find a rule stating you have to embark to be embarked. This is exactly like the IC rules interacting with the chariot. There is nothing that stops it from being in the state of being embarked just from embarking.
Embarked is a form of embark. We have not been told to separate this relationship, so we may not. A unit may not be embarked without taking embark in to consideration.
Which is a logic argument not a rules argument would you care to back this up with a rule? We have also not been told by the rules that there is a relationship, that is a logical assumption nothing more. Find a rule stating you have to embark to be embarked. This is exactly like the IC rules interacting with the chariot. There is nothing that stops it from being in the state of being embarked just from embarking.
There is no such rule within the game. It is a rule of language. The rules of langue will not, and need not be explained in the rules of the game. Asking some one to find such a rule is the equivalent of asking for a rule stating that to 'have moved', a model must 'move'.
IC rules and chariots? Care to explain that comparison?
It's relevent to what I said which he said were not requirements.
An IC cannot join a unit that contains a vehicle, in 6th they did not remove IC from the overlord when mounting on a chariot. Which meant when it joined the unit there was no vehicle preventing joining but people argued that it kicked it out of the unit despite there being no rule stating so. The same is true here, there is no rule telling us what to do when the unit is already embarked just rules that say they cannot embark. I'm glad you brought up moving as there are a number of times when a unit did not move yet it is treated as having moved. This is the same as that as well, the unit is embarked despite having not actively embarked. Do you see now why we cannot simply assume that you had to embark to be embarked?
Yeah, you can take a white shirt, you're just not allowed to wear it. Same applies to Praetorians.
Really, this is a case of 'restrictive permissions'. You can take a DT Nightscythe, but due to the embarking rules of Transports, you're not allowed to embark on it.
I'm out though, because I see exactly where this is going to go and I, for one, do not wish to repeat that experience.
HANZERtank wrote: Page 80 BRB, Only Infantry models may embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
I got 3 pages into this argument and realized people were glazing past this part of the rule every time, assuming it was something added by the person quoting the rule because it was placed in parenthesis. It's not something they added. The underlined/bolded part of the rule quoted above is, indeed, part of the full and actual rule on page 80. It is why jump infantry can't embark on transports.
Gravmyr wrote:It's relevent to what I said which he said were not requirements.
An IC cannot join a unit that contains a vehicle, in 6th they did not remove IC from the overlord when mounting on a chariot. Which meant when it joined the unit there was no vehicle preventing joining but people argued that it kicked it out of the unit despite there being no rule stating so. The same is true here, there is no rule telling us what to do when the unit is already embarked just rules that say they cannot embark. I'm glad you brought up moving as there are a number of times when a unit did not move yet it is treated as having moved. This is the same as that as well, the unit is embarked despite having not actively embarked. Do you see now why we cannot simply assume that you had to embark to be embarked?
Its not relevant because it does nothing to establish that the movement phase is the only time units can embark. His statement was that the permission to embark in the movement phase did not prohibit permission to become embark at any other time, that is was not a restriction.
Still don't know what your getting at. In th 5th edition codex an overlord could take a fast open-topped, skimmer DT that had a single IC transport capacity. The CCB and the overlord were two different units. The IC rule was not removed because the overlord was a passenger and the IC was not joining the CCB's unit. The 7th edition codex is very different and has no IC rule on the chariot. In either case an overlord on a chariot never had permission to join another unit.
Being embarked and being treated like you are embarked would be different things. You treat something as X being true only when X is not true but you want things to behave as if it were. Also, not relevant because we are never told to treat the passengers of a night scythe as anything. In this case the only way be can behave if X is true, is for X to actually be true. In this case X is the unit is embarked.
Gravmyr wrote:If you walk into a room and are wearing a white shirt and are told you cannot put on a white shirt, do you have to take it off?
The white shirt scenario makes no sense. If you can't put on a white shirt you can't walk into a room wearing a white shirt without first having put it on. What your suggesting is that the rules changed to disallow an event after the event has taken place. That's not the case here.
Some other point of view that isnt concerned in this case:
The transport rules say "unless specifically stated otherwise" (or the like). So all we have to argue is that Praets have this statement inherently, since they can buy that NS as a transport while other units dont have it inherently, e.g. cause they can buy upgrades that change their unit type.
And my 2cents to the whole beeing embarked without the embarking action: GW rules are not written by technical writers. Almost every single concept relays on undefined phrases, such as "unit" or "model". Taking the rules exactly word by word therfore requires you to come up with definitions for aspects that have no written definition in a way to satisdy every single rule that could affect the given aspect. This leads to conflicts in more than 50% i gues, therfore: stop taking single words as given defined aspects. If the rules tell you to "move" a vehicle its not the same as "moving" an IC into a challenge. If the rules tell you something is "inside" of something it may or not may the same as beeing "embarked" - use the english language as it is designed: with synonyms - not perfectly distinguishable technical phrases!
</rant>
HANZERtank wrote: Page 80 BRB, Only Infantry models may embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
I got 3 pages into this argument and realized people were glazing past this part of the rule every time, assuming it was something added by the person quoting the rule because it was placed in parenthesis. It's not something they added. The underlined/bolded part of the rule quoted above is, indeed, part of the full and actual rule on page 80. It is why jump infantry can't embark on transports.
Which to the best of my knowledge no one is arguing against. Nobody has claimed that Jump and Jet Pack Infantry can embark - the question is can they start the game already embarked? Since they are not embarking, that rule does not apply.
Its not relevant because it does nothing to establish that the movement phase is the only time units can embark. His statement was that the permission to embark in the movement phase did not prohibit permission to become embark at any other time, that is was not a restriction.
Where in my quote from the BRB mentioned the movement phase?
DJGietzen wrote: Still don't know what your getting at. In th 5th edition codex an overlord could take a fast open-topped, skimmer DT that had a single IC transport capacity. The CCB and the overlord were two different units. The IC rule was not removed because the overlord was a passenger and the IC was not joining the CCB's unit. The 7th edition codex is very different and has no IC rule on the chariot. In either case an overlord on a chariot never had permission to join another unit.
Which tells me you are not reading what I wrote but stopping when you think you understand. In 6th they changed chariots to their own type they did not remove IC at the point so it would have had IC and been a chariot not embarked.
DJGietzen wrote: Being embarked and being treated like you are embarked would be different things. You treat something as X being true only when X is not true but you want things to behave as if it were. Also, not relevant because we are never told to treat the passengers of a night scythe as anything. In this case the only way be can behave if X is true, is for X to actually be true. In this case X is the unit is embarked.
Which it does not say which all of you are stating, that they embark. Where in the deployment rule does it say they are embarked? Remember that no matter what logic says you need a rule to say it. To shoot a weapon I need to have it loaded, logically. Where in the rules does it say the weapons are loaded? The rules do not in fact have to make sense
DJGietzen wrote: The white shirt scenario makes no sense. If you can't put on a white shirt you can't walk into a room wearing a white shirt without first having put it on. What your suggesting is that the rules changed to disallow an event after the event has taken place. That's not the case here.
Another point where you did not read what I wrote. Let me spell it out again. You come in wearing a shirt you are told you cannot put it on, read voluntary embarkation. Where does it say you have to take it off, leave the transport? In this case getting the shirt on you does not have to be done by you, deployed on the transport.
HANZERtank wrote: Page 80 BRB, Only Infantry models may embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
I got 3 pages into this argument and realized people were glazing past this part of the rule every time, assuming it was something added by the person quoting the rule because it was placed in parenthesis. It's not something they added. The underlined/bolded part of the rule quoted above is, indeed, part of the full and actual rule on page 80. It is why jump infantry can't embark on transports.
Which to the best of my knowledge no one is arguing against. Nobody has claimed that Jump and Jet Pack Infantry can embark - the question is can they start the game already embarked? Since they are not embarking, that rule does not apply.
you just said they would start the game "embarked"
so yes, rules forbidding them from embarking most certainly *DO* apply.
you have zero RAW based argument to have a unit be embarked withing a transport when it has a specific restriction on being embarked, regardless of if it embarks pre game or mid game.
there is no way for a unit to get inside any transport without embarking, whenever that embarkation occurs.
The rules state that a unit within 2" can embark. It does not state this as a requirement. The Reserves rules actually state that a unit can start embarked a transport, without being within 2" during the Movement Phase.
BRB wrote:The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of range, the entire unit must stay outside.
That reads as a requirement to me, that a must not a can.
Indeed it is. Now, tell me how how any models would be out of range of a declaration?
Embarked is a form of embark. We have not been told to separate this relationship, so we may not. A unit may not be embarked without taking embark in to consideration.
Which is a logic argument not a rules argument would you care to back this up with a rule? We have also not been told by the rules that there is a relationship, that is a logical assumption nothing more. Find a rule stating you have to embark to be embarked. This is exactly like the IC rules interacting with the chariot. There is nothing that stops it from being in the state of being embarked just from embarking.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, this is a language rule that we do not have redefined in the rulebook. Or, at least none that has been posted, either here or on several other sites.
Could you have found it then, and are just refusing to show it?
Frozocrone wrote:To have climbed a mountain, you must have been climbing a mountain.
To have eaten a meal, you must have been eating a meal.
Are people arguing past and present tense? ...ok
Some are saying that they are not linked, but have yet to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim.
Kind of sad, really, the lengths people will go through to get their way.
HANZERtank wrote: Page 80 BRB, Only Infantry models may embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
I got 3 pages into this argument and realized people were glazing past this part of the rule every time, assuming it was something added by the person quoting the rule because it was placed in parenthesis. It's not something they added. The underlined/bolded part of the rule quoted above is, indeed, part of the full and actual rule on page 80. It is why jump infantry can't embark on transports.
Which to the best of my knowledge no one is arguing against. Nobody has claimed that Jump and Jet Pack Infantry can embark - the question is can they start the game already embarked? Since they are not embarking, that rule does not apply.
you just said they would start the game "embarked"
so yes, rules forbidding them from embarking most certainly *DO* apply.
you have zero RAW based argument to have a unit be embarked withing a transport when it has a specific restriction on being embarked, regardless of if it embarks pre game or mid game.
there is no way for a unit to get inside any transport without embarking, whenever that embarkation occurs.
Problem, by reading the RAW in that way, you no longer have permission to have your infantry in Transports from reserves since you need to follow all the restrictions for embarking.
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement Phase. They cannot voluntarily embark and disembark in the same turn. However, they can embark and then be forced to disembark if their Transport is destroyed.
By making the direct connection that you have to perform an embarking to be embarked in the rules, you are not allowed to have models embarked in reserves unless specifically told to.
All models are forbidden from embarking voluntarily outside the Movement phase. An example of a forced action, in this case disembarking, is when the Transport is destroyed. Thus, the only time a model can be embarked in a Transport in reserves is when it is forced to be embarked by a rule. If you have a choice of not being embarked, you cannot voluntarily choose to have them embarked.
This however, does not address being deployed 'inside' a Transport if it is already on the table.
The drop pod's transport capacity specifically lists a dreadnought. This is a specific exception to the transport capacity rules. It is the transport capacity rules that bar non-infantry model from embarking. By listing the dreadnought in the drop pods's transport capacity they have given permission for a dreadnought to embark upon a drop pod. The Night Scythe has no exception to its transport capacity.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Potential scenario for those who would allow the praetorians in the night scythe. I am playing Inquisition. I have an inquisitor in Terminator Armour that has 3 acolyte henchmen. Those henchmen have a rhino as a dedicated transport. Can the inquisitor be deployed with the henchmen in this rhino?
Can you show me with a rule that permission to carry is the same as permission to embark? permission to embark and permission to carry are two different things.
As for your question Terminator armour gives the owner the bulky special rule. under the rhino under transport capacity it states (looking at blood angels for this if it is different for inquisitions please let me know)
Transport Capacity: Ten models. It cannot carry models with the Bulky, Very Bulky or Extremely Bulky special rules.
Bold the main focus and underlined the part where says cannot carry, it does not say it cannot embark, but if it tried to embark it could not be carried by the transport since the Rhino has a dis allowance of what it can carry. Even to simpily declare it as embarked if it was in reserves means it still cannot be carried by the transport. I hope this helps clear up the difference.
Further Transport Capacities for comparison (thanks Oberron, I was trying to find where the restriction was for Terminators).
Tau Devilfish wrote:Transport Capacity: Twelve models. A Devilfish may transport Drones, but may not transport models with the Bulky, Very Bulky, or Extremely Bulky special rules.
Night Scythe wrote:Transport Capacity: Fifteen models.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yet still has no permission to carry jump units.
That permission is still utterly absent. Until it is shown, jump units cannot be carried.
What if the jump unit has permission based on it's other type since jump units follow the rules for types of jump units and what other units it may be?
Nilok wrote: Further Transport Capacities for comparison (thanks Oberron, I was trying to find where the restriction was for Terminators).
Tau Devilfish wrote:Transport Capacity: Twelve models. A Devilfish may transport Drones, but may not transport models with the Bulky, Very Bulky, or Extremely Bulky special rules.
Night Scythe wrote:Transport Capacity: Fifteen models.
Stormraven Gunship wrote: Transport Capacity: The Stormraven Gunship can carry two seperate units: one unit of up to 12 models in it's cabin, plus a single Dreadnought of any type in its rear grapples. If a Zooming Stormraven Gunship is wrecked or suffers a Crash and Burn! result, the embarked Dreadnought suffers a Strength 10 hit on it's rear armour, if the Stormraven Gunship is Hovering, the hit is Strength 4 instead. The Stormraven Gunship can carry Jump Infantry.
Here, we see that the Dreadnought is classed as embarked. Yet as a Flyer, it must start in reserves. Therefore, you must have embarked that Dreadnought onto the Stormraven (and follow Embarking rules) during deployment.
The last line also specifically states that the Stormraven can carry Jump Infantry. The Nightscythe does not - ergo, Praetorians can not embark on a Nightscythe.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yet still has no permission to carry jump units.
That permission is still utterly absent. Until it is shown, jump units cannot be carried.
What if the jump unit has permission based on it's other type since jump units follow the rules for types of jump units and what other units it may be?
So the explicit StormRaven rule is not required?
So I can Assault having Run, as long as I disdembarked from an Assault Vehicle that turn?
You need permission for the Jump Unit to be carried. The jump unit does NOT have permission, the infantry "portion" does. What happens when you lack permission? You dont get to perform the action.
Basic rules construction here. You need complete permisison, or you dont get to do it.
Nilok wrote: Further Transport Capacities for comparison (thanks Oberron, I was trying to find where the restriction was for Terminators).
Tau Devilfish wrote:Transport Capacity: Twelve models. A Devilfish may transport Drones, but may not transport models with the Bulky, Very Bulky, or Extremely Bulky special rules.
Night Scythe wrote:Transport Capacity: Fifteen models.
Stormraven Gunship wrote: Transport Capacity: The Stormraven Gunship can carry two seperate units: one unit of up to 12 models in it's cabin, plus a single Dreadnought of any type in its rear grapples. If a Zooming Stormraven Gunship is wrecked or suffers a Crash and Burn! result, the embarked Dreadnought suffers a Strength 10 hit on it's rear armour, if the Stormraven Gunship is Hovering, the hit is Strength 4 instead. The Stormraven Gunship can carry Jump Infantry.
Here, we see that the Dreadnought is classed as embarked. Yet as a Flyer, it must start in reserves. Therefore, you must have embarked that Dreadnought onto the Stormraven (and follow Embarking rules) during deployment.
The last line also specifically states that the Stormraven can carry Jump Infantry. The Nightscythe does not - ergo, Praetorians can not embark on a Nightscythe.
By following the embarking rules in Deployment, you are not allowed to embark since it is not the Movement phase.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yet still has no permission to carry jump units.
That permission is still utterly absent. Until it is shown, jump units cannot be carried.
What if the jump unit has permission based on it's other type since jump units follow the rules for types of jump units and what other units it may be?
So the explicit StormRaven rule is not required?
So I can Assault having Run, as long as I disdembarked from an Assault Vehicle that turn?
You need permission for the Jump Unit to be carried. The jump unit does NOT have permission, the infantry "portion" does. What happens when you lack permission? You dont get to perform the action.
Basic rules construction here. You need complete permisison, or you dont get to do it.
The permission for the Storm Raven to "carry" Jump Infantry due to the RAW, not RAI, is redundant and does not give them permission to embark.
No, since there is an explicit restriction that overrides even the Assault Vehicle rule, which prevents you from assaulting after running, regardless of other actions. If you have an explicit restriction that restricts Jump units or Jump Infantry from being carried, overriding their Infantry permission, I would like you to please post it.
Jump Infantry have permission from their Infantry rules, but lack an explicit restriction to override their ability to be carried, just from embarking.
This is identical to Jet Pack Monstrous Creatures still being subject to Bring it Down and Monster Hunter, even though it does not specify Jet Pack or Jet Pack Monstrous Creatures.
Much like MC/Multi Trackers firing two weapons in Overwatch, you have to use existing rules to allow it to happen.
E.g you can either treat Overwatch as a mini shooting phase or not.
1) Treat is as a mini shooting phase and follow all restrictions for it.
2) Don't treat it as a mini shooting phase and allow all weapons to be fired from a single model(so that SM can fire his Bolter, Bolt Pistol and Krak Grenade if he so wishes).
Same thing here for the Praetorians.
During deployment, you either follow Embarking rules as a mini movement phase or you don't.
1) Treat it as a mini movement phase and follow all restrictions (which means Triarch Praetorians can't embark, as there is no specific permission for them).
2) Don't treat it as a mini movement phase and allow anything to embark, such as a Wraithknight using a FA Raider as a personal hover board.
Please define the rules for embarking in gemeral, not the specific subset of "voluntary" embarkation
Both rules work together to grant the permission. The portion about "voluntary" embarking and disembarking is the header rule for the actions and should be taken as a part of both embarking and disembarking.
EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING wrote:Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase.
Embarking wrote:A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model within 2" of its Access Point in the Movement phase - Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests should be taken as normal.
You move your models within 2" of the access point.
This cannot be done in deployment as you cannot measure a model until it is on the table, and once you have placed it, it is deployed and cannot be moved.
This further cannot be done for reserves, since the models are never on the table to be measured and never have permission to move.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frozocrone wrote: Much like MC/Multi Trackers firing two weapons in Overwatch, you have to use existing rules to allow it to happen.
E.g you can either treat Overwatch as a mini shooting phase or not.
1) Treat is as a mini shooting phase and follow all restrictions for it.
2) Don't treat it as a mini shooting phase and allow all weapons to be fired from a single model(so that SM can fire his Bolter, Bolt Pistol and Krak Grenade if he so wishes).
Yep, damned if you do, damned if you don't, Tau always get to shoot their guns.
Same thing here for the Praetorians.
During deployment, you either follow Embarking rules as a mini movement phase or you don't.
1) Treat it as a mini movement phase and follow all restrictions (which means Triarch Praetorians can't embark, as there is no specific permission for them).
2) Don't treat it as a mini movement phase and allow anything to embark, such as a Wraithknight using a FA Raider as a personal hover board.
Which scenarios seem better, 1 or 2?
Neither, since both are incorrect.
Deployment never tells you to embark, and in fact, we are told you can only embark in the Movement phase, so you have no permission to use that rule, you are actually explicitly restricted from doing so. Either the units are deployed 'inside' the transport, still following the Transport Capacity, if you are on the table, or you declare the unit is embarked on a Transport if you are in reserves.
Next, you are still subject to the Transport Capacity and Monstrous/Gargantuan Creatures do not have permission to be carried by Transports like Infantry do, which Jump Infantry gain by following the rule for Infantry.
And there lies your problem. You're only following part of the Transport Capacity rules, which is the quantity of models allowed inside it. You're completely disregarding how you get inside the transport (Embarking).
Frozocrone wrote: And there lies your problem. You're only following part of the Transport Capacity rules, which is the quantity of models allowed inside it. You're completely disregarding how you get inside the transport (Embarking).
You are correct, I am.
Transport Capacity is the quantity of models, and that they are a "single infantry unit".
I am disregarding the embarking rule because I am never told to use it during deployment, and I am explicitly told to only use it during the Movement phase. Instead, I am either told to "deploy 'inside' the Transport" or "declare the unit as embarked".
As a note, this is just a RAW argument and is not HIWPI.
Please show the general embarking and disembarking rule. Not just the one you have shown.
That is both the general EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING rule, and specifically, the Embarking rule which directly related to embarking and I left out the part about removing them from the table and subsequent Transport movement since it was not relevant to the conversation.
Unless you are complaining I left this out:
EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING wrote:However, they can embark and be forced to disembark if their Transport is destroyed.
I also specifically spoke about the voluntary part in my post to easysauce.
you just said they would start the game "embarked"
so yes, rules forbidding them from embarking most certainly *DO* apply.
you have zero RAW based argument to have a unit be embarked withing a transport when it has a specific restriction on being embarked, regardless of if it embarks pre game or mid game.
there is no way for a unit to get inside any transport without embarking, whenever that embarkation occurs.
Problem, by reading the RAW in that way, you no longer have permission to have your infantry in Transports from reserves since you need to follow all the restrictions for embarking.
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise.
Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement Phase. They cannot voluntarily embark and disembark in the same turn. However, they can embark and then be forced to disembark if their Transport is destroyed.
By making the direct connection that you have to perform an embarking to be embarked in the rules, you are not allowed to have models embarked in reserves unless specifically told to.
All models are forbidden from embarking voluntarily outside the Movement phase. An example of a forced action, in this case disembarking, is when the Transport is destroyed. Thus, the only time a model can be embarked in a Transport in reserves is when it is forced to be embarked by a rule. If you have a choice of not being embarked, you cannot voluntarily choose to have them embarked.
This however, does not address being deployed 'inside' a Transport if it is already on the table.
Again, this argument turned into a 'past/present' tense argument.
As I have said before, to have climbed a mountain, you must have been climbing. To be embarked on a vehicle, you must have been embarking.
If you want to declare as being 'embarked' on a vehicle, then you violate the embarking rules that forbid Jump Infantry from entering without permission.
If you want to declare they are 'deployed' in the vehicle, then sure. But they aren't allowed to disembark at all - and if that Nightscythe gets blown up, they'll have no where to go, since the rules only refer to embarked models.
I thought it was a mistake returning to this thread - I was right.
Or, you are involutarily embarking as a result of being deployed. You havent addressed that at all
You still cannot provide rules support that a Jump Unit may be Carried either. That continually gets han dwaved, so often that the only assumption that is left is that it cannot be countered.
thus, the only final argument that can possibly be made by the "Jump Infantry can be carried" side, is that it is a dedicated traansport, and the oft-quoted context removed rule that the "only" limitation is the ones given. Of course, that ignores how the rule is contrsucted and presented, and has also been debunked
In short, RAW AND RAI Jump Infatry dont get to be embarked / embarking / carried UNLESS the vehicle SPECIFICALLY allows it.
Frozocrone wrote: To have climbed a mountain, you must have been climbing a mountain.
To have eaten a meal, you must have been eating a meal.
The problem is you purposely worded that in a way that it has to read that way which is not how embark and embarking read.
Embark is to be on board a vehicle. Embarking is the act of getting on board said vehicle. For your mountain example to be relevant you would have needed to say.
To be on a mountain, you need to have gotten on the mountain.
For your meal analogy:
To have food in your belly, you must have ingested it.
As this is a game with a defined beginning and end starting something in a position already does not in fact require you to pass through your required steps to get there, you can simply be on the mountain, the food can simply be in your stomach, or in this case on the transport they can just be there. Just like the weapons needing ammo or the vehicles needing fuel we just assume that they start that way. As far as the game is concerned deployment is the start of the unit's existence in the game, there is no before nor are there beginning steps. If there were you would need to take dangerous terrain tests for being deployed in dangerous terrain as you clearly moved there, the same could have been said about jinking in 6th you had clearly moved before.
Nilok wrote:
By making the direct connection that you have to perform an embarking to be embarked in the rules, you are not allowed to have models embarked in reserves unless specifically told to.
Well, you are. The Combined Reserve Unit rules handle that.
All models are forbidden from embarking voluntarily outside the Movement phase. An example of a forced action, in this case disembarking, is when the Transport is destroyed. Thus, the only time a model can be embarked in a Transport in reserves is when it is forced to be embarked by a rule. If you have a choice of not being embarked, you cannot voluntarily choose to have them embarked.
Can you demonstrate where declaring them embarked is voluntary on the model's part?
Now, can you demonstrate how a model voluntarily does anything?
This however, does not address being deployed 'inside' a Transport if it is already on the table.
Which doesn't help much for several reasons. A Night Scythe can never be on the table during deployment since it lacks Hover. If being deployed in to a Transport does not count as embarking, than they cannot disembark, and are stuck inside the Transport till it Explodes or Crashes and Burns.
Problems arise when getting nit-picky about GW rules and ignoring tenses and synonyms.
Frozocrone wrote:Much like MC/Multi Trackers firing two weapons in Overwatch, you have to use existing rules to allow it to happen.
E.g you can either treat Overwatch as a mini shooting phase or not.
1) Treat is as a mini shooting phase and follow all restrictions for it.
2) Don't treat it as a mini shooting phase and allow all weapons to be fired from a single model(so that SM can fire his Bolter, Bolt Pistol and Krak Grenade if he so wishes).
You do know there is a rule preventing more than one weapon being fired in any phase, right? Since these two groups only work in the Shooting Phase, it makes for a poor argument.
Frozocrone wrote: To have climbed a mountain, you must have been climbing a mountain.
To have eaten a meal, you must have been eating a meal.
The problem is you purposely worded that in a way that it has to read that way which is not how embark and embarking read.
Embark is to be on board a vehicle. Embarking is the act of getting on board said vehicle. For your mountain example to be relevant you would have needed to say.
To be on a mountain, you need to have gotten on the mountain.
For your meal analogy:
To have food in your belly, you must have ingested it.
As this is a game with a defined beginning and end starting something in a position already does not in fact require you to pass through your required steps to get there, you can simply be on the mountain, the food can simply be in your stomach, or in this case on the transport they can just be there. Just like the weapons needing ammo or the vehicles needing fuel we just assume that they start that way. As far as the game is concerned deployment is the start of the unit's existence in the game, there is no before nor are there beginning steps. If there were you would need to take dangerous terrain tests for being deployed in dangerous terrain as you clearly moved there, the same could have been said about jinking in 6th you had clearly moved before.
Not passing through voluntary steps is not in question. It is bypassing the restrictions that is in question.
Can you demonstrate where in the rules it allows us to bypass the restrictions without permission while at the same time bypassing the process?
'Typically, a model can only fire a single shooting weapon in the same phase, although some models, such as vehicles or monstrous creatures can shoot two or more' does not give a boundary. This isn't a rule/restriction, this is informative. It's also a rule locked into the shooting phase, which has no bearing on the assault phase's Overwatch.
The argument comes from when you follow the Shooting Sequence rules for shooting in the assault phase or not, but it doesn't need to be explored here.
Reread through the rules, all of the restrictions are built into the act of embarkation. If you are not embarking and simply embarked then you cannot retroactively apply said restrictions.
Transport Capacity:
# of infantry that can be carried
Entirety embarked
no jump or jet can embark get on not be on
size
special rules on transport (unit restrictions or allowances)
Embarking & Disembarking
Voluntary actions in movement phase
-Embarking
how to embark in movement
how to mark
how to measure
pg 132
Deployment
"Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings,fortifications, or Transport vehiclesin their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity."
pg 135
Combined Reserve Units
"Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon a Transport vehicle in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together."
As you can see there is no point where they embark it even specifically states they are deployed embarked. If they had said you embark said units before deployment that would be different as you would be embarking and would have to follow such rules.
Only if you move them but that has no bearing on this debate since that's an ingame feature.
Let's take the embarking rules you've posted and how models can only voluntarily embark during the movement phase.
Then, as the deployment rules state, you can deploy units inside Transports if you wish. This is not forced on you, you are not required to do so. This is a completely voluntary action, you can choose to or not to deploy units inside transports.
Show, without referring to Embarking rules, how you can voluntarily embark on vehicles during deployment.
You don't you start embarked as I posted before. Since you are going to try to say you can't be embarked without embarking, without a rule stating this I might add. Give some credence to your stance and tell me how you start in dangerous terrain without entering it.
As you can see there is no point where they embark it even specifically states they are deployed embarked. If they had said you embark said units before deployment that would be different as you would be embarking and would have to follow such rules.
By definition, "embarked" means one has been "embarking" at some point. At least, so far this has not been disproved other than "because I say so"?
Can we define this Reserves declaration a voluntary action on the part of the models, and therefore restricted during deployment? If so, how?
You deploy in terrain, there is no such thing as dangerous terrain. For one unit, it might be dangerous, for another, difficult. I'll also say it again, dangerous terrain is an in-game feature and has no bearing on a pre-game issue.
There is no RAW supporting your stance. To be embarked you must have been embarking. All the rules in the rulebook refer to embarked passengers, which follow Embarking rules, or they're not actually embarked.
I've never said you can be embarked while not embarking, that is your stance. My stance is the exact opposite and doesn't rely on trying to get around past and present tense.
But you know, I'm tired of this. If you want to play it as yes they can, by all means do so, but remember that is a house rule and not RAW.
Wow, seriously, this is still a discussion? You can not put a unit inside a transport without embarking, no matter if it is during deployment or otherwise. In my 10 years of playing tournaments I have never met anyone trying to argue this case.
But by all means, play it that way, I'm sure it's fun not being able to hurt that chapter master with his 1+ FnP that he cannot fail. Warhammer rules always demanded some common sense to smooth out the inconsistencies found when rules lawyering, luckily most people are reasonable.
A vehicle is an in game feature as is embarking..... and anything else that has a rule including the models. There is no RAW to support that the only way to be embarked in to have embarked. There are rules on how to embark as well as how to be deployed embarked, that is the difference. So again how do we get into terrain without entering it? It is the same logic you are using to be in something you must have entered it, by definition. Please explain to me why you would hold the models to embarking during deployment but not entering.
You are making a claim not backed up by the rules, unless the rule actively spell it out it doesn't exist just like fuel and ammo.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yes reasonable like saying the unit can ride in their DT...
Does the transport capacity which is different from embarking rules fit them in? Is so yes.
I still see no answer to my question about terrain even though it is designated before deployment. I have to assume then that you have no problem separating entering from being in which is the difference of tense for a location but you do when people separate tense for vehicles.....
If you want to know my reasoning as to why I think you can deploy into a transport as opposed to embark into said transport look at your vacations. How long does it take you to pack for it with all the bits and pieces you take with you? Now once onsite and the stuff is out there and you have to use your vehicle do you have everything repacked to go from the campsite to the lake to fish, how about from the campsite to the start of the hiking trail? Can you jump in and out of a transport in full gear and get everything packed away safely between in short jumps? This is what you are doing in the field, while wearing full gear and being shot at, getting out and shooting then being able to embark back into the transport for a short move and a disembarkation. You don't have the time to arrange everything like you would while awaiting the beginning of the battle or enroute to said battle.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I answered both of those questions above.
Gravmyr wrote: Do you require units that start in dangerous terrain to take dangerous terrain tests?
I'll make it easy for you:
pg 108
Dangerous Terrain
"in addition, each model must take a Dangerous Terrain test as soon as it enters, leaves or moves within dangerous terrain."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also there is no door, we beam our troops onto the field.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And no I'm not saying you should have to take DT tests I'm pointing out that not separating tenses causes you to do so. You cannot be in terrain without entering it so by the rules you have to if we do not separate the tenses.
Gravmyr wrote: A
Yes reasonable like saying the unit can ride in their DT...
Like a 20 man Crusader squad in their Dedicated Razorback?
or my 50 man blob squad going in their 5 chimeras...
or my 9 man blood claws with terminator leader going in their drop pod...
RAW is clear, some people just dont like it cause they want to put jet pack units in a transport despite being not allowed to do so by RAW, RAI, and common sense.
The RAI argument is that every unit that can take a DT, has the ability to be deployed in that DT with certain loadouts. Obviously if you purchase a 10 man unit of Marines, they can't all fit into a Razerback, but a 5 man unit can.
With Praetorians, there are exactly 0 ways for you to outfit the unit to allow them to fit into their transport with the proposed rules interpretation. So it's reasonable to assume that the writers intended for Praetorians to enter their DT but failed to write in the necessary rules to do so. There's still value in taking a Night Scythe with the Praetorians but it seems odd that they would have the option if they can never enter it, no matter what options you take for the unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nothing resides within the Scythe - they are beamed down.
And if that was the actual rule, it would be no problem. The Transport Capacity of the Scythe doesn't actually state that. The Invasion Beams only deal with disembarking and the Wrecking/Crashing of the Flyer.
Ushtarador wrote: Wow, seriously, this is still a discussion? You can not put a unit inside a transport without embarking, no matter if it is during deployment or otherwise. In my 10 years of playing tournaments I have never met anyone trying to argue this case.
But by all means, play it that way, I'm sure it's fun not being able to hurt that chapter master with his 1+ FnP that he cannot fail. Warhammer rules always demanded some common sense to smooth out the inconsistencies found when rules lawyering, luckily most people are reasonable.
I don't believe anyone is arguing that anyone should play the rules in such a way. However, whenever a counter argument to "to be embarked means you performed an embarking" is presented by applying the rules and argument directly to another case, it is not addressed by using the rules and and instead debated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Or, you are involutarily embarking as a result of being deployed. You havent addressed that at all
You still cannot provide rules support that a Jump Unit may be Carried either. That continually gets han dwaved, so often that the only assumption that is left is that it cannot be countered.
thus, the only final argument that can possibly be made by the "Jump Infantry can be carried" side, is that it is a dedicated traansport, and the oft-quoted context removed rule that the "only" limitation is the ones given. Of course, that ignores how the rule is contrsucted and presented, and has also been debunked
In short, RAW AND RAI Jump Infatry dont get to be embarked / embarking / carried UNLESS the vehicle SPECIFICALLY allows it.
The NIght scythe does not do so. Case proven.
Any actions that you can choose for a model is an action by a model, unless you can prove that pieces of plastic have a will and choice. For an action to be voluntary, you need to have at least two choices and pick one of them by choice. Thus by that argument, you cannot voluntarily be embarked in reserves.
Nor have you shown in the rules, by your argument, how a Jump Monstrous Creature can be affected by Monster Hunter, or provided an explicit restriction from Jump Infantry being carried, instead of jump embarking.
Please define the rules for embarking in gemeral, not the specific subset of "voluntary" embarkation
Rule for "Embark" :
Embarking. A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its Access Points in the Movement phase - Difficult and Dangerous Terrain test should be taken as normal. The whole unit mst be able to embark - if some models are out of range, the entire unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks. remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. if the platers need to measure a range in volving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull.
embarking as defined in the rule book is that quote (there is some more but only talks about movement restrictions that don't apply to the conversation at hand) The rule for embarking and disembarking says
"Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase. They cannot voluntarily embark and disembark in the same turn. However, they can embark and then be forced to disembark if their Transport is destroyed.
Lets replace the word embark with what the rule is (it will sound kinds redundant but still makes sense) "Models can only voluntarily embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its Access Points in the Movement phase or disembark in the Movement phase."
Under combined reserve units "Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together."
Now lets try to put the embark rule in there like we did with voluntarily embarking "Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its Access Points in the Movement phase upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together."
Problems with this new sentence is that it can't happen because no movement phase has happened and can't happen so being embarked(carried) and embark(the rule) are two different things.
If you are simply declared to be embarked that does not mean you did the embarking(rule) in game terms you are just being carried by the transport. It doesn't make much sense in real life terms because they normally go hand in hand (unless someone builds a boat around you that is one way i can think of IRL of being embarked without embarking? but that's a long wait) but in game terms units can be inside vehicles without going through the embarking rule.
Prove a Jump Unit can be carried. Page and graph. No more hand waving. Specific permission.
Would you agree that the Monster Hunter rule applies against a Jump Monstrous Creature and Gargantuan creatures (both the flying and non-flying types)?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nothing resides within the Scythe - they are beamed down.
And if that was the actual rule, it would be no problem. The Transport Capacity of the Scythe doesn't actually state that. The Invasion Beams only deal with disembarking and the Wrecking/Crashing of the Flyer.
That is how it worked in the last edition. There is no reason why it shouldn't work that way this edition... no reason at all .
Ushtarador wrote: Wow, seriously, this is still a discussion? You can not put a unit inside a transport without embarking, no matter if it is during deployment or otherwise. In my 10 years of playing tournaments I have never met anyone trying to argue this case.
But by all means, play it that way, I'm sure it's fun not being able to hurt that chapter master with his 1+ FnP that he cannot fail. Warhammer rules always demanded some common sense to smooth out the inconsistencies found when rules lawyering, luckily most people are reasonable.
I don't believe anyone is arguing that anyone should play the rules in such a way. However, whenever a counter argument to "to be embarked means you performed an embarking" is presented by applying the rules and argument directly to another case, it is not addressed by using the rules and and instead debated.
Interesting you say that, because the case for the separation of embarked from embarking has been performed just as equally, and without some of the other advantages the rules of language provide.
At most, the concept of allowing embarked means you performed an embarking only requires the handwaving of timing, which we've seen GW do for other rules to bypass Deep Strike's timings for certain cases.
There are others who are trying to handwave many of the rules of language in order to allow one unit to catch a ride they used to be able to take.
Any actions that you can choose for a model is an action by a model, unless you can prove that pieces of plastic have a will and choice. For an action to be voluntary, you need to have at least two choices and pick one of them by choice. Thus by that argument, you cannot voluntarily be embarked in reserves.
First you complain about people not addressing the rules and just debating, and then you do the same thing right after that.
Where does it define voluntary actions of a model being what the player chooses?
Oberron, yes, Monster Hunter works against Flying Monstrous Creatures, Gargantuan Creatures and Flying Gargantuan Creatures. Why? Because the first rule for all three says "This is a Monstrous Creature with additional rules."
Now will you please answer mine, and nos' question.
Please show permission (page and paragraph) that allow Jump units (not Jump Infantry, Jump UNITS) to be carried.
Happyjew wrote: Oberron, yes, Monster Hunter works against Flying Monstrous Creatures, Gargantuan Creatures and Flying Gargantuan Creatures. Why? Because the first rule for all three says "This is a Monstrous Creature with additional rules."
Now will you please answer mine, and nos' question.
Please show permission (page and paragraph) that allow Jump units (not Jump Infantry, Jump UNITS) to be carried.
I noticed that you did not say that Monster Hunter works again Jump Monstrous Creatures, could you clarify the use of Monster Hunter on Jump Monstrous Creatures first?
For Jump units with no base types they can not be carried by a Transport because the rule says
"A Transport can carry a single Infatry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's transport Capacity."
and Jump units with no base types are not Infantry, now a Jump Unit with a base type (MC, Infantry and the like) is different then a Jump Unit with no base type.
Gravmyr wrote: Except it's not it goes to prove that the logic is flawed.
Wrong. It proves nothing
Enough with the single line response back up your statements. I notice you try to just make statements and barely if ever actually present any evidence or actually enter into a debate. Say something of worth or don't bother speaking, that's the basis of debate and I believe the ideology behind the tenets of this forum. If you believe that it is different put forth why.
Charistoph wrote: The rules state that a unit within 2" can embark. It does not state this as a requirement. The Reserves rules actually state that a unit can start embarked a transport, without being within 2" during the Movement Phase.
BRB wrote:The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of range, the entire unit must stay outside.
That reads as a requirement to me, that a must not a can.
Charistoph's contention is that you do not have to be in the movement phase to embark. He explains the rules provide permission to embark during the movement phase by being within 2" of an access point but do not create a restriction that would prevent a permission to embark during deployment. Your post failed to address a single thing in Charistoph comment. It failed to show how permission to begin the game embarked in a transport in equivalent to emabrking during deployment. I failed to show that the 2" range requirement applied to a permission to embark other then the one given within the movement phase.
DJGietzen wrote: Still don't know what your getting at. In th 5th edition codex an overlord could take a fast open-topped, skimmer DT that had a single IC transport capacity. The CCB and the overlord were two different units. The IC rule was not removed because the overlord was a passenger and the IC was not joining the CCB's unit. The 7th edition codex is very different and has no IC rule on the chariot. In either case an overlord on a chariot never had permission to join another unit.
Which tells me you are not reading what I wrote but stopping when you think you understand. In 6th they changed chariots to their own type they did not remove IC at the point so it would have had IC and been a chariot not embarked.
Ok, I looked up the FAQ for the old necron codex. You are right. The old units violated the RAW if used as described. The overlord could not embark on the CCB as it was not a transport any more and could not join it because it was a vehicle. Technically the CCB was a defunct unit. It lacked the second profile required by the 7th edition BRB... Thats probably why they changed them in the new codex. I'm not sure how it would have worked in 6th, I don't have my 6th edition BRB any more, but its also not relevant.
DJGietzen wrote: Being embarked and being treated like you are embarked would be different things. You treat something as X being true only when X is not true but you want things to behave as if it were. Also, not relevant because we are never told to treat the passengers of a night scythe as anything. In this case the only way be can behave if X is true, is for X to actually be true. In this case X is the unit is embarked.
Which it does not say which all of you are stating, that they embark. Where in the deployment rule does it say they are embarked? Remember that no matter what logic says you need a rule to say it. To shoot a weapon I need to have it loaded, logically. Where in the rules does it say the weapons are loaded? The rules do not in fact have to make sense
Not the same thing. loading a weapon and shooting a weapon are not different tense of each other. When the rules described a unit that is embarked they are also be describing a unit that was embarking because that's how present and past tense langue works.
DJGietzen wrote: The white shirt scenario makes no sense. If you can't put on a white shirt you can't walk into a room wearing a white shirt without first having put it on. What your suggesting is that the rules changed to disallow an event after the event has taken place. That's not the case here.
Another point where you did not read what I wrote. Let me spell it out again. You come in wearing a shirt you are told you cannot put it on, read voluntary embarkation. Where does it say you have to take it off, leave the transport? In this case getting the shirt on you does not have to be done by you, deployed on the transport.
"You come in wearing a shirt" presumes that wearing a shirt is a possibility. If we read that as voluntary embarkation then jump units can't wear shirts. Its not possible. They will never come in wearing one because its not possible. The scenario where some one is doing something impossible, and are then told its impossible is absurd.
Here are some immutable facts to remember.
1) You cannot be embarked with out embarking.
2) You cannot disembark with out being embarked.
Charistoph wrote: The rules state that a unit within 2" can embark. It does not state this as a requirement. The Reserves rules actually state that a unit can start embarked a transport, without being within 2" during the Movement Phase.
BRB wrote:The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of range, the entire unit must stay outside.
That reads as a requirement to me, that a must not a can.
Charistoph's contention is that you do not have to be in the movement phase to embark. He explains the rules provide permission to embark during the movement phase by being within 2" of an access point but do not create a restriction that would prevent a permission to embark during deployment. Your post failed to address a single thing in Charistoph comment. It failed to show how permission to begin the game embarked in a transport in equivalent to emabrking during deployment. I failed to show that the 2" range requirement applied to a permission to embark other then the one given within the movement phase.
Here are some immutable facts to remember.
1) You cannot be embarked with out embarking.
2) You cannot disembark with out being embarked.
EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING wrote:Models can only voluntarily embark or disembark in the Movement phase.
The first 'immutable' you gave is incorrect, as has been shown throughout this line of reasoning, both in a permissive rule set and the real world. You, or an object, can be embarked without ever embarking.
In actuality, if you have a choice, you may never embark or disembark outside the Movement phase.
Your argument also disallows any model that starts deployed 'inside' Transports or is declared embarked, unless you are forced by a rule to have the model to embark in reserves, from being able to disembark.
