delete

Good question.
My Ravenguard wants to know the same thing.

Surely models outside of their deployment zone before the 1st turn starts have made a scout move, whether in a vehicle or not

delete

IMO, no, because the rule doesn't state that the unit has to 'move' only that they had to have made a scout redeployment. Ergo, they were in a vehicle that made a redeployment, then they too made a redeployment.

YMMV

Cheers

Andrew

delete

There was a decision in the last FaQ I looked at which asked if the unit inside was subject to any special rules that the vehicle was subject to.

Now I fully admit that this was asked about stunned and shaken results, hence the IMO and YMMV caveats. But the implications have been pretty apparent for this edition, no 1st turn assaults.

Let me ask you this question, has the unit of terminators been moved on the board as a result of the scouts special rule?

Cheers

Andrew

 aidobmac wrote:
How does being in the vehicle that made the scout move count as the embarked unit making the scout move.

(I'm not trying to be a pain i just want something i can go from, so thanks for the responses thus far! )

In the same way a unit in a deep striking drop pod counts as having arrived by deep strike.

Yeah, I'd say definitely no way: GW made every attempt to deny 1st turn charges, I don't think shifting the rules here would be even slightly allowable. You can try it, but I don't see your game with anybody lasting past your attempt at it.

delete

Avoid the drop pod its clear.

The question is: is disembarking separate from deployment and in this case scout movement.


This area is grey, you may have support by RAW due to no specific mention that the unit inside is affected by the Scout Move USR if the transport is the one who did it.

But the majority of the player base would say that RAI is that no you can't.

If a transport moves, do the troops inside count as moving for shooting purposes and such? Yes, so why would they not count as scout moving?

 MikeFox wrote:
If a transport moves, do the troops inside count as moving for shooting purposes and such? Yes, so why would they not count as scout moving?

Because there's no such thing as a scout move.

 MikeFox wrote:
If a transport moves, do the troops inside count as moving for shooting purposes and such? Yes, so why would they not count as scout moving?

Because it specifically says they count as moving when disembarking. It does not specifically say they count as using scout redeploy.

The unit inside did not scout, the transport did. The terminators can assault. This is RAW. RAI does not hold up in any tournament I have ever been to nor has it held up in any friendly game I've ever played or seen played. People who argue RAI IMHO are trying to bend the rules to what they want them to be, not what they are. This is called home grown, which is fine, but not for everyone.

On a side note, some one asked about Raven Guard. There is no possible way to give scout to a Land Raider in a Raven Guard army. Trust me, a friend and I went unit by unit trying to figure out what Raven Guard actually does. The answer is close to nothing. Raven Guard is easily the worst Chapter Tactic IMHO.

Fair enough, until an FAQ comes along.

I will argue that no the terminators are affected by the scout move. There already is a similar FAQ stating that if a land raider comes in from outflank that the people inside can't assault. This is identical to that situation minus it's on the board first turn. Technically the people inside the land raider didn't come in the vehicle did.

icefire78 wrote:
I will argue that no the terminators are affected by the scout move. There already is a similar FAQ stating that if a land raider comes in from outflank that the people inside can't assault. This is identical to that situation minus it's on the board first turn. Technically the people inside the land raider didn't come in the vehicle did.

Not true. The unit inside also arrived from Reserve this turn, you just didn't have to roll separately for it - you only rolled for the transport.

Well technically the vehicle didn't make the scout move. The Terminators granted the vehicle the ability to make the scout move by conferring scout upon it for being a dedicated transport. So technically the terminators are still the scout, whole nother ballgame if the vehicle itself had scout from the get go

 Sothas wrote:
On a side note, some one asked about Raven Guard. There is no possible way to give scout to a Land Raider in a Raven Guard army. Trust me, a friend and I went unit by unit trying to figure out what Raven Guard actually does. The answer is close to nothing. Raven Guard is easily the worst Chapter Tactic IMHO.

And if you join an IC with the unit? i.e. a Captain with Assault Terminators, inside a Land Raider, before deploy. Wouldn't that give Scouts to the unit, therefore to the LR (as a DT to termies) - letting it make a Scout redeploy/outflank?

Saw such idea in another forum. But yeah, Khan letting DTs to get Scouts... man! If Shrike gave Infiltrate to Jump Units as an USR (instead to only a unit he joins), his expensive cost would be quite okay.

How about something along the lines of ...

The dt and its passenger unit are two distinct units.
I can measure to/from both the vehicle and the passengers, therefore I know where they both are.

If I only redeploy the vehicle, that means I didn't redeploy the passengers and if I don't, I can still measure to where they are.

The passengers can't disembark, so I am forced to redeploy the transported unit because I know where it was and is = no assault due to scout redeploy.

I don't get it. If you deepstrike via a transport the unit still classed as arriving by deepstrike. Why would scouting via a transport not be deploying via scout.

icefire78 wrote:Well technically the vehicle didn't make the scout move. The Terminators granted the vehicle the ability to make the scout move by conferring scout upon it for being a dedicated transport. So technically the terminators are still the scout, whole nother ballgame if the vehicle itself had scout from the get go

Well, no - the Land Raider redeployed (stop calling it a move). It has Scout.

Nem wrote:I don't get it. If you deepstrike via a transport the unit still classed as arriving by deepstrike. Why would scouting via a transport not be deploying via scout.

Because Deep Strike has a specific rule saying so. Scout doesnt. Get it now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fuusa wrote:
How about something along the lines of ...

The dt and its passenger unit are two distinct units.
I can measure to/from both the vehicle and the passengers, therefore I know where they both are.

If I only redeploy the vehicle, that means I didn't redeploy the passengers and if I don't, I can still measure to where they are.

The passengers can't disembark, so I am forced to redeploy the transported unit because I know where it was and is = no assault due to scout redeploy.

You can't measure to the embarked unit - you can only measure to the hull of the vehicle.
If you redeploy the vehicle that's all you did.
Since the only deployment the embarked unit has done was being put in the tank and they were not redeployed...

Put it this way: play that scout shenanigans against me, and it's the last time we would play. Seems pretty clear to me that the unit scouted if they're inside their DT

 Homeskillet wrote:
Put it this way: play that scout shenanigans against me, and it's the last time we would play. Seems pretty clear to me that the unit scouted if they're inside their DT

Same here.

What's the point of looking for rules loopholes? GW doesn't hide easter eggs in the rules for the benefit of particularly creative readers. Your're not being a better player by abusing poor wording. If it's obviously an unintentional omission, treat it that way.

 Homeskillet wrote:
Put it this way: play that scout shenanigans against me, and it's the last time we would play. Seems pretty clear to me that the unit scouted if they're inside their DT

Put it this way: Your personal feelings have literally zero to do with how the rules are currently written.
The rules currently allow this to work. I don't think it's intended, but that's how they work.
Perhaps read the tenets of the forum before responding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
If it's obviously an unintentional omission, treat it that way.

Prove that it's obvious. I don't think it's obvious at all.

A unit that deepstrikes via a mycetic spore...

....

The unit has still counts as deploying via deepstrike, even though the spore was utilising the deployment method, not the unit?

 Nem wrote:

A unit that deepstrikes via a mycetic spore...

....

The unit has still counts as deploying via deepstrike, even though the spore was utilising the deployment method, not the unit?

Because there's specific rules saying so. There's nothing like that for Scout.

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
How about something along the lines of ...

The dt and its passenger unit are two distinct units.
I can measure to/from both the vehicle and the passengers, therefore I know where they both are.

If I only redeploy the vehicle, that means I didn't redeploy the passengers and if I don't, I can still measure to where they are.

The passengers can't disembark, so I am forced to redeploy the transported unit because I know where it was and is = no assault due to scout redeploy.

You can't measure to the embarked unit - you can only measure to the hull of the vehicle.
If you redeploy the vehicle that's all you did.
Since the only deployment the embarked unit has done was being put in the tank and they were not redeployed...

That's not what p78 says.

"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicles hull."

Note that you are measuring a range involving the unit aboard the vehicle, not the vehicle itself. This is simply an abstraction that allows the passenger units location to be measured to/from.
Furthermore, it even allows measurement to an individual model, in the case of "bubble effects" that function from within a transport, for eg. emanating from a single model, that is considered to occupy the footprint of the vehicle.

For many of these effects, you are required to measure from/to models and that is what the abstraction is for.

So, lets say I wanted to plot where upon the table all of my units were, in games terms on a graph, I could. I would have 2 units at point x/y.
If, after I do that, I redeploy the vehicle and I plot the location of it and its passengers, I have another point x/y.

Demonstrably, the location of both of these entirely separate units has changed.

Edit, removed an error.

 fuusa wrote:
No-where, afaiaa, in the rules are we told that if a transport redeploys, the passengers have not.
If the passengers start demonstrably at location 1, then subsequently equally demonstrably end up at location 2, how did this happen?
Redeployment of them both.

The bolded is incorrect.
You re-deployed one. The fact that the other is embarked is irrelevant.

Eldrad can re-deploy vehicles as well. Have you argued in the past that embarked units count toward his limit? (If I'm remembering his rule correctly)

rigeld2 wrote:

icefire78 wrote:Well technically the vehicle didn't make the scout move. The Terminators granted the vehicle the ability to make the scout move by conferring scout upon it for being a dedicated transport. So technically the terminators are still the scout, whole nother ballgame if the vehicle itself had scout from the get go

Well, no - the Land Raider redeployed (stop calling it a move). It has Scout.

Nem wrote:I don't get it. If you deepstrike via a transport the unit still classed as arriving by deepstrike. Why would scouting via a transport not be deploying via scout.

Because Deep Strike has a specific rule saying so. Scout doesnt. Get it now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fuusa wrote:
How about something along the lines of ...

The dt and its passenger unit are two distinct units.
I can measure to/from both the vehicle and the passengers, therefore I know where they both are.

If I only redeploy the vehicle, that means I didn't redeploy the passengers and if I don't, I can still measure to where they are.

The passengers can't disembark, so I am forced to redeploy the transported unit because I know where it was and is = no assault due to scout redeploy.

You can't measure to the embarked unit - you can only measure to the hull of the vehicle.
If you redeploy the vehicle that's all you did.
Since the only deployment the embarked unit has done was being put in the tank and they were not redeployed...

I agree with rigeld2 for the same reasons he is giving.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Same here.
What's the point of looking for rules loopholes? GW doesn't hide easter eggs in the rules for the benefit of particularly creative readers. Your're not being a better player by abusing poor wording. If it's obviously an unintentional omission, treat it that way.

What if it's not a loophole?
What if it is actually intended?
What if they want to give those Marine-chapters a chance to get into CC?
Doesn't seem so obvious now.

No matter how hard you call it "abuse", it still doesn't beat cramming three Riptides in a list.
But you're not going to refuse to play those people, right?

Kangodo wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Same here.
What's the point of looking for rules loopholes? GW doesn't hide easter eggs in the rules for the benefit of particularly creative readers. Your're not being a better player by abusing poor wording. If it's obviously an unintentional omission, treat it that way.

What if it's not a loophole?
What if it is actually intended?
What if they want to give those Marine-chapters a chance to get into CC?
Doesn't seem so obvious now.

No matter how hard you call it "abuse", it still doesn't beat cramming three Riptides in a list.
But you're not going to refuse to play those people, right?

Or those that cram 5 into one

Wouldn't the termies be illegally deployed outside your deployment zone? What rule allows you to deploy a unit of termies outside your deployment zone?

RAW aside, the intention of the rules is likely that you can't assault. After all the work GW did to make first turn assaults impossible, it would be a very major oversight to allow something like this.

I'm sure it'll be declared bad soon enough.

In the meantime, Khan Raider list anyone? I have some friends I want to lose.

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Sothas wrote:
On a side note, some one asked about Raven Guard. There is no possible way to give scout to a Land Raider in a Raven Guard army. Trust me, a friend and I went unit by unit trying to figure out what Raven Guard actually does. The answer is close to nothing. Raven Guard is easily the worst Chapter Tactic IMHO.

And if you join an IC with the unit? i.e. a Captain with Assault Terminators, inside a Land Raider, before deploy. Wouldn't that give Scouts to the unit, therefore to the LR (as a DT to termies) - letting it make a Scout redeploy/outflank?

Saw such idea in another forum. But yeah, Khan letting DTs to get Scouts... man! If Shrike gave Infiltrate to Jump Units as an USR (instead to only a unit he joins), his expensive cost would be quite okay.

C:SM pg. 78 Strike from the Shadows: "Note that units that include models with the Bulky or Very Bulky special rules do not benefit from either rule."

The IC loses the benefit if he joins a termie squad. He cannot give it to the transport.

It's really amusing how people are crying foul over such a little gimmick.

Let me tell you how to counter it: Don't deploy anything valuable within charge range. 12" scout + 6" move +6" + 2d6" charge mean that they will at most be standing at the edge of your deployment zone before charging. Every heard of denied flank? Try that. Second best option would be putting something there that will crush terminators. Third best option is going first and making the entire gimmick inconsequential, because they can charge on player turn two anyways. Probably along with the entire rest of the whitescars army.

delete

Page 121 tells us that embarked units may deploy embarked upon transports (with restrictions for Dedicated Transports). The transport and the embarked unit deploy together.

Although it is never explicitly stated, there's no reason to believe that a redeployment is anything but what it says on the tin--a redeployment. As in you get to deploy the unit again. If a transport and the unit embarked upon it deploy together, then it stands to reason that a transport and the embarked unit redeploy together, too. Since the Scout special rule is what allows the redeployment in the first place, both units have made a Scout redeployment and the Terminators are not allowed a first turn charge.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

A unit that deepstrikes via a mycetic spore...

....

The unit has still counts as deploying via deepstrike, even though the spore was utilising the deployment method, not the unit?

Because there's specific rules saying so. There's nothing like that for Scout.

You know, back the day when Drop Pods were a new thing, GW didn't explicitly state that embarked units count as arriving via Deep Strike. They mistakenly assumed that players would have enough common sense to know that. Of course it had to be FAQed, because some people think that GW hides easter eggs for them in the rules. They argued until they were blue in the face that the unit doesn't exist at all until it disembarks, and so did not arrive via Deep Strike, or some other nonsense. 10 years later it's the same old thing, people thinking they're clever for exploiting GW's tendency to write rules in a non-legalistic manner.

So what you are saying is that GW had to change the rules to stop them from doing something.
And now they need to do it again?

 lord_blackfang wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

A unit that deepstrikes via a mycetic spore...

....

The unit has still counts as deploying via deepstrike, even though the spore was utilising the deployment method, not the unit?

Because there's specific rules saying so. There's nothing like that for Scout.

You know, back the day when Drop Pods were a new thing, GW didn't explicitly state that embarked units count as arriving via Deep Strike. They mistakenly assumed that players would have enough common sense to know that. Of course it had to be FAQed, because some people think that GW hides easter eggs for them in the rules. They argued until they were blue in the face that the unit doesn't exist at all until it disembarks, and so did not arrive via Deep Strike, or some other nonsense. 10 years later it's the same old thing, people thinking they're clever for exploiting GW's tendency to write rules in a non-legalistic manner.

And on the other side are the people that think the rules are not something that is in the rules part of the rulebook but something that exists only in the heads of the developers.

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
No-where, afaiaa, in the rules are we told that if a transport redeploys, the passengers have not.
If the passengers start demonstrably at location 1, then subsequently equally demonstrably end up at location 2, how did this happen?
Redeployment of them both.

The bolded is incorrect.
You re-deployed one. The fact that the other is embarked is irrelevant.

Eldrad can re-deploy vehicles as well. Have you argued in the past that embarked units count toward his limit? (If I'm remembering his rule correctly)

Yes, I certainly have as that was the RAW. You would have re-positioned 2 units.
Then along came this ...

Q. When Eldrad Ulthuan’s Divination is used to move a vehicle with
an embarked unit onboard, does this count as having moved two units
or just one? (p50)
A. One. Embarked units do not count towards the Divination
total.

... which is no-longer relevant, its about divination which no-longer exists.
It may well turn out to be precedent, but until the entirely random process of faq writing is done, its unimportant.
For rules discussion, there is only RAW at the moment, no errata and no faq (which is gw house rules).

Another thing of concern, is the different wording from old to new dex, old being "reposition" while new being "redeploy."
If you look to reserves and how they work to support your argument, you would be using units that have not deployed and comparing them to units that have, then re-deployed.

To make my stance clear, this may well be faqued as being ok, but, atm, RAW says no, as it did in the past, with eldrad (which is how I played it with my eldar, pre faq).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

You know, back the day when Drop Pods were a new thing, GW didn't explicitly state that embarked units count as arriving via Deep Strike. They mistakenly assumed that players would have enough common sense to know that. Of course it had to be FAQed, because some people think that GW hides easter eggs for them in the rules. They argued until they were blue in the face that the unit doesn't exist at all until it disembarks, and so did not arrive via Deep Strike, or some other nonsense. 10 years later it's the same old thing, people thinking they're clever for exploiting GW's tendency to write rules in a non-legalistic manner.

Bloody hell, someone who remembers that!!!
You may remember my lone crusade against that on warseer (where I am Jubilex)?

Just do it the old fasioned way...deploy the LR sideways right at the 12" mark. Pivot giving you a quick 3" headstart, move 6" (total 9' distance) disembark 6" (15" total).
If he stayed at his 12" mark (didn't move forward) you need a 9 on 2 dice to get him. If he did move up 6" to shoot you, you now only need a 3 on 2 dice.

Ok so none of you read the rule or didn't read it correctly.

"If Khan is your Warlord, friendly models
with the Chapter Tactics (White Scars) special rule that are
Bikes or have Dedicated Transports have the Scout special rule"

Key words being "that are Bikes or have Dedicated Transports"

The terminators have scout thus conferring it to the land raider. I wanted to do this same thing but saw the problem almost right away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also this treats the unit type as the vehicle for redeployment distance still giving you the 12"

So part of the argument can also be applied to scouts inside their land speeder storms, because those are dedicated transports and it has scout. It doesn't need to be white scars to try and do this assault turn1 thing.

You could always scout, give them first turn, and then charge in yours.

 Mulletdude wrote:
So part of the argument can also be applied to scouts inside their land speeder storms, because those are dedicated transports and it has scout. It doesn't need to be white scars to try and do this assault turn1 thing.

A: Read my post as there is nothing to argue here (the rule is clear and people did not read it correctly)

B: A land speeder storm isn't an assault vehicle.

C: Why would you assault with scouts?

 aidobmac wrote:
How does being in the vehicle that made the scout move count as the embarked unit making the scout move.

(I'm not trying to be a pain i just want something i can go from, so thanks for the responses thus far! )

Did the terminators not move during the scout move? When a vehicle moves, the embarked passengers count as having moved as well.

 augustus5 wrote:

 aidobmac wrote:
How does being in the vehicle that made the scout move count as the embarked unit making the scout move.

(I'm not trying to be a pain i just want something i can go from, so thanks for the responses thus far! )

Did the terminators not move during the scout move? When a vehicle moves, the embarked passengers count as having moved as well.

Is nobody reading the other comments? THE TERMINATORS HAVE SCOUT , CONFERRING IT TO THE LAND RAIDER

Also it is a redeploy . It's not a move.

 Talfrost wrote:
B: A land speeder storm isn't an assault vehicle. .

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the LSS an Open-topped vehicle?

 Happyjew wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:
B: A land speeder storm isn't an assault vehicle. .

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the LSS an Open-topped vehicle?

Sorry you are right but they still need to scout move to get the distance for a turn one assault. So it still wouldn't work.

 Jidmah wrote:
It's really amusing how people are crying foul over such a little gimmick.

Let me tell you how to counter it: Don't deploy anything valuable within charge range. 12" scout + 6" move +6" + 2d6" charge mean that they will at most be standing at the edge of your deployment zone before charging. Every heard of denied flank? Try that. Second best option would be putting something there that will crush terminators. Third best option is going first and making the entire gimmick inconsequential, because they can charge on player turn two anyways. Probably along with the entire rest of the whitescars army.

Some things can redeploy with Scout 12" can't they? I'm not sure if the Land Raider is one of these though. Can anybody confirm this?

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It's really amusing how people are crying foul over such a little gimmick.

Let me tell you how to counter it: Don't deploy anything valuable within charge range. 12" scout + 6" move +6" + 2d6" charge mean that they will at most be standing at the edge of your deployment zone before charging. Every heard of denied flank? Try that. Second best option would be putting something there that will crush terminators. Third best option is going first and making the entire gimmick inconsequential, because they can charge on player turn two anyways. Probably along with the entire rest of the whitescars army.

Some things can redeploy with Scout 12" can't they? I'm not sure if the Land Raider is one of these though. Can anybody confirm this?

Infantry, Artillery, Walkers and Monstrous creatures redeploy 6". Everything else redeploys 12 inches.

RAW - I think it works right now for all of the reasons already given.

HIWPI/RAI - Personally I think it was an oversight as every other standard (meaning from the BRB) form of modified deployment counts both the DT and the unit as utilizing the rule (thus denying the ability to assault). Unfortunately, we can't know for sure. I wouldn't use it, but I wouldn't stop an opponent from using it...although I might give them a little grief over it

 Talfrost wrote:
Ok so none of you read the rule or didn't read it correctly.

"If Khan is your Warlord, friendly models
with the Chapter Tactics (White Scars) special rule that are
Bikes or have Dedicated Transports have the Scout special rule"

Key words being "that are Bikes or have Dedicated Transports"

The terminators have scout thus conferring it to the land raider. I wanted to do this same thing but saw the problem almost right away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also this treats the unit type as the vehicle for redeployment distance still giving you the 12"

I do not see how it matters how the land raider got scout. The point is that it has scout, and can thus make the scout redeploy, which people are saying does not equate to the terminators themselves redeploying. You have not addressed the latter.

 Talfrost wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:
B: A land speeder storm isn't an assault vehicle. .

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the LSS an Open-topped vehicle?

Sorry you are right but they still need to scout move to get the distance for a turn one assault. So it still wouldn't work.

Why wouldn't it work? Your previous argument was based off of the Terminators giving the LR scout being the part that dissallowed the charge, I was under the impression (I cannot double check currently, so please correct me if I am wrong) that a LSS has scout as one of its special rules, thus it is not being conferred by the scout squad, which counters your argument as far as I can tell.

The Land Speeder Storm would be a completely separate issue from the Khan Terminators. But I'm inclined to say that dudes inside a Transport that has the Scout USR makes the passengers Scout too. Otherwise they should not be legally permitted to redeploy at all, as the Scouts themselves do not have Scout, or else we wouldn't be discussing it right?

Sure passengers can deploy in their dedicated transports, but permitting them to REDEPLOY in their transports is not the same as just deploying. So if they can stay on board, the passengers must be Scouting. Or if they are not, they must stay behind in the deployment zone.

The Terminators themselves get Scout, because they have selected a Dedicated Transport (a Land Raider), and thus if they deploy within the Land Raider get to Scout Redeploy. I'm very happy the actual rule was reposted in HUGE bold font. Thank you for that!

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
Or if they are not, they must stay behind in the deployment zone.

I start a unit embarked on a Transport that has Scout (however it gets it). The embarked unit does not have Scout.
I use the Scout move to redeploy the Transport. According to you, the embarked unit must be left behind.
This would be redeploying the unit. The embarked unit does not have Scout and is not permitted to redeploy. Please explain how to resolve this issue.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
Or if they are not, they must stay behind in the deployment zone.

I start a unit embarked on a Transport that has Scout (however it gets it). The embarked unit does not have Scout.
I use the Scout move to redeploy the Transport. According to you, the embarked unit must be left behind.
This would be redeploying the unit. The embarked unit does not have Scout and is not permitted to redeploy. Please explain how to resolve this issue.

Simple resolution, the passengers, while embarked, make the scout redeployment with the vehicle.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
Or if they are not, they must stay behind in the deployment zone.

I start a unit embarked on a Transport that has Scout (however it gets it). The embarked unit does not have Scout.
I use the Scout move to redeploy the Transport. According to you, the embarked unit must be left behind.
This would be redeploying the unit. The embarked unit does not have Scout and is not permitted to redeploy. Please explain how to resolve this issue.

Simple resolution, the passengers, while embarked, make the scout redeployment with the vehicle.

That wasn't his assertion. I'd like something to back up the assertion he made, not something that ignores it.

White Scars terminators have the scout USR. They bestow it on their land raider. Land raider redeploys 12" before the game.

Game starts and you have terminators with the scout USR who have redeployed outside their DZ. No assault during the first player turn by this unit.

To claim that a unit with the scout USR granting it to their dedicated transport, which then scouts, and then try to assault claiming that the transport scouted but the unit did not, is about as rules lawyering/easter egging as possible IMO.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
White Scars terminators have the scout USR. They bestow it on their land raider. Land raider redeploys 12" before the game.

Game starts and you have terminators with the scout USR who have redeployed outside their DZ. No assault during the first player turn by this unit.

To claim that a unit with the scout USR granting it to their dedicated transport, which then scouts, and then try to assault claiming that the transport scouted but the unit did not, is about as rules lawyering/easter egging as possible IMO.

Arguing based on how you think the rule should work and insulting those who are discussing what the rule actually says isn't very polite.
Please back your assertion up with actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
White Scars terminators have the scout USR. They bestow it on their land raider. Land raider redeploys 12" before the game.

Game starts and you have terminators with the scout USR who have redeployed outside their DZ. No assault during the first player turn by this unit.

To claim that a unit with the scout USR granting it to their dedicated transport, which then scouts, and then try to assault claiming that the transport scouted but the unit did not, is about as rules lawyering/easter egging as possible IMO.

Arguing based on how you think the rule should work and insulting those who are discussing what the rule actually says isn't very polite.
Please back your assertion up with actual rules.

Do the terminators have the scout USR? yes
Did they redeploy using the scout USR? yes, without it their LR would not have it
Can they assault during the first player turn? no, they redeployed via the scout USR which they gifted to their DT

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
Or if they are not, they must stay behind in the deployment zone.

I start a unit embarked on a Transport that has Scout (however it gets it). The embarked unit does not have Scout.
I use the Scout move to redeploy the Transport. According to you, the embarked unit must be left behind.
This would be redeploying the unit. The embarked unit does not have Scout and is not permitted to redeploy. Please explain how to resolve this issue.

Simple resolution, the passengers, while embarked, make the scout redeployment with the vehicle.

Correct.
The rule for units in transports is that you measure range to the unit via the vehicle hull, except for shooting.
So after the terminators and landraider redeploy, I'm going to measure range to the terminators via the land raider hull. They are now outside of your deployment zone, redeployed from where they started (which can also be measured from the vehicle hull).

It's really pretty simple.
The guys inside the transport started here "X".
Now you redeploy scouts.
Now the transport, and the guys inside are here "X".
Notice how they are someplace different? They have redeployed a measurable distance as a result of Scouting.

Eldrad's exception is telling you that the unit and transport count for 1 for purposes of how many you can redeploy. It is not clearly stating that the models inside don't count as redeploying, only that the models inside don't count against his limit.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
White Scars terminators have the scout USR. They bestow it on their land raider. Land raider redeploys 12" before the game.

Game starts and you have terminators with the scout USR who have redeployed outside their DZ. No assault during the first player turn by this unit.

To claim that a unit with the scout USR granting it to their dedicated transport, which then scouts, and then try to assault claiming that the transport scouted but the unit did not, is about as rules lawyering/easter egging as possible IMO.

Arguing based on how you think the rule should work and insulting those who are discussing what the rule actually says isn't very polite.
Please back your assertion up with actual rules.

Do the terminators have the scout USR? yes
Did they redeploy using the scout USR? yes, without it their LR would not have it
Can they assault during the first player turn? no, they redeployed via the scout USR which they gifted to their DT

The bolded is incorrect. They deployed into the vehicle. The vehicle redeployed. That's using actual rules.

pg 121 has all the relevant info as far as I'm concerned. A unit embarked in a transport and the transport itself are deployed together. That means both the unit and the transport are redeploying as scouts.

 DJGietzen wrote:
pg 121 has all the relevant info as far as I'm concerned. A unit embarked in a transport and the transport itself are deployed together. That means both the unit and the transport are redeploying as scouts.

I do not see this "deployed together" on the page you referenced.

Can you be more specific, para/sentence? I could be over looking it.

40k-noob wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
pg 121 has all the relevant info as far as I'm concerned. A unit embarked in a transport and the transport itself are deployed together. That means both the unit and the transport are redeploying as scouts.

I do not see this "deployed together" on the page you referenced.

Can you be more specific, para/sentence? I could be over looking it.

Its not spelled out so dos'nt realy add much to the discussion. But what it boils down to for me is that the transport and the unit inside are taken a single FoC choice, 121 describes multiple unit choices as being separate for all things. This isn't true for transports and units. Sometimes it is and sometimes its not. Looking at it the way I do if the transport and riders are different units for deployment then when you redploy one via scout and not the other the other models may not be relocated. They should end up on the table where the transport was. I have no solid foundation for this belief as far a s RAW is concerned.

 DJGietzen wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
pg 121 has all the relevant info as far as I'm concerned. A unit embarked in a transport and the transport itself are deployed together. That means both the unit and the transport are redeploying as scouts.

I do not see this "deployed together" on the page you referenced.

Can you be more specific, para/sentence? I could be over looking it.

Its not spelled out so dos'nt realy add much to the discussion. But what it boils down to for me is that the transport and the unit inside are taken a single FoC choice, 121 describes multiple unit choices as being separate for all things. This isn't true for transports and units. Sometimes it is and sometimes its not. Looking at it the way I do if the transport and riders are different units for deployment then when you redploy one via scout and not the other the other models may not be relocated. They should end up on the table where the transport was. I have no solid foundation for this belief as far a s RAW is concerned.

Well the page you reference makes one thing clear. The DT and the unit inside are two different units. The passengers are "deployed" within the DT.
If the DT scout redeploys the unit inside, is still "within" and thus has not Scout redeployed.


Cheesy, prolly not RAI, but legal IMO.

Banbaji wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:
Ok so none of you read the rule or didn't read it correctly.

"If Khan is your Warlord, friendly models
with the Chapter Tactics (White Scars) special rule that are
Bikes or have Dedicated Transports have the Scout special rule"

Key words being "that are Bikes or have Dedicated Transports"

The terminators have scout thus conferring it to the land raider. I wanted to do this same thing but saw the problem almost right away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also this treats the unit type as the vehicle for redeployment distance still giving you the 12"

I do not see how it matters how the land raider got scout. The point is that it has scout, and can thus make the scout redeploy, which people are saying does not equate to the terminators themselves redeploying. You have not addressed the latter.

 Talfrost wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:
B: A land speeder storm isn't an assault vehicle. .

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the LSS an Open-topped vehicle?

Sorry you are right but they still need to scout move to get the distance for a turn one assault. So it still wouldn't work.

Why wouldn't it work? Your previous argument was based off of the Terminators giving the LR scout being the part that dissallowed the charge, I was under the impression (I cannot double check currently, so please correct me if I am wrong) that a LSS has scout as one of its special rules, thus it is not being conferred by the scout squad, which counters your argument as far as I can tell.

The entire point of both is that the dedicated transport and the models inside are one unit . That is how the transport has scout . Thus all the models count as having done the scout redeployment.

 Talfrost wrote:
The entire point of both is that the dedicated transport and the models inside are one unit .

No, they're not.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:
The entire point of both is that the dedicated transport and the models inside are one unit .

No, they're not.

Ok then the land raider cannot scout as the terminators have scout . Not the land raider. READ THE RULE PLEASE.

"If Khan is your Warlord, friendly models
with the Chapter Tactics (White Scars) special rule that are
Bikes or have Dedicated Transports have the Scout special rule"

Key words being "that are Bikes or have Dedicated Transports"


The fact is they deploy together thus when the terminators scout inside the transport (which is a redeploy) the land raider goes with them.
Otherwise this entire rule is only valid for an outflank maneuver if you are in a dedicated transport.

rigeld2 wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
White Scars terminators have the scout USR. They bestow it on their land raider. Land raider redeploys 12" before the game.

Game starts and you have terminators with the scout USR who have redeployed outside their DZ. No assault during the first player turn by this unit.

To claim that a unit with the scout USR granting it to their dedicated transport, which then scouts, and then try to assault claiming that the transport scouted but the unit did not, is about as rules lawyering/easter egging as possible IMO.

Arguing based on how you think the rule should work and insulting those who are discussing what the rule actually says isn't very polite.
Please back your assertion up with actual rules.

Do the terminators have the scout USR? yes
Did they redeploy using the scout USR? yes, without it their LR would not have it
Can they assault during the first player turn? no, they redeployed via the scout USR which they gifted to their DT

The bolded is incorrect. They deployed into the vehicle. The vehicle redeployed. That's using actual rules.

So wait, are you claiming that the unit inside said transport did not redeploy?

If so that is incorrect, as we have no permission to disembark them therefore they must redeploy with their DT.

 Talfrost wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:
The entire point of both is that the dedicated transport and the models inside are one unit .

No, they're not.

Ok then the land raider cannot scout as the terminators have scout . Not the land raider. READ THE RULE PLEASE.

"If Khan is your Warlord, friendly models
with the Chapter Tactics (White Scars) special rule that are
Bikes or have Dedicated Transports have the Scout special rule"

Key words being "that are Bikes or have Dedicated Transports"


The fact is they deploy together thus when the terminators scout inside the transport (which is a redeploy) the land raider goes with them.
Otherwise this entire rule is only valid for an outflank maneuver if you are in a dedicated transport.

LOL posting in BIGGER and BOLD type doesnt make you right. Especially when the Scout rules says other wise.

"If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport "

Confers, as in the DT now has the Scout rule.

40k-noob wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:
The entire point of both is that the dedicated transport and the models inside are one unit .

No, they're not.

Ok then the land raider cannot scout as the terminators have scout . Not the land raider. READ THE RULE PLEASE.

"If Khan is your Warlord, friendly models
with the Chapter Tactics (White Scars) special rule that are
Bikes or have Dedicated Transports have the Scout special rule"

Key words being "that are Bikes or have Dedicated Transports"


The fact is they deploy together thus when the terminators scout inside the transport (which is a redeploy) the land raider goes with them.
Otherwise this entire rule is only valid for an outflank maneuver if you are in a dedicated transport.

LOL posting in BIGGER and BOLD type doesnt make you right. Especially when the Scout rules says other wise.

"If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport "

Confers, as in the DT now has the Scout rule.

I said that it has scout in an earlier post , I was simply making a point . The fact is the terminators redeployed with it which means they did a scout redeploy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I just called Games Workshop and they said they count as all having scouted thus NO CHARGE LIKE I SAID . Call them yourself at 1-800-394-4263 got customer service . They said they'd contact the FAQ team to have it posted.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So wait, are you claiming that the unit inside said transport did not redeploy?

If so that is incorrect, as we have no permission to disembark them therefore they must redeploy with their DT.

Except the DT is redeploying. The embarked unit has not - it embarked into the transport and is still there.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So wait, are you claiming that the unit inside said transport did not redeploy?

If so that is incorrect, as we have no permission to disembark them therefore they must redeploy with their DT.

Except the DT is redeploying. The embarked unit has not - it embarked into the transport and is still there.

and it has redeployed by virtue of being embarked.

 Talfrost wrote:

Ok then the land raider cannot scout as the terminators have scout . Not the land raider. READ THE RULE PLEASE.

"If Khan is your Warlord, friendly models
with the Chapter Tactics (White Scars) special rule that are
Bikes or have Dedicated Transports have the Scout special rule"

Key words being "that are Bikes or have Dedicated Transports"
[/size]

The fact is they deploy together thus when the terminators scout inside the transport (which is a redeploy) the land raider goes with them.
Otherwise this entire rule is only valid for an outflank maneuver if you are in a dedicated transport.

Instead of being rude, perhaps you should realize that what you cited does not say that they're one unit. Which is what you said.

I said that it has scout in an earlier post , I was simply making a point . The fact is the terminators redeployed with it which means they did a scout redeploy.

They deployed inside the transport. The unit is still embarked after the redeployment. Where did the embarked unit redeploy?

Oh and I just called Games Workshop and they said they count as all having scouted thus NO CHARGE LIKE I SAID . Call them yourself at 1-800-394-4263 got customer service . They said they'd contact the FAQ team to have it posted.

Please reference the tenets of YMDC.
Would you believe me if I said I called and claimed the opposite?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So wait, are you claiming that the unit inside said transport did not redeploy?

If so that is incorrect, as we have no permission to disembark them therefore they must redeploy with their DT.

Except the DT is redeploying. The embarked unit has not - it embarked into the transport and is still there.

and it has redeployed by virtue of being embarked.

The unit deployed into the transport. The unit is still embarked afterward. Where was the redeployment?
Please cite where it happens.

Sounds similar to IG infantry platoons in general and Al'Rahems special rule specifically.

All platoon units are all deployed at the same time, even though they are comprised of different units. Similar to a unit and DT are deployed at the same time, even though they are different units. As with Al'Rahems rule that an infantry platoons must outflank, the whole of the platoon is deployed at once. This would be no different to a unit and it's DT deploying together then redeploying together.

rigeld2 wrote:

Please reference the tenets of YMDC.
Would you believe me if I said I called and claimed the opposite?

Are you kidding me? GW said it doesn't work . Don't believe? Call them than . I posted their phone #.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rules state that they redeployed via scout which is why I am correct to begin with that this doesn't work.

 Talfrost wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please reference the tenets of YMDC.
Would you believe me if I said I called and claimed the opposite?

Are you kidding me? GW said it doesn't work . Don't believe? Call them than . I posted their phone #.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rules state that they redeployed via scout which is why I am correct to begin with that this doesn't work.

So I just talked to John at GW support. He said it works.

 Talfrost wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please reference the tenets of YMDC.
Would you believe me if I said I called and claimed the opposite?

Are you kidding me? GW said it doesn't work . Don't believe? Call them than . I posted their phone #.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rules state that they redeployed via scout which is why I am correct to begin with that this doesn't work.

GW called they said stop being rude. The phone in GW is for customer complaints and children eating glue not FAQ guidance. An argument from authority doesn't hold weight in the forums due to the fact it's a logical fallacy in this case. GW phone staff do not write the rules, they are not subject matter experts and just happen to work for the company. I've schooled a GW employee on rules a few times over the years and while I'm often mistaken on rules clashes I understand that nobody can easily understand and remember the monolithic works of GW in their head and relate it easily. Do not expect anyone to take an unverified source as an absolute judgement on a question; either in real life or on the internet.

I agree with Rigeld. There is a unit making use of the scout USR but due to the wording of the scout rules there is no restriction on the embarked unit making an assault... yet.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please reference the tenets of YMDC.
Would you believe me if I said I called and claimed the opposite?

Are you kidding me? GW said it doesn't work . Don't believe? Call them than . I posted their phone #.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rules state that they redeployed via scout which is why I am correct to begin with that this doesn't work.

GW called they said stop being rude. The phone in GW is for customer complaints and children eating glue not FAQ guidance.

I agree with Rigeld. There is a unit making use of the scout USR but due to the wording of the scout rules there is no restriction on the embarked unit making an assault... yet.

You guys are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing now . It does't work and there will be an FAQ up soon . It's not being rude . You are both just ignorant and customer service is for what? customer service you say? Weird .

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So wait, are you claiming that the unit inside said transport did not redeploy?

If so that is incorrect, as we have no permission to disembark them therefore they must redeploy with their DT.

Except the DT is redeploying. The embarked unit has not - it embarked into the transport and is still there.

and it has redeployed by virtue of being embarked.

The unit deployed into the transport. The unit is still embarked afterward. Where was the redeployment?
Please cite where it happens.

Well when the transport is redeployed so is the unit, as the transport and by extension the unit that coexists within it, is not in the same place you deployed it in. Therefore both have been re-deployed to a different location than they were in when they were deployed.

Anyways you make the rules for 40k obviously and not GW . I'm gonna go play some games with my Tactical squad of stat line 10 marines that cost 0 points. What a joke.

 Talfrost wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Talfrost wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please reference the tenets of YMDC.
Would you believe me if I said I called and claimed the opposite?

Are you kidding me? GW said it doesn't work . Don't believe? Call them than . I posted their phone #.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rules state that they redeployed via scout which is why I am correct to begin with that this doesn't work.

GW called they said stop being rude. The phone in GW is for customer complaints and children eating glue not FAQ guidance.

I agree with Rigeld. There is a unit making use of the scout USR but due to the wording of the scout rules there is no restriction on the embarked unit making an assault... yet.

You guys are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing now . It does't work and there will be an FAQ up soon . It's not being rude . You are both just ignorant and customer service is for what? customer service you say? Weird .

I'm arguing with you so you may read the rules we go by on this forum and not get banned for not engaging in discourse but rather name calling and ivory tower grandstanding.

Just play it that way until someone can prove you wrong. No one has so far. RAI are not real rules.

I think we should step back and agree GW makes rules with so many holes you can drive a CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT carrying the entire GW Legalis Ceastanddesistas organization through it.

GW RAI want to end first turn charges, but here is a case where the rule definitions leave it ambiguous and subject to interpretation that you can assault turn one.

While I was skeptical at the beginning of this thread, I'm starting to lean in rigeld's direction on this one, atleast until it is FAQd.

The one piece that is missing for me though is the wording that specifies that "deployment" in the case of a unit inside a transport refers to entering the transport, and not being placed on the table. While I can not find specific references in either case, I think it's common to think of a unit and it's transport deploying together as one unit, rather than a unit deploying into its transport and then the transport deploying onto the table.

Is there a reference, rigeld, that would clear this up? It seems to be the crux of your argument.

p121 wrote:Deploying Transport Vehicles
Units can be deployed in Transport vehicles if you wish - simply declare to your opponent which units are embarked where as part of your deployment.

Units can be deployed in transports. That's their deployment.

rigeld2 wrote:

p121 wrote:Deploying Transport Vehicles
Units can be deployed in Transport vehicles if you wish - simply declare to your opponent which units are embarked where as part of your deployment.

Units can be deployed in transports. That's their deployment.

and if their transport makes a re-deploy to they go with it or not?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

p121 wrote:Deploying Transport Vehicles
Units can be deployed in Transport vehicles if you wish - simply declare to your opponent which units are embarked where as part of your deployment.

Units can be deployed in transports. That's their deployment.

and if their transport makes a re-deploy to they go with it or not?

They stay embarked - to change that would be a redeployment.
Since their deployment was to embark the only valid redeployment is to disembark.

The unit inside re-deploys with the transport. Here is the proof (the underlined: )

" If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport (though a disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment)." (41)

They (The unit inside) can't disembark as a part of the re-deployment = They (The unit inside) are re-deploying.

This tells us that the unit inside is certainly re-deploying with the transport but can not disembark.

Not really, it just says that you cannot leave the unit behind and have your crusader scout right up into the enemy's face or scout out of your DT.

Actually, that does seem to prove it.
Embarked units disembark. Transports don't disembark the unit. This does show that the unit inside is redeployed.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The unit inside re-deploys with the transport. Here is the proof (the underlined: )

" If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport (though a disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment)." (41)

They (The unit inside) can't disembark as a part of the re-deployment = They (The unit inside) are re-deploying.

This tells us that the unit inside is certainly re-deploying with the transport but can not disembark.

Well, no. It doesn't say that.
It says that the embarked unit cannot choose to disembark after granting the DT Scout.
It does not say that the embarked unit redeploys.

rigeld2 wrote:

p121 wrote:Deploying Transport Vehicles
Units can be deployed in Transport vehicles if you wish - simply declare to your opponent which units are embarked where as part of your deployment.

Units can be deployed in transports. That's their deployment.

Sadly, the language here is ambiguous. I see your POV, but that sentence can be rewritten in two different ways:

1) Units can be deployed into a vehicle (in which case their deployment is into the vehicle)

2) Units can be inside a vehicle when they are deployed onto the table (in which case their deployment is on the table, and they would be redeployed if the transport redeployed)

Given the wording, I see both interpretations as valid.

You're adding words to get the 2nd rewrite - so that'd be an argument of intent.

Part of your deployment is that you're deploying the unit in the Transport. That's literally what the sentence says.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're adding words to get the 2nd rewrite - so that'd be an argument of intent.

Part of your deployment is that you're deploying the unit in the Transport. That's literally what the sentence says.

Notice I added words to get both rewrites. It isn't an argument of intent. The fact is that the use if the word "in" is ambiguous, as is the sentence structure. "Deployed in the vehicle" may mean "Deployed into the vehicle" or "Deployed onto the able while in the vehicle". I am obviously adding words to display both meanings, but they are both valid given the grammar of the rule.

I have no idea where you're getting "onto the table" as being a valid rewrite. If they're embarked they are demonstrably *not* on the table. They can't be since a unit is removed from the table when they embark.

rigeld2 wrote:
I have no idea where you're getting "onto the table" as being a valid rewrite. If they're embarked they are demonstrably *not* on the table. They can't be since a unit is removed from the table when they embark.

OK, Ill take those words out.

"Deployed while in the vehicle"

It still can be read that the act of deploying isn't into the vehicle, but rather they are in a state of being in the vehicle when they are deployed.

You deploy them embarked (the only possible definition of "in" in context).

The vehicle is re-deployed. The embarked unit wasn't redeployed (indeed - cannot be).

would it make a difference, if it said "within" as in deployed within it?

"However, if a unit is a Dedicated Transport, only the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined the unit) can deploy within it."

"in" is used when deploying in a regular transport.

Since this debate is specific to DT's, I thought I would mention it.

"in" and "within" have to mean the same thing in this context - they both mean embarked.

rigeld2 wrote:
"in" and "within" have to mean the same thing in this context - they both mean embarked.

You are starting to make the same mistakes you call other out for. Those words don't "have" to mean anything other than what they mean. Now you are adding your own bias in.

The funny thing is, I'm not even disagreeing with you. I agree that you can read it the way you are reading it. I'm just pointing out that there is another, completely valid, meaning to the same sentence.

CanisLupus518 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"in" and "within" have to mean the same thing in this context - they both mean embarked.

You are starting to make the same mistakes you call other out for. Those words don't "have" to mean anything other than what they mean. Now you are adding your own bias in.

No - there's literally no other way to interpret the sentence. What other definition of "in" or "within" can you possibly use that makes sense within the context of the rules? Physically inside?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The unit inside re-deploys with the transport. Here is the proof (the underlined: )

" If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport (though a disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment)." (41)

They (The unit inside) can't disembark as a part of the re-deployment = They (The unit inside) are re-deploying.

This tells us that the unit inside is certainly re-deploying with the transport but can not disembark.

Well, no. It doesn't say that.
It says that the embarked unit cannot choose to disembark after granting the DT Scout.
It does not say that the embarked unit redeploys.

It tells us that, as a part of the scout redeployment, the unit can not disembark...

Proof given. The unit inside redeploys, but "a disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment" (41)

 DeathReaper wrote:
Proof given. The unit inside redeploys, but "a disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment" (41)

You've failed to prove the bold - you just keep saying it over and over.
Your quote does not prove the bold.

Why don't you quit trying to game the system in a game with an already fragile ruleset?

I'm sorry that I don't have my rulebook on me so I can't argue the rules whether or not you can charge, but I can argue the grammar of "deployed in transports."

I agree with rigeld2 in the fact that there is only one way to interpret it, but I disagree with his (her?) interpretation.

'In" implies that the subject is already at the location when it preforms that action. So, "deployed in a transport" would say that the unit is already in the transport when it get deployed.

"Into" implies movement. "Deployed into a transport" is how it would need to be phrased if the transport was the location of the unit's deployment.

It reminds me of the Demetri Martin joke: At a party, I learned there was a small, but important, difference between 'peeing in a pool' and 'peeing into a pool.'"

In the scout rule on page 41, it makes reference to units not being able to disembark from a transport (dedicated or otherwise) as part of a scout redeployment.

This implies to me that both the transport and the unit in it are part of the scout redeployment and therefore not able to charge turn 1.

However, from a strict RAW viewpoint, there is certainly a grey area in which to debate.

Just my 2 cents.

Niexist wrote:
Why don't you quit trying to game the system in a game with an already fragile ruleset?

Why don't you learn to read the tenets of YMDC? Here, I'll give you a link:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

Pro tip: Me arguing a certain way doesn't mean I play that way. The army I play doesn't have vehicles at all and I'm pretty sure doesn't have any scouting units (certainly none that I actually use). I'm not gaming the system, I'm discussing rules.

Toxium wrote:
In the scout rule on page 41, it makes reference to units not being able to disembark from a transport (dedicated or otherwise) as part of a scout redeployment.

This implies to me that both the transport and the unit in it are part of the scout redeployment and therefore not able to charge turn 1.

However, from a strict RAW viewpoint, there is certainly a grey area in which to debate.

Just my 2 cents.

Actually I think it points to the fact that they are not "scout redeploying."
By deployment rules a unit/model with Scout can deploy inside a Transport and also by rule the unit inside CANNOT Scout Redeploy even if it wanted to, because it would require a disembark which is not allowed.
This clearly indicates that the unit inside a transport is barred from redeploying.
The fact that the DT can Scout (due to the Scout rule being conferred to it) is merely a benefit of being a DT and has no bearing on the unit inside.

Just my 2 cents also.

Apparently GW rules-writers haven't learned their lesson yet since the specificity of this rule is so open to rules 'rawyering'... RAW, yeah I think they can actually pull off the first turn assault for the reasons given. Is this all GW's fault for writing vague and obvioulsy exploitable rules? Yep... Should they have caught this in play-testing? Yep... Will it be shut down in an faq? Probably in about 5 years...

Let's take rigeld2's interpretation of the relationship between a unit and it's dedicated transport during deployment a bit further.

A drop pod full of marines deep strikes onto the table near an enemy quad gun. Can the quad gun shoot the marines using Interceptor? or only the pod?

Following your interpretation, then only the DP has arrived from reserve, while the marines inside were just along for the ride and are simply disembarking from their transport.

What do you think?

This follows the same logic that a unit embarked within a transport with the scout rule that makes a scout redeployment is not also redeploying with that transport.

There's a rules specifically saying the marines also count as arriving from reserve (and an FAQ I believe).
A similar rule is missing from Scout and transports.
While I personally agree that the unit also counts as re-deployed, you can't really compare Scout to Reserves in this case.

 grendel083 wrote:
There's a rules specifically saying the marines also count as arriving from reserve (and an FAQ I believe).

I see no wording in the new Space Marine codex saying anything of the sort, nor is there an FAQ

I've always interpreted a situation where a unit confers scout to a vehicle as meaning that they scout with their vehicle.

But I will agree with rigeld2 that it is somewhat ambiguous. It's a situation where the rules fairly clearly intend one thing but leave a blind spot.

Deathreaper's point is interesting, and I need to read it a little closer to decide if his contention is right.

All I'll say is, I wouldn't try it at a tournament, since while RAW might let you do it, a TO would probably RAI that right out.

Also, if I ever play a dude with WS CT and see him plop down land raiders, I'm pulling my guys back a few extra inches. 10 or so inches back from the edge of my deployment zone should be enough (12" scout + 6" LR move + 6" Termie move + 2d6" charge), unless I notice they also somehow have fleet, in which case I'll just pull them back 12".

The Scout rule does not work as there is no unit call “Scouts” as it is written. The rule does not rename the unit that has the rule and there for cannot be redeployed. The RAW says “Scouts must….”, and as far as I see it there is no Scouts unit just units that have the scout rule.

CanisLupus518 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
There's a rules specifically saying the marines also count as arriving from reserve (and an FAQ I believe).

I see no wording in the new Space Marine codex saying anything of the sort, nor is there an FAQ

That was in the previous codex FAQ. Current FAQ does not have it

The closest thing I can find that infers that the unit also Deep Strikes is in the DS rules: ...deep striking units may not move any further, other than to disembark...
If he unit is not deep striking in a transport then they can disembark and move normally.

Drag wrote:
The Scout rule does not work as there is no unit call “Scouts” as it is written. The rule does not rename the unit that has the rule and there for cannot be redeployed. The RAW says “Scouts must….”, and as far as I see it there is no Scouts unit just units that have the scout rule.

I do not believe you have read the Scout special rule correctly. Perhaps you should re-read it in its entirety.

Forth sentence starts “During this……, Scouts must….” Again ill state the RAW and say there is no unit called Scouts and the rule does not say it renames the unit Scouts so the rule does not work if you want to play this RAW BS.

Drag wrote:
Forth sentence starts “During this……, Scouts must….” Again ill state the RAW and say there is no unit called Scouts and the rule does not say it renames the unit Scouts so the rule does not work if you want to play this RAW BS.

LOL I guess you missed this part again:

"After both sides have deployed (including Infiltrators), but before the first player begins his first turn, a unit containing at least one model with this special rule can choose to redeploy."

or this part

"If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport (though a disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment)."

The only section that starts off with Scouts is the parts that states they must remain 12" from enemy models.

Again, please re-read the rule in its entirety.

Thinking that you have not read all the post and this has become a debate about the RAW interpretation and if that is what we are using than again this rule does not work as I stated. Please read the rule and the posts and they are inferring a terminator unit has the Scout rule as per 6th edition SM codex. The Scout rule states or refers to “Scouts” and if we were to play a game of 40K and you wanted to say you could assault first turn using this interpretation of the Scout rule. I would say show me the unit of “Scouts” as per the RAW (there isn’t one) and infer that the rule does not work.

If you can prove RAW that "scout" is a unit name, then you might have a point.
If not...

Does P109 have any bearing on this situation?

Leaving aside any hypothetical vehicle with scouts the scouts rule, since P109 seems to indicate that the DT is a unit upgrade, as opposed to an actual unit in itself. This then seems to be reinforced by the P41 transferrence of special abilities. (An inference imparted by me, not explicitly spelled out in the rules}

There is also the rule on reserves in which a unit and it's DT is considered a single unit for working out how many reserves you have.

Cheers

Andrew

40k-noob wrote:

Toxium wrote:
In the scout rule on page 41, it makes reference to units not being able to disembark from a transport (dedicated or otherwise) as part of a scout redeployment.

This implies to me that both the transport and the unit in it are part of the scout redeployment and therefore not able to charge turn 1.

However, from a strict RAW viewpoint, there is certainly a grey area in which to debate.

Just my 2 cents.

Actually I think it points to the fact that they are not "scout redeploying."
By deployment rules a unit/model with Scout can deploy inside a Transport and also by rule the unit inside CANNOT Scout Redeploy even if it wanted to, because it would require a disembark which is not allowed.
This clearly indicates that the unit inside a transport is barred from redeploying.

this is because it already has. The quote tells us this.

Why would the unit inside be disallowed from disembarking if they were not redeploying? They have no permission to disembark when they are not using scout to re-deploy, the restriction is there because they are using scout to re-deploy, but are restricted from disembarking.

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Toxium wrote:
In the scout rule on page 41, it makes reference to units not being able to disembark from a transport (dedicated or otherwise) as part of a scout redeployment.

This implies to me that both the transport and the unit in it are part of the scout redeployment and therefore not able to charge turn 1.

However, from a strict RAW viewpoint, there is certainly a grey area in which to debate.

Just my 2 cents.

Actually I think it points to the fact that they are not "scout redeploying."
By deployment rules a unit/model with Scout can deploy inside a Transport and also by rule the unit inside CANNOT Scout Redeploy even if it wanted to, because it would require a disembark which is not allowed.
This clearly indicates that the unit inside a transport is barred from redeploying.

this is because it already has. The quote tells us this.

Why would the unit inside be disallowed from disembarking if they were not redeploying? They have no permission to disembark when they are not using scout to re-deploy, the restriction is there because they are using scout to re-deploy, but are restricted from disembarking.

I would agree with you if it did not also apply to non DT transports. Scouts can deploy inside a Landraider if they wanted to and the Scout rule would not be conferred to the LR and still the Scouts would not be able to "Scout redeploy" out of the transport.

DR - if a non-Scout unit is deployed inside a Scout transport, you are then claiming the unit inside would be making a Scout redeploy if the vehicle does so - except they cannot, as they do not have the rule.

Is this a way of explaining it to make more sense?

Nos, a better question would be, is the unit inside part of a scout redeployment?

Cheers

Andrew

As a unit without scout is not allowed to make a scout redeployment, even it its transport is redeployed, the unit can't be part of it.

 Jidmah wrote:
As a unit without scout is not allowed to make a scout redeployment, even it its transport is redeployed, the unit can't be part of it.

What?

Are you saying that there is a rule that prevents a transport with scout from making a scout re-deploy it it contains a unit that doesn't have the scout usr?

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
As a unit without scout is not allowed to make a scout redeployment, even it its transport is redeployed, the unit can't be part of it.

What?

Are you saying that there is a rule that prevents a transport with scout from making a scout re-deploy it it contains a unit that doesn't have the scout usr?

Does it matter? Is there even such thing as a non-dedicated transport with the scout rule that can carry non-scout units?

Well it would show some guidance on the issue as if you need both to have the USR then it would be an indication that both are re-deploying.

Also I'm not sure what he was saying and was looking for a clarification.

This seems to be a RAW issue. If it is than the unit inside the DT which for this discussion is a terminator unit. So by the RAW the DT would get to redeploy 12" and the unit inside which would normally only get a 6" redeployment. This implies that the DT with the unit embarked upon it is for this rules purpose is a single unit redeploying 12" as per the Scout rule.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
As a unit without scout is not allowed to make a scout redeployment, even it its transport is redeployed, the unit can't be part of it.

What?

Are you saying that there is a rule that prevents a transport with scout from making a scout re-deploy it it contains a unit that doesn't have the scout usr?

Does it matter? Is there even such thing as a non-dedicated transport with the scout rule that can carry non-scout units?

The valkyrie did this all through 5th edition, and the relevant rules have not substantially changed since then - in terms of the allowance to Scout, this has not altered between editions.

Stating the unit inside must be redeploying requires that a non-Scout unit inside a Scout unit prevents the Scout vehicle from moving. This is unsupportable in the current rules.

Drag wrote:
This seems to be a RAW issue. If it is than the unit inside the DT which for this discussion is a terminator unit. So by the RAW the DT would get to redeploy 12" and the unit inside which would normally only get a 6" redeployment. This implies that the DT with the unit embarked upon it is for this rules purpose is a single unit redeploying 12" as per the Scout rule.

If the terminators are redeploying then the DT and them can only move 6" otherwise you've not met the restriction imposed on infantry squads by the scout USR. Since the DT can move 12" then it's all grand. Also a DT and it's contents are never the same unit.

If they are not the same unit than the DT cannot redeploy 12" as per the RAW. I am emphasizing the RAW as the terminators are clearly not a vehicle but are able to redeploy 12". Why is this? It is not stated in the rule yet it is implied. But if we play by RAW the terminators could not redeploy as they are a single unit and the DT is a single unit. (Please read the rule for scout it is full of implied statements) My point is you cannot play the rules without implying or inferring many items in the current rule set.

Yes you can. It just allows something few armies have had access to in the new edition. A first turn charge.

It can't be done. Sorry.

Yes you can. It just allows something few armies have had access to in the new edition. A first turn charge.

If this interpretation is correct then Marines have been able to first turn charge from scout all through 6th as the LSS has always had scout. Everyone accepted that you couldn't and thatwas the change that turned the LSS from the best delivery system in the ggame to the worst.

TBH delivering 5 scouts isn't much of a boon for the price you're paying considering overwatch is a thing and you'd be aiming to hit fire support units.

Hell Tau could do it with pathfinders in a devilfish throughout 6th, just cos you can doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Devilfish is an assault vehicle or open topped?

Yeah 5 Scouts with flamer+heavy flamer and power fist is a threat to a lot of things. Trust me I used it through out 5th. You send it after tanks (using the flamers to remove bubble wrap) 5 man devaststor or tactical squads. Heck even against a 10man if there's no power weapon in there.

Tau have not been able to do this with Pathfinders ever. The fish is not an assault vehicle. Comparing 2 WS2, I2, S3 attacks per model with 4 Ws3, S4, I4 attacks plus 4 power fist attacks and a heavy and normal flamer, is not remotely comparable (cause you would have drop podded in Pedro and a bunch of Sternguard right).

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
As a unit without scout is not allowed to make a scout redeployment, even it its transport is redeployed, the unit can't be part of it.

What?

Are you saying that there is a rule that prevents a transport with scout from making a scout re-deploy it it contains a unit that doesn't have the scout usr?

Does it matter? Is there even such thing as a non-dedicated transport with the scout rule that can carry non-scout units?

The valkyrie did this all through 5th edition, and the relevant rules have not substantially changed since then - in terms of the allowance to Scout, this has not altered between editions.

Stating the unit inside must be redeploying requires that a non-Scout unit inside a Scout unit prevents the Scout vehicle from moving. This is unsupportable in the current rules.

There's an FAQ saying that scout has no effect on them anymore . So in 6th that point is moot.

I know, which is why I was giving a pertinent example of when a unit had a vehicle with scout, without having scout themselves.

Noone seemed to think you were redeploying / making a scout move with the embarked unit.

Possibly because the restriction on 1st turn assault didn't exist in 5th?

I still think that a unit inside a scouting vehicle has taken part in a Scout Redeployment (SR). The rules are ambiguous in a couple of places as to what consititutes a unit with regard to deployment/reserves and Dedicated Transports (P109).

Now, taking part in a SR does not necessarily equate to making a SR and I readily admit that, but I think that the argument for anti-assault is stronger than the argument pro-assault.

Cheers

Andrew

No; there was quite a lot of discussion about whether the unit inside was also Scouting

Nothing in the 6th edition states they are making a Scout Redeployment, so there is no restriction placed upon them in terms of assauting.

Whether this survives a rules changing FAQ or not remains to be seen.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nothing in the 6th edition states they are making a Scout Redeployment...

Except the quote I posted.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nothing in the 6th edition states they are making a Scout Redeployment...

Except the quote I posted.

It doesn't actually say that though. I can tell because there's nothing like the words "embarked units count as redeploying" or anything like that.

Does the rulebook describe how to perform a redeployment (not the rules for Scout, but what exactly what 'redeploy' means)? I see people asserting how it works, but I haven't noticed any page references yet.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nothing in the 6th edition states they are making a Scout Redeployment...

Except the quote I posted.

Whcih does not state that the Scouts are making the redeployment, jsut that they have no permission to disembark.

THe sentence does NOT state what you keep on erroneously claiming it does.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nothing in the 6th edition states they are making a Scout Redeployment...

Except the quote I posted.

Whcih does not state that the Scouts are making the redeployment, jsut that they have no permission to disembark.

THe sentence does NOT state what you keep on erroneously claiming it does.

No, you're right it doesn't.
But I think it's a good indication of intent, if the unit embarked doesn't redeploy this sentence has no meaning.
So while I agree with you RAW, I think RAI the embarked unit is also redeploying.

Nothing states that the embarked unit are redeploying, likewise nothing states that they aren't. Nothing in the deployment rules tells us how to deploy a vehicle with a unit inside to a new location.

There is no RAW answer to this unless someone can point to the passage that states how you redeploy a transport with a unit inside.

 grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nothing in the 6th edition states they are making a Scout Redeployment...

Except the quote I posted.

Whcih does not state that the Scouts are making the redeployment, jsut that they have no permission to disembark.

THe sentence does NOT state what you keep on erroneously claiming it does.

No, you're right it doesn't.
But I think it's a good indication of intent, if the unit embarked doesn't redeploy this sentence has no meaning.
So while I agree with you RAW, I think RAI the embarked unit is also redeploying.

I think it does have meaning.

I deploy a LSS with scouts embarked. You deploy your forces. Based on that information I would rather have my scouts on the ground - that sentence forbids the disembarkation and I'm stuck with it.

 grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nothing in the 6th edition states they are making a Scout Redeployment...

Except the quote I posted.

Whcih does not state that the Scouts are making the redeployment, jsut that they have no permission to disembark.

THe sentence does NOT state what you keep on erroneously claiming it does.

No, you're right it doesn't.
But I think it's a good indication of intent, if the unit embarked doesn't redeploy this sentence has no meaning.
So while I agree with you RAW, I think RAI the embarked unit is also redeploying.

As pointed out this does have meaning, as it forbids you disembarking the unit inside.

Stating the unit inside is redepolying means a vehicle can only move 6", another wrinkle that is not at all supported by the rules, intention or otherwise.

rigeld2 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nothing in the 6th edition states they are making a Scout Redeployment...

Except the quote I posted.

Whcih does not state that the Scouts are making the redeployment, jsut that they have no permission to disembark.

THe sentence does NOT state what you keep on erroneously claiming it does.

No, you're right it doesn't.
But I think it's a good indication of intent, if the unit embarked doesn't redeploy this sentence has no meaning.
So while I agree with you RAW, I think RAI the embarked unit is also redeploying.

I think it does have meaning.

I deploy a LSS with scouts embarked. You deploy your forces. Based on that information I would rather have my scouts on the ground - that sentence forbids the disembarkation and I'm stuck with it.

"A unit cannot embark or disembark as part of a Scout Redepoyment"
True.
You could also take it, that as the transport has redeployed, the unit inside hasn't BUT since it has scout it still has the option to redeploy (but is then forbidden from disembarking).

Like I said I agree RAW. If this is the intent or not I can't be sure.

 grendel083 wrote:
"A unit cannot embark or disembark as part of a Scout Redepoyment"
True.
You could also take it, that as the transport has redeployed, the unit inside hasn't BUT since it has scout it still has the option to redeploy (but is then forbidden from disembarking).

Like I said I agree RAW. If this is the intent or not I can't be sure.

Sure - just saying that when you said " if the unit embarked doesn't redeploy this sentence has no meaning. " it was an incorrect statement. It absolutely does have meaning.

I am not adding anything to this, but it popped up on the first page of Dakka and I just want to say that arguments like this are a large part of the reason why I stopped playing 40k. I know for a fact I am not the only one.

If an argument like this occured in game it would be resolved quick or I'd stop playing that battle and consider the disagreement. Though later I would come here to work it out if I was not satisfied with either outcome. It's pretty much the reson this forum exists, to have these arguments in a regulated fasion so you don't need to have them while you're playing.

And if you're saying it's just the way the rules are poorly written then it would seem you've not played many games of 40k's size and complexity or more. These sorts of arguments happen in all games.

What if I had a squad of Terminators with a DT, but I deployed them separately? Who has the scout rule? RAW: I have a unit that has a DT I get the scout special rule.

A unit cannot embark or disembark as part of a Scout redeployment. If we go with the argument that the Landraider is the one that made the scout redeployment, the Terminators cannot disembark as the Landraider was part of a Scout redeployment. If we go with the argument that the unit inside is making a scout redeployment, we are back a square one because a unit cannot disembark or embark as part of a Scout redeployment.

This is why I ask the question above. If we thought of this argument in reverse does it still hold up? I want to move my Terminators into their Landraider then move the Landraider. I think everyone would quickly say that I couldn't do this, so why would I be able to do basically the same thing but in reverse?

Yes, you would still get the Scout rule, but the LR wouldnt - you need to be embarked for the LR to get it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Homeskillet wrote:
Put it this way: play that scout shenanigans against me, and it's the last time we would play. Seems pretty clear to me that the unit scouted if they're inside their DT

Put it this way: Your personal feelings have literally zero to do with how the rules are currently written.
The rules currently allow this to work. I don't think it's intended, but that's how they work.
Perhaps read the tenets of the forum before responding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
If it's obviously an unintentional omission, treat it that way.

Prove that it's obvious. I don't think it's obvious at all.

And this Sir is exactly why so many people have issues with "Rules Lawyering". Your attitude, and others, is not conducive for the game or hobby, in fact it is detremental. This is not an issue debating a game mechanic, or understanding the application of a rule. This is out right easter egging and as such is a glorified means of cheating. The fact that this kind of argument enjoys as wide a support as it does is disheartening.

TBH Cuthbert, I've seen many a dick use house rules to screw over players. In that case it's very clearly a glorified means of cheating. You could you know be sportsmanlike and just disagree and ask to roll off on the issue instead of storming off and shouting cheater.

However, this forum is for seeing what the rules actually say. It's for people to debate their ideas and interpretation of the words in the book. In a debate you argue with reasonable arguments and not get on a high horse to insult other people and say they are what's wrong with society. You argue the point not the man.
The reason it's not always obvious is because what a sentence says when read by a native speaker of British English can be quite different to what an American or a German or what someone with poor English might read it to mean.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Homeskillet wrote:
Put it this way: play that scout shenanigans against me, and it's the last time we would play. Seems pretty clear to me that the unit scouted if they're inside their DT

Put it this way: Your personal feelings have literally zero to do with how the rules are currently written.
The rules currently allow this to work. I don't think it's intended, but that's how they work.
Perhaps read the tenets of the forum before responding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
If it's obviously an unintentional omission, treat it that way.

Prove that it's obvious. I don't think it's obvious at all.

And this Sir is exactly why so many people have issues with "Rules Lawyering". Your attitude, and others, is not conducive for the game or hobby, in fact it is detremental. This is not an issue debating a game mechanic, or understanding the application of a rule. This is out right easter egging and as such is a glorified means of cheating. The fact that this kind of argument enjoys as wide a support as it does is disheartening.

I agree the attitude would not be acceptable at the table, but this is why this forum exists. To iron out and find those rules that could be exploited. If like this threads RAW decision you dont agree with at least you know the arguments people will make and you can say "yes, it is the RAW but its silly so lets play it like the unit made the scout move too" at the table. Literally nothing is stopping you from playing by your interpretation.

Accusing someone of Rules Lawyering and Cheating for taking part in a rules discussion is completely out of order.
This forum is for rules discussions, not necessarily how you would play it on the tabletop.

Yes, cos I'm sober on here and I'm very much drunk when I play toy soldiers.

 grendel083 wrote:
Accusing someone of Rules Lawyering and Cheating for taking part in a rules discussion is completely out of order.
This forum is for rules discussions, not necessarily how you would play it on the tabletop.

thanks for the reminder Gren. Though I don't recall any direct accusation of that, thanks none the less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now i just have to know. what if I outright state that I am a rules lawyer and cheat every chance i get? It's not an accusation, it's an admission. lol

The embarked unit scouted if it is inside a landraider that scouted.

The fact it is outside of its deployment zone which it is not allowed to be unless it has scouted (or other special rule) means it used a special rule to get there. IE scout.

The models may not physically be on the table but the unit is in that spot in the vehicle that scouted, and could not be in that spot under the rules unless it was scouting with the vehicle.

Bausk,

In my opinion, it would depend if you use your understanding of how rules work for 'good or evil.' If you are at the table, not this forum obviously, and accept certain rules are broken then being a rule lawyer doesn't matter. If you do not exploit the loopholes that poorly written rules create then I have no problem with you being a rule lawyer. If you do allow your opponent flexibility to play a 'gray area' rule as he sees it then you are a good guy and using your rule lawyering powers for 'good.' Don't becomes one of those ******* guys, those give rule lawyers a bad name....

The cheating though... tsk tsk.

So you're a good rules lawyer when you let the other guy have the benefit of the doubt but a dick if you want the benefit of the the game we agreed to play?
Not knowing the rules or an exploit of them isn't unsportsmanlike behaviour on your opponents part so why should they always give way? Dice off seems like a much fairer way to do it.

Seems a bit of a double standard.

I want to be able to agree with the idea that we give the 'benefit to the game' but these are rules written by Game Workshop....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, you would still get the Scout rule, but the LR wouldn't - you need to be embarked for the LR to get it.

That is my understanding and why I asked the question, which means the Terminators made a scout move making them unable to embark or disembark their transport. Many people in the discussion are focused on the Terminators being inside the transport. They are also locked in on the Assault vehicle rule of the Landraider. If a person wants to understand how this rule works one needs to look at all the options on how the unit can be deployed and moved.

Would this be a discussion if I choose to use a tactical squad and rhino? The rhino is not an assault vehicle, but the heart of the issue still remains.

My personal thoughts is that while this "combo" sounds great; my gut reaction is that there's something fishy about it. Secondly, this "tactic" is predicated on a lot of factors going your way, which rarely happens, and doesn't seem like it would be a very strong tactic. Think of the points sink you have dropped just on Khan, the Terminators, and the Landraider makes me question would you be able to recoup those points before your opponent's whole army turned and fired everything they had at the squad.

Bkiker I think you've misunderstood the tactic. The Terminators don't disembark during the scout move they disembark on turn 1 so no assault for the Rhino + Tacticals.

As for viability I would say it is hugely viable. 2-3 Landraiders disembarking Terminators into someone's army turn 1 supported by perhaps drop poding tacticals or LSS scouts and you've got a strong alphastrike. In such a shooting edition that kind of turn 1 assault would be very effective particularly as your opponent can't null deploy.

The tactic is indeed to "scout move" inside the LR; and currently the unit inside is NOT making a Scout move - for proof, a non-scouting unit inside a scouting vehicle does not prevent a Scout move on the part of the vehicle.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Bkiker I think you've misunderstood the tactic. The Terminators don't disembark during the scout move they disembark on turn 1 so no assault for the Rhino + Tacticals.

As for viability I would say it is hugely viable. 2-3 Landraiders disembarking Terminators into someone's army turn 1 supported by perhaps drop poding tacticals or LSS scouts and you've got a strong alphastrike. In such a shooting edition that kind of turn 1 assault would be very effective particularly as your opponent can't null deploy.

As I mentioned, the tactic sounds a bit fishy, and is predicated on a lot of things going in your favor, which for me rarely happens. If we go with your suggestion of 3 Landraiders with Terminators, Khan on bike, that comes to 1500 points. That doesn't not include any troop choices. In a kill point mission, this would be nice, but that is a rarity now. The tactic seems to just destroy your opponent's army forgetting about objectives. In which case, I just focus on taking out what few troop choices the White Scar player has.

I want to make it clear that I think there is something dodgy about this. In a friendly, pickup game, I would allow it just to see how it plays, or roll off to decide who was right about the assaulting after redeployment. In a tournament, I would hope officials would have a ruling on this before hand, or rule on it during the tournament. It is an interesting puzzle though.

You can focus on the troops if you truly want but imagine what effective shooting you'll have left that survives 10-15 terminators, 2-3 land raiders,
khan and then selective fire from a drop pod of marines or bike units with special weapons like grav guns aiming to shoot riptides, tanks and anything
else that is a threat. I'm a friend of Aidobmac, the guy who started this thread. We thought if this was possible, and after reading every post I still believe it is
though we wanted to have a word with the local TO organizers in Ontario such as for Warmaster's Challenge and Conquest Toronto their opinion, then we would consider making
an alpha strike White Scars army around this. This was specifically thought up for a doubles tournament setting where big shooty units from your opponents
tend to come in 1 to 2 units that just get horrifically smashed before they even have a chance to act. You don't think it's as viable as it sounds but it heavily dictates how your
opponent plays the game and usually he doesn't find a favor as your terminators with a 12" scout, a 6" land raider move turn 1, a 6" disembark and then a 2d6" charge range.
Even going turn two, a land raider can but doesn't usually blow up from 1-2 shots tossed at it. Plus if Khan assassinates a cheap character in a doubles tournament and they come
up a lot, hes up his warlord trait plus first blood plus a warlord then and there which gives some leeway room into having minimal troops.

The mentality of why we wanted to try this aside, Aidobmac seriously means that he doesn't want to cheat his opponents and came here looking for strong arguments that debunked
this idea because him and myself couldn't readily find one that settled the issue. Some people comment that they would lose friends or would quit the game then and there had this been
seen at the table but where we came here hoping for constructive criticism and honestly seeing the legitimacy of the rule, they wouldn't hear any of it without even thinking and that
in my mind puts them at a much lower standing then us as sportsmanlike players.

The cornerstone I think that now affirmed my position that this is legal is the guy's post a few above this one where if the vehicle had scout and the unit didn't the vehicle could still
scout with the unit in it. Even though the land raider is given scout by the terminators who are given scout by Khan's special rule, the land raider now has scout and thus makes its own scout move
regardless of the occupants.

 Inquisitor Lord Cuthbert wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Homeskillet wrote:
Put it this way: play that scout shenanigans against me, and it's the last time we would play. Seems pretty clear to me that the unit scouted if they're inside their DT

Put it this way: Your personal feelings have literally zero to do with how the rules are currently written.
The rules currently allow this to work. I don't think it's intended, but that's how they work.
Perhaps read the tenets of the forum before responding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
If it's obviously an unintentional omission, treat it that way.

Prove that it's obvious. I don't think it's obvious at all.

And this Sir is exactly why so many people have issues with "Rules Lawyering". Your attitude, and others, is not conducive for the game or hobby, in fact it is detremental. This is not an issue debating a game mechanic, or understanding the application of a rule. This is out right easter egging and as such is a glorified means of cheating. The fact that this kind of argument enjoys as wide a support as it does is disheartening.

Your tone implies that you think I play this way. If you'll read my post again it's pretty obvious I don't think it's intended and don't encourage people playing this way.

I'm not a cheater and do not support playing this way. I resent the implication. Reported.