You have to be embarked to disembark.

The rules for disembarking do not apply to models in any state other than embarked, so if praetorians are begining the game in a NS no matter what you want to call it they are embarked.

JI are not allowed to embark, therefore they cannot be in a NS.

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.

so models wanting to leave an NS have to have been EMBARKED on it.I do not see permission for any other way that models can disembark. So sure your praetorians are on the NS but not embarked, now they can never leave it. GG thanks for playing at a handicap.

This is not even a RAW discussion, the RAW is clear the models are embarked if they are put in a transport before the game begins, otherwise you could never DISEMBARK them. Also unless you can find a game definition of 'carry' being something other than embarked, carry does not mean anything from a rules point.

tldr- If you think models begin the game in a transport are not embarked, then models may never disembark from any transport as disembarkation is a rule that only is given permission to embarked models.

DJ you are missing the point if your logic is that A must lead to B, therefor there is no possible way to get to B without first going through A. Apply said logic to dangerous terrain. The rule states that any unit that enters it must take a dangerous terrain test. To be deployed into said terrain you must enter it, per english which is what your logic states, do you play that way? Is there any backing to play that way?

You and those that agree with you are stating that there is no way to become embarked without embarking except there is as the units do not exist in any state till the beginning of the game, if they did you would have to only move them toward the board in 6" increments. You would have to wait for your opponent at all the appropriate moments. The game you are about to play only lasts from the start of the first turn to the decided end of the final turn, forfeit, or loss. Since as far as the game is concerned the models simply sprang into being in said state you can very well be embarked without embarking.

Going back to the shirt example yes wearing the shirt is a possibility as only putting on the shirt is limited not wearing the shirt. There was nothing that is stated that keeps you from wearing the shirt. How did you get into it, if someone else put you in the shirt did you put on the shirt? Clearly not yet that is all that was limited.

Your dangerous terrain example is fundamentally flawed.

Dangerous terrain is test on entering, moving through, or exiting.

A) having to embark(or somehow be embarked, which is the past tense of the action to embark) in order to disembark is entirely different from having to enter in order to be deployed into dangerous terrain(only deep strike "deployment" counts as moving, thus entering/moving through).
B) reserves(as flyers must be held in) states that the unit must be embarked(see earlier statement about tenses), which is different from deployment as normal where you simply are where you start(you can "forge the narrative" that either the whole unit passed, or that you already lost poor Jimmy and Francis in moving into position in the poison swap or whatever)

Deployment within dangerous terrain is simply not an analog with preparing reserves as a unit embarked in a transport if any kind(which non-infantry cannot normally do)

Now all that said: i kinda doubt that Praetorians where not intended to be able to ride in their dt. Either the option or the lack of ji allowance on the ns is an oversight(and not the only silly issue in this codex). If you buy a sythe for your Praetorians against me, i will not argue with them actually riding in it(you paid the points for the unit option as opposed to the fa choice, and you paid $ for the model; who am I to deny you from using the units as optioned?)

Nilok wrote:
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.

Actually incorrect. Embarked means you have boarded the boat or ship. The constructing something inside the ship is not Embarking it, it is building it. If you build a ship around it, it still is not Embarked, but it is in the ship.

Nautical terms tend to be precise so miscommunication does not occur during stressful moments. If such a termgets confused, it's usually a landlubber's fault.

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.

Incorrect, the models may not voluntarily Embark outside of the Movement Phase.

Can you prove that the Reserves declaration of Embarked is voluntary on the models part?

Remember your own stipulation on the rules now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
That is ancillary to the debate here

Prove a Jump Unit can be carried. Page and graph. No more hand waving. Specific permission.

JUMP UNITS wrote:Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.

Example using a purely permissive system, class based computer programming.

class Jump_Unit { //nothing in here is related to transports or embarking - Code Monkey }; class Infantry_Unit { protected: //creates permissions for being carried and embarking - Code Monkey bool Can_Be_Carried; bool Can_Embark; public: //sets permissions to have Infantry be carried and can embark to true for safety - Code Monkey Infantry_Unit () : Can_Be_Carried (true), Can_Embark (true) {} }; //the Infantry unit will now follow the rules (inherit) for Jump Unit and Infantry - Code Monkey class Jump_Infantry: public Jump_Unit, public Infantry_Unit { public: Jump_Infantry () { //Sets Transport permissions to false for Jump Infantry - Code Monkey //Changes permissions to restrictions so they cannot be carried or embark - Code Monkey //Can_Be_Carried = false; Duplicate rule, removing - Games Workshop staff Can_Embark = false; } //Why are there so much duplicate code? Better remove it to streamline the rules and besides, Can_Embark should catch everything anyways - Games Workshop staff //PS. We are locking this file - GW //WAAAHHH!! YOU BROKE MY TRANSPORT CAPACITY AND DEPLOYMENT CODE! - Sad, Frustrated Code Monkey //PS. It is "Why IS there so much" you stupid fu };
You will notice that even though Jump Units are not referenced alone regarding Transports, Jump Infantry follow the rules for Infantry and inherit their permissions, including the ability to be carried. The lack of Jump Units being mentioned regarding Transports does not restrict Jump Infantry from still having permission to be carried. However, they also have an explicit restriction that they cannot embark, which was obviously intended to mean they cannot be carried, but failed to write it as such.

Edit: Wow, my programming is rusty. Updated the code to be a little more correct for programming, but less readable to the layman.

Edit Infinity: Is the code better Kel?

PS. Code Monkey is how I think the last Technical Writing guy at Games Workshop feels.

Except that the transport rules specifically state that (jump) infantry do not count as allowable.

So your programing is missing a parameter and thus flawed.

Your programing is flawed.

You are flawed.

You must sterilize.

Sterilize!

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Except that the transport rules specifically state that (jump) infantry do not count as allowable.

So your programing is missing a parameter and thus flawed.

Your programing is flawed.

You are flawed.

You must sterilize.

Sterilize!

I just fixed it up a bit and added the functions to modify the Embark and Carry parameters, my programming is a touch rusty, though the principles are still there.
...Okay maybe really rusty...

Edit: So this is what the Tin Man felt like at the beginning of The Wizard of Oz..

Edit: Oh, and I missed the first part of your post, it specifically states the Jump Infantry are not allowed to embark, not that they are not allowable. So aside from all the programming code I thought you were telling me to rewrite, it is correct.

So if I inherit permission (Can Assault) by disembarking from a land raider, can I still follow (Can Assault) having run?

Or is the lack of permission from one element of the model sufficient to prevent this?

In other words:

Jump Units have no permission to be carried - can it be carried? No.
Infantry Units have permission to be carried (up to capacity in models) - Can an infantry model be carried? Yes

A Jump Infantry Model follows BOTH sets of rules - as given - and so lacks permissiuon to be carried from one portion of the model. As such it is unable to be carried.

Gravmyr - you ignore when the same points are brought up and rebutted, and repeat the same point agaiun. Not playing that game, so I give one line. I have followed the tenets throughout, you just cherry pick in order to present a different position. Youre free to do so, but it casts doubt on your integrity. I will not play y our games, so have fun with that but I will not respond until you have something substantive to add to this conversation.

Funny enough; i redirect you to the second cap: go to 10

Can embark - false. (On my phone, no equals sign).

Prepare reserves, sub set - combined units.

Units in transports - embarked.

Flyers - must be held in reseve.

Jump infantry in a flyer transport results in error, jump infantry cannot embark.

When you get to regular deployment; you go through a similar set where everything seems to function fine until you go to disembark the unit. Once you attempt to disembark the unit the system kicks back a crashing error because the disembark rules are reliant on the unit in the status of "embark" and line 10 shows "can embark - false".

So yes technically a transport without any additional could contain any non-infantry unit; so long as it starts on the table and the non-infantry unit was deployed there(so you couls nesting doll 144 chimeras into 12 chimeras inside of a single chimera)

However everything falls apart the moment you try to do pretty much anything with that transport, or transported unit since most of the rules are reliant on the status of embarked.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So if I inherit permission (Can Assault) by disembarking from a land raider, can I still follow (Can Assault) having run?

Or is the lack of permission from one element of the model sufficient to prevent this?

In other words:

Jump Units have no permission to be carried - can it be carried? No.
Infantry Units have permission to be carried (up to capacity in models) - Can an infantry model be carried? Yes

A Jump Infantry Model follows BOTH sets of rules - as given - and so lacks permissiuon to be carried from one portion of the model. As such it is unable to be carried.

Gravmyr - you ignore when the same points are brought up and rebutted, and repeat the same point agaiun. Not playing that game, so I give one line. I have followed the tenets throughout, you just cherry pick in order to present a different position. Youre free to do so, but it casts doubt on your integrity. I will not play y our games, so have fun with that but I will not respond until you have something substantive to add to this conversation.

You got it backwards here. It isn't a lack of permission from one means it can't it is the permission to follow rules that affect Infantry means it can. It follows the rules for both so that means permission from either lets it able to likewise a restriction on one part is a restriction on the other, but the restriction in this case is just on the embarking part not on the being carried part.. It has the permission to be carried by following the rule for Infantry, it can not go through the embarking process because of the restriction.

Monster Hunter USR affects Jump Monsterous creatures even though it is a jump unit correct?

So again, if I run can I assault, given my scenario?

Yes or No

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So again, if I run can I assault, given my scenario?

Yes or No

My mistake, I misunderstood thought you had a scenario already written out some where else and was just making a short hand of it.

well on page 38 final line "Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase." If you somehow find a way to go around the charge sub-phase and go right into the Fight sub-phase sure you can assault. But assuming a unit with no rules then just the basics if that unit runs in the shooting phase it can not charge, if it can not charge then it will be unable to fight that player turn but not because it has a restriction to fight.

Now if you would be so kind to answer my question: If unit A has a model with the USR 'Monster Hunter' would that unit get to re-roll failed To Wound rolls against a Jump Monsterous Creature?

It was in the post you just quoted. Its the first line

Monster Hunter affects Jump Mc's because Jump MC's follow the rules for MC's.

However, this is different to the scenario as while you do have permission to embark Infantry, the rules also restrict you from embarking Jump Infantry. Essentially, it's saying you canembark/put models in transports, but it limits you to a certain kind.

Much like the run/assault vehicle case, you can assault after disembarking an assault vehicle. But because you ran in the same phase and you can't assault after running (without specific permission), then you can't assault. This means that no rules are broken.

As someone has posted above, the rules are reliant on being embarked and the rules break as soon as you try and do stuff with the unit that was prohibited from being embarked, which is a big no-no.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Monster Hunter affects Jump Mc's because Jump MC's follow the rules for MC's.

However, this is different to the scenario as while you do have permission to embark Infantry, the rules also restrict you from embarking Jump Infantry. Essentially, it's saying you canembark/put models in transports, but it limits you to a certain kind.

Much like the run/assault vehicle case, you can assault after disembarking an assault vehicle. But because you ran in the same phase and you can't assault after running (without specific permission), then you can't assault. This means that no rules are broken.

As someone has posted above, the rules are reliant on being embarked and the rules break as soon as you try and do stuff with the unit that was prohibited from being embarked, which is a big no-no.

Would you agree then that if there was no restriction to Jump Infantry units embarking that they could be embarked on a transport because they follow the rules for Infantry?


Personally I am getting a better understanding from the other side of the fence at this point. Let me ask another question. Do you think that being embarked means you must have gone through the embark rule in some way or form (in accordence to the rules of the game not in language tense)

I think of this as a case where the codex trumps the base rulebook with its "advanced" rules.

It's not a matter of embarking or disembarking or that Praetorians are both jump infantry and infantry.

Do they have a permission to buy a dedicated transport? Yes, they do.
Do the rules allow the unit to begin the game in their dedicated transport? It is implicit in the rule that allows them to buy it in the first place, so the answer is again yes.

So they can zoom in, get beamed down and look cool on the table, because GW thinks so, nevermind the rules that contradict this.

As said, they have the implicit permission of being deployed in the Night Scythe by being able to acquire one as a dedicated transport.

I just wish GW bothered to edit their rules, but it gets in the way of forging the narrative.

Naw - so a unit of 20 Templars can embark their razor back? Yes or no?

There is no implicit allowance here, as too many absurd situations than occur. For example 20 warriors, can hey go in their ghost ark?

Oberron - again, answer tHe full scenario. Not half of it. I disembarked form an assault vehicle, therefore I may assault - it's in the assault vehicle rules. So I may assault, and I may not assault. May I ask,t? Yes or no.

Monster Hunter USR affects Jump Monsterous creatures even though it is a jump unit correct?

Yes, because there is no rule that Monster Hunter does not affect Jump Monstrous Creatures unless stated otherwise. There is however such a rule for jump infantry in a transport.

I assume the Razorback rules limit the number of passengers, the same way Night Scythe does to 15 models. That they didn't bother to specify anything else just shows how sloppy editing they tend to do.

So the answer to you is no, 20 templars cannot be put inside a razorback as there's a limit saying something along the lines of six models with no bulky, very bulky or extremely bulky. There's your restriction.

And I wasn't talking about embarking as that is not what happens with the Night Scythe and Praetorians.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw - so a unit of 20 Templars can embark their razor back? Yes or no?

There is no implicit allowance here, as too many absurd situations than occur. For example 20 warriors, can hey go in their ghost ark?

Oberron - again, answer tHe full scenario. Not half of it. I disembarked form an assault vehicle, therefore I may assault - it's in the assault vehicle rules. So I may assault, and I may not assault. May I ask,t? Yes or no.

Why do you keep asking the same questions if you just dislike the answers that are given, yet refuse to answer questions yourself?

Oberron wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So again, if I run can I assault, given my scenario?

Yes or No

My mistake, I misunderstood thought you had a scenario already written out some where else and was just making a short hand of it.

well on page 38 final line "Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase." If you somehow find a way to go around the charge sub-phase and go right into the Fight sub-phase sure you can assault. But assuming a unit with no rules then just the basics if that unit runs in the shooting phase it can not charge, if it can not charge then it will be unable to fight that player turn but not because it has a restriction to fight.

Now if you would be so kind to answer my question: If unit A has a model with the USR 'Monster Hunter' would that unit get to re-roll failed To Wound rolls against a Jump Monsterous Creature?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It was in the post you just quoted. Its the first line

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So again, if I run can I assault, given my scenario?

Yes or No

The first line of the post your told him to look at is just you repeating your question again, yet you just told him that is was the answer to his question, which it is not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Jump Units have no permission to be carried - can it be carried? No.
Infantry Units have permission to be carried (up to capacity in models) - Can an infantry model be carried? Yes

A Jump Infantry Model follows BOTH sets of rules - as given - and so lacks permissiuon to be carried from one portion of the model. As such it is unable to be carried.

I think I can see what your argument is now. You believe that a lack of permission is the same as an explicit restriction and can override a permission without any explicit restriction, is this correct?

even if starting the game on a transport is not being embarked, no one seems to be bothered that DISEMBARKING is a rule that we are given permission for EMBARKED models to do. There is no permission for models to disembark from any state other than embarked.

therefore if the models are not embarked, they have no rule allowing them to dismebark. ever.

If you believe models on a transport before the game starts are not embarked, then no model may disembark from any transport that it began the game on.

That is obviously wrong.

in the case of NS

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.

you have to be an unit that began the movement phase EMBARKED on the NS to disembark.

If the praetorians are not EMBARKED, they cannot use invasion beams, or any other method of disembarking for that matter as they all are rules that reference embarked units.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Your dangerous terrain example is fundamentally flawed.
Dangerous terrain is test on entering, moving through, or exiting.
A) having to embark(or somehow be embarked, which is the past tense of the action to embark) in order to disembark is entirely different from having to enter in order to be deployed into dangerous terrain(only deep strike "deployment" counts as moving, thus entering/moving through).
B) reserves(as flyers must be held in) states that the unit must be embarked(see earlier statement about tenses), which is different from deployment as normal where you simply are where you start(you can "forge the narrative" that either the whole unit passed, or that you already lost poor Jimmy and Francis in moving into position in the poison swap or whatever)

Deployment within dangerous terrain is simply not an analog with preparing reserves as a unit embarked in a transport if any kind(which non-infantry cannot normally do)

You may want to look at the definitions of the words we are speaking about. Just to make it easier.
enter: come or go into a place
embark: go on board a vehicle
on board: on or in a vehicle

As you can see they are directly related as they both talk about the act of moving onto/into their respective locations. They are both an act the gets you into a location which leaves you in the state of being in said location. Just because there is a special word for the act does not mean that it is somehow more or less than it's counterpart. If you believe that deployment into reserves is different you need to post a rule that tells you that in one case they are treated one way and in another a different. There isn't one there is simply deployed onto the field or not and the state that they are in. You also could not forge the narrative that you lost two models to the terrain as your sheet says how many models are in the unit which would not differ from the models on the table.

I don't believe anyone has said they are not embarked, not sure where you got that. We are saying they start embarked but did not go through an action of embarking, they simply start embarked.

Gravmyr wrote:


I don't believe anyone has said they are not embarked, not sure where you got that. We are saying they start embarked but did not go through an action of embarking, they simply start embarked.

starting embarked is the same as embarking, or being embarked.

You have been quoted the pertinent rules that specifically dis allow jet units from embarking (or being embarked)

that you dont seem to understand how tenses work is not proof that you are allowed to embark or be embarked.

 easysauce wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:


I don't believe anyone has said they are not embarked, not sure where you got that. We are saying they start embarked but did not go through an action of embarking, they simply start embarked.

starting embarked is the same as embarking, or being embarked.

You have been quoted the pertinent rules that specifically dis allow jet units from embarking (or being embarked)

that you dont seem to understand how tenses work is not proof that you are allowed to embark or be embarked.

You're trying way too hard.

 easysauce wrote:
starting embarked is the same as embarking, or being embarked.

You have been quoted the pertinent rules that specifically dis allow jet units from embarking (or being embarked)

that you dont seem to understand how tenses work is not proof that you are allowed to embark or be embarked.

If that is the case then is starting in dangerous terrain requires you to have entered it correct? If you entered it did you take the test and if not why not? Also reread said quotes, it does not disallow them from being embarked it stops them from performing the act of embarking.

Because terrain checks are taken during movement. Deployment is not a move.

Which is not what the rules for dangerous terrain states. It states when they enter the terrain.

BRB, pg 108 wrote:Dangerous Terrain
In addition, each model must take a Dangerous Terrain test as soon as it enters, leaves, or moves within dangerous terrain.

Per your argument to be in something you need to enter it, by the reading of the definitions that you are clinging to. Move or not you entered the terrain, why are you not taking the test?

the sad sad thing is gravmyr, even if we accept your own personal, incorrect definition of what embarked means, it still doesnt mean you get to put jet pack models into a night sythe.


pg 132

"models may be deployed "inside" ... transport vehicles *SUBJECT TO THEIR TRANSPORT CAPACITY*"

does a night scythes transport capacity include jet pack units?

no? then you cannot *DEPLOY* units in them at deployment.

regardless of embarking or not, you are told you can only deploy units in transports if they meet capacity requirements which jet units 100% do not.

 easysauce wrote:
the sad sad thing is gravmyr, even if we accept your own personal, incorrect definition of what embarked means, it still doesnt mean you get to put jet pack models into a night sythe.


pg 132

"models may be deployed "inside" ... transport vehicles *SUBJECT TO THEIR TRANSPORT CAPACITY*"

does a night scythes transport capacity include jet pack units?

no? then you cannot *DEPLOY* units in them at deployment.

regardless of embarking or not, you are told you can only deploy units in transports if they meet capacity requirements which jet units 100% do not.

That's already been hashed. The rules for Transport Capacity grant permission to Infantry units to be on a transport. Jump and Jet are not restricted until you reach the 'embarking' rules. Jump Infantry follow all the rules for Jump and Infantry and thus a Jump Infantry unit has permission to be in a transport but not permission to perform the embarking action as defined by the rules. Therefore, if you do accept that being embarked does not require the rule action of embarking, then Jump Infantry have permission to deploy in a transport since they never performed an embarking action as defined by the rules.

Zimko wrote:
Jump and Jet are not restricted until you reach the 'embarking' rules.

Look again. From the second paragraph of 'Transport Capacity' in the Transport section of the rules:

Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry).

Let's quote the transport rule.

BRB pg 80 wrote:Transport Capacity
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.

And the jump unit rules.

BRB pg 65 wrote:Jump Units
Jump units therefor 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.

As you can see the unit does meet the permission to be carried by the transport. What it does not do is meet the requirement for embarking. Which means they can be carried but cannot embark. Since as far as the rules are concerned they do not embark they simply start embarked, per the reserve rules, they meet the carrying capacity of the transport.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw - so a unit of 20 Templars can embark their razor back? Yes or no?

There is no implicit allowance here, as too many absurd situations than occur. For example 20 warriors, can hey go in their ghost ark?

Oberron - again, answer tHe full scenario. Not half of it. I disembarked form an assault vehicle, therefore I may assault - it's in the assault vehicle rules. So I may assault, and I may not assault. May I ask,t? Yes or no.

What is the Razorbacks transport capacity?


The only scenario you had proposed to me was "

So again, if I run can I assault, given my scenario?

and said nothing about vehicles, I had answered your question. Would you like to modify your question? Also demanding a simple yes or no answer for a complex question is a logical fallacy and is normally a nono

 Ghaz wrote:
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry).

Reread that, it tells you what can be carried in the first paragraph and then limits what can embark. Action vs state.

 Ghaz wrote:

Zimko wrote:
Jump and Jet are not restricted until you reach the 'embarking' rules.

Look again. From the second paragraph of 'Transport Capacity' in the Transport section of the rules:

Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry).

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.


To further show permission for a unit to be embarked on a transport in reserves prior to the start of the game...

Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserves are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserves, in which case they will arrive together.

Again, how do you get in a vehicle if you don't embark? And how do you get out of a vehicle if you don't disembark?

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, how do you get in a vehicle if you don't embark? And how do you get out of a vehicle if you don't disembark?

From the rules 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 grants permission for a unit to be embarked without ever performing the 'embarking' action described in the Transport Capacity rule you quoted.

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, how do you get in a vehicle if you don't embark? And how do you get out of a vehicle if you don't disembark?

Ghaz do you think that rules wise embarking and being embarked are the same thing?

I'm starting to see a pattern on both side's focus point. The two main camps are people who think that embarking and being embarked are two different things rules wise and people who think that embarking and being embarked are the same rules wise. I'm wondering if this is the case.

Oberron wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, how do you get in a vehicle if you don't embark? And how do you get out of a vehicle if you don't disembark?

Ghaz do you think that rules wise embarking and being embarked are the same thing?

I'm starting to see a pattern on both side's focus point. The two main camps are people who think that embarking and being embarked are two different things rules wise and people who think that embarking and being embarked are the same rules wise. I'm wondering if this is the case.

This is essentially the argument. It's taking a little while for everyone to get past some of the other rules like transport capacity and jump infantry units to get to this point but it's really the crux of the debate.

The argument is

con: past and present tense (have to been embarking in order to be embarked

pro: given the opportunity to bypass embarking rules and allow Jump/Jet Infantry to be embarked/deployed

I've made my stance, said my points, I don't want to repeat myself again, I'll wait for the mods to lock this

 Frozocrone wrote:
The argument is

con: past and present tense (have to been embarking in order to be embarked

pro: given the opportunity to bypass embarking rules and allow Jump/Jet Infantry to be embarked/deployed

I've made my stance, said my points, I don't want to repeat myself again, I'll wait for the mods to lock this

Could you answer my two questions was not sure if you did not see them from the previous page?

Would you agree then that if there was no restriction to Jump Infantry units embarking that they could be embarked on a transport because they follow the rules for Infantry?

Do you think that being embarked means you must have gone through the embark rule in some way or form (in accordence to the rules of the game not in language tense)?

1) Yes
2) Yes

Oberron wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, how do you get in a vehicle if you don't embark? And how do you get out of a vehicle if you don't disembark?

Ghaz do you think that rules wise embarking and being embarked are the same thing?

I'm starting to see a pattern on both side's focus point. The two main camps are people who think that embarking and being embarked are two different things rules wise and people who think that embarking and being embarked are the same rules wise. I'm wondering if this is the case.

What I think is happening is that certain people are trying to twist GW's use of the real world definition of 'embark' into a rules definition and are ignoring the fact that its in the 'Transport Capacity' section of the rules and not in the 'Embarking and Disembarking' section of the rules and whatever other problems it causes they just handwave away. Using their logic, an Assault Cannon would be an 'Assault' weapon just because it has the word 'Assault' in its name and ignoring the fact that its not in the weapon profile.

 Ghaz wrote:

Oberron wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, how do you get in a vehicle if you don't embark? And how do you get out of a vehicle if you don't disembark?

Ghaz do you think that rules wise embarking and being embarked are the same thing?

I'm starting to see a pattern on both side's focus point. The two main camps are people who think that embarking and being embarked are two different things rules wise and people who think that embarking and being embarked are the same rules wise. I'm wondering if this is the case.

What I think is happening is that certain people are trying to twist GW's use of the real world definition of 'embark' into a rules definition and are ignoring the fact that its in the 'Transport Capacity' section of the rules and not in the 'Embarking and Disembarking' section of the rules and whatever other problems it causes they just handwave away. Using their logic, an Assault Cannon would be an 'Assault' weapon just because it has the word 'Assault' in its name and ignoring the fact that its not in the weapon profile.

gw's use of embark IS a rules definition though.

Now that you have expressed what you think other people are doing what about yourself? do you think that rules wise embarking and being embarked are the same thing?


Also the assault cannon example is a False analogy logical fallacy.

edit: correct myself.

Oberron wrote:
gw's use of embark IS a rules definition though.

No. Not when its in the 'Transport Capacity' rules and before they even mention Embarking in the rules at all.

 Ghaz wrote:

Oberron wrote:
gw's use of embark IS a rules definition though.

No. Not when its in the 'Transport Capacity' rules and before they even mention Embarking in the rules at all.

So are you saying that if GW uses a word that has a rules definition later on in the book any time that word is used before hand is the common real world use of said word?

Oberron wrote:I'm starting to see a pattern on both side's focus point. The two main camps are people who think that embarking and being embarked are two different things rules wise and people who think that embarking and being embarked are the same rules wise. I'm wondering if this is the case.

Yes, that would be the fundamental debate.

Oberron wrote:The only scenario you had proposed to me was

So again, if I run can I assault, given my scenario?

and said nothing about vehicles, I had answered your question.

He said

So if I inherit permission (Can Assault) by disembarking from a land raider, can I still follow (Can Assault) having run?

You have not addressed this scenario, and it does involve a vehicle.

Naw wrote:I think of this as a case where the codex trumps the base rulebook with its "advanced" rules.

It would be if the Night Scythe said it could carry Jump Pack Infantry in its Transport Capacity rules like the previous version, or if the Praetorians' rules specifically stated they could embark on a Transport.

As has been demonstrated through the use of just general numbers of Transport Capacity, there are many times where a Dedicated Transport cannot actually carry the unit that purchased it. Praetorians are just in the unique position of not being able to embark on to the Night Scythe from the time the unit is purchased.

There is no conflict, because none of the listed rules for either unit specifically counter any Transport rules.

If units had to start the game embarked in their Dedicated Transports, than you would have a case. Alas, for this case, there is no such requirement.

Oberron wrote:I'm starting to see a pattern on both side's focus point. The two main camps are people who think that embarking and being embarked are two different things rules wise and people who think that embarking and being embarked are the same rules wise. I'm wondering if this is the case.

It took you this long to figure it out? I've stated it numerous times up to this point.

And no, embarking and being embarked are not the same rules-wise, but that does not mean there isn't a specific relationship.

As has been repeated numerous times, it is a case of tenses and the relationships they provide. On one end, they say there is no relationship, because "embarked" is never defined as having a relationship with "embark". On the other end, they are saying that the relationship is there due to the simple fact that GW has not provided any rules to actually separate them.

In a way, one group is saying, "well the rules don't tell me I can't separate them, and I think I have to in order to get them to work", while the other is saying, "well the rules don't tell me I can separate them, so I have to find another way to get them to work."

@Gravmyr, I can what you are going for bringing up deploying in dangerous terrain. The difference is that, as Charistoph put it, there is a relationship between embarked and embanking. Something that is embarked = something that was embarking, but this relationship is not present in the langue used for deployment and dangerous terrain tests. Something in dangerous terrain =/= something that was entering dangerous terrain just as something that is on board a ship =/= something that was embarking onto a ship.

 DJGietzen wrote:

Oberron wrote:The only scenario you had proposed to me was

So again, if I run can I assault, given my scenario?

and said nothing about vehicles, I had answered your question.

He said

So if I inherit permission (Can Assault) by disembarking from a land raider, can I still follow (Can Assault) having run?

You have not addressed this scenario, and it does involve a vehicle.

I asked for the scenario he said and what he said was that I had quoted it and it was the first line. But i will answer this new question presented to me.

So if I inherit permission (Can Assault) by disembarking from a land raider, can I still follow (Can Assault) having run?

Lets look at the rules involved with the question.

Assault Vehicle(pg157, a special rule) Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so (even in a turn that the vehicle was destroyed, or in the following turn) unless the vehicle arrived from Reserve that turn." So we do have permission to charge after they disembark

Final line of run (pg38, a basic rule) "Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase."

I am not sure of the RAI answer and the RAW answer is still fuzzy to me but HIWPI I'd let the imperial player assault after running as long as they disembarked from an assault vehicle that didn't arrive from reserves that turn. I do feel like I'm missing something rules wise.

If there is something that I have missed rules wise could you point them out for me?

Charistoph wrote:

Naw wrote:I think of this as a case where the codex trumps the base rulebook with its "advanced" rules.

It would be if the Night Scythe said it could carry Jump Pack Infantry in its Transport Capacity rules like the previous version, or if the Praetorians' rules specifically stated they could embark on a Transport.

As has been demonstrated through the use of just general numbers of Transport Capacity, there are many times where a Dedicated Transport cannot actually carry the unit that purchased it.

No disagreement here. I would not try to put 10 marines in a razorback. And if some units have to contain more models than a transport can carry is just sloppy editing by GW.

Praetorians are just in the unique position of not being able to embark on to the Night Scythe from the time the unit is purchased.

...aaand they are not embarking. The rules don't require it.

Let's just agree to disagree.

Oberron wrote:
I asked for the scenario he said and what he said was that I had quoted it and it was the first line.

But you did quote him, and it was the 1st line of the quote... http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/300/654681.page#7969264 Do you not remember making that post?

 DJGietzen wrote:
@Gravmyr, I can what you are going for bringing up deploying in dangerous terrain. The difference is that, as Charistoph put it, there is a relationship between embarked and embanking. Something that is embarked = something that was embarking, but this relationship is not present in the langue used for deployment and dangerous terrain tests. Something in dangerous terrain =/= something that was entering dangerous terrain just as something that is on board a ship =/= something that was embarking onto a ship.

You just stated that both embarked and embarking are related and that they are not. The argument that has been presented is that by the rules of English you need to embark to be embarked. Similarly to be in something you need to have entered it. Going by the English definitions embarking and entering are literally the same thing with the only difference being location. If by English there is a relationship between embarking and being embarked then there is one between being in terrain and entering it.

You also compared different sections above, you compared embarking and being embarked to dangerous terrain and deployment. You need to compare similar rules, in this case embarking and deployment in a transport to dangerous terrain and deployment into dangerous terrain.

Oberron wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

Oberron wrote:The only scenario you had proposed to me was

So again, if I run can I assault, given my scenario?

and said nothing about vehicles, I had answered your question.

He said

So if I inherit permission (Can Assault) by disembarking from a land raider, can I still follow (Can Assault) having run?

You have not addressed this scenario, and it does involve a vehicle.

I asked for the scenario he said and what he said was that I had quoted it and it was the first line. But i will answer this new question presented to me.

So if I inherit permission (Can Assault) by disembarking from a land raider, can I still follow (Can Assault) having run?

Lets look at the rules involved with the question.

Assault Vehicle(pg157, a special rule) Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so (even in a turn that the vehicle was destroyed, or in the following turn) unless the vehicle arrived from Reserve that turn." So we do have permission to charge after they disembark

Final line of run (pg38, a basic rule) "Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase."

I am not sure of the RAI answer and the RAW answer is still fuzzy to me but HIWPI I'd let the imperial player assault after running as long as they disembarked from an assault vehicle that didn't arrive from reserves that turn. I do feel like I'm missing something rules wise.

If there is something that I have missed rules wise could you point them out for me?

You have missed the need for a specific permission to override a specific restriction

Gravmyr wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
@Gravmyr, I can what you are going for bringing up deploying in dangerous terrain. The difference is that, as Charistoph put it, there is a relationship between embarked and embanking. Something that is embarked = something that was embarking, but this relationship is not present in the langue used for deployment and dangerous terrain tests. Something in dangerous terrain =/= something that was entering dangerous terrain just as something that is on board a ship =/= something that was embarking onto a ship.

You just stated that both embarked and embarking are related and that they are not. The argument that has been presented is that by the rules of English you need to embark to be embarked. Similarly to be in something you need to have entered it. Going by the English definitions embarking and entering are literally the same thing with the only difference being location. If by English there is a relationship between embarking and being embarked then there is one between being in terrain and entering it.

You also compared different sections above, you compared embarking and being embarked to dangerous terrain and deployment. You need to compare similar rules, in this case embarking and deployment in a transport to dangerous terrain and deployment into dangerous terrain.

Ok, so embarking is not the same as being on board. You can find yourself on board with out embarking. The catch is that if you do, you are not embarked. This goes back 4 pages. If you want to believe that being deployed in a ship, or being carried in a ship is not the same as embarking onto that ship you will run into a nest of problems, the biggest being that you will not be able to disembark.

 jokerkd wrote:

Oberron wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

Oberron wrote:The only scenario you had proposed to me was

So again, if I run can I assault, given my scenario?

and said nothing about vehicles, I had answered your question.

He said

So if I inherit permission (Can Assault) by disembarking from a land raider, can I still follow (Can Assault) having run?

You have not addressed this scenario, and it does involve a vehicle.

I asked for the scenario he said and what he said was that I had quoted it and it was the first line. But i will answer this new question presented to me.

So if I inherit permission (Can Assault) by disembarking from a land raider, can I still follow (Can Assault) having run?

Lets look at the rules involved with the question.

Assault Vehicle(pg157, a special rule) Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so (even in a turn that the vehicle was destroyed, or in the following turn) unless the vehicle arrived from Reserve that turn." So we do have permission to charge after they disembark

Final line of run (pg38, a basic rule) "Units that Run in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the following Assault phase."

I am not sure of the RAI answer and the RAW answer is still fuzzy to me but HIWPI I'd let the imperial player assault after running as long as they disembarked from an assault vehicle that didn't arrive from reserves that turn. I do feel like I'm missing something rules wise.

If there is something that I have missed rules wise could you point them out for me?

You have missed the need for a specific permission to override a specific restriction

So you are saying that the specific permission from "Assault Vehicles" USR does not override the specific restriction of the run rule? That does make sense, I'm a bit scattered in my thoughts from bounce back and forth from gardening and in-house activities. I'm also wondering what the relationship between this question with a restriction and a permission for the same thing (able/not able charging after doing X) and embark(restriction on) and being carried(permission through following rules for Infantry).

 DJGietzen wrote:
Ok, so embarking is not the same as being on board. You can find yourself on board with out embarking. The catch is that if you do, you are not embarked. This goes back 4 pages. If you want to believe that being deployed in a ship, or being carried in a ship is not the same as embarking onto that ship you will run into a nest of problems, the biggest being that you will not be able to disembark.

Your side is the only one saying that we are advocating putting models on the transport without them being embarked. They are embarked they simply did not embark to get to that state, both the transport and the unit inside come into being at the same time as far as the game is concerned and the unit comes into being embarked already. There was not a time they existed without them being embarked so how would they have embarked?

SO, to summarise -

Either the unit is embarked without ever embarking, or the unit can not be embarked because that woudl have required embarking.

If in doubt, discuss with your opponent.


Time to give this one a rest.