So this question came up when looking at the new Crimson Slaughter Supplement. Is there any rule that describes or could allow you to handle the potential situation where a squad of Possessed are embarked upon a transport and when rolling on the "Slaves to the Voices" chart your squad's unit type changes from Infantry to Beast?
I've been looking at the Transport rules to see if there is anything that might cover this, but while on page 78 they state the following:
A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity.
So my "HIWPI" would be that if you roll that value on "Slaves to the Voices" you would immediately disembark as you would be contravening the above rule to keep them in there. But I'm not sure if that's really how you should deal with it. If it is the best way to handle the issue it does raise the problem that you're now Beasts that can only move up to 6" from the transport.
If anyone has a better idea of how to handle the situation or if there's some blatantly obvious rule I'm overlooking if you could clarify this for me that'd be fantastic.
Uptopdownunder wrote: What is the trigger that causes them to roll and become beasts?
Sorry, "Slaves to the Voices" is the rule which replaces "Vessels of Chaos" for the Possessed Unit. The relevant rule is below:
...Instead, roll a D3 on the table below at the beginning of each controlling player’s turn. The mutation affects every Possessed model in the unit and lasts until the start of the controlling player’s next turn:
Beast form: The unit's type changes from Infantry to Beasts
This feels like black hole level of missing rules, all answers are going to be 'house rules' designed to fix it. I could cobble together a few twisted and broken arguments but it would take more research then I can do from my workplace before I even found a place to begin. Personally I'm with UpTopDownUnder here: Their status was checked when they embarked. That would probably be where I start on trying to figure out a semi-Rule as Written supported conclusion to this very unusual puzzle, seeing if the restriction is found in the section detailing how a unit embarks into a transport and building on from there.
Whatever that conclusion is would be a stretch, but I think we all are stretching on this one.
From my knowledge, the Champion of Choas has a trigger that requires the model to successfully win a challenge before rolling on the table and this would be an amazing task for a unit embarked into a transport to achieve.
JinxDragon wrote: From my knowledge, the Champion of Choas has a trigger that requires the model to successfully win a challenge before rolling on the table and this would be an amazing task for a unit embarked into a transport to achieve.
Nope. If the Champ helps kill a character with shooting, he gets to roll as well.
JinxDragon wrote: ...the Champion of Choas has a trigger that requires the model to successfully win a challenge...
First off, that's incorrect; while the rule does require them to issue and accept challenges wherever possible, the trigger for the roll is merely killing an enemy character. You can totally get it by firing a bolt pistol out of a rhino, it's just rather less likely.
Second, it hardly matters. It is a slightly similar rule and it does have a specific description of what happens if you become a Beast (or Monstrous Creature) while in a vehicle, so if you're looking for a precedent, it's the best one around, and it doesn't hurt that it's similar to "normal" involuntary disembarkation.
EDIT: RaW, the rule just breaks; you have no permission to remain there nor to get out.
I agree it does give a bit of a pointer but it is significantly different in that it is a permanent change, it is the replacement of the model with a different type of model and it only affects a single model.
Pyrian and HappyJew,
Yeah, I overlooked that part while trying to go off nothing but memory... think I would remember the debate that formed around 'how do you know if the champion killed the character' thread a few months ago.
Very weird indeed. If they fall out of the transport on the beginning of the turn can they still move and assault normally? This effectively allows possessed to assault from a stationary rhino (if they roll beast type that turn). Because that's typically not allowed I'd probably say they remain embarked and treat the transport rules as if they were infantry. It seems the least drastic change.
This makes me think of a related scenario since CoC is being used as a reference. If a Lord shoots a unit out of a rhino hatch killing a character. He turns into spawn, falling out of the rhino. Can he then assault? An extremely unlikely scenario (the shooting a character part, not the turning to spawn part) but seems relevant.
JubbJubbz wrote: If they fall out of the transport on the beginning of the turn can they still move and assault normally?
They cannot assault out of a rhino this way, as they have disembarked that turn. I'm not sure whether they could move normally; the rules I've read don't particularly clarify the answer. I'd probably allow it.
I suppose the argument is that Champions of Chaos doesn't tell you to Disembark but instead you simply place the model within 3" of the vehicle on which it the original model was embarked. The new Spawn or Prince model was never embarked in the first place.
This is why I'm not sure it's the best fitting rule for working out what to do in this situation since Spawndom or Dark Apotheosis will not usually happen at the start of the Movement phase and there is no clarification on what movement is allowed. Plus the Possessed Models are still present and were Embarked at the start of the turn.
Thankfully I'm not a tournament player so if I do decide to take these Possessed models I think I'll just have to sit down and figure out a house rule to handle this scenario.
Technically speaking, and HIWPI the transport rules only prohibit non-infantry models from embarking onto a transport. The rules have no qualms with the non infantry models being on board transports, just the actual act of embarking. Up until now there was no other way to get a non-infantry model aboard a transport as even deploying within the transport meant you embarked before deployment. So I'd be fine with an infantry unit comprised entirly of models with the beast unit type being on board a tranport, and I would also have no issues with them disembarking. I would only have issue with said unit turning around and trying to embark again.
DJGietzen wrote: Technically speaking, and HIWPI the transport rules only prohibit non-infantry models from embarking onto a transport. The rules have no qualms with the non infantry models being on board transports, just the actual act of embarking. Up until now there was no other way to get a non-infantry model aboard a transport as even deploying within the transport meant you embarked before deployment. So I'd be fine with an infantry unit comprised entirly of models with the beast unit type being on board a tranport, and I would also have no issues with them disembarking. I would only have issue with said unit turning around and trying to embark again.
with the exceptions of the thunderhawk and manta which can carry vehicles.
DJGietzen wrote: Technically speaking, and HIWPI the transport rules only prohibit non-infantry models from embarking onto a transport. The rules have no qualms with the non infantry models being on board transports, just the actual act of embarking. Up until now there was no other way to get a non-infantry model aboard a transport as even deploying within the transport meant you embarked before deployment. So I'd be fine with an infantry unit comprised entirly of models with the beast unit type being on board a tranport, and I would also have no issues with them disembarking. I would only have issue with said unit turning around and trying to embark again.
Actually, the rules clearly say a vehicle "can carry a single infantry unit", and then goes on to say only infantry can embark it. So tecnically, the vehicle can not hold or be embarked by non infantry.
Either way, its an awful rule for any posessed unit riding in a transport.
There is a 33% chanse you cripple your movement and leave your expencive unit out in the open every turn you are in a transport.
DJGietzen wrote: Technically speaking, and HIWPI the transport rules only prohibit non-infantry models from embarking onto a transport. The rules have no qualms with the non infantry models being on board transports, just the actual act of embarking. Up until now there was no other way to get a non-infantry model aboard a transport as even deploying within the transport meant you embarked before deployment. So I'd be fine with an infantry unit comprised entirly of models with the beast unit type being on board a tranport, and I would also have no issues with them disembarking. I would only have issue with said unit turning around and trying to embark again.
Actually, the rules clearly say a vehicle "can carry a single infantry unit", and then goes on to say only infantry can embark it. So tecnically, the vehicle can not hold or be embarked by non infantry.
Either way, its an awful rule for any posessed unit riding in a transport.
There is a 33% chanse you cripple your movement and leave your expencive unit out in the open every turn you are in a transport.
I thought of that as well. This is a permission and does not actually deny anything so their is nothing technically illegal about carrying beasts. They are not allowed to take the action of embarking but nothing says they cannot be in an embarked state and round about permission for such a state is given. Looks RAW legal to me.
I don't know where this notion that the restriction is just on embarking. It's like - did you not read the preceding paragraph? The first one? Stop skipping the first part of the rule.
Main rulebook, page 78, Transport Capacity:
"Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity."
Underline added, bold in original.
Pyrian wrote: I don't know where this notion that the restriction is just on embarking. It's like - did you not read the preceding paragraph? The first one? Stop skipping the first part of the rule.
Main rulebook, page 78, Transport Capacity:
"Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity."
Underline added, bold in original.
"...can never be exceeded...", people.
How does carrying a unit of beasts exceed the transports 'single infantry unit' capacity? That rule only limits the number of infantry units, not beasts.
It seems they figured that if they only allow infantry to embark then they'd only have infantry embarked. That's reasonable. They should have thought of this when allowing units to change type though.
RAW - legal
RAI - No freaking way!
HYWPI - Up to you but I'd suggest 'must immediately disembark' as a house rule though just to keep it simple.
I think personally as a house rule I'd go with must immediately disembark up to 12", they follow all other restrictions for shooting and assault caused by disembarking. Maybe not RAW, or RAI, but a fair way to play in a fun game with friends that doesn't entirely ruin the turn for the player.
Then again, if a spacewolf lord take two pet wolfs, they may ride in a transport vehicle with their master as long as you dont exeed the transport capacity (ferisian wolves count as two medels).
This is specified in the SW codex, but dont apply to units of fenrisisn wolves. Because they count more as wargear (edit: the lords pet wolves count as wargear, not the unit wolves).
To complicate things further, a SW iron priest can include two wolfes to his unit along with servitors. These are added to the unit, not bought as wargear, and there is no clarificaton if they may ride in a vehicle.
FWIW, I'd treat it just like Champion of Chaos rule and place them within 3" of the transport. Then, since it was the start of the player turn, they could move (but not assault) normally.
That sucks for them, rules-wise, so I could see a cost/benefit/rules logic argument being made for letting them stay in the transport (it's not like they change base size or anything). I wouldn't object to that, since they aren't suddenly transmogrifying into bigger models which would not fit into a transport (unlike the Champion of Chaos transformation).
However, within the 'spirit of the game' (oh, dear!), it does seem to make sense that ferrying around an entire unit of Chaos Marines possessed by daemons of the warp might be a bit chancy. If anyone is going to go nuts and leap out of their ride, Possessed do seem to be the most likely candidates.
It would have been much better if GW had just said that this result "allowed the unit to move and assault as if their unit type was Beasts".
Edit: If a rule tells you that a container has a capacity limit of 3 bricks does that limit the number of cookies it can hold? No.
However, if you lack a rule to say that the container may carry cookies, then you are not allowed to carry those cookies in the container.
If rules change those bricks into cookies while the bricks are in the container...
There's no direct statement of permission but it's rules that put them in there.
Rules say these infantry can embark in the transport
Rules say the infantry turn into beasts
Rules say these beasts are in the Transport
Since it's rules that cause the unit of beasts to be embarked you'd need to find denial for them to exist in that state. Not having per mission for beasts to embark doesn't do it because beasts did not embark. A capacity limit of one unit of infantry doesn't deny it because they're not infantry.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: I would play it as the CoC rule. They fall out of the transport growling and flailing just in time so that they do not break the game.
I'm in this camp as well. Without exceptions to allow them to stay in the transport the transport isn't allowed to carry models without the Infantry characteristic. Because that's replaces by the Beast characteristic the Possessed aren't allowed to be in the vehicle anymore. The only logical recourse is then they disembark (or emergency disembark if they've somehow been boxed in, and if they can't do that then they're destroyed).
Clearly models have unit types, and the unit type within the unit can be different from model to model. So what defines an "infantry unit"? Who is to stay that such a unit stops being an "infantry unit" if there are no longer any models with the unit type infantry within it?
I'd suggest that in RAW there is no such thing as an "infantry unit" and that statement causes a significant number of problems within the rules. Clearly not how it should be player, nor how it was intended just more evidence there is no RAW solution to this problem.
DJGietzen wrote: Clearly models have unit types, and the unit type within the unit can be different from model to model. So what defines an "infantry unit"? Who is to stay that such a unit stops being an "infantry unit" if there are no longer any models with the unit type infantry within it?
I'm pretty sure the rule itself says they stop being infantry models becuase the infantry type is replaced with the beast type (temporarily). They don't get both types, one clearly replaces the other. And because it replaces it (temporarily) they can't claim to be an "infantry unit".
DJGietzen wrote: I'd suggest that in RAW there is no such thing as an "infantry unit" and that statement causes a significant number of problems within the rules. Clearly not how it should be player, nor how it was intended just more evidence there is no RAW solution to this problem.
And Infantry unit is clearly a unit made of Infantry models.To go that far into over-reading it by claiming it doesn't exist because the book doesn't explain basic English is rather silly and pedantic.
Transport limitations are only checked when a unit is embarking. Once it is legally embarked, there are no rules that say anything happens to that unit while embarked. The unit would stay there until it disembarked, at which time it could not reembark unless its unit type changed again.
Fragile wrote: Transport limitations are only checked when a unit is embarking. Once it is legally embarked, there are no rules that say anything happens to that unit while embarked. The unit would stay there until it disembarked, at which time it could not reembark unless its unit type changed again.
And if that was the case a Champ turned into a Spawn or a Daemon Prince could stay in a transport once turned but the rules clearly stated they do not, creating precedent for the Possessed.
Fragile wrote: Transport limitations are only checked when a unit is embarking. Once it is legally embarked, there are no rules that say anything happens to that unit while embarked. The unit would stay there until it disembarked, at which time it could not reembark unless its unit type changed again.
And if that was the case a Champ turned into a Spawn or a Daemon Prince could stay in a transport once turned but the rules clearly stated they do not, creating precedent for the Possessed.
And where in the rule for Possessed is that line? Using CSM as precedence that line would have been included in the rule.
Fragile wrote: Transport limitations are only checked when a unit is embarking. Once it is legally embarked, there are no rules that say anything happens to that unit while embarked. The unit would stay there until it disembarked, at which time it could not reembark unless its unit type changed again.
And if that was the case a Champ turned into a Spawn or a Daemon Prince could stay in a transport once turned but the rules clearly stated they do not, creating precedent for the Possessed.
And where in the rule for Possessed is that line? Using CSM as precedence that line would have been included in the rule.
How about in using the rules of Codex CSM in addition to the rules of the Supplement. It's not in Slaves to the Voices, but does apply to supplement as a whole.
Due to the ability to give their transport shrouded to me it seems like they intend you to have the choice to put them in a transport. If this rule forced them to disembark it means putting them in a transport is entirely useless (not that its a great option even if they remain when beasts). For me the RaI seems to strongly indicate that they remain on board (no instruction given to disembark). Though I think there is a big hole in the rules here that just don't really govern this situation.
Also from a RaW point of view literally no rules tell you to disembark. Either:
1) You break no rules by being embarked as your were allowed to embark and you still do not have more than 1 infantry unit embarked.
Or
2) You are only allowed upto 1 infantry unit and zero other types of unit embarked at which point you've broken this rule. You have 2 ways to proceed either declare the CS player the loser as he is fielding an illegal unit and therefore cheating. Or the game hangs as a rule is broken and we have no way to fix it. Disembarking further breaks the rule as you can't disembark from a transport you are not in and the unit can not be in the transport (never exceed).
Fragile wrote: Your taking a specific rule and trying to apply it to everywhere without permission to do so.
A specific rule involving very similar circumstances involving models whose type changes.
However CoC also creates a new unit. A similar rule with specific instructions on how the handle their situation, this rule lacks that. It could make a good basis for a Houserule but it needlessly nerfs CSM transports when otherwise they could be almost useable.
As stated you can interpret it RaW so no rule is broken or you can interpret it that the game breaks. There is no valid RaW that they are forced to disembark.
Alright, I'm home and have my rulebook handy so let's look this over all the way. This is strictly RAW speaking.
First for the statement that there aren't "Infantry Units" in the game. Page 44, "Unit Types" , the very first one is "Infantry". So yes, there are "Infantry Units".
Now, while there is a constraint to prevent non-Infantry units from embarking I do believe there is a RAW regarding the Possessed being on the transport. And here's why (emphasis mine)
Rulebook Page 78 wrote:A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's transport capacity.
So why am I referencing this? Because the problem isn't that the Transport is not allowed to carry a unit of Beasts unless they have permission otherwise (which at the moment they do not). It doesn't give any exceptions in the core rulebook to allow a unit of beasts to stay in the vehicle, nor does it mention that the only time the unit type matters is upon embarking. Once the unit becomes beasts the Transport is then violating it's own rules on what can be inside of it. Because the vehicle can't carry a unit of beasts there is only one logical recourse to "fix' the issue: remove the unit from the vehicle. The only ways to remove a unit from a vehicle is by disembarking.
Does this fly in the face of the possible RAI based on the Slaves to the Voices rule? Yes. But from a strict reading of the rules the conclusion I reach, as per RAW, is that they need to get out of their ride.
FlingitNow wrote:Also from a RaW point of view literally no rules tell you to disembark. Either:
1) You break no rules by being embarked as your were allowed to embark and you still do not have more than 1 infantry unit embarked.
Or
2) You are only allowed upto 1 infantry unit and zero other types of unit embarked at which point you've broken this rule. You have 2 ways to proceed either declare the CS player the loser as he is fielding an illegal unit and therefore cheating. Or the game hangs as a rule is broken and we have no way to fix it. Disembarking further breaks the rule as you can't disembark from a transport you are not in and the unit can not be in the transport (never exceed).
There is no stated capacity limit for beasts, only infantry. That rule is worded in a way to make it exclusive to infantry so there is no capacity limit for any other unit type. Beasts, not being denied, are in fact permitted in a round about way through the shifting unit type.
-They are permitted to embark
-They are permitted to turn into beasts while embarked
-Permission found, check for denial... none found, proceed.
As far as the unit type vs model unit type. Can a unit of infantry be considered a unit of infantry if there are no more infantry models left in it? I would say no but others would say yes and there are reasons to support both opinions. That's a whole new can of worms.
Fragile wrote: While that sentence is correct, it is telling you that only a single unit +ICs can be carried. That paragraph is about the capacity.
The next paragraph is the more relevant rule. "Only Infantry models can embark......"
If RAW is they must get out... citation please?
While it does talk about capacity, it also specifies the kind of unit that can be inside of the vehicle, which is why it's important. It's not just a limitation numericaly, but by unit type as well.
And because Beasts violate that capacity rule (not Infantry and there is no exception listed in the rules) they can't stay inside the vehicle as the vehicle isn't allowed to carry them. The only solutions then are the unit is disembarked, or destroyed (as it can't be in a place it's not allowed to be). Disembarked seems the more reasonable recourse.
Reasonable sure, but your making up rules. The embarkation was legal. It was an infantry when it got on. There is nothing that requires it to get out if it changes.
Fragile wrote: Reasonable sure, but your making up rules. The embarkation was legal. It was an infantry when it got on. There is nothing that requires it to get out if it changes.
You have a unit that is not allowed to be inside the transport because it's unit type changed and you're saying taking the unit out of the transport to fix the issue is "making up rules" when we have an obvious problem? I freely admit there is no rule that says they have to get out, but the fact remains that we have a legitimate rules conflict and the only resolution that solves it is taking the unit out of the transport. I fail to see how this is not a valid solution to the problem, a rule in the rulebook or not.
First for the statement that there aren't "Infantry Units" in the game. Page 44, "Unit Types" , the very first one is "Infantry". So yes, there are "Infantry Units".
I think you need to read that again. Unit types are a classification of models not units. So no there is no real definition of "Infantry Units". Common assumptions are that an "Infantry Unit" is a unit entirely composed of models with the unit type Infantry, a unit where the majority of models have the unit type Infantry or a unit where at least one model has the unit type Infantry. The most common being the first, all could claim to be equally valid RaW.
So why am I referencing this? Because the problem isn't that the Transport is not allowed to carry a unit of Beasts unless they have permission otherwise (which at the moment they do not). It doesn't give any exceptions in the core rulebook to allow a unit of beasts to stay in the vehicle, nor does it mention that the only time the unit type matters is upon embarking. Once the unit becomes beasts the Transport is then violating it's own rules on what can be inside of it.
Well you could argue that you could equally argue nothing says a beast unit can not be embarked only that it can not embark. There is a limit of 1 infantry unit (whatever that means) but no limit for other types of unit, just an implied limit of zero.
Because the vehicle can't carry a unit of beasts there is only one logical recourse to "fix' the issue: remove the unit from the vehicle. The only ways to remove a unit from a vehicle is by disembarking.
This is where you start making up rules entirely. If we go with your interpretation of the Beasts can not be embarked on the transport check the wording immediately preceeding what you posted "can never be exceeded". Thus disembarking the unit still breaks this rule. Having got out of the transport means you have entered play from an illegal position so this is still not acceptable RaW. Making up rules like "you must disembark from some where you can't be" is not RaW. If you're having to do that your actual interpretation is that RaW is broken. If that is the case the other valid RaW reading that doesn't break the game seems like the best way to go to me.
First for the statement that there aren't "Infantry Units" in the game. Page 44, "Unit Types" , the very first one is "Infantry". So yes, there are "Infantry Units".
I think you need to read that again. Unit types are a classification of models not units. So no there is no real definition of "Infantry Units". Common assumptions are that an "Infantry Unit" is a unit entirely composed of models with the unit type Infantry, a unit where the majority of models have the unit type Infantry or a unit where at least one model has the unit type Infantry. The most common being the first, all could claim to be equally valid RaW.
Considering that the chapter is called "Unit Types" I believe that it's safe to say that you can draw the conclusion that "Infantry Units" are a unit type, one made of models with the Infantry characteristic.
It was mostly to just point out the faulty logic of claiming "Infantry Units" don't exist.
So why am I referencing this? Because the problem isn't that the Transport is not allowed to carry a unit of Beasts unless they have permission otherwise (which at the moment they do not). It doesn't give any exceptions in the core rulebook to allow a unit of beasts to stay in the vehicle, nor does it mention that the only time the unit type matters is upon embarking. Once the unit becomes beasts the Transport is then violating it's own rules on what can be inside of it.
Well you could argue that you could equally argue nothing says a beast unit can not be embarked only that it can not embark. There is a limit of 1 infantry unit (whatever that means) but no limit for other types of unit, just an implied limit of zero.
As is often mentioned that 40k is a Permissive Ruleset I'd say that it's not an "implied limit" as no permission exists to allow that unit to be there normally. It doesn't matter how the unit got there, it's not given permission to be there anymore.
Because the vehicle can't carry a unit of beasts there is only one logical recourse to "fix' the issue: remove the unit from the vehicle. The only ways to remove a unit from a vehicle is by disembarking.
This is where you start making up rules entirely. If we go with your interpretation of the Beasts can not be embarked on the transport check the wording immediately preceeding what you posted "can never be exceeded". Thus disembarking the unit still breaks this rule. Having got out of the transport means you have entered play from an illegal position so this is still not acceptable RaW. Making up rules like "you must disembark from some where you can't be" is not RaW. If you're having to do that your actual interpretation is that RaW is broken. If that is the case the other valid RaW reading that doesn't break the game seems like the best way to go to me.
I didn't say it was a rule, I said it was a solution. If the unit can't be in the transport then something needs to be done to correct the issue. RAW is broken (something I mentioned before) and the most straightforward patch is to have them disembark. Another one would be to have the unit be destroyed as it can't be there (much like if it was in impassable terrain for example).
The other "valid" RAW reading ignores the nature of the rules and whole portion about what kind of units can be inside of Transports (barring exceptions made in codexes or unit entries).
Just because it's an "easier" interpretation doesn't make it a "correct" one.
Oh, and by your own argument, even under the alternate reading you're proposing the unit still can't disembark. So don't stick them in a Land Raider because they'll get stuck there if they go Beasts the turn you're planning on disembarking them for an assault. Still broken.
Fragile wrote: Reasonable sure, but your making up rules. The embarkation was legal. It was an infantry when it got on. There is nothing that requires it to get out if it changes.
You have a unit that is not allowed to be inside the transport because it's unit type changed and you're saying taking the unit out of the transport to fix the issue is "making up rules" when we have an obvious problem? I freely admit there is no rule that says they have to get out, but the fact remains that we have a legitimate rules conflict and the only resolution that solves it is taking the unit out of the transport. I fail to see how this is not a valid solution to the problem, a rule in the rulebook or not.
How do you know its not allowed in the transport? You've made that part up. How do you know you are allowed to remove them from the transport? You've made that part up as well.
Just because each model in the unit is no longer has the infantry unit type does not necessarily mean they are no longer an infantry unit in any respect. You can't point to a rule that defines an infantry unit. You can't point to a rule that gives you permission to 'fix' something when that something is "impossible",
DJGietzen wrote: How do you know its not allowed in the transport? You've made that part up. How do you know you are allowed to remove them from the transport? You've made that part up as well.
They unit types listed as being permitted in the transport are Infantry and Independent Characters who are Infantry. That's it. That's all the capacity allows inside the vehicle as per it's own rules. I didn't "make that up", I just didn't ignore the inconvenient evidence that'd make the unit better.
As for removing them from a transport I did not say that was a rule, I said that was a way to solve the problem of a rule being broken. If you'd prefer another way is having the unit destroyed as it can't exist there and it can't get out (without some concession at least). Yippee.
DJGietzen wrote: Just because each model in the unit is no longer has the infantry unit type does not necessarily mean they are no longer an infantry unit in any respect. You can't point to a rule that defines an infantry unit. You can't point to a rule that gives you permission to 'fix' something when that something is "impossible",
Slaves to the Voices:
Beast Form: The unit's type changes from Infantry to Beasts.
The unit stops being Infantry completely until the start of your next turn. It no longer has the Infantry type and now has the Beast type instead. Now I ask you to stop "making things up" as you're trying to create a situation that doesn't exist that gives the unit both the "Beast" and "Infantry" types at the same time.
Please read that section particularly pay attention to paragraph 4 of page 44. Unit Type is something that applies to models.
Yes 40k is permissive the unit had permission to embark and permission to change unit type. You now need a restriction on them being there or a rule that forces them to disembark. You have at best an implied restriction on them being there and enforcing that implied restriction breaks the game. Your solution as you've finally admitted is just made up rules and HYWPI which is fine but don't claim it is the RaW it is not.
There is a restriction on infantry embarking there is no restriction on unit type for disembarking. I'm not claiming we should go with the easier interpretation just going with the one that doesn't break the game seems to make sense to me and also doesn't break any rules and appears to be the designers intent. As opposed to an interpretation that breaks the game and forces you to make up extra rules and breaks what appears to be the intent. That is entirely nonsensical to me.
FlingitNow wrote: Yes 40k is permission the unit had permission to embark and permission to change unit type. You now need a restriction on them being there or a rule that forces them to disembark. You have at best an implied restriction on them being there and enforcing that implied restriction breaks the game. Your solution as you've finally admitted is just made up rules and HYWPI which is fine but don't claim it is the RaW it is not.
Restriction is not implied if no permission is given for them to continue being there. That leaves us at a point in the rules where a problem exists. The unit can't be in the vehicle because the vehicle doesn't have the permission to carry Beasts. That leaves us with 3 choices: 1) Disembark. Not a rule, just a way to play it. 2) Unit can stay inside. ALSO not a rule, but a way to play it, despite it violating the permission the vehicle has on what kind of units can be inside of it. 3) Unit is destroyed because it's illegally placed. Probably the only 100% RAW to play it but I don't think anyone wants to follow this as you potentially throw the unit away 1/3 of the time when they're embarked.
FlingitNow wrote: There is a restriction on infantry embarking there is no restriction on unit type for disembarking. I'm not claiming we should go with the easier interpretation just going with the one that doesn't break the game seems to make sense to me and also doesn't break any rules and appears to be the designers intent. As opposed to an interpretation that breaks the game and forces you to make up extra rules and breaks what appears to be the intent. That is entirely nonsensical to me.
I find it hilarious that I'm be accused of making rules up when I never claimed the disembark was required by the rules. I said by the rules the unit can't be in the vehicle. That was not a lie, and my HIWPI involved disembarking as it clears up the rules issue, your's is that they stay inside which still violates the rule. The unit had permission to enter the vehicle, and to change, but without specific permission to stay inside the vehicle there is nothing to allow them to be there when the unit type changes. The unit types allowed inside of the vehicle is not "implied" it's clearly stated to be Infantry. Not Infantry and "whatever they turn into" just Infantry. That's a legitimate issue with how the rules stand right now. Any solution involving disembarking, or keeping them inside is a house rule. Any claim that there is some kind of implied permission to stay inside is a house rule. Any claim that "just because they don't say I can't" doesn't fit into this game system and shouldn't be in this forum.
Now I emailed this issue into gamefaqs@gwplc.com just in case they actually might at least update the digital copies of the codex to fix this. I highly suggest others do too just incase we actually get a real resolution so it can actually be "Frequently Asked".
You seem to be completely misunderstanding how a permissive ruleset works.
Does the unit have permission to embark?
Does the unit have permission to change its model's unit type?
Now if the answer to the above is yes to both you have permission for the unit to be embarked with their new unit type so then you need:
1) restriction on the unit being embarked (you have yet to show this as anything other than implied by omission).
2) an instruction to immediately disembark.
Please provide a page number and paragraph or direct quote for one of the above.
As claiming you didn't say you needed to be infantry to disembark:
[quote = ClockworkZion]
Oh, and by your own argument, even under the alternate reading you're proposing the unit still can't disembark. So don't stick them in a Land Raider because they'll get stuck there if they go Beasts the turn you're planning on disembarking them for an assault. Still broken.
You have yet to show actual permission to stay in the transport instead of it being illegally placed. You've given implied permissions, but no actual rule that specifically counters the rule that says only Infantry models are allowed in transports. Rules in writing trump implications here, this is RAW in YMDC, not "Implied Rules". If you're going to try and pound me for proof then you might actually want some of your own.
I've shown a rule that clearly says that the type of models allowed in a transport must be Infantry, all you've given me is an argument based on an implied permission to say based around not being told you can't (even though you really can't be there) and developer's intent. Bring some proof next time that you have something that says they are clearly allowed to stay inside (hint, nothing exists in the rulebook, the CSM codex or the supplement, I've looked).
Read my post more closely as well. I said more than once now, disembarking is a solution to clear up the rule dispute, but not a rule. The only RAW solution I can actually find involves destroying the unit (which comes from rules such as Deep Strike when it talks about legally placing models and units and how if they can't be legally placed they are destroyed).
So we have 3 solutions: 1 HWPI that clears up rules issues, 1 HWPI that ignores the issue or writes it off as implied permission, and an RAW that basically nukes the unit. I think we can stop running around the bush already. Don't like my response? Pester GW for a FAQ then because it's the only way any implied permissions will become actual permissions.
How is it illegally placed? I've shown permission to embark I've shown permission to change unit type. The rules not only allow the unit to be embark when beasts they actually force it upon you. So why would I need more permission to stay on board? You say the unit is illegally placed hut have failed so show a rule stating that.
If the rule said only infantry can be embarked you'd be right. But this is just like the old SM bike command squad being allowed to embark as they were still infantry and just followed the rules of bikes with no direct prohibition on bikes embarking. I have shown that the rules allow the unit to be on board and that the rules allow the unit to become beasts. Now show a restriction on beasts being in a transport vehicle or concede.
FlingitNow wrote: How is it illegally placed? I've shown permission to embark I've shown permission to change unit type. The rules not only allow the unit to be embark when beasts they actually force it upon you. So why would I need more permission to stay on board? You say the unit is illegally placed hut have failed so show a rule stating that.
What rule gives you the express permission to have Beasts in a Transport? It doesn't matter what implied rules you've dreamed up say, there is nothing that specifically remedies this situation like you claim. Specific trumps general, but there is no specific rule for this situation. You're the one saying I need to produce rules to counter your claim but you can't even produce a rule that counters the basic rules of the main rulebook.
FlingitNow wrote: If the rule said only infantry can be embarked you'd be right. But this is just like the old SM bike command squad being allowed to embark as they were still infantry and just followed the rules of bikes with no direct prohibition on bikes embarking. I have shown that the rules allow the unit to be on board and that the rules allow the unit to become beasts. Now show a restriction on beasts being in a transport vehicle or concede.
You're ignoring the fact that the rule only allows Infantry units to be inside the transport, regardless of how they got there. Claiming that the unit has implied permission is fine for HWIPI but your interpretation on HWIPI is no more valid than mine as there is no rule to allow them to be in the transport. The transport only has capacity for one unit type: Infantry. That's RAW. Any claim otherwise is fishing for rules that don't exist. There is a clear cut "here's the kind of unit that can be inside this vehicle" and you're trying to write it off with "well it doesn't say they can't be here" when the permissive ruleset doesn't give them the permission they need to be there.
I'm not from Missouri, but at this point I'm willing to move: show me an actual rule from the codex, the supplement or the rulebook that gives beasts permission to ever be in a transport and I'll concede to you. No implications, just a rule in black and white that says they can be there regardless of how they got there.
DJGietzen wrote: How do you know its not allowed in the transport? You've made that part up. How do you know you are allowed to remove them from the transport? You've made that part up as well.
They unit types listed as being permitted in the transport are Infantry and Independent Characters who are Infantry. That's it. That's all the capacity allows inside the vehicle as per it's own rules. I didn't "make that up", I just didn't ignore the inconvenient evidence that'd make the unit better.
As for removing them from a transport I did not say that was a rule, I said that was a way to solve the problem of a rule being broken. If you'd prefer another way is having the unit destroyed as it can't exist there and it can't get out (without some concession at least). Yippee.
Here is the problem. There a no unit types listed as being alloed in the transport. It says independent characters (special rule not unit type) and infantry units (looks an awful lot like a unit type, but as we will discuss, is not).
Units do not have unit types. Models have unit types and sometimes the models that make up a single unit have more then one unit type. There phrase "infantry unit" has no value within the rules. All we know for sure is that an "infantry unit" is a unit. If you give it any deeper value then you may be playing how the rule was intended, but you are making it up to do so.
You simply cannot know,because they have not told you, that a unit made entirely of beasts is not an infantry unit.
Is a unit of 10 Kroot and a Kroothound an infantry unity? The hound is a beast, but its also optional and over 90% of the unit is infantry. Its certainly not a beast unit. What if the 10 kroot die and only the hound is left, does it become a beast unit? If you answered these question with anything other than "I don't know" then you made it up. These are things the rules simply do not address.
Deciding that a unit comprised entirely of models with the beast unit types violates the maximum transport capacity rules, no matter how accurate to the intent of the author, is making up rules.
DJGietzen wrote: Just because each model in the unit is no longer has the infantry unit type does not necessarily mean they are no longer an infantry unit in any respect. You can't point to a rule that defines an infantry unit. You can't point to a rule that gives you permission to 'fix' something when that something is "impossible",
Slaves to the Voices:
Beast Form: The unit's type changes from Infantry to Beasts.
The unit stops being Infantry completely until the start of your next turn. It no longer has the Infantry type and now has the Beast type instead. Now I ask you to stop "making things up" as you're trying to create a situation that doesn't exist that gives the unit both the "Beast" and "Infantry" types at the same time.
This is even worse as units don't have types. Clearly this rule and the transport capacity rules make us of a units with types so for the sake of argument we have to conclude that models have units types, and units also have a separate type. (but we are making up rules if we do)
If you assume the intent was "The unit type of the models in the unit changes from infantry to beast" then again you have made it up to fix a gap GW left you with but lets go with that. How do you know that its not an infantry unit comprised on models with the beast unit type? To be clear the models don't have the infantry unit type. Not a single one, they all only have the beast unit type but they are all in an infantry unit.
Now lets go with what the rule actually says. The unit changes its type from infantry to beast. So technically its a bunch of models with the infantry unit type making up a beast unit. Yes you can make a clear case that this exceeds the transport capacity and is impossible. If you do anything about it, forcing the unit to disembark, destroying the unit, anything at all then you've made it up. No where does the book tell you how to deal with an embarked unit that now exceeds the capacity.
In short you have to make it up to play out this scenario, so when some one says that toy're making up rules, don;t deny it. Point out that you are making up rules because GW failed to provide any .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: What rule gives you the express permission to have Beasts in a Transport?
What gibes you the express permission to remove beasts that are illegally in a transport? You've heard the expression two wrong don't make a right. If you remove the beasts, destroy the beasts or so anything to the beasts you are doing so with out permission and that's just as bad as letting them stay in the transport.
Read Page 44 more closely: it mentions models fall into unit types rather clearly:
In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type a model falls into, but as unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile, you'll be able to find that information in the relavant codex.
An Infantry Model is a model of the Infantry Unit Type.
Do the rules give you permission for the situation of a unit of possessed with the unit type beasts to be embarked on a transport?
The ONLY answer to that question based in RaW is yes. Absolutely cut and dry the rules give permission for this situation to occur.
So if you want that situation to be illegal you need to find a restriction on that situation. That is exactly how a permissive ruleset works. You have permission for something to occur to stop that thing from being legal you need denial of that permission from some restriction.
Granted the whole way the transport and voices rules refer to units with a unit type means the whole thing is a mess RaW as DJGietzen has detailed.
ClockworkZion wrote: Read Page 44 more closely: it mentions models fall into unit types rather clearly:
In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type a model falls into, but as unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile, you'll be able to find that information in the relavant codex.
An Infantry Model is a model of the Infantry Unit Type.
Right, but that means nothing when discussing infantry units.
Unit types have nothing to do with actual units. Its a stupid name.
"Unit Types" is pretty clearly explained, it's just being ignored by people around here for convenience. Page 44 says models have a Unit Type and that the Unit Type is part of their characteristic profile.
In fact, when I flip open my codex it lists "Unit Type" in the characteristic profile.
It exists, it's defined and people are pulling things out of god knows where to try and claim it's not at this point.
ClockworkZion wrote: Read Page 44 more closely: it mentions models fall into unit types rather clearly:
In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type a model falls into, but as unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile, you'll be able to find that information in the relavant codex.
An Infantry Model is a model of the Infantry Unit Type.
Right, but that means nothing when discussing infantry units.
Unit types have nothing to do with actual units. Its a stupid name.
Unit Types define what kind of unit it is. Infantry is a type of unit listed in Unit Types. When you look at the Possessed characteristic profile under "Unit Type" it says "Infantry". When Beast Form occurs that "Infantry" becomes "Beasts" changing the Unit Type.
You're bending over backwards to justify things at this point.
ClockworkZion wrote: Read Page 44 more closely: it mentions models fall into unit types rather clearly:
In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type a model falls into, but as unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile, you'll be able to find that information in the relavant codex.
An Infantry Model is a model of the Infantry Unit Type.
Finally you realise unit type is a property of models not units.
ClockworkZion wrote: Read Page 44 more closely: it mentions models fall into unit types rather clearly:
In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type a model falls into, but as unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile, you'll be able to find that information in the relavant codex.
An Infantry Model is a model of the Infantry Unit Type.
Finally you realise unit type is a property of models not units.
So your entire stance relies on the idea that Infantry Units are not made of Infantry models and can be any model type if I get it at this point. Because that's the only way you can argue that the unit of beasts can be in there because they're somehow still an Infantry unti.
Fine. Nothing stopping bikes, calvary, or any other unit from getting in there since "Infantry unit" seems to be whatever we feel like at this point.
If we're beyond that silliness of trying to create holes in the rules to support our arguments (something the pair of you have claimed I've done ironically) and look at a unit as being composed of whatever models are in it and define the type that way (Infantry unit, Beast unit, Calvary unit, Bike unit) the rules make perfect sense and the transport rules work correctly for embarking and disembarking and what units can be inside the transport for everything except for the Possessed in that one situation.
So we have two rules interpretations involving unit types, one the breaks the game and the other that works almost everytime. Which is the one you'd take again?
ClockworkZion wrote:You have yet to show actual permission to stay in the transport instead of it being illegally placed.
Actually we have. The result of legal Embarkation and subsequent transformation is a legal process set forth by the rules. Units are allowed to disembark and vehicles are allowed to move. No more permission is needed.
You keep trying to put forth a lack of permission as a denial. It is not. A stated capacity limit of 1 unit of infantry with X models does not relate to other unit types. Beasts have no stated or implied capacity limit in a transport.
ClockworkZion wrote:
You've given implied permissions, but no actual rule...
We have given more than implied permission. Indirect but not merely implied.
ClockworkZion wrote:
...that specifically counters the rule that says only Infantry models are allowed in transports.
No rule says this. Intentionally or not you have actually fabricated this rule.
ClockworkZion wrote:
Rules in writing trump implications here, this is RAW in YMDC, not "Implied Rules". If you're going to try and pound me for proof then you might actually want some of your own.
Yes. We have quoted direct statements which in combination lead to the very result you are claiming is only implied. It is not. It is the outcome of several rules plainly stated. We have shown you ours now show us yours.
ClockworkZion wrote:
I've shown a rule that clearly says that the type of models allowed in a transport must be Infantry, all you've given me is an argument based on an implied permission to say based around not being told you can't (even though you really can't be there) and developer's intent. Bring some proof next time that you have something that says they are clearly allowed to stay inside (hint, nothing exists in the rulebook, the CSM codex or the supplement, I've looked).
-At most you've shown that infantry models count against capacity limits. This has no bearing on Beasts as the limit only counts infantry.
-No implied permission. Just permission. We have shown that the text indirectly says you can. Nothing implied about it.
-Rules place them there and do not expel them. The result is that they stay there.
ClockworkZion wrote:
Read my post more closely as well. I said more than once now, disembarking is a solution to clear up the rule dispute, but not a rule. The only RAW solution I can actually find involves destroying the unit (which comes from rules such as Deep Strike when it talks about legally placing models and units and how if they can't be legally placed they are destroyed).
So we have 3 solutions: 1 HWPI that clears up rules issues, 1 HWPI that ignores the issue or writes it off as implied permission, and an RAW that basically nukes the unit. I think we can stop running around the bush already. Don't like my response? Pester GW for a FAQ then because it's the only way any implied permissions will become actual permissions.
-Immediate disembark sounds ok for a house rule.
-Allowing them to stay embarked is RAW.
-If anything is going to get destroyed go with the transport for a good narrative. Again a possible house rule.
After reading to end of page 2, a thought popped into my head. In my group we have a couple of tall buildings, tall enough that you auto-fail impact tests (6 floors, each a small building, each about 3" high). These are actual buildings, not ruins. Lets say, theoretically a unit of CS possessed are scaling up the levels of said building to go mulch a unit of scouts sitting on the top manning a quadgun. for the first 4 levels everything's peachy. they hit the 5th level and turn into beasts. Since buildings follow the rules for vehicle embarcation, according to some, the possessed would immediately be ejected from that level, because they are not Infantry. They then are forced to take impact tests, which they automatically fail due to the height, and die. Yay .
Putting aside the who unit types has nothing to do with units debate, as you clearly don't understand the points I am trying to make...
I'll give you that a unit of beasts inside a transport exceeds the transport capacity but how they got in there, while a bit of a loop-hole, is completely legal. No rules were broken to end up in an illegal situation. Please point out the rule that gives you permission to do anything about it? You don't have permission to fix this problem and any attempt to fix it just means you need to break more rules.
If anything, precedent would be that legal actions that would result in an illegal situation are not allowed to take place. In this case the unit cannot turn into beasts while in a transport, but again we are making it up as we go along here. This is no more a valid alution that kicking them from the transport or destroying the unit.
The best solution, the one that while fostering an illegal situation does not require us to make up new rules to deal with it, is to simply ignore the problem.
This needs an FAQ, an FAQ we won't get because GW apparently doesn't write them any more.
The precedent of previous editions of the codex is for the designers to remember to account for otherwise illegal situations and include a clause on how to correct the situation. See 3rd edition and "What happens if the greater demon shows up while the host in a transport?"
On the other hand, the alternative interpretation of the problematic rule is much simpler than you're making it out to be.
What's the restriction on the number of units that can be in the transport: One infantry unit plus whatever attached IC's (where only Infantry IC's are allowed).
Does that place a limit on the number of non-Infantry units? No, because those units don't have any way of getting embarked in the normal order events, so there's no need for any such limit.
The rules don't bother to prohibit embarking a bag full of plastic army men onto the transport for the same reason--There's no point in prohibiting otherwise impossible interactions.
So that leaves you with two options:
1. Straight forward play as written: You haven't exceeded the limit of one infantry unit, but the beast unit has no way of getting out.
2. In the spirit of 3rd edition, the possessed models stumble blindly out of the transport that no longer accepts their presence.
Just don't taunt the rules and try to embark another infantry unit while the previous one has been turned into beasts.
1. Straight forward play as written: You haven't exceeded the limit of one infantry unit, but the beast unit has no way of getting out.
There is no restriction on what type of units or models may disembark from a transport. They would be able to get out through the usual method with out any issue.
Nem wrote: Seems there is a clear precidence with existing rules for how to handle this situation; Champion of Chaos rule.
Outside this we mainly seem to be on speculation or pushing RAW into a situation it was never designed for - which is creating other issues.
Not really a clear precedent the CoC rule is really quite different. Firstly the chances of it occurring whilst embarked are pretty small, indeed it is zero if you're in a Landraider (or any other transport with no firepoints). Also the change is permanent and a new unit is created (the old model is removed as casualty and counts as VPs). Also there is direct instructions to disembark so this is not a case of a similar issue where GW fixed by FaQ.
This is a 1 in 3 chance each turn and no new unit is created and the unit can return to being infantry the following turn. There is no instruction to disembark and no rule is broken by them remaining on board. Also making them disembark makes putting them in a transport non - viable ever despite another result clearly showing putting them in transports was an intended use. Here the RaI is pretty clear to me and when you look at it the RaW is likewise clear. They remain embarked as there is literally nothing even implying that they have to get out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So your entire stance relies on the idea that Infantry Units are not made of Infantry models and can be any model type if I get it at this point. Because that's the only way you can argue that the unit of beasts can be in there because they're somehow still an Infantry unti.
When have I ever said that? All I've said is an infantry unit is not a term defined in the rules and this causes problems when GW keep using that and other similar terms. My argument does not rely on a particular definition of "Infantry Unit". I just understand the rules well enough to point out what a mess the use of that term is. Something I pointed out pages ago.
If we're beyond that silliness of trying to create holes in the rules to support our arguments (something the pair of you have claimed I've done ironically) and look at a unit as being composed of whatever models are in it and define the type that way (Infantry unit, Beast unit, Calvary unit, Bike unit) the rules make perfect sense and the transport rules work correctly for embarking and disembarking and what units can be inside the transport for everything except for the Possessed in that one situation.
What about mixed units? Most competitive armies these days contain units with models with multiple different unit types. Again something that was pointed out a long time ago in the very same post where I explained unit types to you and why they don't apply to units. Please read what I've said in future when responding to me it will help you understand the rules quicker.
Hopefully you understand now how unit types work. Now read my posts again and you should learn how a permissive ruleset works and why you have permission (not implied permission actual permission) to have a unit of beasts embarked on a transport. Or read through Abandon's post as he explains the same thing in a slightly different way.
once you've done that if you still believe your interpretation is correct please post the rule denying permission for them to be embarked. Something you have repeatedly refused to do so far.
I love how the '1' result (Spirit Beacons) specifically mentions transports (grants unit and transport Shrouded) but they didn't make the connection to transports for 2.
I think it would be hilarious if it functioned like clown cars:
As long as all the currently embarked Possessed units are in beast form, a new unit can embark as Infantry (since the vehicle hasn't met it's maximum capacity of 1 infantry unit). It would give the chaos armada something to do as it journeyed through space and then BOOM deploy it and out pops 20 different units of possessed (and 10 more have to stay inside because they rolled beast).
If the unit is already embarked then nothing happens.
The rule for embarking says "only infantry models can embark on transports"
RAW you are already embarked, so you may not try to embark.
RAW there is nothing about remaining embarked, or being embarked, so there is no RAW about you having to get out of the transport if your unit type changes from infantry, as you satisfied the requirement of Infantry to embark.
HIWPI, would be the same
regarding the spawn entry on chaos table
This of course has 0 rules bearing under the crimson fists entry, and in some ways also isn't legit as the spawn model is on a larger base than a normal chaos lord/terminator lord and there is nothing about the base size changing for the possessed.
Wow. Three pages and still an overall basic failure to understand what the word "capacity" means. If you don't fit into a capacity, then you exceed that capacity. There is no lingual requirement to specify everything that does not fit into a capacity, once what DOES fit into a capacity is established. Are you in that capacity? No? You've exceeded it.
I think people realize beasts are not allowed to embark.
The issue with the chaos champion spawn table is spawn are 'very bulky'
whereas beasts do not pick up the bulky, very bulky, or extremely bulky rules.
Technically the models type has changed to a type that is not allowed to embark on vehicles, but they do not take up any extra space like a spawn, deamon price, or greater daemon[for references to past editions where squad leaders could become greater daemons].
transport capacity for chaos rhino for example lists "ten models" not "ten infantry"
I would not let the player embark the models onto a transport, but if they were already embarked I would let a chaos player keep them embarked HIWPI, since this is pretty deep into the there are no RAWs for what would happen.
Pyrian wrote: Wow. Three pages and still an overall basic failure to understand what the word "capacity" means. If you don't fit into a capacity, then you exceed that capacity. There is no lingual requirement to specify everything that does not fit into a capacity, once what DOES fit into a capacity is established. Are you in that capacity? No? You've exceeded it.
Which is cool but as pointed out "1 infantry unit" isn't a defined capacity in the rules and is effectively meaningless to this situation. Also what are you suggesting happens? I roll that they turn into beasts and I lose the game because I'm cheating? What? Wgat are you suggesting happens RaW?
Pyrian wrote: Wow. Three pages and still an overall basic failure to understand what the word "capacity" means. If you don't fit into a capacity, then you exceed that capacity. There is no lingual requirement to specify everything that does not fit into a capacity, once what DOES fit into a capacity is established. Are you in that capacity? No? You've exceeded it.
Which is cool but as pointed out "1 infantry unit" isn't a defined capacity in the rules
It doesn't have to be explicitly defined in the rules, as it is defined in normal English
Page 78: "A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters"
a single Infantry, means just what is says, One Infantry unit, it can not carry any other types of units because they exceed its capacity of a single Infantry unit.
Transports can only carry infantry and, unless otherwise noted, nothing else...
Pyrian wrote: Wow. Three pages and still an overall basic failure to understand what the word "capacity" means. If you don't fit into a capacity, then you exceed that capacity. There is no lingual requirement to specify everything that does not fit into a capacity, once what DOES fit into a capacity is established. Are you in that capacity? No? You've exceeded it.
Which is cool but as pointed out "1 infantry unit" isn't a defined capacity in the rules
It doesn't have to be explicitly defined in the rules, as it is defined in normal English
Page 78: "A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters"
a single Infantry, means just what is says, One Infantry unit, it can not carry any other types of units because they exceed its capacity of a single Infantry unit.
Transports can only carry infantry and, unless otherwise noted, nothing else...
So what is an Infantry unit? Just so we are clear?
What happens when a unit of possessed becomes beasts whilst embarked on a transport?
FlingitNow wrote: So what is an Infantry unit? Just so we are clear?
Units page 3 and Infantry unit page 44 answer this question
What happens when a unit of possessed becomes beasts whilst embarked on a transport?
RAW: The game breaks/No one knows, because the rules do not cover what happens in this situation where a unit is illegally aboard a transport.
HIWPI: I'd treat it just like Champion of Chaos rule and place them within 3" of the transport. Then, since it was the start of the player turn, they could move (but not assault) normally.
Units page 3 and Infantry unit page 44 answer this question
May be I'm dumb but I'm not quite getting it please explain? Is an infantry unit a unit comprised of some infantry models or a unit comprised of solely infantry models?
RAW: The game breaks/No one knows, because the rules do not cover what happens in this situation where a unit is illegally aboard a transport.
HIWPI: I'd treat it just like Champion of Chaos rule and place them within 3" of the transport. Then, since it was the start of the player turn, they could move (but not assault) normally.
So by your reading the game breaks. Your HYWPI is noted and is for me a poor resolution I'd rather play by the clear RaI and the RaW that they can stay on board. But whayever houserules you and your group agree to is up to you
Units page 3 and Infantry unit page 44 answer this question
May be I'm dumb but I'm not quite getting it please explain? Is an infantry unit a unit comprised of some infantry models or a unit comprised of solely infantry models?
An infantry unit has models with the unit type infantry within it. If there are more than one type then the unit would be both infantry and whatever other classification is mixed in.
So by your reading the game breaks.
By everyone's reading The game breaks/No one knows. This is because only infantry can be embarked on a transport. If anything else is embarked on a transport it is not legally embarked and you have broken a rule.
The RAI is impossible to determine as we have no idea what the writers intended when they wrote the rules. We only have the RAW reading of the rules to go by.
Your HYWPI is noted and is for me a poor resolution I'd rather play by the clear RaI and the RaW that they can stay on board. But whayever houserules you and your group agree to is up to you
The RAW does not say that they can stay on board. That is 100% made up and false.
The Champion of Chaos rule is really similar to the situation at hand and as such is a great way to handle the HYWPI since there is precedent.
Going by RAW you explicitly cannot disembark unless you are infantry . You are are in an illegal state when you roll Beast on the chart , you cannot make the situation worse by performing an illegal act in order to end that state, otherwise you are involved in 2 illegal events not just 1. If you want to break the least number of rules (assuming entering an illegal state is 1 act) then the unit must remain aboard the transport until they are no longer beasts.
if you are especially rules lawyery you can look up the emergency disembark rules and argue about what happens if it explodes in your opponents turn. Then you can argue about whether another unit can jump in since there are no infantry aboard.
An infantry unit has models with the unit type infantry within it. If there are more than one type then the unit would be both infantry and whatever other classification is mixed in.
So an attached IC with infantry type would enable the squad to remain embarked?
The RAW does not say that they can stay on board. That is 100% made up and false.
RaW certainly does not require them to disembark. Regardless of reading. At best you have an implied restriction on them being inside vs direct permission for them to be in there.
The Champion of Chaos rule is really similar to the situation at hand and as such is a great way to handle the HYWPI since there is precedent.
Except of course it is not remotely similar the CoC rule creates a new unit normally resulting in the transport containing two units. The CoC rule is also quite unlikely to occur (indeed impossible if embarked on a Landraider) whilst this rule will happen on 1 in 3 turns they are embarked and whilst personally I would have Possessed in a transport I don't see why you feel the need to entirely remove the option from the codex in any sort of viable way. Do you like playing against the same lists over and over and hate for your opponent to have options in how they build their army?
This makes me think of a related scenario since CoC is being used as a reference. If a Lord shoots a unit out of a rhino hatch killing a character. He turns into spawn, falling out of the rhino. Can he then assault? An extremely unlikely scenario (the shooting a character part, not the turning to spawn part) but seems relevant.
The Rhino isn't an assault vehicle, so I'd say no.
An infantry unit has models with the unit type infantry within it. If there are more than one type then the unit would be both infantry and whatever other classification is mixed in.
So an attached IC with infantry type would enable the squad to remain embarked?
RAW game breaks as a rule has been broken with no RAW to fix it.
RaW certainly does not require them to disembark.
Correct, but they can not legally be inside the transport either as they exceed the transports capacity.
At best you have an implied restriction on them being inside vs direct permission for them to be in there.
Actual RAW restriction on them being inside. Where is the "direct permission for them to be in there" because the transport rules do not say that as they exceed the capacity of the transport.
Except of course it is not remotely similar the CoC rule creates a new unit normally resulting in the transport containing two units.
Not at all. A lone character is embarked on a transport, kills another character with shooting and turns into a different model/unit. The Character is removed and replaced with a demon Prince. Where are you getting two units from. the characters is not on the transport anymore.
The CoC rule is also quite unlikely to occur (indeed impossible if embarked on a Landraider) whilst this rule will happen on 1 in 3 turns they are embarked and whilst personally I would have Possessed in a transport I don't see why you feel the need to entirely remove the option from the codex in any sort of viable way.
RAW entirely removes the option of having beasts on a transport, not me.
Do you like playing against the same lists over and over and hate for your opponent to have options in how they build their army?
What does this question have to do with anything we are discussing?
1) You said an infantry unit was a unit that contained infantry models an attached IC would remain infantry and therefore the unit would still be an infantry unit by your definition. So what RaW is broken?
2) That is debatable. We are told they can transport 1 infantry unit we are not told how many beast or other types of unit can be embarked. Not that we really know what an infantry unit is. Hence why it is at best implied. They have direct permission to embark and direct permission to change unit type so the codex rules break your implied restriction on them being in there so what happens when there is a conflict between BrB and Codex?
3) Even with a lone character a new unit is created. The character does not change unit type. Generally characters are most often found in units hence the situation often resulting in 2 distinct units being there.
4) As for RaW removing the option of having beasts in the transport that is simply not true. Here the RaW actually clearly allows them to be in the transport, you believe the implied restriction on non-infantry units means this is an illegal state. Which even if we assume is true the beasts are still in there and making them disembark does not mean that you did not have a unit of beasts in the transport. Your forced disembark is not RaW it is your choice a choice that makes having transports for possessed not viable.
5) Given that your made up house rule removes an option that the codex creates the only reason to do that would he to narrow down the options you play against. Hence the question.
FlingitNow wrote: 1) You said an infantry unit was a unit that contained infantry models an attached IC would remain infantry and therefore the unit would still be an infantry unit by your definition. So what RaW is broken?
2) That is debatable. We are told they can transport 1 infantry unit we are not told how many beast or other types of unit can be embarked. Not that we really know what an infantry unit is. Hence why it is at best implied. They have direct permission to embark and direct permission to change unit type so the codex rules break your implied restriction on them being in there so what happens when there is a conflict between BrB and Codex?
3) Even with a lone character a new unit is created. The character does not change unit type. Generally characters are most often found in units hence the situation often resulting in 2 distinct units being there.
4) As for RaW removing the option of having beasts in the transport that is simply not true. Here the RaW actually clearly allows them to be in the transport, you believe the implied restriction on non-infantry units means this is an illegal state. Which even if we assume is true the beasts are still in there and making them disembark does not mean that you did not have a unit of beasts in the transport. Your forced disembark is not RaW it is your choice a choice that makes having transports for possessed not viable.
5) Given that your made up house rule removes an option that the codex creates the only reason to do that would he to narrow down the options you play against. Hence the question.
1) if the unit remains infantry and the chr is infantry then it is an infantry unit, correct.
2) no it really is not. A transport's capacity can not be exceeded. a single model with the calvary or beast unit type that is somehow embarked on a transport exceeds its carrying capacity because the transport can not carry their unit type.
3) A infantry character from the CSM Codex that is embarked and gets mutated into a Demon prince is still the same Character, his points remain the same, he just becomes a different unit type and has different rules because of his Champions of Chaos rule.
4) RAW does not allow for Beasts to be in a transport as they exceed the carrying capacity. If we have a unit of beasts that are on a transport the game breaks as this is an Illegal situation that can not be resolved.
5) I don't care what list I play against, as I usually play one of two opponents, have since 6th was released, on a weekly basis, so I see the same list a lot. This does not bother me at all.
1) You said an infantry unit is a unit that contains infantry models. If the possessed become beast but the IC is still an infantry model. By your definition the unit is still an infantry unit.
2) So a model with unit type not infantry exceeds the capacity please provide a quote that cares about the unit type of models in relation to capacity because I can't find it.
3) Now we get to the crux of the problem you haven't read any of the rules in question. Please read them. The CoC is really not turned into a DP. It is not the same unit at all.
4) RaW certainly does allow beasts to be in there, RaW may also disallow this but it certainly allows it. Are you claiming that possessed don't roll when embarked now? They certainly do. Following RaW can most certainly lead you to having beasts embarked on a transport. Your bizarre claim that it doesn't just further highlights that you haven't read the relevant rules. Please do so if you want to contribute to the debate.
FlingitNow wrote: 1) You said an infantry unit is a unit that contains infantry models. If the possessed become beast but the IC is still an infantry model. By your definition the unit is still an infantry unit.
That is not quite what I said. Please re-read what I wrote.
2) So a model with unit type not infantry exceeds the capacity please provide a quote that cares about the unit type of models in relation to capacity because I can't find it.
It has been posted, but I will post it again for your convenience.
Main rulebook, page 78, Transport Capacity wrote: "Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity."
(Emphasis mine) There is where it says what a transport can carry. and this capacity "can never be exceeded" Beasts exceed this capacity as there are no rules allowing them to be on the transport. thus they have exceeded its capacity because the transport can hold exactly zero beasts models. remember that "Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded." by putting a single beast in a transport its capacity of zero beasts has been exceeded.
3) Now we get to the crux of the problem you haven't read any of the rules in question. Please read them. The CoC is really not turned into a DP. It is not the same unit at all.
The COC is turned into a DP. Here is proof: Page 29 C: CSM "The Champion only counts as killed once the [Demon Prince] is removed as a casualty" If they were a different unit you would get a VP for an IC the instant a new unit was created, but you do not so it must be the same unit with different rules.
You might want to follow your own advice on this one and re-read the rules in question.
4) RaW certainly does allow beasts to be in there, RaW may also disallow this but it certainly allows it.
Please cite the rules that allow beasts to ride in a transport. Also, can't trumps must in a permissive ruleset unless there is a specific exception. Beasts do not have a specific exception for being embarked in a transport.
Are you claiming that possessed don't roll when embarked now?
What? I never said such a thing.
They certainly do.
Of course they roll as we are told to roll and nothing restricts this when embarked.
Following RaW can most certainly lead you to having beasts embarked on a transport.
The RAW can lead to having Beasts embarked, but the RAW also says this is Illegal and as such the game breaks as we are not told how to handle this situation.
Your bizarre claim that it doesn't just further highlights that you haven't read the relevant rules. Please do so if you want to contribute to the debate.
I actually have to ask this of you, as clearly I have read the relevant rules, and even quoted them.
Also I never said the RAW does not lead you to having beasts embarked, please retract.
I did state that beasts being embarked is certainly Illegal, and against RAW.
DeathReaper wrote: An infantry unit has models with the unit type infantry within it. If there are more than one type then the unit would be both infantry and whatever other classification is mixed in.
1) So here you state that a mixed unit is still an infantry unit. So with the IC attached the unit would still be an infantry unit.
2) Note how that capacity is about units not models so as long as there is no more than 1 infantry unit (plus attached ICs) that capacity has not been exceeded. As fir the can never be exceeded that is talking about passengers which isn't a defined game term so we go to the normal English definition which would make that about models not units. See how much of a mess that rule is yet? That rule you are desperately clinging to doesn't really tell us much we can actually use without making up extra rules. You've chosen to make up rules about beast models where the rule about unit types only talks about units (which don't have unit types).
3) I will point you to "The champion is now a separate, unengaged, non-scoring unit".
4) So we now agree that RaW does allow them to be in there. You claim this also creates an illegal situation which is fine. No fewer rules, even in your interpretation, are broken by forcing the disembark than by allowing them to remain on board. All it does is take an option out of the codex. I just wonder why make that choice?
DeathReaper wrote: An infantry unit has models with the unit type infantry within it. If there are more than one type then the unit would be both infantry and whatever other classification is mixed in.
1) So here you state that a mixed unit is still an infantry unit. So with the IC attached the unit would still be an infantry unit.
It would be both, and follow the rules for both.
2) Note how that capacity is about units not models so as long as there is no more than 1 infantry unit (plus attached ICs) that capacity has not been exceeded. As fir the can never be exceeded that is talking about passengers which isn't a defined game term so we go to the normal English definition which would make that about models not units. See how much of a mess that rule is yet? That rule you are desperately clinging to doesn't really tell us much we can actually use without making up extra rules. You've chosen to make up rules about beast models where the rule about unit types only talks about units (which don't have unit types).
Irrelevant. Models make up units.
3) I will point you to "The champion is now a separate, unengaged, non-scoring unit".
You remove the champion from the unit he was previously with if any. that is all that line means.
4) So we now agree that RaW does allow them to be in there.
No, the RAW disallows them from being there. unless you have a rules quote that says they can be there. The rules force them to be there, but that is not the same thing as allowing them to be there. Please understand the difference.
You claim this also creates an illegal situation which is fine. No fewer rules, even in your interpretation, are broken by forcing the disembark than by allowing them to remain on board. All it does is take an option out of the codex. I just wonder why make that choice?
It creates an illegal situation with no way to resolve, thus the game breaks as rules have been broken.
My HIWPI has precedent and we have to strive to correct the rule breakage of the Illegal state of beasts being embarked before the game can continue. The only way to do this is to follow precedent and use the COC rule in regards to transports.
1) so you agree now an IC allows them to remain as they are still an infantry unit?
2) just saying something is irrelevant doesn't make it so. Though your inability to deal with the points raised illustrates the strength of your argument.
3) he is a separate unit that is what the line tells us. He's also unengaged where the previous model could have been engaged which kind of illustrates it is a new separate unit. If the Possessed are engaged as roll up beasts they remain engaged as the unit nor the models are removed unlike CoC.
4) force is a subset of allow. If the rules force something they allow it by definition.
5) there is no precedent for this we have a situation that a cidex creates that (debatably) the BrB prohibits. If only there was a pre-defined way of dealing with a codex vs BrB cobflict...
FlingitNow wrote: 1) so you agree now an IC allows them to remain as they are still an infantry unit?
Where did I say that? No they can not remain as they are an infantry and a beasts unit. the beasyts can not be embarked, as they are breaking a rule by being embarked.
2) just saying something is irrelevant doesn't make it so. Though your inability to deal with the points raised illustrates the strength of your argument.
Except your point was irrelevant because models make up units. Without models you can not group them into units.
3) he is a separate unit that is what the line tells us. He's also unengaged where the previous model could have been engaged which kind of illustrates it is a new separate unit. If the Possessed are engaged as roll up beasts they remain engaged as the unit nor the models are removed unlike CoC.
He is the same unit, you are misreading the sentence. We know he is the same unit (Note he has a different unit type) because the enemy will only get VP's after the Daemon is killed.
4) force is a subset of allow. If the rules force something they allow it by definition.
Not at all. the rules do not allow (This means legally allow) the unit to be embarked.
5) there is no precedent for this we have a situation that a cidex[sic] creates that (debatably)[sic] the BrB prohibits. If only there was a pre-defined way of dealing with a codex vs BrB cobflict[sic]...
The codex does not legally allow the Beasts to be embarked, therefore your codex vs BrB conflict is irrelevant...
1) is the unit 2 units then? No it is a single unit that is an infantry unit. By your definition of infantry unit.
2) Please point out where I stated a unit was not made up of models? I didn't. I'll take this response as you conceeding the point.
3) We know it is not the same unit as it is nit engaged even if the previous unit was. The fact we have an exception to the normal VP rules further highlights this.
4) The rules do allow this situation to occur by forcing it to occur. Following the rules can lead to this situation. That is absolute fact any further denial of that fact will be taken as you conceding the point.
5) So we agree that the restriction on them being in their is implied at best as the terms used don't have a definable in game effect. We know that the rules in the codex allow them to be in their. So why make up our own rules rather than just follow what GW has told us to do?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Maybe this will help answer these 3 questions:
A) Does following the rules in the codex result in the situation occurring?
B) Does the situation break a BrB rule?
C) Does a rule forcing you to break another rule create a conflict in those two rules?
FlingitNow wrote: 1) is the unit 2 units then? No it is a single unit that is an infantry unit. By your definition of infantry unit.
Maybe you didn't read what I wrote before...
2) Please point out where I stated a unit was not made up of models? I didn't. I'll take this response as you conceeding the point.
My point that your point was irrelevant still holds true.
3) We know it is not the same unit as it is nit engaged even if the previous unit was. The fact we have an exception to the normal VP rules further highlights this.
Incorrect, as it can't be a different unit since you would get a VP for the old and new unit if it were two different units. but you don't so it isn't.
4) The rules do allow this situation to occur by forcing it to occur. Following the rules can lead to this situation. That is absolute fact any further denial of that fact will be taken as you conceding the point.
The rules do not legally allow a unit of beasts to be embarked on a transport as this breaks a rule it has to be an illegal allowance.
5) So we agree that the restriction on them being in their is implied at best as the terms used don't have a definable in game effect. We know that the rules in the codex allow them to be in their. So why make up our own rules rather than just follow what GW has told us to do?
The Codex rules do not legally allow them to be there.
By forcing them there the rules break other rules and as such we have an illegal allowance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Are we in agreement that Beasts are not allowed to be embarked on a transport?
Fling, DR is claiming that since the unit has both Infantry and Beasts, it is both an Infantry unit and a Beasts unit. As an Infantry unit it can be embarked, as a Beasts unit it cannot.
The problem is the rules refer to "X" units but never defines it.
I don't think that whether beasts are allowed to be embarked on transports is relevant and I don't see a rule that in general allows it or a restriction on it. Thus you'd need some permissions that resulted in beasts being embarked to allow them to be embarked.
You probably missed my 3 questions so here they are again. Hopefully answering them will help you understand the rules:
A) Does following the rules in the codex result in the situation occurring?
B) Does the situation break a BrB rule?
C) Does a rule forcing you to break another rule create a conflict in those two rules?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happyjew wrote: The problem is the rules refer to "X" units but never defines it.
A point I keep making to DeathReaper that he unfortunately is incapable of understanding. Hopefully reading it from someone else will help him understand.
FlingitNow wrote: I don't think that whether beasts are allowed to be embarked on transports is relevant and I don't see a rule that in general allows it or a restriction on it.
I quoted the rule that restricts beasts from being embarked before, but ill quote it again.
"Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded." (78)
This capacity can never be exceeded.
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity." (78)
Transports have an allowance to carry Infantry, and only Infantry, barring specific exception (like the rules for the Stormraven etc). They are never allowed to carry beasts (barring specific exception).
One Beast model exceeds the transport capacity as the transport capacity is Zero beasts (As in they are not allowed on the transport at all).
FlingitNow wrote: C) Does a rule forcing you to break another rule create a conflict in those two rules?
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity." (78)
Transports have an allowance to carry Infantry, and only Infantry, barring specific exception (like the rules for the Stormraven etc). They are never allowed to carry beasts (barring specific exception).
Did you even read the quote you posted? Because it does not say what you go on to claim. Unit type infantry is a property of models not units. You have permission to carry a single infantry unit. A unit (by your definition not mine nor the BrB's) a unit that contains any infantry models is an infantry unit so does not exceed this capacity. To be honest though there is a strong argument that the quote is fluff text because it has no in game effect (an infantry unit has no meaning in game, however that is a dark path as GW repeatedly use such terminology without ever telling us what it means).
So you refuse to answer the 3 questions. Your concession is accepted.
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity." (78)
Transports have an allowance to carry Infantry, and only Infantry, barring specific exception (like the rules for the Stormraven etc). They are never allowed to carry beasts (barring specific exception).
Did you even read the quote you posted? Because it does not say what you go on to claim. Unit type infantry is a property of models not units. You have permission to carry a single infantry unit. A unit (by your definition not mine nor the BrB's) a unit that contains any infantry models is an infantry unit so does not exceed this capacity. To be honest though there is a strong argument that the quote is fluff text because it has no in game effect (an infantry unit has no meaning in game, however that is a dark path as GW repeatedly use such terminology without ever telling us what it means).
So you refuse to answer the 3 questions. Your concession is accepted.
(Emphasis mine) As for the underlined, that is not what I said, please read my posts more carefully.
Did you read the quote I posted? It says a transport can hold infantry. Being in a permissive ruleset means that it can not hold any other unit type than infantry unless specifically noted. It does not say it can carry beasts, therefore it can not carry beasts. If you have a unit that has some models with the beasts type and some models with the infantry type. they can not be on a transport because some of the unit can not embark. and we know this from the following rule:
"The entire unit must be embarked on the Transport if any part of it is - a unit cannot be partially embarked or be spread across multiple Transports." (78)
A unit can not be partially embarked. Any models with the Beast unit type can not embark, or be embarked, as models with the beasts unit type exceed the capacity of the transport as the transport can hold zero models with the Beast unit type.
Here are your question answers.
A) Does following the rules in the codex result in the situation occurring? (Yes, Illegally as it has no specific exception to the normal rules as such they are not in conflict).
B) Does the situation break a BrB rule? (Yes, and the rules for possessed have no specific exception to the normal rules as such they are not in conflict).
C) Does a rule forcing you to break another rule create a conflict in those two rules? (That is not how conflicting rules work. The Chaos Codex does not say that beasts may be embarked on a transport, therefore there is no conflict within the two rules).
A conflict in rules would be the Stormraven stating that if the Stormraven moves over 6 inches the passengers may still disembark. normally if you move over 6 inches you can not disembark. This is a rule conflict as the codex specifically says you can disembark Vs. the BRB that says you can not disembark. Please understand this.
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity." (78)
Transports have an allowance to carry Infantry, and only Infantry, barring specific exception (like the rules for the Stormraven etc). They are never allowed to carry beasts (barring specific exception).
Did you even read the quote you posted? Because it does not say what you go on to claim. Unit type infantry is a property of models not units. You have permission to carry a single infantry unit. A unit (by your definition not mine nor the BrB's) a unit that contains any infantry models is an infantry unit so does not exceed this capacity. To be honest though there is a strong argument that the quote is fluff text because it has no in game effect (an infantry unit has no meaning in game, however that is a dark path as GW repeatedly use such terminology without ever telling us what it means).
So you refuse to answer the 3 questions. Your concession is accepted.
I believe all models in a unit need to have the 'Infantry' type to be an 'Infantry unit' in this context. GW never explicitly states this but it is evident for a couple reasons.
1. Each time the word "Infantry" is used in that quote from the BrB it is done so with a capital 'I' implying that it means more than just the basic English definition of the word 'infantry'. They are referring to the 'Infantry' unit type listed on each model's profile. Therefore it is not fluff.
2. The rule then mentions that ICs are also allowed on a transport but that they must also be 'Infantry'... meaning they have the 'Infantry' rule in their profile. This implies (though it isn't plainly stated) that every model in a transport must be an 'Infantry' type.
Since none of this is clearly stated, RaW is unclear.
This means that they probably didn't think about their choice of giving Possessed the option of a transport while at the same time allowing them to turn into a Beast while inside. It is sloppy rule writing. The RAW is that it shouldn't have been written this way, so continuing to argue RAW is pointless. The RAI is also debatable because it seems odd that they would allow Possessed to have transports with a high chance of breaking the rules every time they turn into Beasts.
My guess is they did not realize that removing the 'Infantry' unit type would disallow them to be in the transport. So I'd play it as allowing them to remain inside the transport because fluff-wise their physical size doesn't change. Then you'd have to house-rule how they disembark and no other rules need to be broken.
Another logical way to play it is to use the rules for when a champion turns into a daemon since that also doesn't break any rules, but it also makes the option for taking a Rhino with Possessed pointless. That is the only reason I'd hesitate to use this house-rule.
C) Does a rule forcing you to break another rule create a conflict in those two rules? (That is not how conflicting rules work. The Chaos Codex does not say that beasts may be embarked on a transport, therefore there is no conflict within the two rules).
A conflict in rules would be the Stormraven stating that if the Stormraven moves over 6 inches the passengers may still disembark. normally if you move over 6 inches you can not disembark. This is a rule conflict as the codex specifically says you can disembark Vs. theBRB that says you can not disembark. Please understand this.
So first you're claiming that when a rule forces you to break another rule it is not a rules conflict. Then you are confysing specific vs general with any other rules conflict. A rules conflict is when 1 rule either allows or forces you to break another rule. In general specific over rules general so if one specifically mentions the other rule or situation it wins. This is true for any permissive ruleset. However in 40k we have another trump card where codex trumps rulebook but does not need to be more specific than it. Please understand that a rule that causes you to break another rule is in conflict with that rule.
As for your comment about infantry unit types please read the rule you quoted. It makes literally no mention of model unit types. It puts no restrictions at all on what type of models can be embarked.
"The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'." (3)
"Tarriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named groups...In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units. A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together..." (3)
A conflict in rules would be the Stormraven stating that if the Stormraven moves over 6 inches the passengers may still disembark. normally if you move over 6 inches you can not disembark. This is a rule conflict as the codex specifically says you can disembark Vs. theBRB that says you can not disembark. Please understand this.
Note how the chaos codex does not tell you that you can have beasts embarked upon a transport therefore it is not a rules conflict because beasts still may not be embarked on a transport because the Codex does not say that they can be. If it said that a particular transport could carry beasts that would be a rules conflict because the normal transports can not carry beasts. But it does not say that beasts can be embarked, so they cant.
A rules conflict is when 1 rule either allows or forces you to break another rule
Sort of. A rules conflict is when one rule specifically allows you to break another rule.
The situation we have in the chaos codex is illegal as there is no specific exception or allowance for beasts to be embarked.
However in 40k we have another trump card where codex trumps rulebook but does not need to be more specific than it. .
Here is the issue. you did not read page 7
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex.'Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence."
Read the Stormraven situation above about a conflict.
There is no conflict in the Chaos book about Beasts riding on a transport as the rules in the Codex does not allow beasts on a transport, just like the BRB. There is no rule stating that beasts can be embarked on a transport, therefore there is no conflicting rule and page 7 does not apply.
Fling and DeathReaper. What are your current positions on the rule? As it stands I am thinking that I need to house-rule this for my own use because there isn't a RAW solution. But where do the two of you disagree?
You both agree that RAW a unit of Beasts are not allowed to embark on a transport. right?
You both agree that RAW a unit of Possessed can find themselves in a situation where they are Beasts on a transport... which is something the rules do not account for. right?
Since the rules do not present a way to deal with this situation (a rules paradox?) then the only way to resolve it is to create a house-rule. right?
So what are you two arguing about again? The difference between a rule breaking another rule vs an illegal game-state?
Zimko you have summed up the argument. The rules give us a solution which is also the most likely RaI, but DeathReaper has a vendetta against Chaos players using transports so has unnecessarily created his own house rule and is presenting as precedent.
Zimko wrote: Fling and DeathReaper. What are your current positions on the rule? The game breaks as the beasts are embarked and legally they can not be, and the rules do not tell us how to fix this situation.
As it stands I am thinking that I need to house-rule this for my own use because there isn't a RAW solution. But where do the two of you disagree? I say it is illegal he says its legal via page 7 codex trumps brb, but he failed to take into account the "when there is a conflict" part of page 7
You both agree that RAW a unit of Beasts are not allowed to embark on a transport. right? Correct, there is nothing in any rules that allow beasts on a normal transport (With the exception of Superheavy vehicles etc).
You both agree that RAW a unit of Possessed can find themselves in a situation where they are Beasts on a transport... which is something the rules do not account for. right? Correct, there is nothing in any rules that allow beasts on a normal transport (Barring superheavy vehicles etc). The rules are broken with no way to fix the situation in the RAW.
Since the rules do not present a way to deal with this situation (a rules paradox?) then the only way to resolve it is to create a house-rule. right? Correct.
(Emphasis mine, I added the red text to the quote).
So what are you two arguing about again? The difference between a rule breaking another rule vs an illegal game-state?
Codex trumps BRB when there is a conflict is what was being debated but fling has not shown where there is a conflict as the chaos codex does not specifically allow beasts to embark on a transport.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FlingitNow wrote: Zimko you have summed up the argument. The rules give us a solution which is also the most likely RaI,
No the rules do not give us a solution.
but DeathReaper has a vendetta against Chaos players using transports so has unnecessarily created his own house rule and is presenting as precedent.
Wow, personal attacks that gives your stance even more credibility!
Wait, no that has the opposite effect. Thank you for the debate and concession, that is all I needed I am done here.
Lol, it sounds like you both agree on making a house-rule, but can not agree on which house-rule to use.
In that case... carry on!
I'll just talk to my TO before-hand if this comes up and let them decide. But right now I'm swaying towards allowing them to remain on-board the transport because if the rule-writers had intended them to disembark immediately, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so like they did for champions turning into daemons.
Since they didn't, they probably intended for the Possessed to remain on-board without realizing they were creating an illegal game-state.
Zimko wrote: I'll just talk to my TO before-hand if this comes up and let them decide. But right now I'm swaying towards allowing them to remain on-board the transport because if the rule-writers had intended them to disembark immediately, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so like they did for champions turning into daemons.
Since they didn't, they probably intended for the Possessed to remain on-board without realizing they were creating an illegal game-state.
They probably intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault as well right?
Because if the rule-writers had intended them to to shoot or assault in a game, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so for models without eyes like they did for vehicles.
Since they didn't, they probably intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault anything.
The RAI is impossible to determine as we have no idea what the writers intended when they wrote the rules. We only have the RAW reading of the rules to go by. I doubt it was intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault, but you never know because we do not know what the writers intended when they wrote the rules.
The rule writer's intentions are as illusive as any person you have not directly talked to, even more so when filtered through an ediotr. However, using an understanding of game design, you can make recommendations with an educated opinion on how best to band-aid broken rules until they are properly addressed.
Zimko wrote: I'll just talk to my TO before-hand if this comes up and let them decide. But right now I'm swaying towards allowing them to remain on-board the transport because if the rule-writers had intended them to disembark immediately, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so like they did for champions turning into daemons.
Since they didn't, they probably intended for the Possessed to remain on-board without realizing they were creating an illegal game-state.
They probably intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault as well right?
Because if the rule-writers had intended them to to shoot or assault in a game, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so for models without eyes like they did for vehicles.
Since they didn't, they probably intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault anything.
The RAI is impossible to determine as we have no idea what the writers intended when they wrote the rules. We only have the RAW reading of the rules to go by. I doubt it was intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault, but you never know because we do not know what the writers intended when they wrote the rules.
I have to disagree with everything written here. I know exactly what the design team meant by the LoS rules and how they apply to models without eyes. I've never met anyone that didn't. It is really very possible to know RaI in a lot of situations.
Granted for this rule the RaI is not as clear as for say LoS for eyeless models or Grav Weapons and invulnerable/cover saves. But one of tge other options the possessed can roll gives their transport shrouded which implies that they are intended to use transports and at best the must get out crowd have RaW is broken. So the solution serms obvious to me.
As for knowing RaW the minute DeathReaper proves 100% that we qre not all hallucinating as to what is written then I'll agree RaW us knowable and RaI isn't. No RaW fundamentalist has ever been able to prove that yet. But given DeathReaper's post above he must be able to ir he has to retract that statement.
I know this doesn't fit here too well (per tenets), but for the RaI of this, i would go with yes they stay embarked.
As for reason why?
Angel Exterminatus: The possessed or "creatures" made by Fabius disembark from the Dreadclaw i think it was? so they are "embarked".
aaaand i'm out =P
Zimko wrote: I'll just talk to my TO before-hand if this comes up and let them decide. But right now I'm swaying towards allowing them to remain on-board the transport because if the rule-writers had intended them to disembark immediately, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so like they did for champions turning into daemons.
Since they didn't, they probably intended for the Possessed to remain on-board without realizing they were creating an illegal game-state.
They probably intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault as well right?
Because if the rule-writers had intended them to to shoot or assault in a game, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so for models without eyes like they did for vehicles.
Since they didn't, they probably intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault anything.
The RAI is impossible to determine as we have no idea what the writers intended when they wrote the rules. We only have the RAW reading of the rules to go by. I doubt it was intended for models without eyes to be unable to shoot or assault, but you never know because we do not know what the writers intended when they wrote the rules.
No, I don't believe that RAI they wanted models without eyes to not be able to use LoS to shoot since they give you the option to give guns to beings that don't have eyes. They give you the option to give transports to Possessed, so following the same logic I believe RAI they do not mean for Possessed to automatically disembark when they turn into Beasts.
I can't read their minds so RAI is subjective. But my proposed RAI does not commit any logical fallacies.
Zimko wrote: No, I don't believe that RAI they wanted models without eyes to not be able to use LoS to shoot since they give you the option to give guns to beings that don't have eyes.
This goes against what you said previously.
I mean if
Zimko wrote: ...the rule-writers had intended them to disembark immediately, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so like they did for champions turning into daemons.
Since they didn't, they probably intended for the Possessed to remain on-board without realizing they were creating an illegal game-state.
So if the rule-writers had intended for models without eyes to be able to shoot they would have wrote an exception into the rules like they did for vehicles.
Of course then you say this
I can't read their minds so RAI is subjective.
Which of course is 100% true, so we must go by the RAW since RAI is impossible to determine.
In this case the RAW is broke and the game breaks, so we have to come up with a house rule to fix the situation either way by allowing them to stay embarked (House rule) or forcing them to disembark just like the CoC rules do for a DP that is embarked (House rule with established precedent)
For uniformness Ill go with the forcing them to disembark because it is a similar situation to a Champion of Chaos getting the Demon Prince boon on the table.
Zimko wrote: No, I don't believe that RAI they wanted models without eyes to not be able to use LoS to shoot since they give you the option to give guns to beings that don't have eyes.
This goes against what you said previously.
I mean if
Zimko wrote: ...the rule-writers had intended them to disembark immediately, they would have written a rule explaining how to do so like they did for champions turning into daemons.
Since they didn't, they probably intended for the Possessed to remain on-board without realizing they were creating an illegal game-state.
So if the rule-writers had intended for models without eyes to be able to shoot they would have wrote an exception into the rules like they did for vehicles.
Of course then you say this
I can't read their minds so RAI is subjective.
Which of course is 100% true, so we must go by the RAW since RAI is impossible to determine.
In this case the RAW is broke and the game breaks, so we have to come up with a house rule to fix the situation either way by allowing them to stay embarked (House rule) or forcing them to disembark just like the CoC rules do for a DP that is embarked (House rule with established precedent)
For uniformness Ill go with the forcing them to disembark because it is a similar situation to a Champion of Chaos getting the Demon Prince boon on the table.
For the sake of uniformness, in a tournament environment I'd agree with your house-rule. Because if the writers had fore-sight enough when writing the rules for Champion of Chaos to realize that they were creating an illegal game-state (and then create a rule to correct it) then it is reasonable to assume they did not realize they were creating a similar situation with the Possessed rule and could have simply copy-pasted the rules for Champion of Chaos. They may have intended for the Possessed to remain on-board when turning into Beasts but for RAW tournament the game can-not continue without resolving the illegal game-state and the quickest way to remove the illegal game-state is to copy the rules from Champion of Chaos because they create a nearly identical situation. (thus 'precedent' as you say)
So I agree with you for the purposes of this forum.
HIWPI (not in a tournament) though is to allow the Possessed to remain on-board because it fits their fluff and isn't too OP. That is why I believe their RAI was to leave them on-board but they screwed up their rules so badly that RAW it doesn't work that way.
FlingitNow wrote: I know exactly what the design team meant by the LoS rules and how they apply to models without eyes. I've never met anyone that didn't. It is really very possible to know RaI in a lot of situations.
This is 100% false, you can never, ever determine the RAI unless you ask the writers what they intended. But we can't do this so RAI is impossible to determine. We can make an educated guess to the RAI and most of it is probably along the lines of what was intended, but we can never say for sure because we just do not know what they intended, we only know what the RAW is because that is what they have written.
Granted for this rule the RaI is not as clear as for say LoS for eyeless models or Grav Weapons and invulnerable/cover saves.
None of those are clear RAI, at all since we literally can not tell what the writers were thinking.
But one of tge[sic] other options the possessed can roll gives their transport shrouded which implies that they are intended to use transports and at best the must get out crowd have RaW is broken. So the solution serms[sic] obvious to me.
House rules can overcome any broken situation, but they are just that, house rules.
As for knowing RaW the minute DeathReaper proves 100% that we qre[sic] not all hallucinating as to what is written then I'll agree RaW us[sic] knowable and RaI isn't. No RaW fundamentalist has ever been able to prove that yet. But given DeathReaper's post above he must be able to ir[sic] he has to retract that statement.
Same old same old...
I do not have to prove 100% that we are not all hallucinating. Because it does not matter if we are or not. This is because everyone agrees on what is written in the book so even if we are all hallucinating as to what is written we are all hallucinating the same exact words, therefore it is our reality even if it is a collective hallucination.
RaW is knowable because that is what is written in the book. We all agree that page 3 left column, 1st graph Characteristic Profiles heading, 1st sentence says "Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics."(3) Because that is what is literally written in the book.
I think you're both right. Fling is right for wanting to defend house-rule A (allowing the Possessed to remain onboard) because it fits the fluff and gives them more options (thus a more diverse and fun game).
DeathReaper is right because RAW it creates an illegal game-state that must be resolved for tournament play before continuing, and his house-rule is a copy-paste of another rule from the same book that fixes an almost identical situation.
1- Champion of Chaos is not a good comparison. Champion of chaos turns a non bulky model into a very bulky model [takes up 4 spaces] so in many cases it would exceed the transport capacity of any vehicle the IC was in, if the IC is attached to a squad. The possessed when they become beasts, their size does not change.
2- Chaos vehicles are not listed as having a capacity of infantry but a capacity of models, so there is no illegal state generated by holding infantry versus beasts, as a chaos rhino is not capacity 10 infantry but capacity 10 models.
3- There is no RAW that models have to be a certain type to be embarked, or remain embarked, or to dismebark.
4- There is RAW that models must be a certain type to embark.
2- Chaos vehicles are not listed as having a capacity of infantry but a capacity of models, so there is no illegal state generated by holding infantry versus beasts, as a chaos rhino is not capacity 10 infantry but capacity 10 models.
BRB: "A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity."
You're right, the Chaos codex only says how many models it can carry. But the BRB says that those models must be 'Infantry'. The rule in question changes Possessed from 'Infantry' to 'Beasts' thus they are no longer allowed to be carried by a transport according to RAW.
Without breaking any rules we managed to get Beasts on the transport, but that doesn't mean they are allowed to be there. Thus the unintentional illegal game-state to which only a house-rule can resolve.
If we take nothing else from this thread, the above should be accepted by everyone. How you resolve the situation is honestly up to you.
I think you're both right. Fling is right for wanting to defend house-rule A (allowing the Possessed to remain onboard) because it fits the fluff and gives them more options (thus a more diverse and fun game).
By house rule A you mean RaW I assume? Also the most likely RaI (which is far more relevant).
DeathReaper is right because RAW it creates an illegal game-state that must be resolved for tournament play before continuing, and his house-rule is a copy-paste of another rule from the same book that fixes an almost identical situation.
An illegal state is only created if you believe that a Codex rule that forces you to break a BrB rule is not in conflict with that rule. Which is frankly a ludicrous stand point to maintain.
DeathReaper is right because RAW it creates an illegal game-state that must be resolved for tournament play before continuing, and his house-rule is a copy-paste of another rule from the same book that fixes an almost identical situation.
An illegal state is only created if you believe that a Codex rule that forces you to break a BrB rule is not in conflict with that rule. Which is frankly a ludicrous stand point to maintain.
Why is it ludicrous? The writers are perfectly capable of making a mistake. Following the rules in the Codex does indeed force you to break a rule in the BrB (by allowing non-Infantry to be on a transport).
I'm sure this was not intended, and I'm sure the writers intended the Possessed to remain on-board the transport. But what they intended doesn't change the fact that they're not allowed by RAW to be on the transport. So allowing them to stay on-board is a house-rule.
And I'm totally fine with playing it that way. But I'd pass it by my TO before going into a tournament. And outside of a tournament I'd politely inform my opponent of this possibility and let them know how I'd like to play it. If they disagree then I wouldn't play them because it would affect my army's overall strategy.
That is really the worst part about this rule. The two logical house-rules drastically change how you'd build your army list.
Why is it ludicrous? The writers are perfectly capable of making a mistake. Following the rules in the Codex does indeed force you to break a rule in the BrB (by allowing non-Infantry to be on a transport).
I've never said thinking the writers made a mistake is ludicrous. I said thinking that a rule that forces you break another rule is not a case of those two rules being in conflict is a ludicrous stance to take. Are you honestly claiming you think that it is reasonable to say that a rule forcing you to break another rule is not in conflict with that rule? Really?
Why is it ludicrous? The writers are perfectly capable of making a mistake. Following the rules in the Codex does indeed force you to break a rule in the BrB (by allowing non-Infantry to be on a transport).
I've never said thinking the writers made a mistake is ludicrous. I said thinking that a rule that forces you break another rule is not a case of those two rules being in conflict is a ludicrous stance to take. Are you honestly claiming you think that it is reasonable to say that a rule forcing you to break another rule is not in conflict with that rule? Really?
I'm honestly confused by what you mean.
I'll paraphrase my understanding of the rules so you can help me out or maybe I'll answer my own confusion.
BRB says that transports can only carry 'Infantry' models.
This Codex rule (sorry I forget the name) changes Possessed from 'Infantry' to 'Beasts'.
The Codex rule thus forces you to be in conflict with a rule in the BRB without giving you express permission to override the BRB rule.
Ah, so perhaps because the Codex forces you to do this, then this is a situation where Codex trumps BRB? I'd buy that.
The two rules are not conflicting rules, they just force a breakage of another rule.
The Stormraven example is a perfect example of a conflicting rule. The codex says passengers can disembark if the vehicle has moved over 6 inches, the BRB says passengers can not disembark if the vehicle has moved over 6 inches. This is a conflict.
Nothing in the chaos codex says that beasts can be embarked upon a transport, and as such this rule is NOT IN CONFLICT with the BRB rule.
blaktoof wrote: 1- Champion of Chaos is not a good comparison. Champion of chaos turns a non bulky model into a very bulky model [takes up 4 spaces] so in many cases it would exceed the transport capacity of any vehicle the IC was in, if the IC is attached to a squad. The possessed when they become beasts, their size does not change.
It is a good comparison as the unit type changes, non infantry are not allowed to be embarked so this sets a good precedent.
2- Chaos vehicles are not listed as having a capacity of infantry but a capacity of models, so there is no illegal state generated by holding infantry versus beasts, as a chaos rhino is not capacity 10 infantry but capacity 10 models.
Good thing the BRB clarifies that it must be infantry models.
3- There is no RAW that models have to be a certain type to be embarked, or remain embarked, or to dismebark.
False, 100% "A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)
Only infantry may be carried on the transport, there is not an allowance for any other unit types to be embarked and since this is a permissive ruleset and that ruleset does not say beasts can be embarked, then they can not be embarked.
4- There is RAW that models must be a certain type to embark.
The Codex rule thus forces you to be in conflict with a rule in the BRBwithout giving you express permission to override the BRB rule.
If you agree there is a conflict between a rule that forces you to break another rule then RaW they are allowed to stay on board as there is a conflict between the two rules and one of them is in a codex so it wins. DeathReaper believes when a rule forces you to break another rule that those two rules are not in conflict. It is that belief that I am stating is ludicrous.
The Codex rule thus forces you to be in conflict with a rule in the BRBwithout giving you express permission to override the BRB rule.
If you agree there is a conflict between a rule that forces you to break another rule then RaW they are allowed to stay on board as there is a conflict between the two rules and one of them is in a codex so it wins. DeathReaper believes when a rule forces you to break another rule that those two rules are not in conflict. It is that belief that I am stating is ludicrous.
This is logical, however I wouldn't say his belief is 'ludicrous' as that seems a little harsh. I completely understand what he is saying with his Stormraven example. He's saying that where a Codex rule trumps a BrB rule, the writers are very specific about it. In this case the writers are not specific about it because they never mention transport capacity in their rule for turning Possessed into Beasts.
DeathReaper is right that the rule itself is not in conflict with the BRB. But it creates a situation that is in conflict. He believes that this breaks the rules. You believe this is just another form of the codex being 'in conflict' with the BRB and thus the codex wins. Both logical. Agree to disagree?
Zimko wrote: DeathReaper is right that the rule itself is not in conflict with the BRB. But it creates a situation that is in conflict. He believes that this breaks the rules. You believe this is just another form of the codex being 'in conflict' with the BRB and thus the codex wins. Both logical. Agree to disagree?
His stance is not logical as the rules are not in conflict as I have shown.
3- There is no RAW that models have to be a certain type to be embarked, or remain embarked, or to dismebark. False, 100%
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)
Only infantry may be carried on the transport, there is not an allowance for any other unit types to be embarked and since this is a permissive ruleset and that ruleset does not say beasts can be embarked, then they can not be embarked.
The rule you quoted doesn't state only infantry.
It says a transport can carry a single infantry unit...
This does not say that it may not carry any other unit or may only carry an infantry unit.
Considering you recently argued similarly that the lack of a permissive rule does not mean you do not have permission to do it, as the transport capacity of the vehicle is 10 models we can then look to the vehicle entry and see that there are 10 models inside of it....
in seriousness though, I did not have my book in front of me when I stated 2, I only recalled the first line from embarkation which says infantry may embark, and did not recall off the top of my head that there is further text stating what may be carried. That would of course make my statement 2 incorrect.
I do agree that its a permissive rules set and we only have permission for infantry to embark, or be embarked on a transport.
Leaving the models in a state where they either need special permission to stay embarked, or a rule requiring they are forced to disembark.
One assumes RAI that the people whom wrote the rules for possessed in the crimson slaughter supplement meant for the models to be able to remain embarked as they make no mention of the having to disembark if they are embarked. The other assumes that despite the writers of the crimson slaughter supplement addressing what happens to the unit and its vehicle for another of the options[option 3] from the possessed table, that they did not consider the unit could be embarked for option 1[becomes beasts]. Given that the same person probably wrote the table, there are only 3 options and they included the possibility of the unit being a vehicle for one of them, they probably thought of the possibility of the unit being in a vehicle for all of them.
There seems like there are only two reasonable ways to resolve the situation here- make up a rule that does not exist to force disembarkation to support the basic rules in the BRB, and ignore the RAI, or break the basic rule in the BRB and remain embarked.
HIWPI the unit may remain embarked.
Reasoning, the alternative of forcing the disembark is based on the champion of chaos rule where the model goes from normal size[takes up 1 space] to very bulky [takes up 4 spaces. Rhinos specifically state they may not carry models that are bulky, very bulky, or extremely bulky. I believe RAI this is why the spawn created from champion of chaos is forced to dismebark, because it is very bulky and no longer may fit inside the Rhino. I do not think the RAW in the BRB was written with regards to models changing types during embarkation as if it were they would have said something, this of course is RAI. Despite the fact that beasts are not allowed to embark on a transport in the BRB if the models could have already gotten on, and their type changes but their size does not change and is a sized allowed to be on a rhino, I would let my opponent keep them embarked.
From the space wolves codex, if an IC has purchased fenrisian wolves they may embark on the transport with the IC. From the BRB unit summary in the reference section fenrsian wolves are beasts. So there is precedence for beasts being on a transport, if they are led there by an infantry model. The rules for fenrisian wolves say the count as two models [bulky] if they are on board. I am aware this is a specific allowance.
This is logical, however I wouldn't say his belief is 'ludicrous' as that seems a little harsh. I completely understand what he is saying with his Stormraven example. He's saying that where a Codex rule trumps aBrB rule, the writers are very specific about it. In this case the writers are not specific about it because they never mention transport capacity in their rule for turning Possessed into Beasts.
The Stormraven example doesn't need page 7 to work tjough as it is a case of specific versus general. Just how in general you can not assault on the same turn as disembarking but the assault vehicle Special rule specifically alters this. This is fundamentally how permissive rulesets work. Page 7 states if there is a conflict between codex rules and BrB rules then codex wins. Here there is a clear conflict as following the codex rules causes you to break a BrB rule hence page 7 applies.
Claiming that when a rule forces you to break another rule does not create a conflict in those rules is ludicrous. I'm sorry but I just can't accept any reasonable would agree with that.
FlingitNow wrote: [So the rule doesn't force you to break the BrB? In which case cool they can stay in as no rule is broken.
It creates an illegal situation.
So which is it can they stay in because no rule is broken? Or is a rule being broken which means that they can stay in due to page 7?
Neither as that is a loaded question.
The rule in question is not in conflict with the brb.
When rolling on the "Slaves to the Voices" chart a squad's unit type can change from Infantry to Beast.
Nothing in the BRB is in conflict with this rule, and the squad is allowed to change its type. (No conflict here)
The unit can not legally be inside the transport as they exceed the transports capacity. No conflict here as the Codex does not say that beasts may be embarked.
If you think the codex says that the beasts can be embarked please cite a rule, as I have cited rules that say they can not be embarked.
RAW the game breaks as a rule has been broken with no RAW to fix it.
A unit of beasts cannot contribute towards the number of embarked infantry because they are not infantry. They certainly cannot exceed the one infantry limit.
Is Y in excess of a 1X limit? No, not without some comparative value assigned to it.
You have a limit that cannot be exceeded of one blue item.. Does that limit the number of red items? Not at all.
On the capacity scale, which accounts only for infantry, beasts do not even show up and claiming they can exceed it is absurd.
Abandon wrote: A unit of beasts cannot contribute towards the number of embarked infantry because they are not infantry. They certainly cannot exceed the one infantry limit.
In a permissive ruleset they can since there is no allowance for them to be there in the first place.
Is Y in excess of a 1X limit? No, not without some comparative value assigned to it.
Yes Y is in excess of 1X because you are allowed to have Y <= 0 embarked in this situation.
You have a limit that cannot be exceeded of one blue item.. Does that limit the number of red items? Not at all.
The permissive ruleset limits the red items by virtue of not being allowed there at all...
On the capacity scale, which accounts only for infantry, beasts do not even show up and claiming they can exceed it is absurd.
Until you realize it is a permissive ruleset and the number of allowed beast models on a transport is <=0 (<=0 means less than or equal to zero).
Therefore you may not have any beasts upon a transport, any beasts that somehow become passengers exceed the limit of zero beasts embarked upon the transport.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Meaning they are in limbo - they are in a place they could not get to
We have no instructions on what to do about them therefore we cannot do anything. Nothing statesthe game halts, so it doesnt
Meaning they are in limbo - they are in a place they could not get to, they are also in a place they are not allowed to be.
The contents of a transport are in a place they can not be and that breaks the rules.
To continue the game we must fix the illegal state. If we don't we may as well not use the rulebook at all. Why bother following the rules if we are going to allow a rule to be broken?
Meaning they are in limbo - they are in a place they could not get to, they are also in a place they are not allowed to be.
Underlined the part that is false in the rules. They absolutely can get there the rules tell us how to do that.
The contents of a transport are in a place they can not be and that breaks the rules.
You can't have it both ways you said it does not break the rules. Which is it? Does following the codex rule force you to break a BrB rule or not?
To continue the game we must fix the illegal state. If we don't we may as well not use the rulebook at all. Why bother following the rules if we are going to allow a rule to be broken?
Why must we? What is telling us to do so? Your fix does not prevent a rule being broken in your interpretation anyway so what is the point persisting? As for the 2nd sentence I take it you don't allow helmeted space marines to shoot or assault anything ever? Just do what the rules tell you to rather than invent rules out of thin air and try to enforce them on people.
DR - no, they are in a place they CAN get to, as the rules just showed that. WHat you are trying to decide is: do you have any ability to resolve that, or any need to?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Meaning they are in limbo - they are in a place they could not get to
The contents of a transport are in a place they can not be and that breaks the rules.
nosferatu1001 wrote:DR - no, they are in a place they CAN get to, as the rules just showed that.
Nosferatu, you've just successively argued that they can and cannot GET there, without giving a reason for either, while in both cases not addressing the fact that they cannot BE there at all ("never be exceeded") regardless. Not sure where you're even coming from with that.
Context there, actually. They cannot get into the transport as Beasts, however they are actually "there" due to this rule.
Nothing states what to do with them, so I would leave them where they are - they cannot disembark, the CoC rule is utterly different (they arent replaced by a new unit, they arent very bulky, etc) so isnt very useful precedent, etc.
Fact remains that the transport capacity has been exceeded as such a rule has been broken and to continue the game we must fix the illegal state.
So you admit a rule is broken due to a codex rule. Hence page 7 becomes active. Thank you fir proving RaW they can stay in.
Fact remains that the transport capacity has been exceeded as such a rule has been broken and to continue the game we must fix the illegal state.
We'll ignore that you've just proven its not an illegal state. How does disembarking fix it? For them to disembark they must have been embarked thus the rule has still been broken in your interpretation.
If we don't we may as well not use the rulebook at all.
Sorry what? If we don't follow your made up rules we may as well not use the rulebook at all? Did that even make sense when you typed it?
Why bother following the rules if we are going to allow a rule to be broken?
Your fix results in just as many rule breaks (regardless of interpretation) as allowing them to stay in there. So what are you now proposing?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Meaning they are in limbo - they are in a place they could not get to
nosferatu1001 wrote: DR - no, they are in a place they CAN get to, as the rules just showed that...
You contradict yourself here.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Context there, actually. They cannot get into the transport as Beasts, however they are actually "there" due to this rule.
Nothing states what to do with them, so I would leave them where they are - they cannot disembark, the CoC rule is utterly different (they arent replaced by a new unit, they arent very bulky, etc) so isnt very useful precedent, etc.
It's like someone else didn't point out the exact same thing and then he literally posted 3 hours before you did to respond to it.
Oh - no, that's exactly what happened. Did you fail to read his response?
Fact remains that the transport capacity has been exceeded as such a rule has been broken and to continue the game we must fix the illegal state.
So you admit a rule is broken due to a codex rule. Hence page 7 becomes active.
There is a difference between a conflict and a rule breakage...
The codex rule changes the units type. This is a legal change. There is no conflict with the rules that change the units type. Ergo page 7 does not enter into it.
Thank you fir proving RaW they can stay in.
I actually did not prove they can stay in the transport.
I have proven that it is illegal for them to be embarked however.
Sorry what? If we don't follow your made up rules we may as well not use the rulebook at all? Did that even make sense when you typed it?
I never said " If we don't follow your made up rules we may as well not use the rulebook at all" please re-read what I wrote...
I said we need to fix the illegal state, If we don't we may as well not use the rulebook at all...
deathreaper wrote: Why bother following the rules if we are going to allow a rule to be broken?
Your fix results in just as many rule breaks (regardless of interpretation) as allowing them to stay in there. So what are you now proposing?
The disembarking does break a rule, but then the game can continue as there is not an illegal unit embarked upon a transport that is can not be embarked upon anymore therefore the game can continue. Sounds like a good fix as there are not any units illegally embarked anymore.
I was trying to point out that someone else said the exact same thing he did, and you'd already addressed it - 3 hours before he posted (so it wasn't a "ninja").
Abandon wrote: A unit of beasts cannot contribute towards the number of embarked infantry because they are not infantry. They certainly cannot exceed the one infantry limit.
In a permissive ruleset they can since there is no allowance for them to be there in the first place.
Is Y in excess of a 1X limit? No, not without some comparative value assigned to it.
Yes Y is in excess of 1X because you are allowed to have Y <= 0 embarked in this situation.
You have a limit that cannot be exceeded of one blue item.. Does that limit the number of red items? Not at all.
The permissive ruleset limits the red items by virtue of not being allowed there at all...
On the capacity scale, which accounts only for infantry, beasts do not even show up and claiming they can exceed it is absurd.
Until you realize it is a permissive ruleset and the number of allowed beast models on a transport is <=0 (<=0 means less than or equal to zero).
Therefore you may not have any beasts upon a transport, any beasts that somehow become passengers exceed the limit of zero beasts embarked upon the transport.
There is allowance as rules lead us to this scenario. Following the rules you end up with beasts embarked in a transport. That is permission for said state. You are looking for denial that is not there.
You need to learn the difference between 'only infantry' and 'only one infantry'. One of these excludes anything that is not infantry and the other does not. Rules cause the beasts to be embarked and there is no denial of this state.
Actually, as I will continue to point out, it is rules that cause the beasts(red items) to be embarked.
No rule sets a capacity limit for beasts. Rules caused them to be there, now your making up reasons it's illegal.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Context there, actually. They cannot get into the transport as Beasts, however they are actually "there" due to this rule.
Nothing states what to do with them, so I would leave them where they are - they cannot disembark, the CoC rule is utterly different (they arent replaced by a new unit, they arent very bulky, etc) so isnt very useful precedent, etc.
Thank you for clarifying your position. I agree except they actually are allowed to disembark. The rules for it allow models (no specific type mentioned) to disembark.
"A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a vehicle can disembark either before or after the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so long as the vehicle has not moved more than 5"." Page 79, BRB, Disembarking
Abandon wrote: There is allowance as rules lead us to this scenario. Following the rules you end up with beasts embarked in a transport. That is permission for said state. You are looking for denial that is not there.
Cite the rule that tells you that beasts can be embarked on a transport please.
You need to learn the difference between 'only infantry' and 'only one infantry'. One of these excludes anything that is not infantry and the other does not. Rules cause the beasts to be embarked and there is no denial of this state.
You need to learn what a permissive ruleset is.
One infantry unit is allowed means nothing else is allowed unless the rules specifically allow it...
No rule sets a capacity limit for beasts.
False. we do not have an allowance for beasts to be embarked as they exceed the transport capacity because they are not any rules stating beasts can be embarked. Without an allowance the number of beasts that may be embarked is zero.
Abandon wrote: There is allowance as rules lead us to this scenario. Following the rules you end up with beasts embarked in a transport. That is permission for said state. You are looking for denial that is not there.
Cite the rule that tells you that beasts can be embarked on a transport please.
You need to learn the difference between 'only infantry' and 'only one infantry'. One of these excludes anything that is not infantry and the other does not. Rules cause the beasts to be embarked and there is no denial of this state.
You need to learn what a permissive ruleset is.
One infantry unit is allowed means nothing else is allowed unless the rules specifically allow it...
No rule sets a capacity limit for beasts.
False. we do not have an allowance for beasts to be embarked as they exceed the transport capacity because they are not any rules stating beasts can be embarked. Without an allowance the number of beasts that may be embarked is zero.
It's the rule transforms infantry, even while embarked, into beasts. It's been mentioned once or twice already. Rules causing things to happen make those things permitted and legal unless you can find denial.
The wording of the capacity limit rule does not say that. It limits the number of infantry units and nothing else.
Abandon wrote: It's the rule transforms infantry, even while embarked, into beasts. It's been mentioned once or twice already. Rules causing things to happen make those things permitted and legal unless you can find denial.
the rule transforms infantry into beasts. However beasts may not be embarked and the rule does not say that beasts can be embarked so they still may not be embarked. The rule that changes their type breaks the rules when the unit is embarked.
The wording of the capacity limit rule does not say that. It limits the number of infantry units and nothing else.
The permissive ruleset limits the number of models that may embark on a transport. A model may embark if there is a rule stating they may embark. Beasts have no such rule and as per the permissive ruleset are not allowed on a transport.
10 models is a bit of a side step, only models part of infantry units count towards transport capacity, and the codex doesn't contest that rule.
can carry a single infantry unit....... up to a total number of models equal to the vehicles transport capacity
(Within the same sentence)
Contextually that’s models within an infantry unit... and that quote is also part of the paragraph which defines what passangers are.
nosferatu1001 wrote: They do not need permission to embark. They are already in a state of embarkation.
You are stating that a capacity that limits embarkING limits you once already embarkED, which it cannot do
A rhino has a capacity of 10 models - permission granted. Usually this is restrcted to letting infantry units embark, however we are not embarking
Are 10 beast possessed no longer 10 models?
Rigeld - apologies, the quotation structure meant it was tricky to know if you were aiming at myself or DR. Thank you for clarifying.
The capacity doesn't just limit embarking. It limits capacity of the transport.
The Capacity of a rhino is 10 models. from page 78 "Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded"
Okay we know the maximum passenger capacity can never be exceeded. Okay lets see what the transport can carry...
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (Emphasis mine 78)
So there is an allowance for the transport to carry a "single Infantry unit". Where is the allowance for the transport to carry beasts, because I am not seeing it.
Therefore since there is no allowance for any Beasts to be carried we can not carry any beasts and as such the capacity of the transport in regards to Beasts models is zero. Therefore we may not have any Beasts embarked because the rules do not allow a transport to carry Beasts.
Although I personally agree with those saying that the beasts stay embarked, I have an interesting question for that side:
If 5 possessed are embarked on a rhino, then become beasts (assuming they remain embarked), could 5 chaos marines then embark? What happens then?
Tactical_Genius wrote: Although I personally agree with those saying that the beasts stay embarked, I have an interesting question for that side:
If 5 possessed are embarked on a rhino, then become beasts (assuming they remain embarked), could 5 chaos marines then embark? What happens then?
RaW there is a strong argument that they could. Personally I'd play that they couldn't as that again causes game breaking issues. As for what happens then nothing happens. Both units could stay onboard and disembark when they wanted.
Tactical_Genius wrote: Although I personally agree with those saying that the beasts stay embarked, I have an interesting question for that side:
If 5 possessed are embarked on a rhino, then become beasts (assuming they remain embarked), could 5 chaos marines then embark? What happens then?
RaW there is a strong argument that they could. Personally I'd play that they couldn't as that again causes game breaking issues. As for what happens then nothing happens. Both units could stay onboard and disembark when they wanted.
What about if the possessed turned back into infantry again? What would happen then (if anything)?
Tactical_Genius wrote: Although I personally agree with those saying that the beasts stay embarked, I have an interesting question for that side:
If 5 possessed are embarked on a rhino, then become beasts (assuming they remain embarked), could 5 chaos marines then embark? What happens then?
RaW there is a strong argument that they could. Personally I'd play that they couldn't as that again causes game breaking issues. As for what happens then nothing happens. Both units could stay onboard and disembark when they wanted.
What about if the possessed turned back into infantry again? What would happen then (if anything)?
It all depends on what you believe the codex rule is in conflict the entire "one unit of infantry" or just "unit of infantry". If the former then the CSMs can get in and stay in even if the other unit turns back to infantry (essentially the same conflict occurs as when they turned into beasts in the first place). If you believe it is only in conflict with the infantry part (the more sensible reading IMO) then they can't get in there in the first place.
If you believe there is no restriction on number of non-infantry units that can be embarked then the unit can embark but once it changes back to infantry you have a broken RaW with no way to resolve.
Tactical_Genius wrote: Although I personally agree with those saying that the beasts stay embarked, I have an interesting question for that side:
If 5 possessed are embarked on a rhino, then become beasts (assuming they remain embarked), could 5 chaos marines then embark? What happens then?
RaW there is a strong argument that they could. Personally I'd play that they couldn't as that again causes game breaking issues. As for what happens then nothing happens. Both units could stay onboard and disembark when they wanted.
What about if the possessed turned back into infantry again? What would happen then (if anything)?
Then by following the rules you break another as two infantry does exceed the max capacity listed for transports. There's no rules to cover this scenario so it seems some house rules or a HYWPI consensus would be needed in order to resolve this. Probably best if that rule did not allow this to happen in the first place. RAI is fairly clear that they only intended infantry to be embarked so I'd suggest that house/HYWPI rule be they immediately disembark when the turn into beasts. Besides the crew will kick them out, no one wants to clean up that mess... Think of the upholstery!
DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon wrote: It's the rule transforms infantry, even while embarked, into beasts. It's been mentioned once or twice already. Rules causing things to happen make those things permitted and legal unless you can find denial.
the rule transforms infantry into beasts. However beasts may not be embarked and the rule does not say that beasts can be embarked so they still may not be embarked. The rule that changes their type breaks the rules when the unit is embarked.
The wording of the capacity limit rule does not say that. It limits the number of infantry units and nothing else.
The permissive ruleset limits the number of models that may embark on a transport. A model may embark if there is a rule stating they may embark. Beasts have no such rule ans as per the permissive ruleset are not allowed on a transport.
If the rule causes beasts to be embarked then what more permission do you need? That's like saying weapons aren't permitted to cause wounds, they're only permitted to cause hits. In actuality those hit can turn into wounds. Is it direct permission? No but it's permission all the same... Following the rules things reach a certain state. That state is permitted whether directly stated or not. Your basically saying that following the natural progression of the rules is not allowed unless it creates a state that is specifically noted as permitted. That is nonsense. You are permitted to follow the rules to any outcome they lead you to unless it is specifically denied.
Why are you talking about embarking? Nobody has advocated embarking beasts into a transport. The state of being embarked and the action of embarking are not the same thing.
Permission saying that a unit that exceeds the capacity can be embarked on a transport. because as of right now, only infantry have permission to be embarked.
Abandon wrote:Why are you talking about embarking? Nobody has advocated embarking beasts into a transport. The state of being embarked and the action of embarking are not the same thing.
Abandon wrote:Why are you talking about embarking? Nobody has advocated embarking beasts into a transport. The state of being embarked and the action of embarking are not the same thing.
DeathReaper wrote: Permission saying that a unit that exceeds the capacity can be embarked on a transport.
It has not bee exceeded as there are zero infantry units embarked.
Incorrect, try again.
The capacity is one infantry unit. The maximum number of allowable beasts models is zero, therefore if there are beasts embarked the capacity of zero beasts has been exceeded. This is demonstrably true.
because as of right now, only infantry have permission to be embarked.
One infantry is a cap, yes. That says nothing about beasts which currently have no limit.
Beasts do have a limit as they are not allowed to be embarked at all, unless you have a rules citation that says that beasts can be embarked, but I do not see that rule anywhere in the BRR.
Abandon wrote:Why are you talking about embarking? Nobody has advocated embarking beasts into a transport. The state of being embarked and the action of embarking are not the same thing.
I am talking about being embarked, not embarking.
Then please write what you mean.
I have, I have been talking about being embarked for the past couple of pages now.
The capacity is one infantry unit. The maximum number of allowable beasts models is zero, therefore if there are beasts embarked the capacity of zero beasts has been exceeded. This is demonstrably true.
"Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and or any number of Independent Characters..." In the English language this does not say anything about nor limit anything but Infantry units. It is specific that Infantry have a max capacity of one. A max capacity is not listed for anything else. Assuming that means it is zero for anything else is exactly that, an assumption.
One infantry is a cap, yes. That says nothing about beasts which currently have no limit.
Beasts do have a limit as they are not allowed to be embarked at all, unless you have a rules citation that says that beasts can be embarked, but I do not see that rule anywhere in the BRR.
You have yet to show this beast limit you keep talking about. It does not exist and permission to have them there has been shown over and over again.
Abandon wrote:Why are you talking about embarking? Nobody has advocated embarking beasts into a transport. The state of being embarked and the action of embarking are not the same thing.
I am talking about being embarked, not embarking.
Then please write what you mean.
I have, I have been talking about being embarked for the past couple of pages now.
The permissive ruleset limits the number of models that may embark on a transport. A model may embark if there is a rule stating they may embark. Beasts have no such rule ans as per the permissive ruleset are not allowed on a transport.
Assuming honesty one can only conclude that you either do not have a grasp on the proper use of words and tensing to indicate a state vs an action or that you did not care to take the time to type in the extra words/letters despite the fact that it completely alters the statement. In any case what you claim to have been attempting to say was not communicated and something else was. Please do better next time as this makes people unsure that you know the meaning what you say. For now I will accept your proclaimed meaning as of a state, not an action.
Abandon wrote: "Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and or any number of Independent Characters..." In the English language this does not say anything about nor limit anything but Infantry units. It is specific that Infantry have a max capacity of one. A max capacity is not listed for anything else. Assuming that means it is zero for anything else is exactly that, an assumption.
No, knowing that quote does not say that beasts may be embarked means they may not be embarked and as such the capacity of said transport to carry beasts is zero. The permissive ruleset tells us this. So unless you can find something that says Beasts may be embarked upon a transport (Specific language is needed because transports are given permission to carry infantry, and there is no permission to carry anything else...)
Abandon wrote:You have yet to show this beast limit you keep talking about. It does not exist and permission to have them there has been shown over and over again.
They are allowed to turn into beasts while embarked. There it is. Permission for embarked beasts.
Find a shred of denial.
That is not how a permissive ruleset works.
That does not say beasts may be embarked so they can not be and the capacity of a transport to carry beasts is literally zero beast models.
There is a rule that says the unit type may change. This has nothing to do with beasts being allowed on a transport as it does not say they may be embarked because they can change at any time, not just when they are embarked. The transport capacity rules are more specific in this situation as they bar anything but infantry from being embarked.
Conclusion: It is a permissive ruleset and the number of allowed beast models on a transport is <=0 (<=0 means less than or equal to zero).
Therefore you may not have any beasts upon a transport, any beasts that somehow become passengers exceed the limit of zero beasts embarked upon the transport.
The permissive ruleset limits the number of models that may embark on a transport. A model may embark if there is a rule stating they may embark. Beasts have no such rule ans as per the permissive ruleset are not allowed on a transport.
Assuming honesty one can only conclude that you either do not have a grasp on the proper use of words and tensing to indicate a state vs an action or that you did not care to take the time to type in the extra words/letters despite the fact that it completely alters the statement. In any case what you claim to have been attempting to say was not communicated and something else was. Please do better next time as this makes people unsure that you know the meaning what you say. For now I will accept your proclaimed meaning as of a state, not an action.
Sure, I make one typo... look at all the other times when I wrote be embarked...
DeathReaper wrote: Cite the rule that tells you that beasts can be embarked on a transport please... ...False. we do not have an allowance for beasts to be embarked as they exceed the transport capacity because they are not any rules stating beasts can be embarked. Without an allowance the number of beasts that may be embarked is zero.
DeathReaper wrote: I have proven that it is illegal for them to be embarked however... ...The disembarking does break a rule, but then the game can continue as there is not an illegal unit embarked upon a transport that is can not be embarked upon anymore therefore the game can continue. Sounds like a good fix as there are not any units illegally embarked anymore.
P.S. it was a typo, sorry. (I made an additional typo in that post, i wrote ans instead of and. again sorry for the typo's).
Abandon wrote: "Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and or any number of Independent Characters..." In the English language this does not say anything about nor limit anything but Infantry units. It is specific that Infantry have a max capacity of one. A max capacity is not listed for anything else. Assuming that means it is zero for anything else is exactly that, an assumption.
No, knowing that quote does not say that beasts may be embarked means they may not be embarked and as such the capacity of said transport to carry beasts is zero.
The permissive ruleset tells us this. So unless you can find something that says Beasts may be embarked upon a transport (Specific language is needed because transports are given permission to carry infantry, and there is no permission to carry anything else...)
You are misreading this. They tell you there's a max capacity that cannot be exceeded. They never assign a value(in units) to it, they just make it clear a single infantry unit fills it and no other unit types are mentioned. Without specific or general mention or some assigned or relative values, this cannot and does not say anything about anything other than infantry and as such no maximum capacity for anything else is set.
Also claiming that a unit of beasts is 'in excess' of a unit of infantry is pure assumption. The two cannot be compared as we are not given a means to do so.
Abandon wrote:You have yet to show this beast limit you keep talking about. It does not exist and permission to have them there has been shown over and over again.
Incorrect Abandon, They do tell you there's a max capacity that cannot be exceeded. Beasts are not allowed by any rule to be embarked. therefore you may not have beasts embarked. The Permissive ruleset tells us this.
1 Beast model embarked is most definitely in excess of one infantry unit, as you may not have beasts embarked therefore if you were to have an infantry unit embarked the transport would then contain one beasts and one infantry unit and that is most definitely in excess of a single infantry unit as the transport would have a unit of beasts and a unit of infantry embarked. can never be exceeded means you can not have more than a single infantry unit embarked. if you have zero infantry embarked and a unit of anything else embarked it exceeds the capacity.
There is a limit for beasts. the limit is zero as we have no permission at all for beasts to be embarked. Therefore no beasts may be embarked. if you disagree please cite a rule allowing beasts to be embarked on a transport because I can not find one.
1 Beast model embarked is most definitely in excess of one infantry unit, as you may not have beasts embarked therefore if you were to have an infantry unit embarked the transport would then contain one beasts and one infantry unit and that is most definitely in excess of a single infantry unit as the transport would have a unit of beasys and a unit of infantry embarked.
This part makes no sense at all.
can never be exceeded means you can not have more than a single infantry unit embarked.
So prove that a unit of beasts is more than a single unit of infantry.
if you have zero infantry embarked and a unit of anything else embarked it exceeds the capacity.
How? True there's a capacity limit and one unit of infantry seems to fit in it. How can you use that to say anything about any other unit type without making grand assumptions? You can't. How many units of beasts equal a unit of infantry? We don't know and can't know. Does the single infantry unit take up the entire capacity limit or just 75%? We don't know and can't know.
It tells us there is a capacity limit and then give us permission to have a single infantry unit embarked. Trying to glean more is not possible by any logical means. We are not give numbers, ratios, scales or anything by which to compare. I understand what you see but your reading is intuitive, not logical. Intuition often tells you the intent and in this case that's clear but logic dictates you claims are full of assumption.
There is a limit for beasts. the limit is zero as we have no permission at all for beasts to be embarked. Therefore no beasts may be embarked. if you disagree please cite a rule allowing beasts to be embarked on a transport because I can not find one.
I have show such permission, you just refuse to see it. You are permitted to follow the rules to their natural conclusion or the game breaks completely at every step.
Infantry is permitted to imbark.
Embarked infantry is permitted to turn into beasts.
You now have legally and with permission reached a state of 'embarked beasts'.
grrrfranky wrote: Abandon, where precisely does it say that beasts can be embarked on a transport? Not inferring it from something else, but explicitly stating it?
No where. Where does it say Imperial Guard can shoot not inferring it from something else, but explicitly stating it?
You have permission to embark and you have permission to become beasts. You need denial of that permission that over rules the codex rule or you can do it.
IG are allowed to shoot like any other model of their type, for which there is permission. That's not a comparable situation. Beasts aren't allowed to be in the transport (which has a specific capacity of which beasts aren't a part), unlike infantry, which is the problem. As DeathReaper has stated several times, this is where RAW breaks down, so we need to houserule it to make it work. Whether that means they can stay in the transport or are forced to disembark is up t you and your group. I'd probably go with them having to disembark, but I don't have strong feelings either way, so would happily play it however my opponent wanted to in the event of this coming up.
So you can't produce a rule that explicitly states IG can shoot without inferring it from a list of permissions given? So if you believe that IG can shoot why do you not believe the beasts can be embarked? The rules certainly give you a list of permissions which creates that result.
That is how a permissive ruleset works. We have proven permission you need to show denial of that permission.
Why would I need to find a rule saying that IG in particular can shoot when a more general rule already gives me permission? The most general rule for transports says at a unit of infantry can be embarked, and says nothing about beasts. You need to find a more specific rule overriding or adding to that.
As for the beasts, while there is permission for them to embark as infantry, and to turn in to beasts, there still isn't a rule saying that any more than a single infantry unit plus any attached ICs can be embarked on a transport which would thus preclude a unit of beasts being embarked on at transport leading to a breakdown of the rules.
Why would I need to find a rule saying that IG in particular can shoot when a more general rule already gives me permission?
You wouldn't but you're claiming you need specific permission for everything and using the result of different rules isn't enough. So yes you have permission for infantry to shoot but none for Imperial Guard infantry.
The most general rule for transports says at a unit of infantry can be embarked, and says nothing about beasts. You need to find a more specific rule overriding or adding to that.
Cool check the possessed rules in the Crimson Slaughter codex.
As for the beasts, while there is permission for them to embark as infantry, and to turn in to beasts, there still isn't a rule saying that any more than a single infantry unit plus any attached ICs can be embarked on a transport which would thus preclude a unit of beasts being embarked on at transport leading to a breakdown of the rules.
So lets assume for a second you are correct that the rules breakdown. What has caused the rule break down? Is it a codex rule creating a breakdown in a BrB rule? If so page 7 tells us how to deal with that. So no matter how you look at it the end result is the same they can be embarked.
1 Beast model embarked is most definitely in excess of one infantry unit, as you may not have beasts embarked therefore if you were to have an infantry unit embarked the transport would then contain one beasts and one infantry unit and that is most definitely in excess of a single infantry unit as the transport would have a unit of beasts and a unit of infantry embarked.
This part makes no sense at all.
Now I see why you are confused, It does not seem like you fully grasp the concept of a Permissive ruleset.
There is a limit for beasts. That limit is zero as we have no permission at all for beasts to be embarked. Therefore no beasts may be embarked.
Abandon wrote: I have show such permission, you just refuse to see it. You are permitted to follow the rules to their natural conclusion or the game breaks completely at every step.
Infantry is permitted to imbark. Embarked infantry is permitted to turn into beasts. You now have legally and with permission reached a state of 'embarked beasts'.
That does not give permission for the beasts to be embarked though. That does not say that beasts may be embarked on a transport. that is just a rule that changes a unit of infantry to beasts no matter where they are.
Please cite an actual rule allowing beasts to be embarked on a transport because I can not find one. If you can not find a rule that says beasts may be embarked then they may not be embarked.
1 Beast model embarked is most definitely in excess of one infantry unit, as you may not have beasts embarked therefore if you were to have an infantry unit embarked the transport would then contain one beasts and one infantry unit and that is most definitely in excess of a single infantry unit as the transport would have a unit of beasts and a unit of infantry embarked.
This part makes no sense at all.
Now I see why you are confused, It does not seem like you fully grasp the concept of a Permissive ruleset.
There is a limit for beasts. That limit is zero as we have no permission at all for beasts to be embarked. Therefore no beasts may be embarked.
Abandon wrote: I have show such permission, you just refuse to see it. You are permitted to follow the rules to their natural conclusion or the game breaks completely at every step.
Infantry is permitted to imbark.
Embarked infantry is permitted to turn into beasts.
You now have legally and with permission reached a state of 'embarked beasts'.
That does not give permission for the beasts to be embarked though. That does not say that beasts may be embarked on a transport. that is just a rule that changes a unit of infantry to beasts no matter where they are.
Please cite an actual rule allowing beasts to be embarked on a transport because I can not find one. If you can not find a rule that says beasts may be embarked then they may not be embarked.
So... you're saying that if you follow the rules and they lead you to a state, that state is illegal unless specifically and directly permitted? Is that really what you are saying? ...because that is exactly the argument you are presenting. Essentially that following the rules is not permitted unless it's specifically permitted.
...that is just a rule that changes a unit of infantry to beasts no matter where they are.
Oh is that all? You mean just a rule that can change them into beasts while they are embarked? How could that possibly mean they can be beasts and embarked at the same time? hmmm(sarcasm)
DeathReaper wrote: I am saying that the rules as written cause an illegal state when the posessed are embarked upon a transport. This is demonstrably true.
The rule does not just change them to beasts while embarked. it can happen when they are not embarked as well...
So the state was reached legally. As in, with permission. Yes?
...but that the state is not permitted?
Lack of permission and denial of permission are not quite the same.
I think you're trying to say that the permission is denied by the capacity rule as opposed to a denial of the state due to pure lack of permission for it at all. Yes?
1 Beast model embarked is most definitely in excess of one infantry unit, as you may not have beasts embarked therefore if you were to have an infantry unit embarked the transport would then contain one beasts and one infantry unit and that is most definitely in excess of a single infantry unit as the transport would have a unit of beasts and a unit of infantry embarked.
This part makes no sense at all.
Now I see why you are confused, It does not seem like you fully grasp the concept of a Permissive ruleset.
There is a limit for beasts. That limit is zero as we have no permission at all for beasts to be embarked. Therefore no beasts may be embarked.
Abandon wrote: I have show such permission, you just refuse to see it. You are permitted to follow the rules to their natural conclusion or the game breaks completely at every step.
Infantry is permitted to imbark.
Embarked infantry is permitted to turn into beasts.
You now have legally and with permission reached a state of 'embarked beasts'.
That does not give permission for the beasts to be embarked though. That does not say that beasts may be embarked on a transport. that is just a rule that changes a unit of infantry to beasts no matter where they are.
Please cite an actual rule allowing beasts to be embarked on a transport because I can not find one. If you can not find a rule that says beasts may be embarked then they may not be embarked.
By that theory, you also do not have permission to immediately disembark beasts from a transport vehicle.
This rule "Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit...'
Does not say what you seem to think it says.
It says 'a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded'.
-Ok there's some limit to how much it can carry and you can't go over that, got it.
Then is says ' A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit...'
- This is permission to carry one single infantry unit, got it... wait is that the maximum capacity limit?
So at most, one unit of infantry with X models. The thing is there's no denial here as no limit value is actually set and no comparative values are given so there is no way to compare a unit of anything else to a unit of infantry. Not having a place on the capacity scale does not mean their capacity limit is zero, that's an assumption. What it means is they're not on the capacity scale and therefore cannot count towards the capacity limit.
So how does one unit of beasts exceed one unit of infantry in the rules? Please direct me to where the comparative values are listed. Oh there not there...
My garage has a maximum capacity limit that cannot be exceeded. My garage can hold two cars. Are boxes denied existence in my garage by those rules? No. I said there was a limit and then I said how many cars will fit in it. That says nothing about anything but cars so there is no denial for anything except cars. If other rules put other things in there there's no limit on them unless they set there own limit or give it a value relative to a car.
"Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit..." Are beasts denied being embarked by these rules? No, see above.
This rule "Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit...' Does not say what you seem to think it says.
This says that a transport can carry infantry. I still have not seen a rule taht states that a transport can carry beasts...
It says 'a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded'. -Ok there's some limit to how much it can carry and you can't go over that, got it. Then is says ' A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit...' - This is permission to carry one single infantry unit, got it... wait is that the maximum capacity limit?
So at most, one unit of infantry with X models. The thing is there's no denial here as no limit value is actually set and no comparative values are given so there is no way to compare a unit of anything else to a unit of infantry. Not having a place on the capacity scale does not mean their capacity limit is zero, that's an assumption. What it means is they're not on the capacity scale and therefore cannot count towards the capacity limit.
there is no way to compare a unit to infantry because it is not needed, unit types, other than infantry, can not be embarked. it is that simple.
So how does one unit of beasts exceed one unit of infantry in the rules? Please direct me to where the comparative values are listed. Oh there not there...
They exceed the transports capacity by virtue of no rule stating that they are allowed to be embarked. You still have not found a rule quote that says that Beasts can be embarked have you?
My garage has a maximum capacity limit that cannot be exceeded. My garage can hold two cars. Are boxes denied existence in my garage by those rules? No.
Under a permissive ruleset, yes, if only cars are allowed in the garage you may not put boxes in the garage...
I said there was a limit and then I said how many cars will fit in it. That says nothing about anything but cars so there is no denial for anything except cars. If other rules put other things in there there's no limit on them unless they set there own limit or give it a value relative to a car.
there is a limit to other things, the limit is zero as other things are not given permission to be in the garage in the first place.
"Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit..." Are beasts denied being embarked by these rules? No, see above.
No, they are denied being embarked by virtue of not having a rule allowing beasts to be embarked.
That rule limits the total capacity of the transport. Any model which does not fit into that capacity is in excess of that capacity.
Transports can only carry infantry and, unless otherwise noted, nothing else...
Dr - no, that rule does not say what you think it states.
It states you have a maximum transport capacity that cannot be exceeded - which is the number of models listed by the the transport entry, eg ten models for a rhino. This is an allowance for any number of units to be in there, as long as you do not exceed the transport capacity.
There is then a restriction stating only one uni t of infantry can b on board - restricting the former permission to have any models embarked that you like, up to the transport capacity.
You then have further rules only allowing infantry to embark, reducing further the ability to have non infantry to get inside the vehicle.
However, the models are already embarked. They do not exceed the transport capacity - ten models - and are not an infantry unit, so the restriction in the second setntence does not ally.
RAW the beasts can stay embarked, as long as they do not exceed the transport capacity of ten models for a rhino. This would be the case if they changed to eg bulky and already have six plus models, but they do not change to bulky
It states you have a maximum transport capacity that cannot be exceeded - which is the number of models listed by the the transport entry, eg ten models for a rhino. This is an allowance for any number of units to be in there, as long as you do not exceed the transport capacity.
There is then a restriction stating only one uni t of infantry can b on board - restricting the former permission to have any models embarked that you like, up to the transport capacity.
You then have further rules only allowing infantry to embark, reducing further the ability to have non infantry to get inside the vehicle.
However, the models are already embarked. They do not exceed the transport capacity - ten models - and are not an infantry unit, so the restriction in the second setntence does not ally.
RAW the beasts can stay embarked, as long as they do not exceed the transport capacity of ten models for a rhino. This would be the case if they changed to eg bulky and already have six plus models, but they do not change to bulky
Your version of RAW is not correct at all, unless you have a rule stating that beasts may be embarked. Citation needed.
The rule limits the total capacity of the transport. Any model which does not fit into that capacity is in excess of that capacity. It really is that simple.
I already laid out your error. You have permission to not exceed the transport capacity - 10 models say - and then a restriction on infantry such that only one unit may be embarked
Find a restriction on the general permission for ANY models to be embarked as long as you a) do not exceed the capacity Nd b) do not have more than one infantry unit embarked.
Citation needed. After all, I have just proven you are reading two sentences as applying to each other, when they do not. One is permission one is restriction
Tactical_Genius wrote: DR - the unit capacity thing: If I have a box, that can hold a maximum of one dog, and I put a brick in it, have I exceeded its capacity?
Does the brick have permission to be placed in the box?
Tactical_Genius wrote: DR - the unit capacity thing: If I have a box, that can hold a maximum of one dog, and I put a brick in it, have I exceeded its capacity?
Does the brick have permission to be placed in the box?
If I put my dog in the box, and the dog turns into a brick, yes. But I was trying to address that specific issue.
Tactical_Genius wrote: DR - the unit capacity thing: If I have a box, that can hold a maximum of one dog, and I put a brick in it, have I exceeded its capacity?
Does the brick have permission to be placed in the box?
If I put my dog in the box, and the dog turns into a brick, yes. But I was trying to address that specific issue.
To be fair, I have no part in this argument. I've lost track after about the third post. Near as I can tell one side says "You can't be in there because "X"" and the game breaks. The other side says "You can be in there because "X"" and the game doesn't break.
Tactical_Genius wrote: DR - the unit capacity thing: If I have a box, that can hold a maximum of one dog, and I put a brick in it, have I exceeded its capacity?
Yes, as the brick is not allowed to be there, via the permissive ruleset.
DR, we have show permission several times. It's easy as we simply follow the rules to get there but you refuse to admit that following the rules is permitted.
We have pointed out your misreading of the capacity rules several times but you refuse to acknowledge that as well.
As you have also demonstrated an almost complete inability to admit to a mistake I can only assume this is again the case. No amount of reason or logic will sway you. You are not constructively debating the rules. You are in essence, merely stating the same thing over and over despite your claims being dis-proven several times by several people. I believe we are finished here and you have lost whether you want to admit it or not.
Yes, we found this rule. Thank you for conceding the argument again, as you are reiterating the disproven point.
The vehicle has a maximum capacity that cannot be exceeded. This is permission for any type of models to be embarked, as long as they do not exceed the capacity, in this case 10 models.
There is a restriction that, at any point, only one infantry unit may be embarked. This is a restriction on the general permission to fill a vehicle up to its maximum capacity.
Your "in context we know that" is your unsupported leap, proving you have no rules basis. Do not repeat it as fact.
"We know this from the context, as only infantry can be embarked. "
Tactical_Genius wrote: DR - can you find the rule that allows a space marine captain to join a unit of tactical marines? (bear with me here)
Youre going with general vs specific permissions, which is the point Im making to DR
DR is reading the first sentence, which is permission for anything to be embarked as long as it does not exceed the vehicles capacity, as being contingent upon the second, separate sentence whcih limits the first permission to only evetr alllow a single INFANTRY unit to be embarked.
Of course, that is a misreading - the second does not override the first in general, nor does it state that "ONLY" infantry units may be embarked, as DR claims quite a few times. It simply places a limit on infantry units. It doe snot place limits on everyone else.
its like being told you need specific permission to deploy in a ruin, when told you can deploy anywhere on the table
Tactical_Genius wrote: DR - can you find the rule that allows a space marine captain to join a unit of tactical marines? (bear with me here)
Youre going with general vs specific permissions, which is the point Im making to DR
DR is reading the first sentence, which is permission for anything to be embarked as long as it does not exceed the vehicles capacity, as being contingent upon the second, separate sentence whcih limits the first permission to only evetr alllow a single INFANTRY unit to be embarked.
Of course, that is a misreading - the second does not override the first in general, nor does it state that "ONLY" infantry units may be embarked, as DR claims quite a few times. It simply places a limit on infantry units. It doe snot place limits on everyone else.
its like being told you need specific permission to deploy in a ruin, when told you can deploy anywhere on the table
I know, I'm attempting to lead DR to the same conclusion.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, we found this rule. Thank you for conceding the argument again, as you are reiterating the disproven point.
You still have not posted said rule, please do, and highlight the rule in question via an underscore please so I am sure to not miss what you are referring to.
The vehicle has a maximum capacity that cannot be exceeded.
Well you got this correct, almost.
"Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded" (78)
This is permission for any type of models to be embarked, as long as they do not exceed the capacity, in this case 10 models.
No it is not, as only infantry can be embarked as per the context of the embarking rules. Please try again.
There is a restriction that, at any point, only one infantry unit may be embarked. This is a restriction on the general permission to fill a vehicle up to its maximum capacity.
And only one infantry is allowed on the transport Beasts are not infantry and are not allowed there as a single infantry unit is the only unit type allowed by the rules to be embarked..
Your "in context we know that" is your unsupported leap, proving you have no rules basis. Do not repeat it as fact.
It is supported, as no one has produced rules that say that beasts can be embarked.
"We know this from the context, as only infantry can be embarked. "
This is a lie.
The prove that this is a lie, you still have not shown any rules that say that beasts can be embarked. I am still waiting for you to produce something that tells us that beasts can be embarked.
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)
Here is what a transport is allowed to carry, a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters.
Where is the allowance for beasts to be carried?
You have not shown this, so I will accept that the rule does not exist and you can not prove that beasts can be carried as there is no allowance whatsoever to carry beasts.
Ok, so there is no specific rule that tells me that it can happen? I have to infer it from the fact that the captain is an IC?
There is a rule that tells you that an IC can join another unit...
The base IC rule covers it explicitly.
Ok, but you have no rule that *specifically* says that a space marine captain can join a unit of marines (specifically).
The IC rules tell us that any model with the IC rule can join any unit (With exceptions). Therefore we have permission for a space marine captain to join a unit of tactical marines.
Ok, so there is no specific rule that tells me that it can happen? I have to infer it from the fact that the captain is an IC?
There is a rule that tells you that an IC can join another unit...
The base IC rule covers it explicitly.
Ok, but you have no rule that *specifically* says that a space marine captain can join a unit of marines (specifically).
The IC rules tell us that any model with the IC rule can join any unit (With exceptions). Therefore we have permission for a space marine captain to join a unit of tactical marines.
Ok, so why is this lack of *specific* permission ok here, but not with the possessed?
Tactical_Genius wrote: Ok, so why is this lack of *specific* permission ok here, but not with the possessed?
Because we have permission for an IC to join a unit. This includes a space marine captain (Which has the IC rule) to join a unit of tactical marines (Which are a unit). The rules specifically allow an IC to join a unit.
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)
Here is what a transport is allowed to carry, a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters. It is not allowed to carry anything else, unless there is a rule stating it can carry something else (Like the Stormraven being allowed to carry Jump Infantry and a single Dreadnought).
Where is the allowance for beasts to be carried? Citation needed. Please underscore the rule if you find it because It either does not exist or I missed where it allows beasts to be carried.
Tactical_Genius wrote: Ok, so why is this lack of *specific* permission ok here, but not with the possessed?
Because we have permission for an IC to join a unit. This includes a space marine captain (Which has the IC rule) to join a unit of tactical marines (Which are a unit). The rules specifically allow an IC to join a unit.
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)
Here is what a transport is allowed to carry, a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters. It is not allowed to carry anything else, unless there is a rule stating it can carry something else (Like the Stormraven being allowed to carry Jump Infantry and a single Dreadnought).
Where is the allowance for beasts to be carried? Citation needed. Please underscore the rule if you find it because It either does not exist or I missed where it allows beasts to be carried.
Ok clearly you aren't getting where I'm coming from... I'll change my angle of approach somewhat. Ok let's say the captain joins the unit, then suddenly loses the IC rule. He stays as part of the unit, right? Same situation here.
Tactical_Genius wrote: Ok clearly you aren't getting where I'm coming from... I'll change my angle of approach somewhat. Ok let's say the captain joins the unit, then suddenly loses the IC rule. He stays as part of the unit, right? Same situation here.
There is no situation where this could happen, and as such is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
We have no way of knowing if a captain that suddenly loses the IC rule stays with the unit or not, because there is no way to lose the IC rule on a captain and as such the rules do not cover it.
Tactical_Genius wrote: Ok clearly you aren't getting where I'm coming from... I'll change my angle of approach somewhat. Ok let's say the captain joins the unit, then suddenly loses the IC rule. He stays as part of the unit, right? Same situation here.
There is no situation where this could happen, and as such is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
We have no way of knowing if a captain that suddenly loses the IC rule stays with the unit or not, because there is no way to lose the IC rule on a captain and as such the rules do not cover it.
What about Hive Tyrants joining Tyrant Guard? They can join as if they have the IC special rule. So they do not have the IC rule, join as if they do, and are part of the unit without it.
It's like if you follow the rules and they lead you to a specific state, that state is legal and does not have to be specifically permitted.
ID weapons don't cause unsaved wounds, they cause hits so they can't ID anything! Oh wait, those hits turn into wounds and then into unsaved wounds so they cause unsaved wounds even if that's not directly stated...
@Tactical Genius, DR is not going ever admit he's wrong. You can lead him to water but you can't make him drink.
Tactical_Genius wrote: Ok clearly you aren't getting where I'm coming from... I'll change my angle of approach somewhat. Ok let's say the captain joins the unit, then suddenly loses the IC rule. He stays as part of the unit, right? Same situation here.
There is no situation where this could happen, and as such is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
We have no way of knowing if a captain that suddenly loses the IC rule stays with the unit or not, because there is no way to lose the IC rule on a captain and as such the rules do not cover it.
What about Hive Tyrants joining Tyrant Guard? They can join as if they have the IC special rule. So they do not have the IC rule, join as if they do, and are part of the unit without it.
As it is an illegal state you must place the Hive Tyrant within 3" of the Tyrant Guard using the CoC rules. No rule says that a Hive Tyrant can stay joined to a unit as he has lost the IC status upon joining it is now an illegal state. That last part doesn't add anything to the conversation--please keep it objective.---AgeOfEgos
As it is an illegal state you must place the Hive Tyrant within 3" of the Tyrant Guard using the CoC rules. No rule says that a Hive Tyrant can stay joined to a unit as he has lost the IC status upon joining it is now an illegal state. I'm now going to put my hands over my ears and repeat "la la la la illegal state" until everyone gives up arguing with me.
Tactical_Genius wrote: Ok clearly you aren't getting where I'm coming from... I'll change my angle of approach somewhat. Ok let's say the captain joins the unit, then suddenly loses the IC rule. He stays as part of the unit, right? Same situation here.
There is no situation where this could happen, and as such is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
We have no way of knowing if a captain that suddenly loses the IC rule stays with the unit or not, because there is no way to lose the IC rule on a captain and as such the rules do not cover it.
What about Hive Tyrants joining Tyrant Guard? They can join as if they have the IC special rule. So they do not have the IC rule, join as if they do, and are part of the unit without it.
The HT is given a rule that he can join the guard as if he had the IC rule.
So the rules cover this situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Abandon wrote: @Tactical Genius, DR is not going ever admit he's wrong. You can lead him to water but you can't make him drink.
That is because I am not wrong.
Beasts can not be carried by a transport.
There is not any rules stating they can be carried by a transport.
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)
Here is what a transport is allowed to carry, a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters. It is not allowed to carry anything else, unless there is a rule stating it can carry something else (Like the Stormraven being allowed to carry Jump Infantry and a single Dreadnought).
Where is the allowance for beasts to be carried? Citation needed. Please underscore the rule if you find it because It either does not exist or I missed where it allows beasts to be carried.
DR - so capacity is not linked to what you can carry?
Odd, thats exactly what it means. You have a capacity of X models that you cannot exceed. Is the possessed unit in excess of this capacity? Citation please, and underline it.
The GENERAL PERMISSION to be on board is allowed. You keep making your unsupoported connection between a PERMISSION sentence and one acting to RESTRICT INFANTRY and pretend it is real.
General permission has been granted to fill up a transport to its capacity in models. I have done so. You cannot find a rule restricting this - just a made up context argument proven false - so your concession is accepted
Your argument is invalid, possessed as Beasts can remain embarked RAW.
The HT is given a rule that he can join the guard as if he had the ICrule.
So the rules cover this situation.
And the transport rules allow the unit to embark so the rules cover that situation too. So please show permission for the Hive Tyrant to be part of the unit. Underline it as I must be missing it or it doesn't exist. As you claim permission to embark is not permission to be embarked then permission to join is not permission to be joined...
There are no rules at all that allow beasts to be carried.
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)
This is what a transport is allowed to carry. Beasts are not on that list...
The transport can carry Infantry up to the transports capacity. What rule allows beasts to be carried?
DeathReaper wrote: "A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)
Here is what a transport is allowed to carry, a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters.
Technically speaking that is a a restriction on the number of infantry units and independent characters that may be used to fill the transports capacity and cannot be used as a definition of transport capacity because it refers to said transport capacity.
DeathReaper wrote: It is not allowed to carry anything else, unless there is a rule stating it can carry something else (Like the Stormraven being allowed to carry Jump Infantry and a single Dreadnought).
Where is the allowance for beasts to be carried? Citation needed. Please underscore the rule if you find it because It either does not exist or I missed where it allows beasts to be carried.
The transport capacity of a vehicle is a characteristic listed as part of the vehicles profile. You'll notice the transport capacity can very from vehicle to vehicle. The two involved in this discussion are..
Transport Capacity: Ten models. Chaos Rhinos cannot
carry models with the Bulky, Very Bulky or Extremely Bulky
special rules.
Transport Capacity: Ten models.
In the case of the transformed possessed they are still covered by these two descriptions. That is the permission to carry beasts in your chaos transport.
The rules that prevent you from loading anything onto a transport are the embarking and deployment rules. Those rules state units deploying in transports must be embarked and only allow infantry units to embark unless stated otherwise. Beats may not embark on a chaos transport but a unit that embarks as infantry then becomes non-infantry has found a loophole to legally remain aboard a transport it has already embarked as long as it falls under the umbrella of the transport capacity.
Sigh. No, as proven now, at least 5 times, you are reading a *restriction* on Infantry units as a *permission* for only infantry to be embarked.
DeathReaper wrote:There are no rules at all that allow beasts to be carried.
Apart from the general rule stating that vehicles have a maximum capacity that cannot be exceeded. This capacity is liste in their profile, e.g. 10 for a rhino.Does this state "10 infantry models"? No, it does not, you are making up ithat requirement when no such rule exists
DeathReaper wrote:A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)
This is what a transport is allowed to carry. Beasts are not on that list...
Agreed they are not mentioned in that sentence that restr5icts how many infantry units can be carried at a single time. Now, can you POSSIBLY address the RULE YOU ARE IGNORING - which lists the maximum capacity -> meaning how many models it can carry, of ANY type as NO restricytions are mentioned - instead of pretending it does not exist?
Your disingenuous argument, pretending a rule that destroys your argument does not exist, is frustrating and, frankly, demeans your argument.
Address the rule proving you wrong, show how it does not provide general permission, or concede. FUrhter reference to the above RESTRICTION is considered concession.
DeathReaper wrote:The transport can carry Infantry up to the transports capacity. What rule allows beasts to be carried?
The rule that has been provided, that you are ignoring. Dont.
What rule allows beasts to be carried? Please answer this one question.
You have been refusing to answer it because no rules states they can be carried, therefore they can not be carried.
It is literally that simple.
The maximum capacity is this:
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)
It can carry infantry up to the transports capacity.
where is the transport allowed to carry beasts up to its capacity. Find that rule, I'll wait.
DeathReaper wrote: What rule allows beasts to be carried? Please answer this one question.
Which vehicle would you like? I'll use the Chaos Land Raider for the purpose of this discussion. The Chaos Land Raider's transport capacity is found on page 55 of the chaos marine codex. It reads "Transport Capacity: Ten models". Are beasts models? Yes. This is permission to carry beasts.
DeathReaper wrote: You have been refusing to answer it because no rules states they can be carried, therefore they can not be carried.
Its the same rule that gives the transport permission toy carry any models at all, so it does exists and I have mentioned it twice now.
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)
It can carry infantry up to the transports capacity.
where is the transport allowed to carry beasts up to its capacity. Find that rule, I'll wait.
This does not give the transport permission to carry infantry units.
Permission to carry units comes from the transport capacity
This statement restricts the number of infantry units and IC the transport can carry.
There is no restriction on the number of beast units the transport can carry.
If you can find a way to legally place 2 different unit best units, or a best unit and a monstrous creature inside a chaos land raider you may carry them both so long as the number of models in total does not exceed 10.
This is because a chaos land raider can transport any 10 models. I.E. you have permission to transport any 10 models in a chaos land raider.
The trick is legally placing a non infantry unit inside a land raider. Unless stated otherwise, like with a storm raven, only infantry units may embark upon a transport. There is currently no other way for a unit to enter a transport.
In the scenario described in this thread. An infantry unit of possessed can legally embark upon a chaos land raider. Once embarked their unit type is no longer an issue, as long as the unit does not exceed 10 models it does not violate the the land raider's transport capacity.
DeathReaper wrote: What rule allows beasts to be carried? Please answer this one question.
Which vehicle would you like? I'll use the Chaos Land Raider for the purpose of this discussion. The Chaos Land Raider's transport capacity is found on page 55 of the chaos marine codex. It reads "Transport Capacity: Ten models". Are beasts models? Yes. This is permission to carry beasts.
So you could have MC's and vehicles inside of it?
You are incorrect. you need to reference the rules for transport capacity to see what is allowed to be carried, you have shown the transport capacity of the Chaos Land Raider, but no allowance for beasts, or anything other than infantry to be carried.
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)
It can carry infantry up to the transports capacity.
where is the transport allowed to carry beasts up to its capacity. Find that rule, I'll wait.
This does not give the transport permission to carry infantry units.
Permission to carry units comes from the transport capacity
You are again incorrect, the rule specifically allows a Transport to carry a single Infantry unit that has any number of models up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity.
That quote does give the transport permission to carry infantry units, it says so right in the quoted rule...
DJGietzen wrote: There is no restriction on the number of beast units the transport can carry.
The permissive ruleset restricts the number of beasts that can be carried because they are not allowed to be carried, since there is no rule stating they can be carried.
DJGietzen wrote: This is because a chaos land raider can transport any 10 models. I.E. you have permission to transport any 10 models in a chaos land raider
You have permission to carry 10 infantry models in a chaos land raider, small but important difference.
Transport capacity in the codex references the Transport capacity rules in the BRB. Those rules tell us that only Infantry are allowed to be carried.
Since you can not find anything that allows beasts to be carried, I am going to accept that the rules does not exist and that beasts can not be carried in a transport.
Ok, So we what we have here is a rules conundrum (tm). Only if you look at the rules in a very limited (and incorrect) way.
A unit that is embarked becomes a different type of unit while embarked in a transport: Infantry becomes beasts.
The rules never state that a transport ONLY carry infantry models, just that they CAN carry infantry models.
There are specific rules that state ONLY infantry models can EMBARK upon a transport, unless otherwise stated.
You have a unit that embarked the transport, legally, as an infantry unit.
Since you have adhered to the stated rules, the unit can remain in the transport, or disembark as normal, no matter it's current unit type.
A simple manner for dealing with adherence rules.
Then there is the "If any eventuality isn't specifically worded in the rules then it is not allowed" way of looking at it.
A unit that is embarked becomes a different type of unit while embarked in a transport: Infantry becomes beasts.
The rules never mention any unit other than Infantry being carried by a transport.
The unit cannot be transported by the transport.
The rules never mention that any unit type can disembark from a transport. They certainly never mention any case where a unit becomes something different and what type of disembarkation should be used.
The unit is in a vehicle, that they cannot be in, that they cannot exit plus the vehicle cannot be moved (no transporting). If this immovable vehicle is destroyed in the subsequent shooting phase the unit inside still cannot disembark nor can they be killed because they cannot be in the vehicle to begin. The rules explode!!!!!!!
In short, as long as you adhere to the written rules, you will be fine. This is a very large collection of rules that sometimes cause circumstances that are unanticipated. When that happens you have to follow what is written not what is left out. There are rules written for units in a transport and no rules written for what units can be in a transport, merely what units can embark in a transport.
If we were to go by what's not written, then infantry units would not be able to disembark from a transport either. As there is no wording stating that Infantry units can disembark, there is only wording that an Infantry unit can Embark. Now, yes, there is wording that an embarked unit may disembark, but since "Infantry Unit" isn't the wording used then getting that Infantry Unit out would also not be allowed.
Idolator wrote: The rules never state that a transport ONLY carry infantry models, just that they CAN carry infantry models.
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)
If what you say is true... then what would be the point of the quoted rule? You're saying that everything after the word CAN in the sentence doesn't matter because the word ONLY is not there.
What I'm getting from this is that...yes a transport CAN carry a single Infantry unit but it COULD carry Beasts because the quote doesn't say CAN ONLY carry a single Infantry unit. Therefore the above rule has no effect on the game. Is that right?
Idolator wrote: The rules never state that a transport ONLY carry infantry models, just that they CAN carry infantry models.
Incorrect, the rules state that a transport can ONLY carry infantry models
The ruleset needs to give permission for a transport to carry a unit type. We have an allowance for infantry and no allowance for any other types.
Therefore ONLY infantry can embark. This is a function of the ruleset as you need permission before you can do anything.
Your rule book has the word "only" in it? Where did you get that special rule book. I hope it cost a lot. Does anyone else have this wildly expensive (not to mention imaginary) rule book?
Anyway, you are operating under the fallacious premise that "If any eventuality isn't specifically worded in the rules, then it is not allowed" . The rules state that ONLY infantry units can EMBARK and that rule was followed.
So,according to you, the unit is in a transport that it cannot be in, which it also cannot disembark from. Fun.
Let's just get this out of the way. There is no permission granted. Unless the word "Permitted" "Permit" or "Permission" is used, it's an instruction or rule.
There are dozens, if not hundreds of things that a player must do, that the rules make absolutely no mention. A really fun one is the fact that they don't give you permission to actually play.
WOW! I just found something very interesting. The Rules actually do state that you may find occasions where a situation is not covered by the rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH MY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How is this possible?!?!?!?! In a "If any eventuality isn't specifically worded in the rules, then it is not allowed" this is not possible!!!!!!! ANOTHER RULES EXPLOSION!
Idolator wrote: The rules never state that a transport ONLY carry infantry models, just that they CAN carry infantry models.
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)
If what you say is true... then what would be the point of the quoted rule? You're saying that everything after the word CAN in the sentence doesn't matter because the word ONLY is not there.
What I'm getting from this is that...yes a transport CAN carry a single Infantry unit but it COULD carry Beasts because the quote doesn't say CAN ONLY carry a single Infantry unit. Therefore the above rule has no effect on the game. Is that right?
No, as the ONLY unit that can EMBARK is an infantry unit. There is no "ONLY" in place on what can be transported. They go on without issue. Once aboard, they are aboard. If they change to something else, they still embarked according to the rules.If you look at it anyway else, then a rule gets broken. If they disembark they are breaking several rules as well (there are no rules for what type of disembarkation this is by the way).
The rules don't cover this exact situation at all.
DeathReaper wrote: What rule allows beasts to be carried? Please answer this one question.
Which vehicle would you like? I'll use the Chaos Land Raider for the purpose of this discussion. The Chaos Land Raider's transport capacity is found on page 55 of the chaos marine codex. It reads "Transport Capacity: Ten models". Are beasts models? Yes. This is permission to carry beasts.
So you could have MC's and vehicles inside of it?
You are incorrect. you need to reference the rules for transport capacity to see what is allowed to be carried, you have shown the transport capacity of the Chaos Land Raider, but no allowance for beasts, or anything other than infantry to be carried.
The allowance is to carry 10 models. Any 10 models. Yes, this technically includes MC's and other vehicles. You don't need any specific permission for beasts because beasts are a subset of models.
"A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)
It can carry infantry up to the transports capacity.
where is the transport allowed to carry beasts up to its capacity. Find that rule, I'll wait.
This does not give the transport permission to carry infantry units.
Permission to carry units comes from the transport capacity
You are again incorrect, the rule specifically allows a Transport to carry a single Infantry unit that has any number of models up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity.
That quote does give the transport permission to carry infantry units, it says so right in the quoted rule...
It absolutely does not. That line from page 78 can only serve to limit the number of infantry units a transport can carry. With that line you cannot carry two 5 man infantry units inside a chaos land raider. With out that line you can carry two 5 man infantry units inside a chaos land raider, because two 5 man infantry squads equals 10 models. Clearly that line does not give permission to do anything. It only serves to restrict what you have already been given permission to do.
DJGietzen wrote: There is no restriction on the number of beast units the transport can carry.
The permissive ruleset restricts the number of beasts that can be carried because they are not allowed to be carried, since there is no rule stating they can be carried.
The transport capacity of a chaos land raider is 10 models. Any 10 models. Absurd as it sounds a chaos land raider could technically carry 10 chaos land raiders because there is no restriction on which 10 models may be carried. 10 chaos land raiders does not exceed the 1 infantry unit restriction set up on page 78 and it does not exceed the 10 models transport capacity. This is no different with beasts.
DJGietzen wrote: This is because a chaos land raider can transport any 10 models. I.E. you have permission to transport any 10 models in a chaos land raider
You have permission to carry 10 infantry models in a chaos land raider, small but important difference.
Transport capacity in the codex references the Transport capacity rules in the BRB. Those rules tell us that only Infantry are allowed to be carried.
There are no rules in the BRB that limits what unit types a transport can carry. This belief that "10 mdoels" must equate to "10 infantry models" is flawed. The BRB only limits what unit types can embark on a transport, not what the transport can carry. The difference here is the one I feel you have missed although it has been explained many many times. Yes, its a loophole. No it was not likely intended but yes, it is technically legal.
DeathReaper wrote: Since you can not find anything that allows beasts to be carried, I am going to accept that the rules does not exist and that beasts can not be carried in a transport.
To summarize.
A chaos land raider can carry 10 models.
A best is a model.
A chaos land raider can carry 10 beasts.
Bests are not infantry
Only infantry may embark onto a transport.
A best may not embark onto a transport.
Conclusion.
A chaos land raider can carry 10 bests that did not embark onto the land raider.
Possessed who transform while on board the land raider are beasts that did not embark onto the land raider.
A chaos land raider can carry 10 possessed who transformed into beasts while on board the land raider.
DeathReaper wrote: What rule allows beasts to be carried? Please answer this one question.
Which vehicle would you like? I'll use the Chaos Land Raider for the purpose of this discussion. The Chaos Land Raider's transport capacity is found on page 55 of the chaos marine codex. It reads "Transport Capacity: Ten models". Are beasts models? Yes. This is permission to carry beasts.
So you could have MC's and vehicles inside of it?
You are incorrect. you need to reference the rules for transport capacity to see what is allowed to be carried, you have shown the transport capacity of the Chaos Land Raider, but no allowance for beasts, or anything other than infantry to be carried.
The allowance is to carry 10 models. Any 10 models. Yes, this technically includes MC's and other vehicles. You don't need any specific permission for beasts because beasts are a subset of models.
And here is where you are incorrect. It does not allow you to carry any 10 models, it allows you to "carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78)
But if you do not understand that quote I can see why you are making the error.
What are the rules for carrying 10 models?
Is this the rule: "A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity. " (78) ?
Is that the rule for transport capacity?
Notice how the quote of the sentence has a comma and not a period, meaning it is all once sentence. It can carry infantry up to the vehicles Transport Capacity. Where does it say that it can carry beasts up to the vehicles Transport Capacity ?
DJGietzen wrote: That line from page 78 can only serve to limit the number of infantry units a transport can carry. With that line you cannot carry two 5 man infantry units inside a chaos land raider. With out that line you can carry two 5 man infantry units inside a chaos land raider, because two 5 man infantry squads equals 10 models. Clearly that line does not give permission to do anything. It only serves to restrict what you have already been given permission to do.
Then please cite where the rules allow "what you have already been given permission to do." if page 78 is a restriction.
Where is the quote with this permission?
Idolator.
Do we agree that you may only do something if the rules tell you that you can?
Do we agree that the rules do not say that beasts can be embarked on a transport?
If you do not agree, please post rules references. Thanks.
On a separate note, i've just realised this issue could've happened before. There's a thing in apocalypse for BA that turns the warlord into an FMC, which could happen in a transport.
Do we agree that you may only do something if the rules tell you that you can?
Do we agree that the rules do not say that beasts can be embarked on a transport?
If you do not agree, please post rules references. Thanks.
1. No we do not agree upon the first part.
2.Yes, we agree on the second part.
I don't know where it is in the rules, but most players convert oxygen to carbon dioxide in order to play. It seems like an integral part of playing the game.
The rule book also says that the rules are for playing with Citadel Miniatures. So all others would be disallowed including Forge World, unless there is some wording somewhere in a GW rule book,that specifically states that Forge World models may also be used. (I know there are rules for Forge World units, but a startling lack of allowances to use those models)
The rules don't tell me how to pick an opponent, how I can play a game with more than two people, how to behave, what size dice to use, etc etc etc.
Even the rule book it self doesn't agree with you. That can be evidenced with this little gem . "In a game of the size and complexity of Warhammer 40,000, there are bound to be occasions where the situation is not covered by the rules, or you can't find the right page."
So, the rule book itself states that there are situations that are not covered by the rules. This could not possibly be the case, if simple omission constituted forbidance. Which I see argued here, a lot.
So, you aren't debating me, you are debating the rule book with that line of reasoning. If the rule book is right, that there are situations that aren't covered by the rules, then you are wrong in your basic premise. If you are right, then a paradox ensues, because the rules are wrong in their basic premise and it invalidates the rules general principles, rendering the veracity of your position worthless as the rules are not based on general principles. So, according to the rules, the statement: "you may only do something if the rules tell you that you can" is false.
That's not me, that's in the rule book. Unless you want to disregard the rules as a guide....which truly invalidates that position in it's entirely.
for the second bit:
I don't see any wording that states any specific type of unit "can be embarked" There are rules to embark that limit the embarkation process to infantry units. I don't see any rules stating that infantry units can be embarked. Just those that say that they can embark. I also don't see any rules that Infantry units can disembark, just that units can disembark.
Now, what you have done is applied that since the initial wording of transport capacity only includes Infantry units, then that must forbid any other type of unit from being considered inside the transport vehicle. This would also forbid any other type of unit from disembarking from said transport as well. This causes you to have a unit in a vehicle that it can neither inhabit or exit.
So, your basic premise is unraveled by the rule book itself.
Barring that and taking your flawed premise as fact, you end up with a rules paradox in which you are required to choose between two actions, neither of which would be allowed.
if you can not agree to point #1 you can not partake in a cohesive discussion on the YMDC forums as you will have a serious misunderstanding of how the rules work.
if you can not agree to point #1 you can not partake in a cohesive discussion on the YMDC forums as you will have a serious misunderstanding of how the rules work.
I have made many cogent points and had lots of cohesive discussions. I cannot have them with those that base their arguments on a patently false premise. I pointed out the facts, even quoted the rule book.
I notice that you focus on nine words that I wrote and ignored the reasoning behind them. You know, where I quote the rule book and point out the paradoxical nature of your argument.
I have argued the RAW. You argued the RAW with an added aspect that the rule book itself expressly states is incorrect.
Plus, you are neither a moderator nor are you more than one person. It is not for you to determine if someone can or cannot partake in a cohesive discussion.
And as far as how the rules work. I believe that I showed, quite well, that it is you that has a serious misunderstanding of the rules. You know, when I quoted the rule book and it was different than how you said the rules worked. Then I pointed out that even if your understanding of how the rules worked were true, it would cause an untenable situation with no solution.
But please, continue to speak for everyone and remember to cut out all exposition when you quote me. I'm sure that there is plenty of punctuation in this post that you could isolate and attack. Here's some more if you need it.
?!,.:;[{}]()
You could use that to prove your point.
Once a unit is in a vehicle, it has already met the standards for embarkation. If it changes to beasts while embarked, nothing changes but the troop type. Any thing else and the rules explode. This is a summation, i made the full explanation earlier on page 8. So If is the only thing that you've read that I wrote, please look at my reasoning.
Edit: Honestly, I pointed out the flaw of your rules argument using you own reasoning under your terms. Then, I pointed out the incorrectness of your argument by pointing out the flaws of your reasoning. So you can take your pick. Both are honest and truthful assessments.
I never said you were not able to post, but if you do not understand that you may only do something if the rules tell you that you can, then you can not partake in a cohesive discussion. As in you are not able to post anything constructive if you think #1 is false, as all of your arguments would be void since #1 is an integral part of the ruleset.
DeathReaper wrote: I never said you were not able to post, but if you do not understand that you may only do something if the rules tell you that you can, then you can not partake in a cohesive discussion. As in you are not able to post anything constructive if you think #1 is false, as all of your arguments would be void since #1 is an integral part of the ruleset.
I understand that you believe that if any eventuality isn't expressly listed in the rules, then it is forbidden. I did point out that the rule book not only directly contradicts this line of reasoning. I played along with your incorrect assessment and pointed that since the unit wasn't allowed inside the vehicle it was also was not allowed to disembark.
Like I said, I not only disproved that rule interpretation using your own logic and train of thought, I continued on. I then went after your line of reasoning as a whole. The rules interpretation that you gave violates both your and my point of view of the rules.
The rules themselves state that there are things that can occur that are not covered by the rules and your entire premise is based on the notion that anything not noted in the rules is forbidden and therefore covered by the rules.
Who's right here, You or the rule book? It really all comes down to that. I would love to know....You or the Rules, which is it?
The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.
If you do not understand this about the game, then you can not play the game at all.
DeathReaper wrote: The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.
If you do not understand this about the game, then you can not play the game at all.
Barring the fact that there are circumstances where you can do that, I won't even address that clap trap. It has no bearing on my statements and is not a comment that I have made.
" this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else." This is not being permissive, just to let you know, It is the antithesis of permissive it's prohibitive, as it prohibits all actions not expressly allowed. While you continue to make the same exact statements you do not back it up with anything other than to repeat the same exact statement. Also, I believe that I pointed out earlier, unless the word "permit" or any of it's derivatives are used then permission is not granted they would be either instructions or.......I don't know.....rules.
I showed that the rule book disagrees with your assessment. So either you or the rule book is correct. Which is it, you or the rule book? It's not a hard question to answer. just a single word will suffice.
How about this one then, using your logic. How can a unit disembark if there are no rules allowing for the disembarkation? That's what you said had to happen, the unit that is now beasts must disembark. There are no rules that allow this.
Actually all games ever use a permissive rules set, because that's literally the only way to write games.
So there is absolutely no need to spell out in the rulebook that the game is permissive, because it is essentially meaningless. By reading the rules you are participating in a permissive rules set.
Because before you read the rules, the game doesn't exist for you...you have no frame of reference on what you are allowed or not allowed to do to play the game.
Once you crack open a rulebook you find that the game will give you rules of what you are allowed to do within the game to play it...these are all the things you're given permission to do in order to play the game.
Then once they've laid out these permissions, they'll then lay out some restrictions as well, within those general permissions, which then restricts some of the permissions they previously granted to you.
So the rules will say that you're allowed to move all your models in the movement phase. This is a permission and therefore you are allowed to do it. Then they might say stuff like, but you cannot move through impassable terrain. This is then a restriction within the greater permission of being able to move your models in the movement phase.
But following this same train of thought, if the rules don't mention that you are allowed to move your models in the shooting phase, then guess what? You are not allowed to move your models in the shooting phase because there are no rules giving you permission to do so.
This basic framework is the same for every game ever invented from Monopoly to games of tag and everything in between.
Even an imaginary game that said: you can do anything at all you like, but the first person to do X wins the game is still permission based gameplay. Just in this case, you are given permission to do absolutely anything, with the lone restriction that when someone does 'X' then the game ends with a winner.
So the idea that GW should define the basic nature of what rules even means is frankly silly. It would be like them explaining the definition of every word in the rulebook, explaining the meaning of language, etc. These are basic fundamental principles that we already live and exist by. There is literally no way to play a game without this basic understanding, so explaining it is redundant.
DR - Your concession is accepted, as yet again you ignore the rule cited that gives general permission. You refuse to debate the rule, therefore I accept that you have no argument any longer. Mark your posts as "HYWPI" given you refuse to debate the rules.
The rules state there is a maximum capacity for a vehicle. Do you agree that that this is the case?
This capacity is given in the untis entry, e.g. 10 models. Agreed?
Now, without referencing the restriction on infantry units that can be carried, have you noticed the permission now available?
You can fill a vehicle to its maximum capacity, in models. Beasts are models. BEasts can fill a vehicle to its maximum capacity.
Your continued insistence that a sentence limiting INFANTRY and how many units of infantry can be carried is amusing, but is showing you are blinkered into your viewpoint.
Step back. Understand your error, and spot that general permission to fill capacity has been given, and is only restricted in the BRB by *model* count, not *unit type*. There is then a restriction on the unit type *infantry* and how many units of infantry can be carried. Your "context" gak is just that - there is no such context here.
RAW: once beasts get there, they can remain embarked as long as they do not exceed the vehicles capacity, in this case 10 models, or any other rules the vehicle specifically has, such as not allowing terminator armo9ur inside.
Thats it. The case is proven, and until you can understand the difference between a statement restricting a general permission, and a permissive statement, I suggest you do not post further in this thread.
Oh, and the rules do not state ONLY infantry may be carried. That is a LIE on your part, another one.
DeathReaper wrote: It is being permissive, but call it what you want, you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do and you are not allowed to do anything else.
That is how most games are written really.
And again, you back up your statement...by repeating the statement. Post it a couple hundred more times it will remain untrue. You are right in that I can call it what I want, I just prefer to use the correct terms.
Seriously, you ignored the on topic questions and refuse to point out your reasoning.
Which is right? You, who states that all eventualities are covered because a lack of instruction is a prohibition, or the rule book that expressly states that circumstances occur that are not covered by the rules. You or the rule book???
Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.
Either one would be good. Both would be better. One requires a citation, the other requires a simple answer.
Idolator wrote: Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.
Incorrect, I stated that was HIWPI, that is not RAW. I never stated it was RAW. Please at least read my previous posts if you are going to make wildly inaccurate accusations.
DeathReaper wrote: It is being permissive, but call it what you want, you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do and you are not allowed to do anything else.
That is how most games are written really.
And again, you back up your statement...by repeating the statement. Post it a couple hundred more times it will remain untrue. You are right in that I can call it what I want, I just prefer to use the correct terms.
Permissive ruleset is the correct term.
However, the fact remains that you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do and you are not allowed to do anything else. this is undeniably true no matter how many times you say it is not.
This is true no matter what you think. All games ever use a permissive rules set, because that's literally the only way to write games.
DeathReaper wrote: It is being permissive, but call it what you want, you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do and you are not allowed to do anything else.
That is how most games are written really.
And again, you back up your statement...by repeating the statement. Post it a couple hundred more times it will remain untrue. You are right in that I can call it what I want, I just prefer to use the correct terms.
Permissive ruleset is the correct term.
However, the fact remains that you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do and you are not allowed to do anything else. this is undeniably true no matter how many times you say it is not.
This is true no matter what you think. All games ever use a permissive rules set, because that's literally the only way to write games.
This is awesome, You have backed up your statement, by repeating the statement. While still ignoring the relevant questions to the topic.
I showed that the rule book disagrees with your assessment. So either you or the rule book is correct. Which is it, you or the rule book? It's not a hard question to answer. just a single word will suffice.
How can a unit disembark if there are no rules allowing for the disembarkation?
These are simple questions and are relevant to the topic. As each pertains to how something that shouldn't happen occurs anyway. Please answer.
Edit: Nos was correct, you did make a post that intentionally misstated what the rules actually say in order to strengthen your case. Unless you do actually own this magical dragon skin rule book that contains words that do not exist in any other, you owe the people looking for information an apology.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: It was this post.
Idolator wrote: I showed that the rule book disagrees with your assessment. So either you or the rule book is correct. Which is it, you or the rule book? It's not a hard question to answer. just a single word will suffice.
Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC): wrote:7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.
nosferatu1001 wrote: DR - Your concession is accepted, as yet again you ignore the rule cited that gives general permission.
Well since there has been no rule cited that says transports can carry beasts...
It was cited - the rule stating that a vehicle has a transport capacity that cannot be exceeded, and that capacity is denominated in terms of the number of models. Not, as you have lied about, that it can ONLY carry infantry modfels - which is a separate sentence having nothing to do with vehicle capacity in general.
Stop ignoring rules and quoting partially. Your ignorance of the tenets here is shocking, as you are refusing to acknowledge the existence of a rule. As such there cannot be any debate, and your concession on this topic is accepted.
We had a similar problem a while ago. Used Bran Redmaw in a Caestus. He is able to randomly transform into a werewolf which makes him lose his power armour. The caestus can only transport models in PA/TDA/RA which causes the same rule problems as the chosen.
HIWPI - He embarked legally and transformed afterwards. He can stay in it but cant reembark at any point later.
nosferatu1001 wrote: DR - Your concession is accepted, as yet again you ignore the rule cited that gives general permission.
Well since there has been no rule cited that says transports can carry beasts...
It was cited - the rule stating that a vehicle has a transport capacity that cannot be exceeded, and that capacity is denominated in terms of the number of models. Not, as you have lied about, that it can ONLY carry infantry modfels - which is a separate sentence having nothing to do with vehicle capacity in general.
Stop ignoring rules and quoting partially. Your ignorance of the tenets here is shocking, as you are refusing to acknowledge the existence of a rule. As such there cannot be any debate
Are you talking about this rule?
"Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity." (78)
Idolator wrote: I showed that the rule book disagrees with your assessment. So either you or the rule book is correct. Which is it, you or the rule book? It's not a hard question to answer. just a single word will suffice.
Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC): wrote:7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.
Man! You will do anything to avoid answering a question!
I didn't bring the rule into this. I did bring in the statement of fact that precedes the rule. You literally have to avoid the facts or try to deny their admission to continue your train of thought. That should tell you something right there.
Seriously though, How is a unit with no rules for disembarkation allowed to disembark? The world is waiting with baited breath for the answer?
If the rules themselves state that not every eventuality is covered and you insist that every eventuality is covered, then who is right, you or the rules?
Pyrian wrote: Wow. Three pages and still an overall basic failure to understand what the word "capacity" means. If you don't fit into a capacity, then you exceed that capacity. There is no lingual requirement to specify everything that does not fit into a capacity, once what DOES fit into a capacity is established. Are you in that capacity? No? You've exceeded it.
Which is cool but as pointed out "1 infantry unit" isn't a defined capacity in the rules
It doesn't have to be explicitly defined in the rules, as it is defined in normal English
Page 78: "A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters"
a single Infantry, means just what is says, One Infantry unit, it can not carry any other types of units because they exceed its capacity of a single Infantry unit.
Transports can only carry infantry and, unless otherwise noted, nothing else...
I don't see a "how I would play it" here. Your first post. HMMMMMMmmmmm. I wonder how many others I can find?
FlingitNow wrote: So what is an Infantry unit? Just so we are clear?
Units page 3 and Infantry unit page 44 answer this question
What happens when a unit of possessed becomes beasts whilst embarked on a transport?
RAW: The game breaks/No one knows, because the rules do not cover what happens in this situation where a unit is illegally aboard a transport.
HIWPI: I'd treat it just like Champion of Chaos rule and place them within 3" of the transport. Then, since it was the start of the player turn, they could move (but not assault) normally.
Here it was, the post where you say "the rules don't cover what happens in this situation". How is that possible???? A permissive rule set would cover every eventuality as anything not covered by the rules is forbidden.
So there, I used a different source to show that the "permissive rule set" ( a term that has no official definition or rule of governance) is not a reliable way to view the rules. I used YOUR words.
They call this "hoist with your own petard".
Here's an actual definition:
Adherence rules are mandatory rules….an adherence rule provides a protected reason to adhere—a reason to adhere plus an exclusionary reason that excludes certain competing reasons.
This is the basis for most games. Adherence rules.
Here's another definition:
Restrictive rule provides reasons to adhere in all cases and excludes all reasons to deviate.
It doesn't have to be explicitly defined in the rules, as it is defined in normal English
Page 78: "A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters"
a single Infantry, means just what is says, One Infantry unit, it can not carry any other types of units because they exceed its capacity of a single Infantry unit.
Transports can only carry infantry and, unless otherwise noted, nothing else...
I don't see a "how I would play it" here. Your first post. HMMMMMMmmmmm. I wonder how many others I can find?
Idolator wrote: Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.
Incorrect, I stated that was HIWPI, that is not RAW. I never stated it was RAW. Please at least read my previous posts if you are going to make wildly inaccurate accusations.
See how you state "Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport?" (Emphasis mine)
The HIWPI is for a beast unit to disembark from a transport, not for anything else. Please do not misquote out of context next time and you might understand what I have written a bit better.
DeathReaper wrote: Please do not misquote out of context next time and you might understand what I have written a bit better.
This is an honest question: Is, perhaps, English a second language for you, learned later in life?
I ask because you seems to have a great deal of difficulty in word use and their meaning. If so, then I apologize for giving you such a hard time on the meaning of words.
Misquote is when someone attributes a statement directly to a person that they did not make. A question, on the other hand, is when a person makes an inquiry.
A misquote can also occur if only part of a persons statements are used to make it seem that they said something that they did not.
Out of context means that a statement is removed from it's underlying reasoning and that reasoning is concealed to misrepresent the statement.
The quotes that I made did neither of these, as they contained the entirety of the original post.
Now, the quote in this post, while edited, is in context because the statement stands on it's own merits.
A falsehood, on the other hand, is a deliberate misstating of facts. Here's an example.
Idolator wrote: The rules never state that a transport ONLY carry infantry models, just that they CAN carry infantry models.
Incorrect, the rules state that a transport can ONLY carry infantry models
The ruleset needs to give permission for a transport to carry a unit type. We have an allowance for infantry and no allowance for any other types.
Therefore ONLY infantry can embark. This is a function of the ruleset as you need permission before you can do anything.
If you're wondering which part is the falsehood, it's the "Incorrect, the rules state that a transport can ONLY carry infantry models" part. The remainder is merely incorrect.
Idolator wrote: Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.
Incorrect, I stated that was HIWPI, that is not RAW. I never stated it was RAW. Please at least read my previous posts if you are going to make wildly inaccurate accusations.
You asked "Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport"
I noted that "I stated that was HIWPI, that is not RAW." in reference to a beast unit disembarking from a transport.
You fire back with "I don't see a "how I would play it" here. Your first post. HMMMMMMmmmmm. I wonder how many others I can find?" With you quoting a post of mine that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Idolator wrote: Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.
Clearly I have not stated "that they must do this." (This being disembark from a transport).
P.S. out of context misquote has a meaning that apparently you are not familiar with.
Idolator wrote: Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.
Incorrect, I stated that was HIWPI, that is not RAW. I never stated it was RAW. Please at least read my previous posts if you are going to make wildly inaccurate accusations.
You asked "Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport"
I noted that "I stated that was HIWPI, that is not RAW." in reference to a beast unit disembarking from a transport.
You fire back with "I don't see a "how I would play it" here. Your first post. HMMMMMMmmmmm. I wonder how many others I can find?" With you quoting a post of mine that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Idolator wrote: Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.
Clearly I have not stated "that they must do this." (This being disembark from a transport).
P.S. out of context misquote has a meaning that apparently you are not familiar with.
See, you just gave a perfect example of of using another persons statements out of context. Good job. If you had included the rest of the post you would have what we call the "full context".
About the other part, you have stated that they can't remain in the transport, how else can they get out? You do know that disembark means: to exit or leave. Which they must do if they cannot remain in the vehicle.
Also, to misquote, one would have to have quoted. That means that these neat little symbols ( ") must appear before and after the attributed material or in the case of this particular forum be placed in the special quote box provided.
here are the definitions of "out of context" and "misquote".
misquote:
1 verb :quote (a person or a piece of written or spoken text) inaccurately.
2: noun: a passage or remark quoted inaccurately.
out of context is known as contextomy
Contextomy: Noun
1. the practice of misquoting someone by shortening the quotation or by leaving out surrounding words or sentences that would place the quotation in context.
2.an instance of this.
That's it! Compare it to my definitions. How about giving your definition. Because those are the only definitions that the dictionary and I know.
Edit: while this has been a great distraction measure on your part, I haven't failed to notice that you still haven't truly answered any of the questions posed to you.
I think you misunderstand the term permissive ruleset. Basically there are two types of rule set permissive and restrictive and the terms refer to how the rules work. A permissive ruleset is where you do not have permission to do anything without the rules telling you that you can. Thus the rules are a list of permissions to do things hence the term permissive rule set. A restrictive rule set is the opposite. You are allowed to do anything you want unless a rule tells you not to. Hence the rules are a list of restrictions.
An example of a restrictive rule set would be law. In law I can do anything a want unless a rule restricts that action. So for instance I could look at myself in the mirror calling myself Susan whilst poking myself in the eye if I wanted because no law prevents that. In a restrictive rule set you generally have exemptions in the form of permissions. For instance I can't kill anyone except in self defence.
Most games are based on a permissive rule set. They tell you what you can do in the form of permissions. You can not do anything you do not have permission to do. Thus I can not put my dead models back into play even though no rule says I can't. A permissive rule set has exemptions in the form of restrictions. So I can move models in the movement phase any way I want except they can not move over 6" and van not move through impassible terrain and can not move in such a way as to break unit coherency.
Here transports are given general permission to transport models up to their transport capacity (of any unit type) however we are restricted to having only 1 infantry unit (and/or ICs) embarked at one time. We are also restricted on what can embark as we only have permission for infantry to embark. What DeathReaper is refusing to accept is that the rules give general permission for a vehicle to carry its transport capacity and that following the permissions laid out in the BrB and CS supplement leads you to having a unit of beasts embarked and thus they have permission to be there unless there is explicit denial of that permission. Denial he can't find. He's also getting confused between a lack of permission and denial of permission because they are very similar.
Dr - yes, obviously. It gives the maximum capacity. Note how that sentence does not limit anything other than the models, giving allowance fir any model to be inside as long as the total does not exceed the capacity.
10 models that are beasts does not exceed this capacity,,lol therefore they are allowed
You then have the second sentence which functionally limits infantry and infantry only.
I have to go with Death Reaper on this. As per the page he has quoted several times:
BRBpg. 78 A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent characters (as long as they are also Infantry_, up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity.
This sets up 3 requirements for a unit inside a transport:
1. They cannot exceed the model capacity
2. They must be infantry (and only infantry)
3. They must be a single unit (and/or ICs).
If at any time those any one of those 3 qualifications are no longer met, the unit can no longer be legally transported by the vehicle. The only way a unit could break one of those 3 rules and be allowed to stay in the transport would be if a rule makes a specific exception (Stromraven carrying a Dreadnaught in addition to embarked infantry, for example)
Note also, this limitation is listed strictly under Transport capacity, and is not in the embark or disembark rules. There for, unlike what Idolator is suggesting, there is nothing illegal about disembarking the unit once it becomes beasts and thus is no longer allowed in the transport. If the rule for this random change happens at the beginning of the turn (I would think it does but don't know that rule so I can't confirm it), then once they are beasts it is then your movement phase and you would disembark without any problems. If the transformation happens at some other time, then there would be problems that would need a FAQ or some such to resolve what happens.
If they are not allowed to be embarked then were do they disembark from as by your interpretation it can not be from the transport as they could no be there without breaking the rule.
That rule in fact only restricts how many infantry units may be embarked at any time (to one). You have a general permission from the sentence before to have embarked a transports capacity which is of any models regardless of unit type and regardless of number of units. The sentence you've quoted then restricts that in the case of infantry to only 1 unit (and/or ICs).
I think you misunderstand the term permissive ruleset. Basically there are two types of rule set permissive and restrictive and the terms refer to how the rules work. A permissive ruleset is where you do not have permission to do anything without the rules telling you that you can. Thus the rules are a list of permissions to do things hence the term permissive rule set. A restrictive rule set is the opposite. You are allowed to do anything you want unless a rule tells you not to. Hence the rules are a list of restrictions.
An example of a restrictive rule set would be law. In law I can do anything a want unless a rule restricts that action. So for instance I could look at myself in the mirror calling myself Susan whilst poking myself in the eye if I wanted because no law prevents that. In a restrictive rule set you generally have exemptions in the form of permissions. For instance I can't kill anyone except in self defence.
Most games are based on a permissive rule set. They tell you what you can do in the form of permissions. You can not do anything you do not have permission to do. Thus I can not put my dead models back into play even though no rule says I can't. A permissive rule set has exemptions in the form of restrictions. So I can move models in the movement phase any way I want except they can not move over 6" and van not move through impassible terrain and can not move in such a way as to break unit coherency.
Here transports are given general permission to transport models up to their transport capacity (of any unit type) however we are restricted to having only 1 infantry unit (and/or ICs) embarked at one time. We are also restricted on what can embark as we only have permission for infantry to embark. What DeathReaper is refusing to accept is that the rules give general permission for a vehicle to carry its transport capacity and that following the permissions laid out in the BrB and CS supplement leads you to having a unit of beasts embarked and thus they have permission to be there unless there is explicit denial of that permission. Denial he can't find. He's also getting confused between a lack of permission and denial of permission because they are very similar.
You have it backwards. Permissive rules mean that actions are permitted unless otherwise prohibited. That is how the laws of the United States work. You are permitted to do as you please as long as it doesn't violate statutory law (rules). It's the very basis for the Billof Rights, the government may do as it wishes within the laws of The Constitution, but the Bill of Rights prohibits the government from the listed actions.
Restrictive rules prohibit actions unless direct permission is given. You cannot do anything without written consent.
These rules in the BRB are actually neither of those. They are what is known as Adherence rules. In order to play the game at all one has to adhere to an agreed upon rule set. These rules occur inside of many other rules that already exist, here in America that are applied after United States federal law, state law, community law, tournament/venue rules and general community standards. It is after that one begins to adhere to the rules for the particular game being played.
People are using the fallacious "permissive/restrictive" position as a means to "prove themselves right", and have gone so far as to create a make believe hierarchy of words and how they function. With: cannot, can, may, must and many others having some place in this farcicle paradigm.
"Can" is not a permissive word, it is a factual statement. "May" is a permissive word and grants permission. Being able to do something is not the same as being granted permission to do something. So if permission is needed before action is taken then the rules as written are irrevocably unplayable as actual permission is granted sparingly. Some will argue that "can" and "may" could be used interchangeably and in some instances this is possible, I admit.
"Must" and "cannot" are antonomical and equal. "I can't miss the meeting, but I must because I'm in a different city" "I must make the meeting, but I can't because I'm in a different city" I just said the same thing twice, once with must compelling an action over can't and vice versa.
Adherence rules. You adhere to the rules based on a compelling reason. The compelling reason in this case is that you want to play a game. 'I earlier gave the definition of adherence rules and will place that definition here later in an edit. Your argument on allowing the newly transformed beasts unit to remain in the vehicle as a normaly transportable unit is a perfect example of using adherence rules. You have a compelling reason to follow the rule and a compelling reason not to follow another action, with no directly stated restriction preventing the unit from being in the transport.
Edit
Adherence rules are mandatory rules….an adherence rule provides a protected reason to adhere—a reason to adhere plus an exclusionary reason that excludes certain competing reasons.
This is the basis for most games. Adherence rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathReaper wrote: I have stated it is illegal for them to be carried. but the rules do not let them disembark either and as such the game breaks.
P.S. you misquoted me because you said
Idolator wrote: Where is the rule that allows a beast unit to disembark from a transport? You have stated that they must do this.
And I never stated that they must do this. this was the misquote...
P.S. Please do not post dictionary definitions as I am well aware of what those words mean.
Did you notice that I didn't quote you???? That makes it somewhat of an impossibility to misquote. Which is interesting, since you stated in your P.S. that you know what this term means while demonstrating a lack of said knowledge. Which one of these is the falsehood? Are you feigning ignorance in order to make an accusation or do you truly not know the meaning of "misquote"?
Of further interest to me...I posted those dictionary definitions because you claimed that there were more ways to define "misquote" and "out of context" than I was privy to. Those dictionary definitions mirrored my stated understanding of the words in question. I also asked for your definition of the words, which you have ignored. You simply state that I am wrong and offer no evidence to the contrary.
I know that you are quite big on yanking out the tenets when an argument starts to go against you, so what do the tenets say about telling someone that they are wrong without providing evidence? And....before you quote the tenet about dictionary definitions, this was not about an in game term. It is not applicable.
You also continue to ignore any direct question to clarify your reasoning.
DeathReaper wrote: You said that I said it, not a direct quote, but an attributive quote.
But it is still a type of quote.
Please stop being rude.
I believe the term that you are looking for is "PARAPHRASE".
It's a term to describe a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words. Which is what I did.
You stated, restated, restated, ad infinitem that the beast unit cannot remain in the vehicle, if a unit cannot remain in a vehicle the only choice is to exit said vehicle. That's it, that's all, it's a binary state of being, in or out. So yes, I paraphrased. Guilty!
See, I even give my answer and reasoning for making the statement.
Now, about rudeness. I don't think that I have been rude. It's not as if I made false statements and presented them as facts, or refused to answer simple questions, or taken another's words out of context, accused anyone of something that they did not do, or tell someone that they are wrong without pointing out the underlying reasoning.
Now that would constitute being rude.
Idolator wrote: You stated, restated, restated, ad infinitem that the beast unit cannot remain in the vehicle, if a unit cannot remain in a vehicle the only choice is to exit said vehicle.
No, again that is not at all what I said. I said that them being embarked broke the rules.
Specifically I said
DeathReaper wrote: RAW: The game breaks/No one knows, because the rules do not cover what happens in this situation where a unit is illegally aboard a transport.
HIWPI: I'd treat it just like Champion of Chaos rule and place them within 3" of the transport. Then, since it was the start of the player turn, they could move (but not assault) normally.
Idolator wrote: You stated, restated, restated, ad infinitem that the beast unit cannot remain in the vehicle, if a unit cannot remain in a vehicle the only choice is to exit said vehicle.
No, again that is not at all what I said. I said that them being embarked broke the rules.
Specifically I said
DeathReaper wrote: RAW: The game breaks/No one knows, because the rules do not cover what happens in this situation where a unit is illegally aboard a transport.
HIWPI: I'd treat it just like Champion of Chaos rule and place them within 3" of the transport. Then, since it was the start of the player turn, they could move (but not assault) normally.
How the heck is posting a fact rude? It's the only way to determine what is being said when there is a dispute over the meaning of words! The only way. Only. It becomes especially needed when one party accuses another of "X", the meaning of "X" must be determined and stated before the accusation can be positively refuted.
Otherwise, it devolves into "yes" "no" "yes' "No" Yes" "NO" YES" "NO" YEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS" "NOOOOOOOO" "MOM HE'S TOUCHING ME!!!!!!!!"
I don't feel like quoting the multitude of times that you stated that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport. Everyone knows that you did it. You do to. Please don't make me go on a quote-a-thon.
I can find no meaning to the term "attributive quote" anywhere. Please give a link or something.
Idolator wrote: I don't feel like quoting the multitude of times that you stated that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport. Everyone knows that you did it. You do to. Please don't make me go on a quote-a-thon.
Please do, I want to see where I said "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport"
I have said:
"RAW game breaks as a rule has been broken with no RAW to fix it."
"they can not legally be inside the transport either as they exceed the transports capacity."
"Actual RAW restriction on them being inside."
"The Codex rules do not legally allow them to be there. "
But never once "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport"
FlingitNow wrote: 1) so you agree now an IC allows them to remain as they are still an infantry unit?
Where did I say that? No they can not remain as they are an infantry and a beasts unit. the beasts can not be embarked, as they are breaking a rule by being embarked.
that is the only time I have stated something close to what you said I did, and it was in response to a hypothetical situation.
Idolator wrote: I don't feel like quoting the multitude of times that you stated that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport. Everyone knows that you did it. You do to. Please don't make me go on a quote-a-thon.
Please do, I want to see where I said "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport"
I have said:
"RAW game breaks as a rule has been broken with no RAW to fix it."
"they can not legally be inside the transport either as they exceed the transports capacity."
"Actual RAW restriction on them being inside."
"The Codex rules do not legally allow them to be there. "
But never once "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport"
FlingitNow wrote: 1) so you agree now an IC allows them to remain as they are still an infantry unit?
Where did I say that? No they can not remain as they are an infantry and a beasts unit. the beasts can not be embarked, as they are breaking a rule by being embarked.
that is the only time I have stated something close to what you said I did, and it was in response to a hypothetical situation.
It's a paraphrase dude. I already explained what paraphrase means. It's not a direct quote.
"the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport"
and
"they can not legally be inside the transport either as they exceed the transports capacity."
"Actual RAW restriction on them being inside."
"The Codex rules do not legally allow them to be there. "
All carry the same meaning. Thank you for posting those, so I didn't have to.
DeathReaper wrote: You said "I don't feel like quoting the multitude of times that you stated that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."
And I never said "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."
Unless you talk to your screen, I doubt that you said anything. Do you honestly not know what paraphrase means? I did explain it.
Even if you had answered a simple, direct question (which I am still unsure if you can) with either a yes or no it would be conveying a message.
Person A " Can beasts in a transport remain in a transport?"
Person B "No."
Person A (to a group outside of the discussion) "Hey guys, B said that beasts can't remain in the transport."
How about answering some questions.
Here, I'll even throw you an olive branch. I know that you did not write the words "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport." when you were conveying the message that the newly changed beasts were not allowed to remain in the transport. It's the entire reason that I didn't use quotation marks. Feel better.
DeathReaper wrote: You said "I don't feel like quoting the multitude of times that you stated that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."
And I never said "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."
Unless you talk to your screen, I doubt that you said anything. Do you honestly not know what paraphrase means? I did explain it.
1 again please stop with the patronizing tone. " Do you honestly not know what paraphrase means? I did explain it." is clearly very rude as you do not have to explain it...
2. except you didn't say you were paraphrasing, you said that I stated "hat the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."
You have it backwards. Permissive rules mean that actions are permitted unless otherwise prohibited. That is how the laws of the United States work.
I think is the crux of your miss understanding of the permissive rule set. You're using a different but similar language and getting confused. US law and its terminology has literally nothing to do with Warhammer 40,000. UK law and its terminology could be relevant. For instance shoukd someone make the, often made and hilariously erroneous, claim that RaW = The Rules you can point out that it is the spirit and intention of the rules (RaI) that really matters not the letter.
I just trying to help you understand the permissive rule set so that you and DeathReaper can actually discuss rules rather than what a permissive rule set is and what a quote is...
DeathReaper wrote: You said "I don't feel like quoting the multitude of times that you stated that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."
And I never said "that the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."
Unless you talk to your screen, I doubt that you said anything. Do you honestly not know what paraphrase means? I did explain it.
1 again please stop with the patronizing tone. " Do you honestly not know what paraphrase means? I did explain it." is clearly very rude as you do not have to explain it...
2. except you didn't say you were paraphrasing, you said that I stated "hat the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."
P.S. "they can not legally be inside the transport" is not the same as "the rules don't allow the beasts to remain in the transport."
HUH? How do they differ? That would be a great question to answer.
Here's another: Do the rules allow for a unit of beasts to remain in a transport?
1. Being there an remaining there are two separate words. I will assume you know the difference between being embarked and staying embarked.
2. The rules do not even allow for the beasts to be embarked in the first place, so remaining there is a moot point.
It's not a patronizing tone. You have displayed a lack of understanding. Even in this post. There are no punctuation marks to denote paraphrasing. I denoted that I was referencing you and did not attribute a quote. It's how it works. That's how you paraphrase. I disagree that an explanation was unheeded as, even now, you don't seem to grasp how paraphrasing works. It's basic English learned at an early age. It's why I asked if you learned English later in life? A question that you have yet to answer.
Huh, Those four words that you state as being two separate words seem to be four separate words (at a minimum 3 if we aren't counting repeats), but I think that I may be able to surmise your intent. They do however mean the same thing in this case because it is impossible to remain somewhere without being there conversely it is not possible to be somewhere without remaining there. SO, Yay! Next you'll be pointing out that "Cannot" and "Can't" aren't the same. This is why definitions and explanations are required to continue carrying on with you.
And for number two. A question that you have yet to answer.
.
See 3rd edition and "What happens if the greater demon shows up while the host in a transport?"
