1) Can you Gate of Infinity out of a vehicle?

2) VV combat squad as they deepstrike right? You don't decide at deployment, you decide when they arrive?

1.) There has been some debate about this - I believe you can Gate out of a Vehicle.

2.) This is correct, you split them on deployment, which is when they DS in this case.

Ok. I figured 1 may have been one of those contested things. We'll dice off each time we play probably, until we bother to debate it and set a house rule.

And thanks for the response.

The wierdboy power that allows the unit to DS lets them get out of a vehicle, mainly because you can't choose what power he uses.

The gate of infinity power states he is removed from the tabletop and then placed again, for this reason I call that you cannot use the power while in a vehicle, since it doesn't give you permission to remove the vehicle he's in and place it again.

I haven't really seen a lot of debate about Gating out of a vehicle. The main argument I've seen is using it in combat. From what I've seen, most people here are fine with it being used from within a vehicle, however, the vehicle would stay where it was.

Isn't a model that is in a vehicle considered to be "on the table"?

DarbNilbirts wrote:Isn't a model that is in a vehicle considered to be "on the table"?

Yes, and In Play, since you can use firepoints on the vehicles to fire weapons of the squad being transported.

And it is not about removing the vehicle, you can not do that because the transport is never a part of the librarians unit.

You remove the unit from the vehicle and DS them somewhere else.

Doom land and attempts power "all units etc." this was rulled as the following

Q: Does the Doom of Malan’tai’s Spirit Leech ability
affect units embarked in transport vehicles? (p58)
A: No.

so why cant they be affected? because there not actually on the table, otherwise they would be affected.

but this can be simplified to this

You cant remove from the table a unit that is not on the table

however, take a look at the homin beacon peice of wargear.
this needs to be on the table in order to work, so if a unit is in transport can it use its homing beacon to allow others to drop in, id say no as its not on the table.

Actually the reason Spirit Leech wouldn't work on an embarked unit, is not that it isn't on the table, but because, it is effectively a shooting attack, and unless a rule specifies, you cannot "shoot" a unit in a vehicle.

Formosa wrote:

Doom land and attempts power "all units etc." this was rulled as the following

Q: Does the Doom of Malan’tai’s Spirit Leech ability
affect units embarked in transport vehicles? (p58)
A: No.

so why cant they be affected? because there not actually on the table, otherwise they would be affected.

you can not shoot a unit that is embarked.

That is why your theory is flawed.
HJ hit the nail on the head.

Happyjew wrote:Actually the reason Spirit Leech wouldn't work on an embarked unit, is not that it isn't on the table, but because, it is effectively a shooting attack, and unless a rule specifies, you cannot "shoot" a unit in a vehicle.

DeathReaper wrote:

Formosa wrote:

Doom land and attempts power "all units etc." this was rulled as the following

Q: Does the Doom of Malan’tai’s Spirit Leech ability
affect units embarked in transport vehicles? (p58)
A: No.

so why cant they be affected? because there not actually on the table, otherwise they would be affected.

you can not shoot a unit that is embarked.

That is why your theory is flawed.
HJ hit the nail on the head.

Happyjew wrote:Actually the reason Spirit Leech wouldn't work on an embarked unit, is not that it isn't on the table, but because, it is effectively a shooting attack, and unless a rule specifies, you cannot "shoot" a unit in a vehicle.

actually before the FAQ alot of people argued that it could (i still cant believe these people thought this but meh), after the FAQ you couldnt, the only logical reason for this, is that a unit not on the table cannot be affected, but thats a minor point anyway.

the main point is, how do you remove something that is not physically on the table? you cant, so while you may activate the power (nothing to stop you) you cant actually pick up any models to place back down.

Aye, Doom isn't really relevant in this case. A better FAQ would be:

Q: Can psychic powers be used on a unit embarked on a transport? (p50)
A: For simplicity’s sake, the answer has to be a firm ‘No, unless the psyker himself is in the unit being transported’

Personally I'd say yes to Gating.

grendel083 wrote:Aye, Doom isn't really relevant in this case. A better FAQ would be:

Q: Can psychic powers be used on a unit embarked on a transport? (p50)
A: For simplicity’s sake, the answer has to be a firm ‘No, unless the psyker himself is in the unit being transported’

Personally I'd say yes to Gating.

oh i dont doubt the power can be cast, im just saying it wont do anything

Formosa wrote:the main point is, how do you remove something that is not physically on the table? you cant, so while you may activate the power (nothing to stop you) you cant actually pick up any models to place back down.

They are on the table (Not physically, but they are embarked in the transport, so they are on the table).

You take them from the transport and DS them. How is that unclear?

If you want to argue that a unit in a transport is not on the table, then an embarked model cannot use any powers or abilities, nor can they shoot from a fire point.

The vanguards can combat squad if theybare deployed at the setup. But if they are held in reserve, they may not split up.

Units that can Combat Squad, do so when they are deployed to the table, whether it be from a drop pod, deep striking, or walking on.

Happyjew wrote:If you want to argue that a unit in a transport is not on the table, then an embarked model cannot use any powers or abilities, nor can they shoot from a fire point.

they can use abilities in transports because the rules say they can, and can use fire poit because the rules say they can, but they are not actually on the table, the transport is.

Im just useing my eyes here, if the unit isnt acutally on the table and has no rules that say they can interact with the game while not on the table, then they cannot, by the same logic as useing gate in a transport, can i not use it in reserve? no because im not on the table.

but this is all moot anyway, i found the part in the BRB that leads me to believe im correct

page 66 "embarking"

"when the unit embarks it is removed from the table and placed aside etc"

So its clear the unit inside is not actually on the table at all, therefore it cannot be removed from the table to use the gate power.

Formosa wrote:

Happyjew wrote:If you want to argue that a unit in a transport is not on the table, then an embarked model cannot use any powers or abilities, nor can they shoot from a fire point.

they can use abilities in transports because the rules say they can, and can use fire poit because the rules say they can, but they are not actually on the table, the transport is.

Im just useing my eyes here, if the unit isnt acutally on the table and has no rules that say they can interact with the game while not on the table, then they cannot, by the same logic as useing gate in a transport, can i not use it in reserve? no because im not on the table.

but this is all moot anyway, i found the part in the BRB that leads me to believe im correct

page 66 "embarking"

"when the unit embarks it is removed from the table and placed aside etc"

So its clear the unit inside is not actually on the table at all, therefore it cannot be removed from the table to use the gate power.

This also means that things like Regimental Standards or other area-of-affect gear do not work from inside of a transport. Nor does Null Zone, for that matter.

Unit1126PLL wrote:This also means that things like Regimental Standards or other area-of-affect gear do not work from inside of a transport. Nor does Null Zone, for that matter.

Exactly this.

Bottom line is that Gate can be used since the unit is embarked on the transport.

The line about removing them from the table is just there to show you how the power works, it is not an intrinsic requirement of using the power.

except they have faq's and rules that say they do

The only issue with gate is there is no unit to remove from the table, again im not doubting the ability to cast it, as the rules are clear on that, im saying that because the unit is not on the board it gains no benefit, you cannot gate from reserves as you are not on the table, this is similar, as you are not on the board.

Thankfully this is not one of those grey areas.

Gate says remove unit (or just lib) from the table, this means they must be on the table, page 66 tells us the unit is not on the table.

This one happened to us:

A gate mishap caused the libby and squad to be rolled back to deepstrike. So what happens when a gating libby and squad gets pushed back to deepstrike later?
When do they come in on the table, there is no longer any starting point for the ibby to measure 24´ from.

Formosa wrote:except they have faq's and rules that say they do

The only issue with gate is there is no unit to remove from the table, again im not doubting the ability to cast it, as the rules are clear on that, im saying that because the unit is not on the board it gains no benefit, you cannot gate from reserves as you are not on the table, this is similar, as you are not on the board.

Thankfully this is not one of those grey areas.

Gate says remove unit (or just lib) from the table, this means they must be on the table, page 66 tells us the unit is not on the table.

"The Librarian and any unit he is with are removed from the tabletop and Immediately placed back within 24 inches..." P.57 SM codex.

how do we know where the 24 inch range is measured from if the models are not on the table?

We measure from the hull of the vehicle that they embarked upon.

Removing the models from the table is not a condition of the power working.

So the power is cast, we take the models that were in the transport, and DS them within 24 inches.

The 'apples' are removed from the tabletop and Immediately placed back within 24 inches...

If there are no 'apples' on the tabletop, how can you place them back?

If you look at a table with no 'apples' on it, you cant remove and place back 'apples,' its not possible.

Removing the models from the table is not a condition of the power working.

What you have said here, while not intentioned I hope, is that you can choose NOT to remove the Librarian from the table (forget vehicles for a second), while still placing a librarian back within 24 inches. You now have 2 librarians, because the first part of the rule "remove from the table" you apparently dont have to follow. IE, you cant place something back that you havent removed in the first place.

The " removed from the tabletop" describes what you do with the unit. If the unit is embarked, they are already not on the tabletop so you move onto the placement of the unit within 24 inches of the vehicle.

It is impossible to have 2 librarians.

The Librarians unit is within the vehicle, as they can still interact with the game.

You cast the power, then place them on the table within 24 inches of the vehicle, as that is where we are told to measure to if we have to check range to the Librarian or the unit.

DevianID wrote:The 'apples' are removed from the tabletop and Immediately placed back within 24 inches...

If there are no 'apples' on the tabletop, how can you place them back?

If you look at a table with no 'apples' on it, you cant remove and place back 'apples,' its not possible.

The apples are on the table.

They are within the bag on the table...

DeathReaper, the rules told you to remove the 'apples' from the table earlier, and place them ASIDE. The 'apples' were not placed in the 'bag,' as you were good and when you removed them from the table you placed them ASIDE like you were supposed to and not in the 'bag.'

The Librarians unit is within the vehicle, as they can still interact with the game.

Incorrect. The librarian's unit is embarked in the vehicle; embarked per the useage defined in the rules. Embarked unit have a limited interaction in a defined fashion with the game.

The way your quote reads, you are saying that because the unit can shoot from a fire point in the shooting phase, they can assault in the assault phase. You fail to point out that the only reason they can shoot is because embarked units are allowed that one feature in a limited capacity from limited fire points, NOT because they are a unit on the board--They are specifically NOT a unit on the board, there is a rule telling you this.

DevianID wrote:The 'apples' are removed from the tabletop and Immediately placed back within 24 inches...

If there are no 'apples' on the tabletop, how can you place them back?

If you look at a table with no 'apples' on it, you cant remove and place back 'apples,' its not possible.

If the apples are in a futuristic APC on the table top, you can remove them from the tabletop by removing them from the APC.
If you don't actually have to physically place the apples inside the APC, but just pretend that they are in there, then removing the apples from the tabletop would just involve pretending that the apples are no longer inside the APC.

What you have said here, while not intentioned I hope, is that you can choose NOT to remove the Librarian from the table (forget vehicles for a second), while still placing a librarian back within 24 inches.

No, that wasn't what he was saying at all.

What he was saying is that 'remove the librarian from the table top' is simply explaining that the librarian leaves the table. Whether you physically pick up a model or not makes no difference... but either way, there is nothing in that statement that would allow you to place a different model in place of the one that is Gating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DevianID wrote: The 'apples' were not placed in the 'bag,'...

...but we all pretend that they were.

It can disembark then assault, yes.

Also some units do not even need to disembark to assault in the assault phase (Like an Ork with a Boarding Plank).

The casting of GoI does not hinge on you removing them from the table.

So you are allowed to cast it.

once cast you remove them from the table.

If you cant then the game breaks, as we are not told what to do after this.

Or:

If they are embarked you simply pretend that they were removed and the game works just fine.

As Yakface said "So ultimately we have one interpretation in which the rules do not work at all and then we have another interpretation that works just fine. As you can't play with the former why is it worth even arguing about?"

insaniak, the models were already removed from the tabletop when they embarked, and you are trying to remove them from the tabletop for a second time.

Can units embarked in one transport embark into an empty transport within 2 inches? You seem to think so it would appear, as you are ignoring the part in the rules telling you to remove the unit from the table when embarking, and inserting a part in the rules that lets you count the embarked unit on the table.

AKA, you seem to advocate that an embarked unit is on the table despite the rules saying it is not, measures from any point on the vehicles hull for any reason, and can be removed from the table while embarked even though they are not on the table.

DevianID wrote:insaniak, the models were already removed from the tabletop when they embarked, and you are trying to remove them from the tabletop for a second time.

Can units embarked in one transport embark into an empty transport within 2 inches? You seem to think so it would appear, as you are ignoring the part in the rules telling you to remove the unit from the table when embarking, and inserting a part in the rules that lets you count the embarked unit on the table.

AKA, you seem to advocate that an embarked unit is on the table despite the rules saying it is not, measures from any point on the vehicles hull for any reason, and can be removed from the table while embarked even though they are not on the table.

So where is your rules support for the power just failing? Since you're advocating it this hard, surely you have some.

DevianID wrote:insaniak, the models were already removed from the tabletop when they embarked, and you are trying to remove them from the tabletop for a second time.

No, the models were removed from the tabletop, but we pretend that they are inside a vehicle that is still on the table. In which case when I next try to remove them from the tabletop, I need to 'remove' them from the transport, because I'm pretending that they are in there.

Can units embarked in one transport embark into an empty transport within 2 inches?

They could if the rules didn't forbid units from embarking and disembarking on the same turn.

...measures from any point on the vehicles hull for any reason, ...

No idea where you get that idea from.


The other two are more or less correct, though. The unit is not physically standing on the table, but they are still on the table for most in-game purposes.

Insaniak, in your gate example, just like my embarking example, the unit never disembarks. Its just removed from the table, apparently.

we pretend that they are inside a vehicle that is still on the table

Why are we pretending a unit that is not on the table is still on the table? Does this work with destroyed units too? Is the power to pretend so great that it can place units removed from the table back on the table? Do you see why I find flaws in your rules arguement?

'Embarked' is what the unit is. 'Embarked' is a condition that a unit that is not on the table can find itself in. When 'Embarked,' the unit off the table is allowed to do some very specific things, things that get explained how they work with a unit that is not on the table. Gate does not do any of this.

DevianID wrote:Insaniak, in your gate example, just like my embarking example, the unit never disembarks. Its just removed from the table, apparently.

If the unit doesn't disembark, it never left the vehicle.

The problem is that you are trying to look at a single rule in a vaccuum. That way lies madness.

Why are we pretending a unit that is not on the table is still on the table?

Because in most cases transport vehicle models aren't designed so that you can physically put the models inside.

Does this work with destroyed units too?

Why would it?

Is the power to pretend so great that it can place units removed from the table back on the table?

Sorry, you lost me there...

Do you see why I find flaws in your rules arguement?

No, I'm a little puzzled as to why you're trying to build this up into such an issue when it's really not.

DevianID wrote: Why are we pretending a unit that is not on the table is still on the table?

Well we pretend they are still on the table, because they co-exist with the vehicle.

So sayeth the FAQ:

Q: Must passengers fire at the same target that their
vehicle is firing at? (p66)
A: No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire
at a different target.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2170001a_40k_Rulebook_FAQ_Version_1_5_January_2012.pdf

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:The vanguards can combat squad if theybare deployed at the setup. But if they are held in reserve, they may not split up.

They combat squad when they are deployed, they can be combat squaded when deploying from reserve and can be split into 2 5 man squads.there is a common misreading of the poorly worded space marine FAQ that makes it seem like you can't but what it is actually saying is that you cannot combat squad while in reserve.

See this thread for more information: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/387294.page

DeathReaper wrote:

DevianID wrote: Why are we pretending a unit that is not on the table is still on the table?

Well we pretend they are still on the table, because they co-exist with the vehicle.

So sayeth the FAQ:

Q: Must passengers fire at the same target that their
vehicle is firing at? (p66)
A: No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire
at a different target.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2170001a_40k_Rulebook_FAQ_Version_1_5_January_2012.pdf

and again no one argues this, we are saying the clearly obvious, that they are not on the table, therefore cannot be removed from it to DS bac in, nothing in that FAQ changes that they are not actually on the table.

To the people saying "The casting of GoI does not hinge on you removing them from the table", sorry but this is wrong, we cant just pick and choose which part of the rules we listen to., gate does indeed hinge on being able to be removed from the table, as it is actually one of its conditions

The FAQ means they coexist with the vehicle; if the vehicle is on the table then so are they as far as the rules are concerned.

Formosa wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

DevianID wrote: Why are we pretending a unit that is not on the table is still on the table?

Well we pretend they are still on the table, because they co-exist with the vehicle.

So sayeth the FAQ:

Q: Must passengers fire at the same target that their
vehicle is firing at? (p66)
A: No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire
at a different target.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2170001a_40k_Rulebook_FAQ_Version_1_5_January_2012.pdf

and again no one argues this, we are saying the clearly obvious, that they are not on the table, therefore cannot be removed from it to DS bac in, nothing in that FAQ changes that they are not actually on the table.

To the people saying "The casting of GoI does not hinge on you removing them from the table", sorry but this is wrong, we cant just pick and choose which part of the rules we listen to., gate does indeed hinge on being able to be removed from the table, as it is actually one of its conditions

So they are coexisting with the vehicle which is on the table, but they aren't on the table?
So they're both on the table and not?

... Schrödinger's librarian?

Formosa wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

DevianID wrote: Why are we pretending a unit that is not on the table is still on the table?

Well we pretend they are still on the table, because they co-exist with the vehicle.

So sayeth the FAQ:

Q: Must passengers fire at the same target that their
vehicle is firing at? (p66)
A: No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire
at a different target.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2170001a_40k_Rulebook_FAQ_Version_1_5_January_2012.pdf

and again no one argues this, we are saying the clearly obvious, that they are not on the table, therefore cannot be removed from it to DS bac in, nothing in that FAQ changes that they are not actually on the table.

To the people saying "The casting of GoI does not hinge on you removing them from the table", sorry but this is wrong, we cant just pick and choose which part of the rules we listen to., gate does indeed hinge on being able to be removed from the table, as it is actually one of its conditions

Wow, really? This is just silly. So they aren't there, yet they can fire weapons, activate powers, be damaged by exploding vehicles, etc?

They are "on the table" in that they are deployed and in play. They are removed from the tabletop as this called a tabletop war game. Using GW grammar to try and twist rules is both silly and universally laughed at as GW has a long and distinguished history of writing vague rules that have never been proofread.

By your logic, someone with a squad of 5, that actually can put them in the transport, is allowed to use this power, but someone using a squad of 10 that cannot fit them in (or has glued doors shut) cannot?!

This is great to know, as all of my transports do have open doors, so mine will be on the table and I gain an advantage as I now have access to an ability and use that no one else does.

EDIT: Page 66 BRB recommends that you have a model "surf" on top of the transport to show that it is in the vehicle. People who follow this suggestion do get to use the power, as per your twisty little logic string, while those that do not cannot? You really think this is RAI?

So going by the logic that an embarked squad does not count as being on the table then they can't hold or contest an objective?

rigeld2 wrote:So they are coexisting with the vehicle which is on the table, but they aren't on the table?
So they're both on the table and not?

... Schrödinger's librarian?

Actually I think it would be "Schrödinger's Law of Embarked Models".

So going by the logic that an embarked squad does not count as being on the table then they can't hold or contest an objective?

Correct. A unit off the table cant hold an objective. Unless there is a rule which says it can, and how it does this. Kind of like the rule for embarked units.

Guys, models removed from the table can and do still interact with the rules, IF there are rules that let them do this interacting. But If a rule you want to use on a unit that is removed from the table says "Remove this unit from the table and place it back" you cant just say you will ignore the first part and change the rule to "Place a unit that is off the table back onto the table"

The unit is not on the table. It is embarked. GW goes out of the way to tell us these things. People wanting GoI to work have all been saying that DESPITE contradicting a rule, the embarked unit is still on the table, because they pretend it is. Sorry, but the rule is obvious, the unit is removed from the table when embarked. There is no ambiguity in GW's rules there.

You are allowed to cast GoI. Once GoI is cast remove the unit from the table.

One of two things now happen:

If you can't remove the unit from the table then the game breaks, as we are not told what to do after this.

Or:

If they are already removed the unit from the table by being embarked, you simply pretend that they were removed and the game works just fine.

If one interpretation breaks the game, and another lets the game go on just fine. we must choose the option that does not break the game.

Lobukia wrote:

Formosa wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

DevianID wrote: Why are we pretending a unit that is not on the table is still on the table?

Well we pretend they are still on the table, because they co-exist with the vehicle.

So sayeth the FAQ:

Q: Must passengers fire at the same target that their
vehicle is firing at? (p66)
A: No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire
at a different target.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2170001a_40k_Rulebook_FAQ_Version_1_5_January_2012.pdf

and again no one argues this, we are saying the clearly obvious, that they are not on the table, therefore cannot be removed from it to DS bac in, nothing in that FAQ changes that they are not actually on the table.

To the people saying "The casting of GoI does not hinge on you removing them from the table", sorry but this is wrong, we cant just pick and choose which part of the rules we listen to., gate does indeed hinge on being able to be removed from the table, as it is actually one of its conditions

Wow, really? This is just silly. So they aren't there, yet they can fire weapons, activate powers, be damaged by exploding vehicles, etc?

They are "on the table" in that they are deployed and in play. They are removed from the tabletop as this called a tabletop war game. Using GW grammar to try and twist rules is both silly and universally laughed at as GW has a long and distinguished history of writing vague rules that have never been proofread.

By your logic, someone with a squad of 5, that actually can put them in the transport, is allowed to use this power, but someone using a squad of 10 that cannot fit them in (or has glued doors shut) cannot?!

This is great to know, as all of my transports do have open doors, so mine will be on the table and I gain an advantage as I now have access to an ability and use that no one else does.

EDIT: Page 66 BRB recommends that you have a model "surf" on top of the transport to show that it is in the vehicle. People who follow this suggestion do get to use the power, as per your twisty little logic string, while those that do not cannot? You really think this is RAI?

and once again, they can fire guns use powers etc, because the rules say they can.

they are not on the table because the rules say remove them from the table

the logic your useing there is totally lost on me, at no point have i even refered to the amount of models in a transport, this is a silly useless point i have not made

riding on the roof is to aid you in knowing who is in what, the unit is still off the table as per the rules

The unit is in play and on the table (in the sense of being on the battlefield) for all rules purposes not specified otherwise.

The rules for embarking, movement, shooting, vehicle damage, use of psychic powers and special rules while embarked, holding objectives while embarked, etc. etc. all are consistent on this.

The rules for GoI tell you to remove the models from the table, and this covers both the eventualities that they are or are notembarked in a transport. In the event that they're not (or that one or more are transport-surfing to show they are embarked), you will need to pick up the physical models. In the event that they are not, the unit is still being removed from the area of play.

Formosa, Devian - guess you missed the FAQ saying they coexist.

If one is on th etable then by definition so is the other, as they coexist as far as the rules are concerned.

The unit is in play and on the table (in the sense of being on the battlefield) for all rules purposes not specified otherwise

Mannahnin, why do you believe this? Because, after all, they cant embark another vehicle while embarked, they dont take morale checks, they cant be targeted by things that are not shooting attacks that do not even require LOS, ect ect. All they can do is what the rules say an embarked unit can do--things you pointed out like shooting from a fire point, scoring, disembarking, using a few psychic powers.

After all, you cant even use abilities that require LOS while embarked in a vehicle.

Nos, like I said to Mannahnin, if they coexist, then why is the unit not hit by template attacks on the vehicle? Why does Gate not also remove the vehicles that the libby is coexisting with? No, coexisting DOES NOT mean they are on the table for all rules.

You must not know what the definition of co-exist is.

Gate does not also remove the vehicles that the libby is coexisting with because the libby can not join the vehicle so it can never be a part of the Libby's unit.

The unit is not hit by template attacks on the vehicle because they are not under the template, they are inside of the vehicle that is under the template.

Which of these would you guys use, 1 or 2?

You are allowed to cast GoI. Once GoI is cast remove the unit from the table.

#1: You can't remove the unit from the table so now we are stuck.

Or:

#2: If the models are already removed from the table by being embarked, you simply pretend that they were removed.

Which choice are you going to make?

DevianID wrote:

The unit is in play and on the table (in the sense of being on the battlefield) for all rules purposes not specified otherwise

Mannahnin, why do you believe this? Because, after all, they cant embark another vehicle while embarked, they dont take morale checks, they cant be targeted by things that are not shooting attacks that do not even require LOS, ect ect. All they can do is what the rules say an embarked unit can do--things you pointed out like shooting from a fire point, scoring, disembarking, using a few psychic powers.

Stop and have a look at the things you just posted... and then have a think about the fact that the unit is in a vehicle.

Removing the unit from the table is not intended to remove them from play. It is just to represent the fact that the unit has entered the vehicle.

Nos, like I said to Mannahnin, if they coexist, then why is the unit not hit by template attacks on the vehicle?

Because if the unit was hit by attacks against the vehicle, there would be little point putting units in vehicles...?

Why does Gate not also remove the vehicles that the libby is coexisting with?

Because sharing a space on the board does not make them the same unit.

Devian - because the models arent under the template. Just have a check - are they under? No? Then theyre not hit

You keep referring to the vehicle being removed as well, however you keep failing to remember gate only removes the unit.....

However when asked "are they on the table?" you say "yes", because they coexist with something on the table, and must also be on the table otherwise they cannot be coexisting.

Positionally they coexist. They're still separate units but the vehicle acts as the marker for where the unit is located, for as long as it's embarked.

Devian:
Personal criticisms and condemnations are rude, violations of Rule 1, and make your argument look weaker for having to resort to them. Don't do it. -Mannahnin
Simply put, you destroy my transport and I will claim the squad inside didnt suffer any damage since they are not on the table at the moment of their transports destruction.

Also, how do you explain a GK librarian casting shrouding while moving inside a flying transport...he is according to you not even on the table.


Talk about taking a simple game rule that follows common sense and logic and completely gakking it up and why, to prove REDACTED FOR MORE RUDENESS. -Mannahnin

I'm with Devian on this one. The GoI wording seems to be very precise (much more so than a lot of GW rules). Taken as read, when a unit embarks on a transport it is no longer in play in the same way as foot slogging infantry. The whole "co-existing" thing to me seems very specific for the shooting phase and the act of following the specific rules for firing from transports (hence the use of the word "temporarily"). It doesn't necessarily follow that the unit embarked on a vehicle can do anything that debussed infantry can do.

Regardless of what is intended when one puts a unit in a vehicle, the wording of the rule says that they are taken off the table.

Welp, I'm sorta interested here just so's I can figure out of my Veil of Darkness crypteks attached to my Immortals can vorpal out of a Night Scythe if things get sticky.

I'm not sure yet, need more posts with apples...

Temporarily means "until you disembark"

Flinty wrote:Taken as read, when a unit embarks on a transport it is no longer in play in the same way as foot slogging infantry.

Except that's not really true. They're still in play, they just don't interact with anything that requires LOS (other than shooting attacks if the vehicle has fire points) and can't be directly targeted by most in game effects due to being inside a vehicle.

They're still 'on the board'. You just remove the physical models, because there is no room to cram them inside the transport vehicle in most cases.

insaniak wrote:

Flinty wrote:Taken as read, when a unit embarks on a transport it is no longer in play in the same way as foot slogging infantry.

Except that's not really true. They're still in play, they just don't interact with anything that requires LOS (other than shooting attacks if the vehicle has fire points) and can't be directly targeted by most in game effects due to being inside a vehicle.

They're still 'on the board'. You just remove the physical models, because there is no room to cram them inside the transport vehicle in most cases.

Except there no on the board, as the embarkation rules tell us there not, being unable to cram them into a transport has nothing to do with it.

Devian:
Personal criticisms and condemnations are rude, violations of Rule 1, and make your argument look weaker for having to resort to them. Don't do it. -Mannahnin
Simply put, you destroy my transport and I will claim the squad inside didnt suffer any damage since they are not on the table at the moment of their transports destruction.

Also, how do you explain a GK librarian casting shrouding while moving inside a flying transport...he is according to you not even on the table.


Talk about taking a simple game rule that follows common sense and logic and completely gakking it up and why, to prove REDACTED FOR MORE RUDENESS. -Mannahnin

this is all well and good, however the things you have stated are covered by the rules that tell you how a unit interacts with a transport, this is why were saying to remove an already removed unit isnt possible.

the way it works seems to be this

Cast gate (as you are allowed, nothing bars the power being used)
Remove unit from the table and then imediatly deep strike it back in, now this is where it breaks down, as the unit has already been removed from the table, it cant be removed again.

Now short of a new FAQ i cant see any other way of doing this

So casting while in a transport breaks the game?

Simply put, you destroy my transport and I will claim the squad inside didnt suffer any damage since they are not on the table at the moment of their transports...

Well we know that units embarked in a transport take a S4 hit (each model individually on a 4+) in closed topped vehicles and a 3+ in open topped vehicles... So you are definitely wrong there. To me not knowing such a simple rule or choosing to ignore it doesn't help your case much at all. In fact I'd go as far to say this shows you don't understand.

So a unit that is not on the table can take damage?

Normally no, unless there is a rule that has them take damage.

Still ignoring that they coexist, meaning if the transport is on the table then so are the models inside.

still ignoring thats the shooting phase, as it clearly states so


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:So a unit that is not on the table can take damage?

yes because the rules say so (but only in this instance it seems), i admit it doesnt make much sense, but this is 40k were all on about lol

Formosa wrote:still ignoring thats the shooting phase, as it clearly states so

There's something in the FAQ that restricts that statement to the shooting phase?

I don't see it - could you point it out to me?

He is obfuscating the issue now that he has been exposed.

Outta here .

rigeld2 wrote:

Formosa wrote:still ignoring thats the shooting phase, as it clearly states so

There's something in the FAQ that restricts that statement to the shooting phase?

I don't see it - could you point it out to me?

yeah sure.

Q: Must passengers fire at the same target that their
vehicle is firing at? (p66)
A: No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire
at a different target.


there you are, now can you show me where you can shoot out of a transport outside of the shooting phase, without a specific rule allowing it (like sweep attack from cron lord)

That FAQ does not restrict them to co-exist with the vehicle only in the shooting phase.

The FaQ shows that the unit, as long as they are embarked, is "temporarily co-existing with the vehicle"

So based on the people claiming they are not on the table and therefore are unable to cast GOI. Were you to walk up to me with your nice new shiny Chaos Decimator and puncture through my Rhino, as my models 'are not on the table' I can laugh off your attempts to heavy flamer them?

Whilst embarked they are represented on the table by the transport vehicle, they are affected by in game effects such as explosions, they may assault and all that jazz. Anyone trying to claim that as the actual models themselves are not on the board and as such this should affect the use of a power you are perfectly entitled to cast is having a laugh.

Don't quote me and try and draw me into an argument about it because this is the bottom line. You are perfectly entitled to cast GOI from inside a transport, this little self-created loophole in the rules in a futile attempt to say otherwise is both annoying and pretty pathetic.

Tara

Formosa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Formosa wrote:still ignoring thats the shooting phase, as it clearly states so

There's something in the FAQ that restricts that statement to the shooting phase?

I don't see it - could you point it out to me?

yeah sure.

Q: Must passengers fire at the same target that their
vehicle is firing at? (p66)
A: No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire
at a different target.


there you are, now can you show me where you can shoot out of a transport outside of the shooting phase, without a specific rule allowing it (like sweep attack from cron lord)

The FAQ says absolutely nothing of the sort - you are making that up. The parenthetical statement has no relating to the shooting phase, just a flat out statmeent that they are temporarily coexisting

it does say it in fact, as the only time you can fire out of a transport is in the shooting phase, and in that phase they temporarily exist within it for the purposes of shooting, othewise the caveat of it being temperary would mean nothing at all, had they stated "no, the unit co-exists with the transport, but can fire at a seperate unit" there would be no argumant here.

As to people who keep saying thing like this
"So based on the people claiming they are not on the table and therefore are unable to cast GOI. Were you to walk up to me with your nice new shiny Chaos Decimator and puncture through my Rhino, as my models 'are not on the table' I can laugh off your attempts to heavy flamer them?"

No, because as stated many many times before, the special rule allows you to affect the unit and thus over rules the BRB, the unit is still off the table, the rule just allows you to affect it.

The problem with gate is it asks you to remove an already removed unit, no one seems to have come up with a reason for why the unit would be on the table (to be clear, in the movement phase) after the BRB (page 66) states they are removed

It does not say "in the shooting phjase they temporarily coexist"

You are making that bit up

It says they temporarily coexist. Nothing else. As long as they unit is embarked they temporarily coexist.

Well I've crumbled already because this is ridiculous, are they not a viable KP either if they are killed whilst embarked? As the individual models are not physically on the table?

Have no idea what your reaching for but whatever it may be it is not there. They are represented on the table by the transport they are in. End of. You would request that your opponent balances his nicely painted squad on top of his transport in order to fulfill the requirements you seem to think are neccessary? The power is ok to use then?

I admire your persistance but this is getting embarassing now.

Back in 4th edition there was a BIG argument here that troops had to be disembarked to hold objectives... same muddled type of thinking.

Wild boar, why would you think they are not a kill point if destroyed? Also, if the vehicle is representing them, it is because they are not there, right? You claim we are using a rule loophole, but you are removing something that has been removed. You don't move something that has already been moved, so why do you think 'removed' works different?

The logic for gate working, it seems, is that despite embarking rules removing them from the table, it is apparently felt that the game breaks if you don't let the gate remove the unit from the table a second time.

I am saying it is silly to let gate players remove their unit twice, if they cast the power nothing happens. Just like if they cast a shooting power and can't shoot this turn.

And nos, as pointed out, 'temporally Co existing' does not mean the unit is on the table. The unit is off the table, remember that rule? Also, if they were Co existing for being on the table specifically, as you claim but not said as such in the rules, then things like lightning from the stormlord would hit them.

I have similar exasperating times trying to drill things into my 3 year old.

They are on the board, they are in the transport. Agreed? If not stop reading now.

If you do agree then please explain what basis you have for denying use of GOI. They may do all the things that other units may do in terms of gameplay, obviously within the guidlines of embarked units. Which incidentally includes casting psychic powers.

If you're actually expecting me to place my models on the transport so they are 'on the board' as you seem to think is relevant, long walk, short pier springs to mind.

DevianID wrote:The logic for gate working, it seems, is that despite embarking rules removing them from the table, it is apparently felt that the game breaks if you don't let the gate remove the unit from the table a second time.

The game does break - what rules tell you how to handle it? You've even said that nothing stops the power from being cast.
Now.
Find the rule to handle what happens next.

I am saying it is silly to let gate players remove their unit twice, if they cast the power nothing happens. Just like if they cast a shooting power and can't shoot this turn.

Well, no, that's different. Because PSAs actually state that they can't be used if the unit can't fire.
I don't see any restriction for GoI - can you point one out?

And nos, as pointed out, 'temporally Co existing' does not mean the unit is on the table. The unit is off the table, remember that rule? Also, if they were Co existing for being on the table specifically, as you claim but not said as such in the rules, then things like lightning from the stormlord would hit them.

False - the lightning on the Stormlord is a shooting attack and cannot hit a unit inside a transport. Bad red herring, bad!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Formosa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Formosa wrote:still ignoring thats the shooting phase, as it clearly states so

There's something in the FAQ that restricts that statement to the shooting phase?

I don't see it - could you point it out to me?

yeah sure.

Q: Must passengers fire at the same target that their
vehicle is firing at? (p66)
A: No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire
at a different target.


there you are, now can you show me where you can shoot out of a transport outside of the shooting phase, without a specific rule allowing it (like sweep attack from cron lord)

Erm - I don't care about shooting... but where does it say the shooting phase in that FAQ? It says they are a separate unit and as a consequence of that can fire at a different target. Cause, effect. There's nothing limiting that cause to ONLY be related to that effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/452631.page#4342160

Relevant to this thread as well.
Keep arguing against it though.

insaniak wrote:

Flinty wrote:Taken as read, when a unit embarks on a transport it is no longer in play in the same way as foot slogging infantry.

Except that's not really true. They're still in play, they just don't interact with anything that requires LOS (other than shooting attacks if the vehicle has fire points) and can't be directly targeted by most in game effects due to being inside a vehicle.

They're still 'on the board'. You just remove the physical models, because there is no room to cram them inside the transport vehicle in most cases.

I see where you're coming from, I just think that being in a transport is a separate state of play to being "on the board", in a similar way that units in reserve can sometimes use their powers but are not quite in play or on the board. Trying to step back for a moment I guess that for me it comes down to what other things you can do from inside a transport. You can't necessarily do the whole range. In terms of casting psychic powers, fair enough you can certainly do shooting attacks, but only if the thing has fire points and the shooting attack follows those specific rules. You can't move inside a transport, you can only disembark, again a very specific action. You can't assault out of transports, you have to disembark and then assault (but ony if the vehicle rules let you).

Units in a vehicle can't typically take damage. Even when a vehicle is destroyed you're effectively applying the damage as the models are replaced on the tabletop.

Therefore there is no underlying requirement for the rules to allow you to take all actions at all times. Maybe this is one of those times.

In terms of the intent of the games designers, I'm not big on all codices, are there any other teleportation powers that can be used out of a transport?

Regarding the whole "temporary" thing from the FAQ there is nothing in the text that definately pins down when "temporary" starts and finishes. As the FAQ point is specifically discussing unit shootin I interpret it to mean that they are only there for their shooting phase and I don't think there is anything in there that contradicts that view. Equally there is nothing to stop it from meaning that the "temporary" extends beyond the shooting phase to the whole time the unit is being transported, so its not terrbly helpful here to be honest

Flinty wrote:Even when a vehicle is destroyed you're effectively applying the damage as the models are replaced on the tabletop.

Except that is not how the rules work. The models take the damage, THEN are placed on the table.

"Models embarked in a vehicle are not on the table." This way leads to madness.

Flinty wrote:Units in a vehicle can't typically take damage.

Ah if only, my poor guard regularly die inside their transports. Curse those overheating plasma guns!
Now how do I remove them as a causality if they're already removed from the table. The mind boggles...

nosferatu1001 wrote:It does not say "in the shooting phjase they temporarily coexist"

You are making that bit up

It says they temporarily coexist. Nothing else. As long as they unit is embarked they temporarily coexist.

Correct it doesnt say it, but it does say

Q: Must passengers fire at the same target that their
vehicle is firing at? (p66)
A: No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire
at a different target.

Now other than the shooting phase, when can i fire at something?

Now some of you are kind of acusing me of ignoring the rules or not listening, however page 66 does clearly state that you remove the models from the table when embarking, you can leave a model on top of the transport to represent what is inside, the unit is still off the table though, some people are saying things like this " Which incidentally includes casting psychic powers." Again we are not saying the power cant be cast, as it clearly can, the rules govern that, we are saying it has no effect.

The crux of this seems to be this

Can you cast Gate of inifnity when in reserve? no, of course not, because of several reasons, one of which is the unit is not on the table

So overheating plasma doesn't remove models?
What basis do you have for the power not doing anything. There's no such allowance in GoI.

And again - you're failing to separate cause and effect. The effect is that they can fire at different targets. The cause is that they coexist.

Where is your rules basis for the coexisting not being always on?
Do teleport homers fail to function while embarked?
Do other special powers that require the model to be on the table?

Please cite rules.

Formosa - and, again, you are ignoring that the parenthesis is simply a blanket, unrestricted phrase around them coexisting

While they are embarked, they coexist. This is tmeporary because when you disembark you no longer coexist, making it a non permanent state

Your conclusion has no basis in language or rules, which shoudl be a big clue that it isnt a valid conclusion to reach

@rigeld2 - Overheating plasma weapons do cause casualties because the models are still in play, and indeed are temporarily co-existing with the vehicle, at least for the duration of the shooting phase.

@Grendel - please note the use of the word "typically".

@nos - Or alternatively while they are embarked they are off the table, except for the specific action of shooting. Your conclusion is equally unsupported with regard to the "temporary" statement. your interpretation is valid, but so is mine.

So since they are off the table, then any wargear that has a bubble ceases to work (except in the Shooting phase). Additionally, an embarked Troop unit would not be able to control an objective, as the unit is not within range.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Formosa - and, again, you are ignoring that the parenthesis is simply a blanket, unrestricted phrase around them coexisting

While they are embarked, they coexist. This is tmeporary because when you disembark you no longer coexist, making it a non permanent state

Your conclusion has no basis in language or rules, which shoudl be a big clue that it isnt a valid conclusion to reach

Its talking about the shooting phase quite clearly, as i states shooting several times, im not ignoring it.

Removing something from the table twice is not possible we all know this, all the silly examples of plasma guns etc. all overrule the lack of being on the table, same as ap3 negates a 3+ save, one overrides the other, GOI has no such basis.

The models temporarely exist in a transport in the shooting phase as the FAQ states, as its just one phase its temporary, otherwise it would say "the unit always coexists" and the BRB wouldnt even mention removing the models from the table, this is evident as i cannot find anywhere in the BRB that states that models "co-exist" with a transport, there is no need, we have already been told there not on the board.

So what your argument boils down to then, is that the unit is not on the board and only temporarily is on the board during the Shooting phase?

Formosa wrote:Its talking about the shooting phase quite clearly, as i states shooting several times, im not ignoring it.

You are ignoring the fact that the FAQ is not limiting its statement to the shooting phase.
Or you're deliberately mis-stating or misreading.

You're ignoring that your interpretation means that any bubble wargear ceases to work while in a transport.
Same with bubble effects like BA Priest FnP.
You also have no rules support for saying GoI can be cast but would have no effect.
The power is cast - now resolve it. What rule are you using to say that the power has no effect - GoI certainly doesn't provide for that possibility.

Formosa - irrelevant, as the FAQ is not limited to the shooting phase

No, Flinty, your supposition is less valid - you are applying a restriction that is neither implied or stated, and is thus less valid than the more general statement.

Flinty wrote:@rigeld2 - Overheating plasma weapons do cause casualties because the models are still in play, and indeed are temporarily co-existing with the vehicle, at least for the duration of the shooting phase.

But... How do I remove the models as a casualty if they've already been removed? Doesn't that just negate the second attempt at removal (casualty)?

rigeld2 wrote:

Flinty wrote:@rigeld2 - Overheating plasma weapons do cause casualties because the models are still in play, and indeed are temporarily co-existing with the vehicle, at least for the duration of the shooting phase.

But... How do I remove the models as a casualty if they've already been removed? Doesn't that just negate the second attempt at removal (casualty)?

there not casualties, there just off the table and need to be removed becuase plasma weapons state so, thus overriding the other rule.

You are ignoring the fact that the FAQ is not limiting its statement to the shooting phase.
Or you're deliberately mis-stating or misreading.

I could say the same of you.

You're ignoring that your interpretation means that any bubble wargear ceases to work while in a transport.
Same with bubble effects like BA Priest FnP.
You also have no rules support for saying GoI can be cast but would have no effect.
The power is cast - now resolve it. What rule are you using to say that the power has no effect



As far as i was aware BA priest FNP didnt apply to the unit outside a transport??

The rule im applying the page 66 Embarkation, it states the models are removed from the tabletop, i am also applying the rule from GoI, that tells you to remove the unit from the tabletop, how do we remove the unit a 2nd time?

Q: Must passengers fire at the same target that their
vehicle is firing at? (p66)
A: No, they are a separate unit (albeit they are
temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire
at a different target

The FaQ says shooting and temporary, how can it apply to a phase other than shooting?
Also this still does not state they are bought back onto the table, just that in the shooting phase they temporarely "co-exist" with the transport, for the purposes of shooting and psy powers.

What rules do you follow to remove a model from play that's off the table? Could you cite them for me?

Sang Priests don't have any rule excluding the bubble while in vehicles, but your rule makes it not work.

And you haven't cited once - despite repeated requests - where the restriction to the shooting phase is in that FAQ. Posting it again is worthless.

I think that, with laws, a rule is only as good as the spirit in which it is written.

There are tons of examples in the rulebook where GW outright states that some things are done within the game to represent something in the battle that can't physically be represented with inanimate plastic models. When I embark a squad of marines onto a Rhino, they are not teleporting back to the strike cruiser. They're taking a seat in the Rhino. Since I can't smash a plastic figure into a plastic Rhino with no doors or space to fit them, I set them aside or "remove them from the table". Because where else would I put them on the table? I can't have the models stay where they are AND have them be inside a transport. Removing embarked units from the table is a necessary step because of the physical limitations of using plastic models to REPRESENT a PRETEND battle.

BRB p 13
Wobbly Model Syndrome
"In cases like this we find it is perfectly acceptable to leave the model in a safer position, as long as both players have agreed and know its 'actual' location."

BRB p. 21
When are models in Cover?
"This is intentionally generous, and it represents the fact that the warrior, unlike the model, will be actively trying to take cover..."

BRB p 24
Remove Casualties
"Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty, even models that are completely out of sight or out of range of all of the firers. This may seem slightly strange, but it represents the fact that the real action on the battlefield is not as static as our models. In reality the warriors, both the firers and the targets, would be moving around and real bullets have a nasty habit of ricocheting or simply going through covering terrain!"

BRB p. 36
Assaulting through cover
"...warriors who are assaulting through cover are subject to deadly salvoes of close range fire as they slowly struggle to get to grips with their foe and may be ambushed by foes that are ready for them. To represent this, if an assaulting unit..."

BRB p. 39
Allocating wounds
"...all of the models in the target unit can be hit, wounded and killed, including those that are not engaged. This represents the fact that each fighter is contributing his shots and blows to the swirling combat while warriors are rushing forward to replace their comrades that fall under the blows of the enemy."

GW has a long history of poorly-written and vague rules. The rulebook does, however, do a great job of explaining how things in a pretend battle are represented using our models and terrain. I can't comprehend the rigidity of someone who reads "remove from the table" as anything other than "set aside for now" when talking about embarkation. How can you or anyone you play with even enjoy the game if you need explicit, written permission from GW for every move you make? Wouldn't it be simpler to think through things logically about what the writers of the rules intended and the reasoning behind those rules?

Not to mention the long list of rules for which the embarked models count as being in play, and the rulebook tells us how to handle measuring for them.

Page 66 telling us that their radius powers still work, and are measured from the edge of the hull. An embarked unit being able to hold an objective, again measured from the edge of the hull. An embarked Aspiring Champion being eligible to be possessed by a Greater Daemon, which is then placed within 2" of a hatch. Etc., etc.

The FAQ answer is just telling you that the REASON the unit can shoot at a different target from the vehicle is always a separate unit, and they just coexist positionally while the unit is embarked.

I was reading the SM FAQ and came across something that could pertain to this as well. For Vortex of Doom, if libby fails psychic test, you place the blast marker over his head and it does not scatter.

SM FAQ states that when the libby is embarked on a transport and fails the psychic test for Vortex of Doom, you place the blast marker over the vehicle the libby is embarked in.

Clearly, you do this because the librarian is inside the transport.

Nivek5150 wrote:I was reading the SM FAQ and came across something that could pertain to this as well. For Vortex of Doom, if libby fails psychic test, you place the blast marker over his head and it does not scatter.

SM FAQ states that when the libby is embarked on a transport and fails the psychic test for Vortex of Doom, you place the blast marker over the vehicle the libby is embarked in.

Clearly, you do this because the librarian is inside the transport.

Poppy cock clearly the libby is in the pocket of warp space inside the vehicle that makes him shoot from it but not get shot in return!?!?!?!

To say my KFF does not work from inside a vehicle is funny. to say my weird boy can not blow up his own vehicle with 'eadbanger while embarked also is funny. so to GOi out of it sure why not

Nivek5150 wrote:I think that, with laws, a rule is only as good as the spirit in which it is written.

There are tons of examples in the rulebook where GW outright states that some things are done within the game to represent something in the battle that can't physically be represented with inanimate plastic models. When I embark a squad of marines onto a Rhino, they are not teleporting back to the strike cruiser. They're taking a seat in the Rhino. Since I can't smash a plastic figure into a plastic Rhino with no doors or space to fit them, I set them aside or "remove them from the table". Because where else would I put them on the table? I can't have the models stay where they are AND have them be inside a transport. Removing embarked units from the table is a necessary step because of the physical limitations of using plastic models to REPRESENT a PRETEND battle.

You have the right of it, good Sir. Sometimes a model has to be placed off the table, while we still pretend it's right there in the transport. Any effect it is allowed to use will require us to once again pretend that the model is in that transport despite physically being elsewhere.

So on topic, while the libby model isn't physically in the transport you can surely also pretend to remove him from it once he uses GoI.

Mannahnin wrote:Not to mention the long list of rules for which the embarked models count as being in play, and the rulebook tells us how to handle measuring for them.

Page 66 telling us that their radius powers still work, and are measured from the edge of the hull. An embarked unit being able to hold an objective, again measured from the edge of the hull. An embarked Aspiring Champion being eligible to be possessed by a Greater Daemon, which is then placed within 2" of a hatch. Etc., etc.

The FAQ answer is just telling you that the REASON the unit can shoot at a different target from the vehicle is always a separate unit, and they just coexist positionally while the unit is embarked.

And thats great, lots of special rules defining how bubble effects work when embarked. GoI isn't a bubble power and I don't think anyone has been saying that the models are not in play, merely not "on the table" as required for the GoI to activate properly.

I also don't agree that a statement clearly defining an event in the shooting phase can be interpreted as being more valid for a "general" case than for the specific case. Is it mentioned anywhere else that the unit shares the space with the transport?

Regarding plasma gets-hot wounds, the models are off the table already, When they take their plasma wounds they are removed from play as well as being off the table.

Flinty wrote:Regarding plasma gets-hot wounds, the models are off the table already, When they take their plasma wounds they are removed from play as well as being off the table.

"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty." (Remove casualties, Pg 24, emphasis mine)
Therefore, if model is not on table, it cannot be removed as casualty.

Formosa wrote:The FaQ says shooting and temporary, how can it apply to a phase other than shooting?
Also this still does not state they are bought back onto the table, just that in the shooting phase they temporarely "co-exist" with the transport, for the purposes of shooting and psy powers.

#1) temporary refers to the unit being embarked. They are not just embarked for the shooting phase, they are embarked for the movement, shooting and assault phases. They "temporarily co-exist with the vehicle" as long as they are embarked. to read it any other way ignores the context of the unit being embarked, and is not linguistically correct.

#2) The part about them being removed is not a requirement of casting GoI.

So once we cast GoI and find out we can't remove the unit from the table what do we do?

We have a choice, Either:

We can't remove the unit from the table then the game breaks, as we are not told what to do after this.

Or:

If the models are already removed from the table by being embarked, you simply pretend that they were removed and the game works just fine. (This is backed up by the unit co-existing with the vehicle and the vehicle being on the table, so the unit must be "On the table" even though the models are off the table.)

If one interpretation breaks the game, and another lets the game go on just fine. We must choose the option that does not break the game.

Flinty - and, again, the FAQ does NOT limit it just to the shooting phase - it makes a blanket, general statement that they coexist.

It is "temporary" because you can disembark, meaning they no longer coexist

Any other reading is simply making gak up with no written support.

We can't remove the unit from the table then the game breaks, as we are not told what to do after this

The game does not break. Cast gate. Done. Then, as one action, remove the models from the table and place them back. Cant do this, so done. Nothing else happens in gate. So, cast your power, it does nothing, and you move on. Its like casting a movement or shooting power when you cant move or shoot--just because you can cast the power does not remove external restrictions from preventing actions.

Nos, just to be clear, why does temporarially co-existing with a vehicle mean the models are on the table? Co-existing is not related to being on something by any defination that.

If bacteria co-exist with us in our colon, and we are on a table, then according to you the bacteria co-existing with us are on the table. However, this is not the case. The bacteria are not on the table, they are infact off the table. The bacteria and us are still seperate things, just like the vehicle and embarked unit are still seperate units.

DevianID wrote:Then, as one action, remove the models from the table and place them back. Cant do this, so done.

Uh, no.

This is the same issue as we had back before GW clarified what happens to units needing to come on from Reserve but being unable to do so. If the rules tell you to do something, and something else is preventing you from doing so, you can't just say 'Ok, then' and move on unless there is another part of the rule that tells you to do that.

Gate tells you to remove the models from the table. It doesn't mention what you should do if that is not possible for some reason... and so there is no possible action to take in that situation. The game breaks at the point where you are forced to take an action but are unable to do so.

rigeld2 wrote:What rules do you follow to remove a model from play that's off the table? Could you cite them for me?

Sang Priests don't have any rule excluding the bubble while in vehicles, but your rule makes it not work.

And you haven't cited once - despite repeated requests - where the restriction to the shooting phase is in that FAQ. Posting it again is worthless.

The removed from play part i have no idea, i assume your asking someone else, as i havent said removed from play, just removed from the table (page 66)

Sang priests was just something i was unaware of to be honest, but the brb tells us how bubble effects work so its fine.

I have cited many times what part of the FAQ refers to the shooting phase, your chooseing to ignore it.

Now a question for you

How do i shoot outside of the shooting phase? As the FAQ mentions the shooting phase (REf: "taget their vehicle is fireing at")

Formosa wrote:I have cited many times what part of the FAQ refers to the shooting phase, your chooseing to ignore it.

False. We've asked what part of the FAQ restricts the co-existing to the shooting phase. You haven't shown that once.
Yes the FAQ refers to the shooting phase - but the wording does not restrict the co-existing statement to the shooting phase.

How do i shoot outside of the shooting phase? As the FAQ mentions the shooting phase (REf: "taget their vehicle is fireing at")

Death or Glory.
Inquisitor Coteaz has "I've been expecting you"

And the mentioning of the shooting phases irrelevant. It is not a restriction that they only ever co-exist in the shooting phase.

So you're also saying that wargear that isn't present on the table (and other non wargear abilities) can affect the battle?
That's... kind of a big deal.

Edit:

The removed from play part i have no idea, i assume your asking someone else, as i havent said removed from play, just removed from the table (page 66)

Actually no. It was addressed to you. yes, it was a new page but it was the post directly after yours.
Model with Gets Hot fails its save. It's off the table because it's in a Chimera.
How can we remove it from play when it's already off the table?

If tech support is helping me with my computer and tells me to restart but I've already shut it down, what do I do?

Nivek5150 wrote:If tech support is helping me with my computer and tells me to restart but I've already shut it down, what do I do?

The answer is obvious.
Ignore Tech Support.
Since of course you can't restart a powered off box, their instruction cannot be followed.
Duh.

Formosa wrote:
How do i shoot outside of the shooting phase? As the FAQ mentions the shooting phase (REf: "taget their vehicle is fireing at")

You're still missing the point. Yes, the FAQ mentions the shooting phase... Because it is answering a question about shooting.

But the part about the squad coexisting with the vehicle is not tied to the shooting phased. It's just a clarification of why the rules work as they do.

Inquisitor Coteaz of the Grey Knights can shoot outside of the shooting phase.

There, can we settle that now?

He can't shoot outside of the shooting phase while embarked, though, as "I've been expecting you" requires Los.

Also, this wasn't mentioned yet, but earlier I said Co-existing things don't share the same position. So an embarked unit coexisting with the vehicle is not on the table by virtue of coexisting.

DevianID wrote:He can't shoot outside of the shooting phase while embarked, though, as "I've been expecting you" requires Los.

Also, this wasn't mentioned yet, but earlier I said Co-existing things don't share the same position. So an embarked unit coexisting with the vehicle is not on the table by virtue of coexisting.

The underlined is false.

If something coexists, it exists in the same place, as it is coexisting.

Formosa wrote: As the FAQ mentions the shooting phase (REf: "taget their vehicle is fireing at")

quite simple; you are making an unwarranted assumption

Rulebook_FAQ wrote: Q:must passengers fire at the same target that their vehicle is firing at

A:no, they are a separate unit (albeit they are temporarily co-existing with the vehicle) and so can fire at a different target

notice that in their reasoning, the verb hasn't yet completed "are...coexisting". all you can gather from this is that the action has started, but hasn't yet completed. Now the question is what will end that action. You state that the shooting phase is what ends the action, since the question is regarding the shooting phase, but that is erroneous. To imply that would mean that from the sentence "Bob and Bill are both 21 and so they can drink", I would infer bob and bill being 21 only applies to them drinking.

So if we can't find what ends the state of action, or starts it for that matter, in the question, we have to assume it will remain until something changes that state. phrases such as that in GoI cause the unit inside the transport and the transport itself to no longer be co-existing, since we are told to take the unit off the table, not the transport as well.

DeathReaper wrote:

DevianID wrote:He can't shoot outside of the shooting phase while embarked, though, as "I've been expecting you" requires Los.

Also, this wasn't mentioned yet, but earlier I said Co-existing things don't share the same position. So an embarked unit coexisting with the vehicle is not on the table by virtue of coexisting.

The underlined is false.

If something coexists, it exists in the same place, as it is coexisting.

As above. Devian - you are denying what coexisting actually means