So a unit and it's dedicated transport are counted as separate units, right? (could not find anything that says that a unit inside a transport would be counted as the same unit as the transport as long as they are embarked inside it)

Can a unit that was inside a scouting transport (open topped or an assault transport) assault on the first player turn? The unit inside did not make the scout move, but instead the transport did the scout redeployment. Therefore the unit inside should not be affected by the assault restriction of the scout rule and could assault on the players first turn (being it the top or the bottom of turn 1). I could not find anything restricting this in the 7th edition BRB.

Since dedicated transports cant assault, EVER, it should be pretty clear the rule applies to the passengers.

 Q_Arkhan wrote:
Since dedicated transports cant assault, EVER, it should be pretty clear the rule applies to the passengers.

Should be pretty clear? Can you quote a line from the BRB and give a page number please? I could not find any such restriction. And the "assault vehicle can't assault" line in my OP was just a joke part, but the rest is packed by RAW as long as someone can find a ruling that prevents it.

pg. 171 BRB "A unit that makes a scout redeployment cannot charge in the first game turn". The unit that made the scout redeployment is for example a White Scars landraider that was bought for a unit of assault centurions and the warlord is Khan, who gives the centurions scout, who give the scout to the Landraider. The landraider makes the scout redeployment move of 12" (being other than an infantry, artillery, a walker or a monsturous creature model who can only scout 6"). The centurions did not make the scout redeployment, but were embarked inside the transport. Nowhere in the rules for embarking inside transports (pg. 80-81) dedicated transports (pg. 82) or assault transports/open topped vehicles (pg. 88) does it state that they are counted as one unit with the Landraider. They just can't disembark from the vehicle after the vehicle has made it's scout move. That is on pg. 171, but again does not say that by being inside a scouting transport the unit inside is counted as making a scout redeployment.

I'm so scouting my assault termies and before new faq there's nothing you can do about it

Yep, there's a reason I always take servo skulls....

 masquerade81 wrote:

 Q_Arkhan wrote:
Since dedicated transports cant assault, EVER, it should be pretty clear the rule applies to the passengers.

Should be pretty clear? Can you quote a line from the BRB and give a page number please? I could not find any such restriction. And the "assault vehicle can't assault" line in my OP was just a joke part, but the rest is packed by RAW as long as someone can find a ruling that prevents it.

Is the embarked unit in the same place as when they were deployed?

If not how did they get to their new location? Via the Scout rule...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 masquerade81 wrote:

 Q_Arkhan wrote:
Since dedicated transports cant assault, EVER, it should be pretty clear the rule applies to the passengers.

Should be pretty clear? Can you quote a line from the BRB and give a page number please? I could not find any such restriction. And the "assault vehicle can't assault" line in my OP was just a joke part, but the rest is packed by RAW as long as someone can find a ruling that prevents it.

Is the embarked unit in the same place as whenthey were deployed?

If not how did they get to their new location? Via the Scout rule...

The landraider made the scout move, not the unit. edited my previous post, so read it before you continue.

So they did not get to their new position via a scout move?
Yes or no?

 masquerade81 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 masquerade81 wrote:

 Q_Arkhan wrote:
Since dedicated transports cant assault, EVER, it should be pretty clear the rule applies to the passengers.

Should be pretty clear? Can you quote a line from the BRB and give a page number please? I could not find any such restriction. And the "assault vehicle can't assault" line in my OP was just a joke part, but the rest is packed by RAW as long as someone can find a ruling that prevents it.

Is the embarked unit in the same place as whenthey were deployed?

If not how did they get to their new location? Via the Scout rule...

The landraider made the scout move, not the unit. edited my previous post, so read it before you continue.

So the unit that was inside the land raider did not go with the land raider?

So the transport made a scout redeployment. Yes.

Did the unit inside have to do any kind of moving for the transport to make a scout redeployment. No, the transport can move and the unit inside is a separate unit that is not making a scout redeployment.

What restrictions are there for units inside transports and scout. They can't embark/disembark as a part of a scout redeployment, so they can't do anything as long as they are inside a transport at the start of the game.

Page 88 and 157 assault vehicle....they didn't arrive from reserve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So it'll be three of them

 masquerade81 wrote:
So the transport made a scout redeployment. Yes.

Did the unit inside have to do any kind of moving for the transport to make a scout redeployment. No, the transport can move and the unit inside is a separate unit that is not making a scout redeployment.

What restrictions are there for units inside transports and scout. They can't embark/disembark as a part of a scout redeployment, so they can't do anything as long as they are inside a transport at the start of the game.

So the unit inside is still in the same place on the battlefield, or did they get redeployed with the vehicle?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 masquerade81 wrote:
So the transport made a scout redeployment. Yes.

Did the unit inside have to do any kind of moving for the transport to make a scout redeployment. No, the transport can move and the unit inside is a separate unit that is not making a scout redeployment.

What restrictions are there for units inside transports and scout. They can't embark/disembark as a part of a scout redeployment, so they can't do anything as long as they are inside a transport at the start of the game.

So the unit inside is still in the same place on the battlefield, or did they get redeployed with the vehicle?

Yes, it's inside the transport, but did not make a scout move. The vehicle that did moved 12" that is not even a legal move for an infantry squad? So you are saying that a vehicle that can scout, can't scout more than 6" if there is a unit inside?

So the unit did not move with the vehicle?

 DeathReaper wrote:
So the unit did not move with the vehicle?

Yes it is inside the vehicle but neither moved. The vehicle made a scout REDEPLOYMENT, can you give me a quote from the rulebook, that a unit that is inside a scouting vehicle counts as making a scout redeployment?

If a heavy weapon team is inside a vehicle that scouts 12", does it have to snap fire or does it fire at full ballistic skill? (assuming they don't have relentless)

If it fires at full BS, is this because they didn't technically move?

 deviantduck wrote:
If a heavy weapon team is inside a vehicle that scouts 12", does it have to snap fire or does it fire at full ballistic skill? (assuming they don't have relentless)

If it fires at full BS, is this because they didn't technically move?

Depends, did the vehicle move in its proceeding Movement phase?

Whether the unit had the rule or not, if the unit moved as part of the scout re-deployment (due to embarkation on a vehicle or from being joined with a Scout IC, or an IC joined to scouts), then it has indeed "made a Scout re-deployment". Ergo, specifically banned from charging in the first turn.

DURING the scout re-deployment, you can't disembark anyone as part of that move. If they deployed in that vehicle under any circumstance, the child locks are on until the re-deployment is over.

AFTER the scout move and the first turn begins, it doesn't look like anything else is restricted though, so you can disembark and shoot, shoot from the vehicle, or psychic attack or whatever else. Just no pointing your sword and running at the bad guy, that would be unfair. Technically the vehicle hasn't moved yet that turn, so all normal rules would be in effect except for that one restriction on assaults.

I don't know of anything that would hinge on "what happened in the previous turn" would have anything to do with turn one. Since there are no turns before turn 1, I don't see how it would apply. You don't know if that scout snuck up 3 hours ago and was just laying there under camo, or if it just burned rubber to get there 3 seconds before. It was a "re-deployment" - no movement or moves are necessarily implied.

Why do people insist that there are ethereal states that things can be in in 40k?

i mean that's basically the argument, that the unit is not in fact there.

From a rules standpoint, the unit is not "on the battlefield" while embarked.

While embarked, units have no access to the battlefield without the use of firepoints.

Some people then gather that since they aren't techniqually on the table, that if the transport makes a scout redeploy, the unit itself has done nothing.

Im personally up on the fence about it. I know that the unit itself has not made a scout redeploy, though it was definately part of a scout redeploy otherwise it would have been forced to remain at its starting position in the deploy zone.

Eihnlazer wrote:
From a rules standpoint, the unit is not "on the battlefield" while embarked.

While embarked, units have no access to the battlefield without the use of firepoints.

Some people then gather that since they aren't techniqually on the table, that if the transport makes a scout redeploy, the unit itself has done nothing.

Im personally up on the fence about it. I know that the unit itself has not made a scout redeploy, though it was definately part of a scout redeploy otherwise it would have been forced to remain at its starting position in the deploy zone.

So basically if there is an infantry unit inside a transport, they restrict the transport from making a 12" scout redeployment as infantry models are restricted to only 6" scout redeployment? This if the unit inside the transport is also counted as being part of the scout redeployment. There is no mention of this in the rules anywhere and people are just enforcing RAI, but the fact is that RAW does not prevent a unit from assaulting from a scout redeployed assault vehicle on the first turn. The assault vehicle only restricts assault from it if it came from reserves. The scout rule does not mention anything else than if a unit that scout redeployed, it can't make a charge. But which is making the scout redeployment? The vehicle or the unit inside? As of now the rules do not clearly state that by being inside the transport the unit is in fact making a scout redeployment. It is just prevented from leaving the transport douring the scout redelpoyment.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So the unit did not move with the vehicle?

The unit counts as having moved, they did not move.

If you claim they moved, then I assume you will imit the vehicle to 6" moves when redeploying, and at all other times?

One interesting thing that would infer that the unit inside the transport has conducted a scout redeployment is the line that states "A unit cannot embark or disembark as part of a Scout redeployment"

If the UNIT cannot embark or disembark as part of the redeployment, but the unit (embarked) apparently did not scout redeploy, then this line is meaningless, correct?

The unit embarked is (by this line alone!) considered to have made a scout redeployment else it would be allowed to embark/disembark (as obviously a transport cannot embark upon itself, thus they are talking about the troops inside).

Also, you must end your redeployment "more than 12 inches" from any enemy unit. How are you charging anyway? (special rules such as, for example, boarding planks (?) aside I guess).

Huh? 6" disembark, charge up to 12". possibly 17.9....9" charge.

He's saying on the first turn he can move his assault vehicle, then disembark the unit, then assault with the unit.

He's not doing it during the actual Movement phase.

He's reploying up 12 before the game according to the scout move, then moving the vehicle during the 1st turns movement phase, then Disembarking, then he's saying the unit can charge.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Huh? 6" disembark, charge up to 12". possibly 17.9....9" charge.

Right .. my mistake.

However, the point on the restriction on assaulting still stands.

Eihnlazer wrote:
From a rules standpoint, the unit is not "on the battlefield" while embarked.

While embarked, units have no access to the battlefield without the use of firepoints.

Some people then gather that since they aren't techniqually on the table, that if the transport makes a scout redeploy, the unit itself has done nothing.

Im personally up on the fence about it. I know that the unit itself has not made a scout redeploy, though it was definately part of a scout redeploy otherwise it would have been forced to remain at its starting position in the deploy zone.

Actually units do have "access to the battlefield without the use of firepoints" If you have a Blood Angels squad with a Priest on board, you measure the priests 6 inch FNP bubble from the hull of the transport.

So it is more than just fire points.

Rorschach9 wrote:
One interesting thing that would infer that the unit inside the transport has conducted a scout redeployment is the line that states "A unit cannot embark or disembark as part of a Scout redeployment"

If the UNIT cannot embark or disembark as part of the redeployment, but the unit (embarked) apparently did not scout redeploy, then this line is meaningless, correct?

The unit embarked is (by this line alone!) considered to have made a scout redeployment else it would be allowed to embark/disembark (as obviously a transport cannot embark upon itself, thus they are talking about the troops inside).

Without that restriction you could first scout your vehicle, then disembark the unit inside for a further 6" move, but with the restriction in place this can not be done. This however does not prevent from moving 6" in the movement phase on the first turn and disembarking another 6" But yeah, that restriction may be interpreted as stating the unit inside is scout redeploying also. However do units in transports in fact deny the transports from moving more than 6" in the scout redeployment? If they are also scout redeploying, they should, if not, then no.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So the unit did not move with the vehicle?

The unit counts as having moved, they did not move.

If you claim they moved, then I assume you will imit the vehicle to 6" moves when redeploying, and at all other times?

The vehicle moved, the unit inside moves with the vehicle.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So the unit did not move with the vehicle?

The unit counts as having moved, they did not move.

If you claim they moved, then I assume you will imit the vehicle to 6" moves when redeploying, and at all other times?

The vehicle moved, the unit inside moves with the vehicle.

Citation required.
The vehicle moved. The embarked unit stays embarked.

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So the unit did not move with the vehicle?

The unit counts as having moved, they did not move.

If you claim they moved, then I assume you will imit the vehicle to 6" moves when redeploying, and at all other times?

The vehicle moved, the unit inside moves with the vehicle.

Scout redeploying is not movement. Period. It was not movement in 6th, it's not movement in 7th. you just redeploy the unit, either a vehicle, unit, whatever 6-12" depending on it's type. The problem comes when you are permited to redeploy a transport. It can be redeployed 12" as it's a vehicle (tank, skimmer etc. discluding walkers). So if the unit inside is also scout redeploying, it should prohibit the transport from scouting more than 6". This does not happen in the rules, so the unit inside the transport is not in fact scout redeploying. However it can't then disembark from the scout redeployed vehicle as an aditional scout redeployment as prohibited by the rules. There is no mention it could not assault as the vehicle did the scout redeployment, not the unit inside.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So the unit did not move with the vehicle?

The unit counts as having moved, they did not move.

If you claim they moved, then I assume you will imit the vehicle to 6" moves when redeploying, and at all other times?

The vehicle moved, the unit inside moves with the vehicle.

Citation required.
The vehicle moved. The embarked unit stays embarked.

They stay embarked and go where the vehicle goes...

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So the unit did not move with the vehicle?

The unit counts as having moved, they did not move.

If you claim they moved, then I assume you will imit the vehicle to 6" moves when redeploying, and at all other times?

The vehicle moved, the unit inside moves with the vehicle.

Citation required.
The vehicle moved. The embarked unit stays embarked.

They stay embarked and go where the vehicle goes...

Which doesn't mean that they used the Scout redeploy at all.
In fact they're forbidden from disembarking during said redeploy and therefore can't use it.

rigeld2 wrote:
in fact they're forbidden from disembarking during said redeploy and therefore can't use it.

Not true. the fact that they can not disembark has no bearing on if they have re-deployed.

they are not in the same location on the battlefield then they have re-deployed.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
in fact they're forbidden from disembarking during said redeploy and therefore can't use it.

Not true. the fact that they can not disembark has no bearing on if they have re-deployed.

they are not in the same location on the battlefield then they have re-deployed.

They aren't on the battlefield at all. They're embarked. They have not redeployed - they deployed inside the vehicle and haven't (cannot) change that deployment.

So if a psyker is embarked he is not on the Battlefield/tabletop?

Incorrect...

"Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop" (The psychic phase section, generate warp charge sub-section).

"Psykers embarked on Transports still generate their normal number of Warp Charge points."(The psychic phase section, Psykers and transports sub-section).

 DeathReaper wrote:
So if a psyker is embarked he is not on the Battlefield/tabletop?

Incorrect...

"Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop" (The psychic phase section, generate warp charge sub-section).

"Psykers embarked on Transports still generate their normal number of Warp Charge points."(The psychic phase section, Psykers and transports sub-section).

/Golfclap, you just proved that psykers have an exeption to the rules that even if embarked on transports they generate warp charge. Bravo. Now this does not prove a thing about the question at hand that a unit that is inside a transport that redeploys by scout redeployment, is in fact also scout redeploying. How about transports that have the scout rule built in. A unit in them does not necessarily have the scout rule and the transport does not give the rule to the unit. How can the unit inside then be redeployed with the transport? It could not do a scout redeployment as the vehicle does not confer it to the passengers. There is actually a line about this in the scout rule if you had bothered reading it. "Note that a Transport with this special rule does not lose it if a unit without this special rule is embarked upon it." This clearly states that a unit not capable of doing a scout redeployment can be inside a vehicle able to scout redeploy.

A scout move is not movement. It is redeployment. You are redeploying your transport alongside the unit embarked inside within 6" of their original position. Both have made a scout move as a result of this.

sonicaucie wrote:
A scout move is not movement. It is redeployment. You are redeploying your transport alongside the unit embarked inside within 6" of their original position. Both have made a scout move as a result of this.

Where does this read in the rules? There is no mention anywhere that the unit inside has to make a scout redeployment, or that while the transport is being occupied, it can't move more than 6". You are not presenting any concrete rules that support your view.

Eihnlazer wrote:
From a rules standpoint, the unit is not "on the battlefield" while embarked.

While embarked, units have no access to the battlefield without the use of firepoints.

Some people then gather that since they aren't techniqually on the table, that if the transport makes a scout redeploy, the unit itself has done nothing.

Im personally up on the fence about it. I know that the unit itself has not made a scout redeploy, though it was definately part of a scout redeploy otherwise it would have been forced to remain at its starting position in the deploy zone.

They are on the table, they are considered on the table for more than firepoints.

A Mechanic-type unit is on the table and in base contact with the Vehicle it is in(and may be "in Base contact" with another vehicle when the hulls are touching).

A KFF Mek or PFG DA character in a transport has the range of their items determined from the hull of the transport.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So if a psyker is embarked he is not on the Battlefield/tabletop?

Incorrect...

"Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop" (The psychic phase section, generate warp charge sub-section).

"Psykers embarked on Transports still generate their normal number of Warp Charge points."(The psychic phase section, Psykers and transports sub-section).

So a statement that they still generate their charges while embarked means that everyone embarked is on the table?
When the rules for embarked require you to remove the models from the table?

Could you have cited a less relevant rule? I mean, I could cite the shooting rules which, according to your argument, allow me to fire at the embarked unit. Yes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
From a rules standpoint, the unit is not "on the battlefield" while embarked.

While embarked, units have no access to the battlefield without the use of firepoints.

Some people then gather that since they aren't techniqually on the table, that if the transport makes a scout redeploy, the unit itself has done nothing.

Im personally up on the fence about it. I know that the unit itself has not made a scout redeploy, though it was definately part of a scout redeploy otherwise it would have been forced to remain at its starting position in the deploy zone.

They are on the table, they are considered on the table for more than firepoints.

A Mechanic-type unit is on the table and in base contact with the Vehicle it is in(and may be "in Base contact" with another vehicle when the hulls are touching).

A KFF Mek or PFG DA character in a transport has the range of their items determined from the hull of the transport.

All of those things have a specific allowance to work that way.
You're taking that specific allowance an attempting to extend it to generic permission.
That's not how it works.

rigeld2 wrote:

So a statement that they still generate their charges while embarked means that everyone embarked is on the table?
When the rules for embarked require you to remove the models from the table?

Could you have cited a less relevant rule? I mean, I could cite the shooting rules which, according to your argument, allow me to fire at the embarked unit. Yes?

you could if you somehow had Line of Sight to the embarked unit...

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So a statement that they still generate their charges while embarked means that everyone embarked is on the table?
When the rules for embarked require you to remove the models from the table?

Could you have cited a less relevant rule? I mean, I could cite the shooting rules which, according to your argument, allow me to fire at the embarked unit. Yes?

you could if you somehow had Line of Sight to the embarked unit...

So barrage and Impaler Cannons can shoot embarked units?
Awesome.

Care to respond to the rest of the post?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So a statement that they still generate their charges while embarked means that everyone embarked is on the table?
When the rules for embarked require you to remove the models from the table?

Could you have cited a less relevant rule? I mean, I could cite the shooting rules which, according to your argument, allow me to fire at the embarked unit. Yes?

you could if you somehow had Line of Sight to the embarked unit...

So barrage and Impaler Cannons can shoot embarked units?
Awesome.

Care to respond to the rest of the post?

Nope, the unit is out of LoS so no wounds can be applied to them.

Also you count hits on units by counting the models under the marker...

but shooting does not have anything to do with transports and embarked units that have scouted...

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So a statement that they still generate their charges while embarked means that everyone embarked is on the table?
When the rules for embarked require you to remove the models from the table?

Could you have cited a less relevant rule? I mean, I could cite the shooting rules which, according to your argument, allow me to fire at the embarked unit. Yes?

you could if you somehow had Line of Sight to the embarked unit...

So barrage and Impaler Cannons can shoot embarked units?
Awesome.

Care to respond to the rest of the post?

Nope, the unit is out of LoS so no wounds can be applied to them.

Also you count hits on units by counting the models under the marker...

but shooting does not have anything to do with transports and embarked units that have scouted...

And again you dodge the point, even though I know you're smart enough to have seen it.
If you'd actually address the point - that according to the rules embarked units are not on the table except for specific allowances - that'd be great.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So a statement that they still generate their charges while embarked means that everyone embarked is on the table?
When the rules for embarked require you to remove the models from the table?

Could you have cited a less relevant rule? I mean, I could cite the shooting rules which, according to your argument, allow me to fire at the embarked unit. Yes?

you could if you somehow had Line of Sight to the embarked unit...

So barrage and Impaler Cannons can shoot embarked units?
Awesome.

Care to respond to the rest of the post?

Nope, the unit is out of LoS so no wounds can be applied to them.

Also you count hits on units by counting the models under the marker...

but shooting does not have anything to do with transports and embarked units that have scouted...

So the TAU can shoot inside transports with smart missiles that do not require LoS? cool...

But as it stands there is no RAW disallowing units from charging on their first turn if disembarking from a assault transport that has scouted before the first turn.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So the unit did not move with the vehicle?

The unit counts as having moved, they did not move.

If you claim they moved, then I assume you will imit the vehicle to 6" moves when redeploying, and at all other times?

The vehicle moved, the unit inside moves with the vehicle.

Citation required.
The vehicle moved. The embarked unit stays embarked.

They stay embarked and go where the vehicle goes...

So they limit the vehicle to a 6" redeploy then?

given you are claiming they are also using Scout, and they are Infantry, they must limit the vehicle to a 6" move.

Now, prove your claim or retract it - so far nothing but a lack of rules. I have pointed to the unit using the Scout rule. Prove the unit inside is ALSO using the Scout rule. Page and graph

BRB: "If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport (though a disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment). Note that a Transport with this special rule does not lose it if a unit without this special rule is embarked upon it. Having Scout also confers the Outflank special rule to units of Scouts that are kept as Reserves. "

So basically the vehicle can be redeployed as a Scout if it was deployed with a Scout unit inside.

The question is: is the unit inside the transport redeployed as well or not ?

I think the answer is pretty straightforward:

Without any other clarification, a redeploy is just like a deploy, and the unit will have to be redeployed inside the transport as the transport is redeployed.

This was a discussion in 6th, and people apparently are still in two minds, the thing that's missing from Scout is any sort of clarification on if the embarked unit Scounts along with the transport. In contrast to other similar rules which state the following (paraphrased).

- Deployment: May embark a unit in a transport inside your deployment zone
-Arriving from reserves: Can embark a unit in reserves, and the unit arrives with the transport.
-Arriving via deeps strike: the Embarked unit arrives with the transport
-Infiltrate: A embarked unit may infiltrate with their transport
-Outflank: a unit embarked may outflank along with the transport.

- Scout: Transport unit may redeploy and the embarked unit ???

I would argue that as the only reason the DT can scout move is to carry a unit with the scout rule onboard, therefore the unit inside also is making the scout redeployment.

How does that then affect their ability to assault? With assault vehicle, it shouldn't matter as the vehicle gives them a permission to do so.

Naw wrote:
I would argue that as the only reason the DT can scout move is to carry a unit with the scout rule onboard, therefore the unit inside also is making the scout redeployment.

How does that then affect their ability to assault? With assault vehicle, it shouldn't matter as the vehicle gives them a permission to do so.

BRB: "If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport (though a disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment). Note that a Transport with this special rule does not lose it if a unit without this special rule is embarked upon it. Having Scout also confers the Outflank special rule to units of Scouts that are kept as Reserves. "
There's no arguing there.
However the DT can only scout move without disembarking, and will therefore scout redeploy only if it contains the Scout unit on deploy.

Imo it's clear cut:

Unit with Scout Deploys in its DT > DT gains Scout
DT Scout Redeploys without disembark > DT AND unit go back to reserve
DT Scout Redeploys without Disembark > DT AND unit Scout Redeploy

Otherwise, the unit would still be in reserve / off-table, and the DT can just scout redeploy alone... not really useful.

Naw wrote:
I would argue that as the only reason the DT can scout move is to carry a unit with the scout rule onboard, therefore the unit inside also is making the scout redeployment.

How does that then affect their ability to assault? With assault vehicle, it shouldn't matter as the vehicle gives them a permission to do so.

Except that isnt how permissions work. You have permission to assault despite disembarking from a vehicle, but are prohibited from assaulting due to having made a Scout move. Permission granted, but permission denied. Or would you claim a unit arriving frmo reserve inside an Assault Vehicle could still assault that turn?

(ANd yes, this is exactly analogous, before you claim it isnt relevant)

The unit grants the DT "Scout" rule. That does not require the unit is also making a Scout redeployment. Again, if this is your claim, then prove why you are allowed to still move 12", when the Infantry unit is restricting you to 6"

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
I would argue that as the only reason the DT can scout move is to carry a unit with the scout rule onboard, therefore the unit inside also is making the scout redeployment.

How does that then affect their ability to assault? With assault vehicle, it shouldn't matter as the vehicle gives them a permission to do so.

Except that isnt how permissions work. You have permission to assault despite disembarking from a vehicle, but are prohibited from assaulting due to having made a Scout move. Permission granted, but permission denied. Or would you claim a unit arriving frmo reserve inside an Assault Vehicle could still assault that turn?

(ANd yes, this is exactly analogous, before you claim it isnt relevant)

The unit grants the DT "Scout" rule. That does not require the unit is also making a Scout redeployment. Again, if this is your claim, then prove why you are allowed to still move 12", when the Infantry unit is restricting you to 6"

Just double checking but this is the "Scouting Land Raider with Termies does not allow the terminators to charge turn 1.1" group right?

Yes, that is my claim. It is based on the fact that the scouts must be embarked in order to even allow the redeployment. They can move 12" because they are embarked.

I don't see support for assaulting the way the OP wanted. If he went 2nd, then yes.

Naw wrote:
Yes, that is my claim. It is based on the fact that the scouts must be embarked in order to even allow the redeployment. They can move 12" because they are embarked.

I don't see support for assaulting the way the OP wanted. If he went 2nd, then yes.

So you can assault from an assault vehicle that turned up from reserves?

You havent updated to 7th yet. It is now a complete game turn prohibition on charging, if you performed a Scout redeployment.

So the Scouts are also making a redeployment, and are indisputably Infantry. Explain how Infantry is permitted to make a 12" redeployment when the rules clearly state 6". Page and para.

 DeathReaper wrote:
So if a psyker is embarked he is not on the Battlefield/tabletop?

Incorrect...

"Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop" (The psychic phase section, generate warp charge sub-section).

"Psykers embarked on Transports still generate their normal number of Warp Charge points."(The psychic phase section, Psykers and transports sub-section).

You left out this:
7th ed rules, page 80, Transports, Embarking, first paragraph, last sentence:
"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for it's shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull."

Just a bit more proof that they are still 'on the battlefield', even when embarked.

 don_mondo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So if a psyker is embarked he is not on the Battlefield/tabletop?

Incorrect...

"Each player then adds up the Mastery Levels of all the Psyker units they currently have on the tabletop" (The psychic phase section, generate warp charge sub-section).

"Psykers embarked on Transports still generate their normal number of Warp Charge points."(The psychic phase section, Psykers and transports sub-section).

You left out this:
7th ed rules, page 80, Transports, Embarking, first paragraph, last sentence:
"If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for it's shooting), this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull."

Just a bit more proof that they are still 'on the battlefield', even when embarked.

... for a specific purpose.
You keep quoting things that are exceptions to the general rule. Show me where they're on the battlefield while embarked, in general.

I just did.

 don_mondo wrote:
I just did.

No, you demonstrably did not. You showed that if you need to measure to the embarked unit (except for shooting) you measure to the vehicle's hull.
That rule does not say that the models are on the battlefield at all. If they were, why would you measure to the vehicle's hull? Wouldn't you just measure to the models?

BRB: "If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport (though a disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment). Note that a Transport with this special rule does not lose it if a unit without this special rule is embarked upon it. Having Scout also confers the Outflank special rule to units of Scouts that are kept as Reserves. "


Of note here, if the unit is not redeploying why does the rule here say that it is? If disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment, that implies the unit (which is what would disembark) is redeploying, but is denied the ability to disembark while doing so.

This being the case, the unit has scout redeployed, and cannot assault on player turn 1.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
Yes, that is my claim. It is based on the fact that the scouts must be embarked in order to even allow the redeployment. They can move 12" because they are embarked.

I don't see support for assaulting the way the OP wanted. If he went 2nd, then yes.

So you can assault from an assault vehicle that turned up from reserves?

You havent updated to 7th yet. It is now a complete game turn prohibition on charging, if you performed a Scout redeployment.

You are right. We play mostly 6th and reading the rules with a phone is an excercise in futility.

the Scouts are also making a redeployment, and are indisputably Infantry. Explain how Infantry is permitted to make a 12" redeployment when the rules clearly state 6". Page and para.

By being in a transport, the same way they make their move in one. And to repeat, the scouts give their rule to the transport, it would be incapable of scouting without them.

You seem to have a hard time accepting that others can have a different way of interpreting the rules.

Breng77 wrote:
Of note here, if the unit is not redeploying why does the rule here say that it is? If disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment, that implies the unit (which is what would disembark) is redeploying, but is denied the ability to disembark while doing so.

That's an assumption. If you wanted to disembark the Scouts while leaving the vehicle where it was deployed that would be illegal.
It's also a note that the vehicle doesn't disembark the passengers so you can't use the vehicle's redeployment to dump them out.

Before the scout, where is the unit? After the scout where is the unit? Has the unit moved?

Come on, this isn't some computer game where you can frig the move stat using a transport, use some common sense.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Before the scout, where is the unit? After the scout where is the unit? Has the unit moved?

No, the transport moved.

rigeld2 wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
I just did.

No, you demonstrably did not. You showed that if you need to measure to the embarked unit (except for shooting) you measure to the vehicle's hull.
That rule does not say that the models are on the battlefield at all. If they were, why would you measure to the vehicle's hull? Wouldn't you just measure to the models?

Yes, we measure to the hull. It's a game abstraction given that we don't know where any given model is within the transport. Bottom line tho, in that they are in the transport and the transport is on the table. Not like the old days with an Ork Trukk where you actually jammed the models into the back of it and could measure to a given model. Basically, if I can measure to a point on the table for the unit (ie by measuring to the hull), then is that not where the unit is?

But I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

.....

Naw wrote:

the Scouts are also making a redeployment, and are indisputably Infantry. Explain how Infantry is permitted to make a 12" redeployment when the rules clearly state 6". Page and para.

By being in a transport, the same way they make their move in one. And to repeat, the scouts give their rule to the transport, it would be incapable of scouting without them.

You seem to have a hard time accepting that others can have a different way of interpreting the rules.

No, I have no issue with it - when backed with rules. There are some genuinely can-be-read-both-ways rules. There isnt any here though - nothign states the unit is Redeploying, by the rules the unit evoking the rule is the Transport, not the unit inside. It is 100% irrelevant that the vehicle only has the rule because of the unit inside - nothing int eh Scout rule states this.

You claimed it is similar to the unit "making their move" in a transport - this is also wrong. The unit in a transport is moved, they do not move. You cannot refute that. If you are conflating the two that woudl exaplin why you are under the same impression here.

So again, you are claiming a unit is evoking a rule that requires they only move 6", yet you are moving them inside a vehicle 12". Page and para actually allowing this. 7th edition as well, as we are discussing 7th.

 don_mondo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:
I just did.

No, you demonstrably did not. You showed that if you need to measure to the embarked unit (except for shooting) you measure to the vehicle's hull.
That rule does not say that the models are on the battlefield at all. If they were, why would you measure to the vehicle's hull? Wouldn't you just measure to the models?

Yes, we measure to the hull. It's a game abstraction given that we don't know where any given model is within the transport. Bottom line tho, in that they are in the transport and the transport is on the table. Not like the old days with an Ork Trukk where you actually jammed the models into the back of it and could measure to a given model. Basically, if I can measure to a point on the table for the unit (ie by measuring to the hull), then is that not where the unit is?

But I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

The problem is that the rules just don't justify your position. The rules, in fact, require the unit to be removed from the table.

When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported.

This means that the unit is not making the Scout redeployment - the Transport is. Because the unit isn't on the table, per the rules.
Sure - for some effects we pretend they are, and can measure to them. But those are absolutely the exceptions to the rule, and not the general rule.

Now - to be clear - I don't think this is an intended result. But it could be.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

No, I have no issue with it - when backed with rules. There are some genuinely can-be-read-both-ways rules. There isnt any here though - nothign states the unit is Redeploying, by the rules the unit evoking the rule is the Transport, not the unit inside. It is 100% irrelevant that the vehicle only has the rule because of the unit inside - nothing int eh Scout rule states this.

To me it is clear that the unit with scout embarked on a non-scouting DT enable the redeployment and are taking part in that redeployment. It is implicit in the rules.

You claimed it is similar to the unit "making their move" in a transport - this is also wrong. The unit in a transport is moved, they do not move. You cannot refute that. If you are conflating the two that woudl exaplin why you are under the same impression here.

Yes, this is also frustrating. I respond to your questions and you read what you want in that. To reiterate, in a same way as transport allows moving the unit. Tell me, as the unit inside did not move, why can't they move after disembarking from a DT that moved?

again, you are claiming a unit is evoking a rule that requires they only move 6", yet you are moving them inside a vehicle 12". Page and para actually allowing this. 7th edition as well, as we are discussing 7th.

Tell me what allows the DT carrying scouts to redeploy 12". Page and paragraph as that is your MO?

Naw wrote:
Yes, this is also frustrating. I respond to your questions and you read what you want in that. To reiterate, in a same way as transport allows moving the unit. Tell me, as the unit inside did not move, why can't they move after disembarking from a DT that moved?

Because the rules say so.
You want a reason why the rules say that? Talk to the authors.

Tell me what allows the DT carrying scouts to redeploy 12". Page and paragraph as that is your MO?

If the unit is Infantry, Artillery, a Walker or a Monstrous Creature, each model can redeploy anywhere entirely within 6" of its current position. If it is any other unit type, each model can instead redeploy anywhere entirely within 12" of its current position.

Since most transports aren't Walkers, it would be "any other unit type" which means 12".
Yay rulez.

rigeld2 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Of note here, if the unit is not redeploying why does the rule here say that it is? If disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment, that implies the unit (which is what would disembark) is redeploying, but is denied the ability to disembark while doing so.

That's an assumption. If you wanted to disembark the Scouts while leaving the vehicle where it was deployed that would be illegal.
It's also a note that the vehicle doesn't disembark the passengers so you can't use the vehicle's redeployment to dump them out.

Units disembark from transports, so if the unit is denied disembarking as part of the redeployment, it is redeploying. IT defeats the "its not on the table thing" because if it were not on the table, you could not re-deploy it, and the restriciton would be redundant.

Breng77 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Of note here, if the unit is not redeploying why does the rule here say that it is? If disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment, that implies the unit (which is what would disembark) is redeploying, but is denied the ability to disembark while doing so.

That's an assumption. If you wanted to disembark the Scouts while leaving the vehicle where it was deployed that would be illegal.
It's also a note that the vehicle doesn't disembark the passengers so you can't use the vehicle's redeployment to dump them out.

Units disembark from transports, so if the unit is denied disembarking as part of the redeployment, it is redeploying. IT defeats the "its not on the table thing" because if it were not on the table, you could not re-deploy it, and the restriciton would be redundant.

Without that rule, an embarked unit could choose to disembark as their own Scout move - nothing to do with it being a DT.
What the rule says, essentially, is that if you embark during deployment you don't get to Scout. Your transport might (if it's a DT) but you don't get to.

I can see that, I suppose, but I would still argue that saying that you are not redeploying the unit inside the transport is a stretch, as the unit has moved from its initial placement during deployment.

Breng77 wrote:
I can see that, I suppose, but I would still argue that saying that you are not redeploying the unit inside the transport is a stretch, as the unit has moved from its initial placement during deployment.

No, it hasn't.
Its initial placement during deployment was embarked in the transport. The transport has an x,y,z coordinate on the board, but the unit does not.
Post redeployment the transport has a different x,y,z, but the unit inside hasn't changed its position.

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

No, I have no issue with it - when backed with rules. There are some genuinely can-be-read-both-ways rules. There isnt any here though - nothign states the unit is Redeploying, by the rules the unit evoking the rule is the Transport, not the unit inside. It is 100% irrelevant that the vehicle only has the rule because of the unit inside - nothing int eh Scout rule states this.

To me it is clear that the unit with scout embarked on a non-scouting DT enable the redeployment and are taking part in that redeployment. It is implicit in the rules.

Ah, so it isn't a rule then.
Again, who is evoking the Scout rule? The DT. Who is absolutely NOT evoking it? The unit inside.

Take your implicit and replace it with explicit. As in, your position is factually incorrect.

naw wrote:

You claimed it is similar to the unit "making their move" in a transport - this is also wrong. The unit in a transport is moved, they do not move. You cannot refute that. If you are conflating the two that woudl exaplin why you are under the same impression here.

Yes, this is also frustrating. I respond to your questions and you read what you want in that. To reiterate, in a same way as transport allows moving the unit. Tell me, as the unit inside did not move, why can't they move after disembarking from a DT that moved?

Ah, so you won't be enlightened as to your error. No worries. To be clear: the unit is moved, the unit is not moving. Otherwise they would be unable to move over 6". You are conflating two terms here, hence your confusion.

As to your question - have you read either 6th or 7th? You appear to be plaing 5th edition, where a unit could not move after disembarking from a moving transport because the rules explicitly stated so. Now, in the 6th or 7th edition rules, disembarking is explicitly also your move. And as such is bound by the rules for movement, ie once per phase. This is quite clear. Try reading the rules more closely before debating them.

naw wrote:

again, you are claiming a unit is evoking a rule that requires they only move 6", yet you are moving them inside a vehicle 12". Page and para actually allowing this. 7th edition as well, as we are discussing 7th.

Tell me what allows the DT carrying scouts to redeploy 12". Page and paragraph as that is your MO?

rigeld2 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I can see that, I suppose, but I would still argue that saying that you are not redeploying the unit inside the transport is a stretch, as the unit has moved from its initial placement during deployment.

No, it hasn't.
Its initial placement during deployment was embarked in the transport. The transport has an x,y,z coordinate on the board, but the unit does not.
Post redeployment the transport has a different x,y,z, but the unit inside hasn't changed its position.

Really? It hasn't. So if I put you in the back of a Uhaul truck, and move the truck from Texas to California. Are you in Texas or California?

If the transport has changed postitions so to has everything in the transport.

Breng77 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I can see that, I suppose, but I would still argue that saying that you are not redeploying the unit inside the transport is a stretch, as the unit has moved from its initial placement during deployment.

No, it hasn't.
Its initial placement during deployment was embarked in the transport. The transport has an x,y,z coordinate on the board, but the unit does not.
Post redeployment the transport has a different x,y,z, but the unit inside hasn't changed its position.

Really? It hasn't. So if I put you in the back of a Uhaul truck, and move the truck from Texas to California. Are you in Texas or California?

If the transport has changed postitions so to has everything in the transport.

In the real world California, in the fake world according to the rules, Texas.

However, why would anyone want to leave the Lone Star state for California?

Removed. No need to discuss rules with certain people as those threads never go anywhere.

Breng77 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I can see that, I suppose, but I would still argue that saying that you are not redeploying the unit inside the transport is a stretch, as the unit has moved from its initial placement during deployment.

No, it hasn't.
Its initial placement during deployment was embarked in the transport. The transport has an x,y,z coordinate on the board, but the unit does not.
Post redeployment the transport has a different x,y,z, but the unit inside hasn't changed its position.

Really? It hasn't. So if I put you in the back of a Uhaul truck, and move the truck from Texas to California. Are you in Texas or California?

If the transport has changed postitions so to has everything in the transport.

That's a great real world reason. Have a rules statement to back it up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Naw wrote:
Yes, this is also frustrating. I respond to your questions and you read what you want in that. To reiterate, in a same way as transport allows moving the unit. Tell me, as the unit inside did not move, why can't they move after disembarking from a DT that moved?

Because the rules say so.
You want a reason why the rules say that? Talk to the authors.

Tell me what allows the DT carrying scouts to redeploy 12". Page and paragraph as that is your MO?

If the unit is Infantry, Artillery, a Walker or a Monstrous Creature, each model can redeploy anywhere entirely within 6" of its current position. If it is any other unit type, each model can instead redeploy anywhere entirely within 12" of its current position.

Since most transports aren't Walkers, it would be "any other unit type" which means 12".
Yay rulez.

..and this supports my stance. The DT can move 12" in both cases. When the vehicle redeploys (thanks to the scouts), the passengers also make the redeployment. When the vehicle moves 12", the unit within counts as having moved. Thank you for proving my point.

If the passengers are redeploying, why are they able to redeploy 12"?

 deviantduck wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I can see that, I suppose, but I would still argue that saying that you are not redeploying the unit inside the transport is a stretch, as the unit has moved from its initial placement during deployment.

No, it hasn't.
Its initial placement during deployment was embarked in the transport. The transport has an x,y,z coordinate on the board, but the unit does not.
Post redeployment the transport has a different x,y,z, but the unit inside hasn't changed its position.

Really? It hasn't. So if I put you in the back of a Uhaul truck, and move the truck from Texas to California. Are you in Texas or California?

If the transport has changed postitions so to has everything in the transport.

In the real world California, in the fake world according to the rules, Texas.

However, why would anyone want to leave the Lone Star state for California?

Disagree on the rules point, but as for why anyone would want to leave the lone star state for Cali? I never said I put him in the back of the Uhaul willingly

Naw wrote:
Removed. No need to discuss rules with certain people as those threads never go anywhere.

they would if you ever quoted rules. That would be one way to debate, and follows the tenets.

I see you again refuse to follow them though, as even prior to the removal you failed to cite any rules. Again.

just a quick question as I do not have my book handy, does a unit inside a transport count as moving if the transport moved? This would directly apply to the scout redeploy (move) problem because even if the models inside did not move but the transport did they would count as making a scout move. Hope this helps!

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
just a quick question as I do not have my book handy, does a unit inside a transport count as moving if the transport moved? This would directly apply to the scout redeploy (move) problem because even if the models inside did not move but the transport did they would count as making a scout move. Hope this helps!

Yes, they do count as having moved.
Scout "movement" is explicitly not a move, but rather a redeployment. So that's a poor comparison to draw.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
Removed. No need to discuss rules with certain people as those threads never go anywhere.

they would if you ever quoted rules. That would be one way to debate, and follows the tenets.

I see you again refuse to follow them though, as even prior to the removal you failed to cite any rules. Again.

They have always been given along with my reasoning, you just keep ignoring everything not in support of your own view, whatever it might be. You also seem to think that these debates are done to find a winner. If you do, you are mistaken. There is a picture somewhere that touches this issue.

Your MO is to often point at the tenets, when someone shows a different view, even when direct rules quotes have been given.

I won't put you to ignore as you can at times provide insight but I will no longer respond to your messages in any form.

Naw wrote:
They have always been given along with my reasoning, you just keep ignoring everything not in support of your own view, whatever it might be.

They really haven't. And unless you have me on ignore as well, you're just as guilty of not responding to opposing argument.

You also seem to think that these debates are done to find a winner. If you do, you are mistaken. There is a picture somewhere that touches this issue.

Well, no - debates are done to come to a conclusion as to the best path forward. In that sense there is a "winner".

You do know you can respond to anyone in the thread, right? Not just nos?

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
Removed. No need to discuss rules with certain people as those threads never go anywhere.

they would if you ever quoted rules. That would be one way to debate, and follows the tenets.

I see you again refuse to follow them though, as even prior to the removal you failed to cite any rules. Again.

They have always been given along with my reasoning, you just keep ignoring everything not in support of your own view, whatever it might be. You also seem to think that these debates are done to find a winner. If you do, you are mistaken. There is a picture somewhere that touches this issue.

Your MO is to often point at the tenets, when someone shows a different view, even when direct rules quotes have been given.

I won't put you to ignore as you can at times provide insight but I will no longer respond to your messages in any form.

Actually You failed to cite a *single* rule in support. You even stated it was "implicit" support in the rules , yet the explicit rules stated otherwise.

You, as per your MO, refused to supply a rules citation when asked, and instead asked a question - which was answered, yet you still cannot provide a rules quote, as asked.

This isn't clinging to the tenets, rather asking you to do what is required, and support your stance. In this, as in other threads, you refuse to do so.

As such mark your posts "hywpi", as you cannot substantiate any argument. It will save people the trouble go attempting debate

Quick question, has there been any change to the rules for deploying units and their DTs at the start of the game?

Specifically, are the listed as deploying within the vehicle or with the vehicle?

Cheers

Andrew

rigeld2 wrote:

Naw wrote:
They have always been given along with my reasoning, you just keep ignoring everything not in support of your own view, whatever it might be.

They really haven't. And unless you have me on ignore as well, you're just as guilty of not responding to opposing argument.

I don't have you on ignore, I just choose not to debate with you as I wrote in another thread a while ago. It is fruitless and leads nowhere. That does not mean that I always disagree with you (or Nos). But to save everyone's time I won't do it.

As for the topic at hand, there has been nothing that leads me to believe that an embarked unit does not scout, infiltrate, outflank or deep strike along with its dedicated transport. Rules have been laid out many times already, repeating them means nothing to you as we both know you won't accept them.

Naw wrote:
Rules have been laid out many times already, repeating them means nothing to you as we both know you won't accept them.

That's a lie, but you knew that.
Your refusal to contribute to the debate means you know your side has no support.
Have a nice day.

STOP!

Get back on topic guys/? girls and argue the rules and not each other.
I don't want to lock the thread at its current juncture.
Move on and be well.

Waaagh_Gonads
Dakka Moderator

 BlackTalos wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
I would argue that as the only reason the DT can scout move is to carry a unit with the scout rule onboard, therefore the unit inside also is making the scout redeployment.

How does that then affect their ability to assault? With assault vehicle, it shouldn't matter as the vehicle gives them a permission to do so.

Except that isnt how permissions work. You have permission to assault despite disembarking from a vehicle, but are prohibited from assaulting due to having made a Scout move. Permission granted, but permission denied. Or would you claim a unit arriving frmo reserve inside an Assault Vehicle could still assault that turn?

(ANd yes, this is exactly analogous, before you claim it isnt relevant)

The unit grants the DT "Scout" rule. That does not require the unit is also making a Scout redeployment. Again, if this is your claim, then prove why you are allowed to still move 12", when the Infantry unit is restricting you to 6"

Just double checking but this is the "Scouting Land Raider with Termies does not allow the terminators to charge turn 1.1" group right?

Sorry, this question was actually aimed at Nosferatu:
I'm a little confused by the "claiming" rule A or B, so i'll put it in simple questions (aimed at everyone involved)

By RaW, an infantry unit embarked on an assault DT with the scout rule confers it to their transport.
1) How far is this transport (with infantry passengers) allowed to re-deploy? 6" or 12"?
2) May the occupants charge out of the assault vehicle after it moved 6" on Turn 1?

I'm seeing an argument, but no real clear answers from all sides?

 BlackTalos wrote:
By RaW, an infantry unit embarked on an assault DT with the scout rule confers it to their transport.
1) How far is this transport (with infantry passengers) allowed to re-deploy? 6" or 12"?
2) May the occupants charge out of the assault vehicle after it moved 6" on Turn 1?

I thought I'd been pretty clear - not sure how you've interpreted otherwise.
1) 12". Indisputable.
2) Yes.

The reason I've asked dissenters how far the transport can redeploy is because they're asserting the Infantry inside are also redeploying. Since infantry can only redeploy 6", and the assertion is that they're redeploying as well, an answer of 12" cannot be correct as it'd violate the Infantry's redeployment range.

"Dissenters" great term for people wanting to play the game as intended :-)

To put things in a clear perspective, rules lawyering besides, if you use a scouting land raider to make a turn one assault, you are not playing 40k as its meant to be played. You are gaming the rules to cheat, and frankly I would pack up at that point.

Of course on YMDC keep on debating it. ;-)

(If it wasn't clear, this post is HIWPI, no turn one assault)

Captyn_Bob wrote:
"Dissenters" great term for people wanting to play the game as intended :-)

To put things in a clear perspective, rules lawyering besides, if you use a scouting land raider to make a turn one assault, you are not playing 40k as its meant to be played. You are gaming the rules to cheat, and frankly I would pack up at that point.

Of course on YMDC keep on debating it. ;-)

(If it wasn't clear, this post is HIWPI, no turn one assault)

Cool. Which member of the studio are you, to make the extraordinary claim to intent of "how the game should be played" that you jsut did?

It's pretty clear the rules are specifically written in order to prevent 1st turn assaults as everything that could possibly do it get's stated out right that it can't or has some sort of restriction either from deployment or otherwise to not be able to do it if it gets a special rule that allows weird deployment.

I can't even think of a unit with out a little trickery due to deployment of forces being able to assault on the first turn.

They clearly don't want it to happen.

RAW though kind of looks like yeah it works sort of. I doubt people would be okay with you doing it and doubt a tournament would allow it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
By RaW, an infantry unit embarked on an assault DT with the scout rule confers it to their transport.
1) How far is this transport (with infantry passengers) allowed to re-deploy? 6" or 12"?
2) May the occupants charge out of the assault vehicle after it moved 6" on Turn 1?

I thought I'd been pretty clear - not sure how you've interpreted otherwise.
2) Yes.

Interpreted this one to be "the same" on both side, so the correction has been made, thanks.
So the line "A unit that makes a Scout redeployment cannot charge in the first game turn" does not apply to the unit embarked until FAQed or specified?

I can also agree since the line "(though a disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the re-deployment)" is repeated for the DT. IE they would have to repeat "cannot charge" in the DT case too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also this was true in 6th Edition then? (I have Scouts with a DT and always be called a cheater if i charged the embarked unit turn 1, so never did - usually making it by mistake)

Hollismason wrote:

I can't even think of a unit with out a little trickery due to deployment of forces being able to assault on the first turn.

I Deep Strike a Drop Pod next to your army turn one. You can now charge it.

I turbo-boost Eldar Jetbikes next to your army turn one. You can now charge it.

I roll really well for my Stormboyz, netting me a 30" threat range. I can now charge you turn one.

I jump 12" with any Jet or Jump Infantry and then roll a 12 for charge distance against something that you moved forward turn 1. I can now charge you turn 1.

There's a fair bit of stuff that can do it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

I can't even think of a unit with out a little trickery due to deployment of forces being able to assault on the first turn.

I Deep Strike a Drop Pod next to your army turn one. You can now charge it.

I turbo-boost Eldar Jetbikes next to your army turn one. You can now charge it.

I roll really well for my Stormboyz, netting me a 30" threat range. I can now charge you turn one.

I jump 12" with any Jet or Jump Infantry and then roll a 12 for charge distance against something that you moved forward turn 1. I can now charge you turn 1.

There's a fair bit of stuff that can do it.

Whenever a rule refers to ‘a turn’ it always means ‘player turn’ unless it specifically refers to a ‘game turn’.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

I can't even think of a unit with out a little trickery due to deployment of forces being able to assault on the first turn.

I Deep Strike a Drop Pod next to your army turn one. You can now charge it.

I turbo-boost Eldar Jetbikes next to your army turn one. You can now charge it.

I roll really well for my Stormboyz, netting me a 30" threat range. I can now charge you turn one.

I jump 12" with any Jet or Jump Infantry and then roll a 12 for charge distance against something that you moved forward turn 1. I can now charge you turn 1.

There's a fair bit of stuff that can do it.

I mean yeah there's plenty of situations that you can get a first turn charge in on, but getting it from a special deployment isn't really one of them. Almost all of them, Deep Strike, Outflank, an actual Scout Move etc.. Disallow.

RAW , it does look like you can do this though, maybe that's what they intended. To be fair it is a weird almost one of a kind situation unless you get somthing to give models scout that are also in a dedicated transport that also allows them to assault.

Also, wasn't this allowed in 6th edition as well? Or did the troops not give their transport scout like they do now.

I thought there was a phrase that you counted Units Embarked as a single unit, but there seems to be no such terminology so yeah looks like to me there is nothing that would disallow this.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

I can't even think of a unit with out a little trickery due to deployment of forces being able to assault on the first turn.

I Deep Strike a Drop Pod next to your army turn one. You can now charge it.

I turbo-boost Eldar Jetbikes next to your army turn one. You can now charge it.

I roll really well for my Stormboyz, netting me a 30" threat range. I can now charge you turn one.

I jump 12" with any Jet or Jump Infantry and then roll a 12 for charge distance against something that you moved forward turn 1. I can now charge you turn 1.

There's a fair bit of stuff that can do it.

I think he was referring to being able to charge anything inside his opponent's deployment zone 1st turn. Yes, your situations above would allow someone to charge turn 1. But in these cases, you are going to them in order for this to happen. (OK, stormboyz not so much, but that would take some really good rolling).

To me this issue is pretty darn clear. If anything the Infiltrate rule gives precedence to the Scouted embarked unit not being able to charge the first player turn:

"If a unit with Infiltrate deploys inside a Dedicated Transport, they may Infiltrate along with their Transport. A unit that deploys using these rules cannot charge in their first turn." Why is that okay but a Scouting unit can? My Khorne Terminators don't get the love like White Scars Terminators? Bull-ogna.

Another instance of the designers not wanting to grant pre-game distance and a first player turn assault.

You people advocating that a Scouted Transport can unleash its embarked unit in the first player turn for an assault keep wanting a specific general statement that says the embarked unit Scouted. Where is the general statement that the embarked unit is NOT considered to Scouting?
It confers Scout to the Transport, but does not relieve the unit of the Scout rule. The unit IS redeploying, they are not in the same place as where they first deployed. The Transport is simply permitted to redeploy with the unit still inside. Where is this assumption that the unit is not inside, and therefore not redeploying coming from?

RAW it is not precise which is why we're arguing, but the RAI is so very strong and implicit with what is actually written.

All of you would-be first player turn Scout-chargers will be sorely disappointed in any competitive events.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, the unit inside the Transport is Infantry, and the Infantry are CLEARLY redeploying. Thus the Transport can only redeploy 6", not 12". If a Transport had Scout for some reason and no unit embarked, then it could Scout 12".

That is the point, as being very random or requiring bad tactical decisions by an opponent doesn't mean 'trickery' is involved whenever occurs.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Also this was true in 6th Edition then? (I have Scouts with a DT and always be called a cheater if i charged the embarked unit turn 1, so never did - usually making it by mistake)

Although this is true, i have also always re-deployed my Dominion's Rhino 12", and not 6", as that rhino is clearly "other unit type". I did not think this was a point of contention for DT with Scout?

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
To me this issue is pretty darn clear. If anything the Infiltrate rule gives precedence to the Scouted embarked unit not being able to charge the first player turn:

"If a unit with Infiltrate deploys inside a Dedicated Transport, they may Infiltrate along with their Transport. A unit that deploys using these rules cannot charge in their first turn." Why is that okay but a Scouting unit can? My Khorne Terminators don't get the love like White Scars Terminators? Bull-ogna.

It's "bull-ogna" because the wording is completely different?

Seriously - they explicitly say under Infiltrate that the embarked unit Infiltrates along with their transport. The Scout rules are worded nothing like that. And somehow you just decide that they're the same?

You people advocating that a Scouted Transport can unleash its embarked unit in the first player turn for an assault keep wanting a specific general statement that says the embarked unit Scouted. Where is the general statement that the embarked unit is NOT considered to Scouting?

Because you aren't considered doing something until you do it.
Just like you don't move that Heavy weapon guy until you move him. Where's the general statement that he didn't move?

It confers Scout to the Transport, but does not relieve the unit of the Scout rule. The unit IS redeploying, they are not in the same place as where they first deployed. The Transport is simply permitted to redeploy with the unit still inside. Where is this assumption that the unit is not inside, and therefore not redeploying coming from?

You misunderstand the argument. The unit is demonstrably in the same place they deployed - inside the transport. That doesn't change, at all.

All of you would-be first player turn Scout-chargers will be sorely disappointed in any competitive events.

a) Irrelevant.
b) I think you'd be surprised.
c) I wonder why people keep saying things like this - it has no relevance to the discussion, doesn't support any particular viewpoint, and just serves to attempt to make someone feel like they're "better" for not following the written rules.

Furthermore, the unit inside the Transport is Infantry, and the Infantry are CLEARLY redeploying. Thus the Transport can only redeploy 6", not 12". If a Transport had Scout for some reason and no unit embarked, then it could Scout 12".

Except that's not what the actual rules say. And I'm curious - do you play that way? And did you play that way in 6th?

I'm almost positive that this was a 6th edition issue because I recall people saying Space Marine Scouts in a Cerebus could charge 1st turn or maybe I'm misremembering a previous edition.

The original poster is right according to the rules as written. The dissenters are right according the the rules as intended.
If Games Workshop were on their game they would amend the scout rule, but I think we all know they wont.
Nice little loophole, of coarse this IS a game and not the real world. I might really be in California or Texas, but I don't REALLY have to play you. I will Scout Redeploy to another table.

Captyn_Bob: "Dissenters" great term for people wanting to play the game as intended :-)

Yes, as the rules say no first turn charge, the intent is quite clear.

Naw wrote:

Captyn_Bob: "Dissenters" great term for people wanting to play the game as intended :-)

Yes, as the rules say no first turn charge, the intent is quite clear.

Disingenuous again...

No, the rules saying a unit using the rule may not charge. Good job the unit inside is not using the rule. Proven.

Please do not mislead others by misstating rules.

It's obvious that they never intended to make it so scouts inside a Transport could assault the first turn, otherwise they'd have just been like " Nah it's cool assault the first turn with scouts".

RAW , yes you can do it.

RAI , probably not everything that we've read and seen previously over the course of editions is to limit a first turn assault by you if you use special deployment rules.

If the transport has redeployed out of its deployment zone how is the squad inside allowed to deploy outside of deployment zone? If they didn't Infiltrate or Scout they are illegaly deployed. So no they can't assault.

jimbo1062 wrote:
If the transport has redeployed out of its deployment zone how is the squad inside allowed to deploy outside of deployment zone? If they didn't Infiltrate or Scout they are illegaly deployed. So no they can't assault.

The squad was deployed, they took no action. They have NOT used the Scout rule. If you claim otherwise, page and graph.

Youre maiking a "RAI" argument, mark it as such.

Hollis - only in 6th and 7th have we have prohibitions on using infiltrate or scout to assault first turn. In 7th this was extended to the entire first game turn.

They've made it so that only with a scouting transport, or with a dedicated assault vehicle transport, can you pull this off. They also could have "obviously" used the same wording as Infiltrate, which explicitly denies this from occurring, but deliberately chose not to do so. So your "obvious" argument is less so.

jimbo1062 wrote:
If the transport has redeployed out of its deployment zone how is the squad inside allowed to deploy outside of deployment zone? If they didn't Infiltrate or Scout they are illegaly deployed. So no they can't assault.

The squad deployed into the transport. Completely legal. Their deployment didn't change. Exactly as the rules are written and in violation of none of them.

It's not in violation of the rules at all, but I'd say it's probably a oversight. Who knows though maybe this very specific instance they allowed it.

The thing I'd say though is that the did specifically say " with a scout move , you cannot charge".

That's why I think RAI they probably did not intend it.

However you've been able to do it since 6th edition so who knows.

rigeld2 wrote:

jimbo1062 wrote:
If the transport has redeployed out of its deployment zone how is the squad inside allowed to deploy outside of deployment zone? If they didn't Infiltrate or Scout they are illegaly deployed. So no they can't assault.

The squad deployed into the transport. Completely legal. Their deployment didn't change. Exactly as the rules are written and in violation of none of them.

They are starting outside their deployment zone without have rules support to do so . i think thats what he is trying to say here .

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jimbo1062 wrote:
If the transport has redeployed out of its deployment zone how is the squad inside allowed to deploy outside of deployment zone? If they didn't Infiltrate or Scout they are illegaly deployed. So no they can't assault.

The squad deployed into the transport. Completely legal. Their deployment didn't change. Exactly as the rules are written and in violation of none of them.

They are starting outside their deployment zone without have rules support to do so . i think thats what he is trying to say here .

No, they're not. They deployed inside their DT.
The DT is starting outside of its deployment zone and has permission to.

edit:
DT deploys normally and doesn't scout. Vehicle moves forward 6", troops disembark 6". Troops moved 12". Troops only have a 6" move. According to many in this thread this is illegal.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

jimbo1062 wrote:
If the transport has redeployed out of its deployment zone how is the squad inside allowed to deploy outside of deployment zone? If they didn't Infiltrate or Scout they are illegaly deployed. So no they can't assault.

The squad deployed into the transport. Completely legal. Their deployment didn't change. Exactly as the rules are written and in violation of none of them.

They are starting outside their deployment zone without have rules support to do so . i think thats what he is trying to say here .

No, they're not. They deployed inside their DT.
The DT is starting outside of its deployment zone and has permission to.

edit:
DT deploys normally and doesn't scout. Vehicle moves forward 6", troops disembark 6". Troops moved 12". Troops only have a 6" move. According to many in this thread this is illegal.

yes dt has the permission to be outside the deployment zone , but does the unit have permission to be outside the deployment zone since they are not using the scout rule ?

They are not outside their deployment zone.
They're embarked in their DT.

Some new rules that should hopefully put an end to this debate:

The New Ork Supplement (Waaagh! Ghazghkull) has a Formation of Battlewagons that all have the Scout rule.

This Formation has the Following Special Rule:

Know Yer Limitz wrote:Infantry units that begin the game embarked upon a Battlewagon from this Formation cannot charge on the first turn if their Battlewagon made a Scout redeployment

This rule would not be needed if the Scout restriction applied to units inside a transport that made a Scout redeplyment.

Or it is a reminder.

GW adds pointless reminders all the time, such as with Spore Mines explosions (sentence caps the Strength at 10, but the highest achievable is 9). Another example would be Drop Pod Assault, which forbids charging the turn you arrive.

 Happyjew wrote:
Or it is a reminder.

GW adds pointless reminders all the time, such as with Spore Mines explosions (sentence caps the Strength at 10, but the highest achievable is 9). Another example would be Drop Pod Assault, which forbids charging the turn you arrive.

True there are often rules like that. But those are part of another rule, this is a complete Special Rule with no other function.
I've not seen a "reminder rule" that's a completely seperate rule it'self. I could be wrong.
Just thought it was worth mentioning.

After having looked at the rules...

Ironically Scout is not conferable from Transports to embarked units as per the permissions game that people are playing at in this thread.

If a unit with this special rule is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport, it confers the Scout special rule to the Transport (though a disembarkation cannot be performed as part of the redeployment).
Note that a Transport with this special rule does not lose it if a unit without this special rule is embarked upon it. Having scout also confers the Outflank special rule to units of Scouts that are kept as reserves.

Sidebar - Gives me an idea for Outflanking battlewagons.

Later in the same section it goes on to say that if a unit with Scouts (assuming they mean "unit with the Scout special rule" here ?) is deployed inside a Dedicated Transport (note: DEDICATED only), they may Outflank along with their transport.

Edit** It also has the same permissions under the Infiltrate special rule, but not Scout.

Now let's look at some things...

The rules do not give specific permission to units embarked in transports (of any kind) to redeploy with their transports during the Scout redeployment phase.
The rules also do not confer from vehicle TO embarked units. Only vice versa.

Looking at the arguement from the side of "you CAN charge," you will notice that the arguement is that the rules do not say that the unit embarked is redeploying as a part of the scout movement.

I would retaliate with, what lets you leave the unit embarked AND lets the vehicle move using the Scout redeployment?

Where is the permission that states a unit embarked in a vehicle with scout may redeploy along with their transport?

------

RAW would say that a unit can not even redeploy with its Scouting battlewagon.

It also seems to imply that units without Scout can not be deployed in reserve in order to Outflank either.

Let alone charge.

------

TL;DR

Units in battlewagons seemingly don't redeploy with their transports in the Scout redeployment phase, because it is not directly and specifically permitted in the RAW.

Since this is true, they certainly can't charge on the first turn if the vehicle moved, because I would argue that if you move a vehicle with the scout special rule with embarked units without scout, while unconferable and unable to disembark said unit during said Scout, that you are doing something RAW illegal, and likely are willing to forfeit the game.

Imo play the game safely, without rules lawyering. But if you must lawyer, please err on the side of caution and don't do some gak the book doesn't SPECIFICALLY say you CAN do.

The unit has not redeployed. They are in exactly the same deployment position they were before - embarked on the vehicle.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The unit has not redeployed. They are in exactly the same deployment position they were before - embarked on the vehicle.

See

Where is the permission that states a unit embarked in a vehicle with scout may redeploy along with their transport?

 Awfeel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The unit has not redeployed. They are in exactly the same deployment position they were before - embarked on the vehicle.

See

Where is the permission that states a unit embarked in a vehicle with scout may redeploy along with their transport?

I've put it in bold, as you missed it somehow

The unit has NOT redeployed. The unit is still deployed exactly where they were before - inside the vehicle.

Again: the unit has not redeployed. Thus there is no need for permission to redeploy them.

Or to put it another way, maybe clearer:

Unit A is in their transport.
They are deployed on the floor, next to a label that says "Transport A". They will be in the same place whether the Transport A is deployed on your side, Infiltrated, Scout re-deployed, or flying to another table

another way to look at this, in the waaagh ghaz supplement there is a formation that gives 5 battle wagons the scout special rule. it also then gives another specific special rule to that formation: know your limits. which prevents the passengers of the battle wagons from making an assault in the first turn if the wagons used their scout special rule.

there's nothing that prevents this in anyother situation. in a permissive rules set like 40k, the standard rules in the BRB give permission to assault turn one from a scouting assault vehicle. then there's other restrictive rules (know your limits) that prevent it.

devils advocate.

You missed the last page, which is what re-opened this thread:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Some new rules that should hopefully put an end to this debate:

The New Ork Supplement (Waaagh! Ghazghkull) has a Formation of Battlewagons that all have the Scout rule.

This Formation has the Following Special Rule:

Know Yer Limitz wrote:Infantry units that begin the game embarked upon a Battlewagon from this Formation cannot charge on the first turn if their Battlewagon made a Scout redeployment

This rule would not be needed if the Scout restriction applied to units inside a transport that made a Scout redeplyment.

Or it is a reminder.

GW adds pointless reminders all the time, such as with Spore Mines explosions (sentence caps the Strength at 10, but the highest achievable is 9). Another example would be Drop Pod Assault, which forbids charging the turn you arrive.

True there are often rules like that. But those are part of another rule, this is a complete Special Rule with no other function.
I've not seen a "reminder rule" that's a completely seperate rule it'self. I could be wrong.
Just thought it was worth mentioning.

If a unit without Deep Strike comes down in a Drop Pod, they still "arrive via deep strike"

If a unit without Outflank comes in on an outflanking vehicle, they still 'arrive via outflank'

If a unit without scout moves forward in a scouting vehicle, they still 'deploy via scouting'

It sure seems to follow...

Well the wording for Deep Striking, Infiltrate and outflanking are clear about "Dedicated Transports". Scout, not so much

Never mind, thought I was on the last page when I responded. Nothing new to add

It's a NO. If you have scouted with a unit embarked or not they cannot assault turn one. Unless of course you go second in the first turn. Stop splitting hairs. If you scout or move with a unit embarked on a transport they are considered moving or scouting just as the vehicle.

Under "Deployment"

"Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity."

When the Transport is "redeployed" via scout, the unit must also be "redeployed" because you don't deploy the unit then vehicle or a vehicle simultaneous with the unit. The vehicle must be deployed legally, then the unit is deployed. As the vehicle is "redeployed" the unit must also be "redeployed" inside of the legally deployed Transport.

Further, as has been cited previously, there is a restriction that the unit may not "disembark" or "embark" as "part" of this "redeployment". Even if you find there is a contradiction in this language as to whether or not the unit is deployed simultaneously with the Transport, there is support that the unit has redeployed. The unit is part of the redeployment. If it is part of redeployment, it has redeployed. If Princess Leia is part of the Rebel Alliance, she is a Rebel.

Angelic wrote:
Under "Deployment"

"Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity."

When the Transport is "redeployed" via scout, the unit must also be "redeployed" because you don't deploy the unit then vehicle or a vehicle simultaneous with the unit. The vehicle must be deployed legally, then the unit is deployed. As the vehicle is "redeployed" the unit must also be "redeployed" inside of the legally deployed Transport.

Really? Have you cited a rule saying that? I don't see one - perhaps you forgot to paste it?
The vehicle has been redeployed. The unit was deployed inside and wasn't redeployed out of it - in fact it's forbidden from doing so.

Further, as has been cited previously, there is a restriction that the unit may not "disembark" or "embark" as "part" of this "redeployment". Even if you find there is a contradiction in this language as to whether or not the unit is deployed simultaneously with the Transport, there is support that the unit has redeployed. The unit is part of the redeployment. If it is part of redeployment, it has redeployed. If Princess Leia is part of the Rebel Alliance, she is a Rebel.

Perhaps you should read the thread; this has been debunked already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lungpickle wrote:
It's a NO. If you have scouted with a unit embarked or not they cannot assault turn one. Unless of course you go second in the first turn. Stop splitting hairs. If you scout or move with a unit embarked on a transport they are considered moving or scouting just as the vehicle.

Citation required. Also, the underlined is completely false.

Lungpickle wrote:
It's a NO. If you have scouted with a unit embarked or not they cannot assault turn one. Unless of course you go second in the first turn. Stop splitting hairs. If you scout or move with a unit embarked on a transport they are considered moving or scouting just as the vehicle.

Care to cite a rule, as per the tenets?

You may also want to brush up on 7th and / or read the thread, as "go second" is no help any longer

I think people may do well to understand that transports rules are highly abstract.
For eg, a unit that embarks is removed from the table.
Note, the unit is removed (not just the models) and yet, that unit is still "in play" and it can be measured to "on the table."
Ie, how far away is that unit that is not on the table, in the transport, from point a = 24".

kambien wrote:

yes dt has the permission to be outside the deployment zone , but does the unit have permission to be outside the deployment zone since they are not using the scout rule ?

rigeld2 wrote:
They are not outside their deployment zone.
They're embarked in their DT.

Hang on, let me get this straight, a unit in a transport, that redeployed (the transport, that is) out of its deployment zone, is still in its deployment zone because it was deployed within its deployment zone and was never redeployed out of it?

The transported unit, that is not on the table, but can be measured to, thus proving its location in table top terms, that can demonstrably be proven by this mechanism, to be outside its deployment zone?

The point he was making is that WHERE they deployed has remained exactly the same - the vehicle. The position of the vehicle has changed, however the deployment location "embarked" is constant.

That's not what he said ...

rigeld2 wrote:
They are not outside their deployment zone.

The point being, wherever they deployed (as proven both by where the transport was originally deployed and by being able to measure to the unit at that point)
by the transport being redeployed outside its dz, the (infantry) unit can no-longer be in its deployment zone.

The demonstrable location of the transported unit has changed from within its dz, to outside.

The unit is no-longer where it was deployed, this has been achieved by a re-deployment of which it was clearly a part.

No, it was deployed within the vehicle. That has not altered. That is demonstrably true. Youre taking the sentence out of context there - they are nto outside their deployment zone, theyre where they have always been - off the table, embarked in a vehicle.

They do not need permission to be oustide their deployment zone, as they are embarked legally inside a transport vehicle

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Youre taking the sentence out of context there - they are nto outside their deployment zone, theyre where they have always been - off the table, embarked in a vehicle.

For clarity, then ...

Infantry deploys in a transport legally (in its dz) then the vehicle is redeployed outside that dz.
According to you, the passengers are not outside their dz, so where are they?
"off the table, embarked in a vehicle" is clearly not sufficient.

Whichever "In" or "out" answer that you are looking for would apply to both. Either they are "in" because being embarked is withing their Deployment zone: on the transport.
Or they are "out": they are not on the table so even if your transport is in standard deployment zone, they are still "out" as they are not on the table.

 fuusa wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Youre taking the sentence out of context there - they are nto outside their deployment zone, theyre where they have always been - off the table, embarked in a vehicle.

For clarity, then ...

Infantry deploys in a transport legally (in its dz) then the vehicle is redeployed outside that dz.
According to you, the passengers are not outside their dz, so where are they?
"off the table, embarked in a vehicle" is clearly not sufficient.

I've never said that. Be much much more precise when debating, please

I have stated WHERE they have deplkoyed - the vehicle - has not changed.

the position of the vehicle may have changed. That has absolutely no bearing on the unit inside.

This is yet another example of why I like whfb more than 40k. People trying to win with Easter eggs instead of tactics.

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
They are not outside their deployment zone.
They're embarked in their DT.

Hang on, let me get this straight, a unit in a transport, that redeployed (the transport, that is) out of its deployment zone, is still in its deployment zone because it was deployed within its deployment zone and was never redeployed out of it?

The transported unit, that is not on the table, but can be measured to, thus proving its location in table top terms, that can demonstrably be proven by this mechanism, to be outside its deployment zone?

No, the unit did not deploy in its deployment zone. It deployed inside a transport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 quickfuze wrote:
This is yet another example of why I like whfb more than 40k. People trying to win with Easter eggs instead of tactics.

Thanks for adding so much to the discussion!
People argue rulings one way but don't always play that way. Thanks for assuming otherwise though!

This is the rules query forum. If people want to discuss relative merits of Fantasy and 40K, the general discussion forum is the best place.

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
Under "Deployment"

"Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity."

When the Transport is "redeployed" via scout, the unit must also be "redeployed" because you don't deploy the unit then vehicle or a vehicle simultaneous with the unit. The vehicle must be deployed legally, then the unit is deployed. As the vehicle is "redeployed" the unit must also be "redeployed" inside of the legally deployed Transport.

Really? Have you cited a rule saying that? I don't see one - perhaps you forgot to paste it?
The vehicle has been redeployed. The unit was deployed inside and wasn't redeployed out of it - in fact it's forbidden from doing so.

But it has been redeployed in it. If a Transport hasn't been deployed, the unit can't be deployed in it. It isn't movement. You could remove it entirely from the tabletop. What's the status of the unit in that case? Whether or not the unit's position has changed is irrelevant. The prohibition on charges doesn't require that the unit change position, only that it make a Scout redeployment. You could declare that your Transport is making a Scout redeployment and leave it in the exact same position, thereby denying the first turn. Utterly ridiculous to do, but within the rules. If it wasn't deployed or redeployed, then a prohibition on disembark/embark would be totally unnecessary if your allegations that they aren't redeploying were correct. Absent redeployment, nothing would give them permission to change their deployment.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
- they are nto outside their deployment zone, theyre where they have always been - off the table, embarked in a vehicle.

 fuusa wrote:
[
According to you, the passengers are not outside their dz, so where are they?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

I've never said that. Be much much more precise when debating, please

I have stated WHERE they have deplkoyed - the vehicle - has not changed.

the position of the vehicle may have changed. That has absolutely no bearing on the unit inside.

rigeld2 wrote:

No, the unit did not deploy in its deployment zone. It deployed inside a transport.

So, the position seems to be that despite the ability to measure to/from an embarked unit and a dz boundary and thusly prove that it is within/without its dz
the position a unit occupies in a transport, even though the transport is in the dz, that location is not in the dz.

Is that what you are saying?

Angelic wrote:
But it has been redeployed in it.

Statement without rules support - assumption.

If a Transport hasn't been deployed, the unit can't be deployed in it.

Incorrect - Transports can be in Reserves with units deployed in them.

Whether or not the unit's position has changed is irrelevant.

Except your side is trying to make it relevant...

The prohibition on charges doesn't require that the unit change position, only that it make a Scout redeployment. You could declare that your Transport is making a Scout redeployment and leave it in the exact same position, thereby denying the first turn. Utterly ridiculous to do, but within the rules. If it wasn't deployed or redeployed, then a prohibition on disembark/embark would be totally unnecessary if your allegations that they aren't redeploying were correct. Absent redeployment, nothing would give them permission to change their deployment.

And the embarked unit is not changing their deployment - in fact they're forbidden from doing so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

the position of the vehicle may have changed. That has absolutely no bearing on the unit inside.

This is what we need the rules quote for.

 fuusa wrote:
So, the position seems to be that despite the ability to measure to/from an embarked unit and a dz boundary and thusly prove that it is within/without its dz
the position a unit occupies in a transport, even though the transport is in the dz, that location is not in the dz.

Is that what you are saying?

I'm saying that it's absolutely irrelevant what you can measure to. The unit has made a legal deployment by embarking. Agreed? The Transport legally scout redeploys. Agreed? The embarked unit has not redeployed - after all, they're still embarked. Agreed?

This is like saying that a Transport can only ever move 6" with a Tac squad inside because Infantry are limited to 6" of movement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

the position of the vehicle may have changed. That has absolutely no bearing on the unit inside.

This is what we need the rules quote for.

It's been provided. Absent a rule saying that the embarked unit has redeployed, it hasn't. No one has provided such a rule, so the embarked unit hasn't redeployed.

Here's two interesting tidbits.

Page 130, under deployment zones. "We've found that 12" away from the center line works best; this ensures that armies will start at least 24" apart, which makes first turn charges hard to achieve while still giving you enough space on a typical table to deploy your army".

Ok, so GW flat out said that 1st turn charges are ok, but they want them hard to do.

Page 132: Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity.
Where's permission to be deployed outside your DZ?

I see permission for the vehicle to be their, but not the embarked unit.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
If the unit has scout, they confer it to the transport. Both then have scout and are allowed to be deployed outside of their deployment zone.
If the Transport has scout, and the unit does not, the Transport can redeploy, but cannot redeploy outside of your deployment zone. To do so, you would need to find permission for a non-scouting unit to deploy in transport outside of your DZ.

Incorrect.
Scouts deploy normally first, then optionally redeploy after normal deployment. They are not like Infiltrators.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
Here's two interesting tidbits.

Page 130, under deployment zones. "We've found that 12" away from the center line works best; this ensures that armies will start at least 24" apart, which makes first turn charges hard to achieve while still giving you enough space on a typical table to deploy your army".

Ok, so GW flat out said that 1st turn charges are ok, but they want them hard to do.

Page 132: Models can be deployed 'inside' buildings, fortifications or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity.
Where's permission to be deployed outside your DZ?

I see permission for the vehicle to be their, but not the embarked unit.

They deployed inside the vehicle. The vehicle deployed in the dz, then redeployed outside. At no point did the unit embarked ever redeploy because, and this has been pointed out repeatedly, no rule says they have.

So it's put up or shut up time, again. Find a rule stating they have redeployed. Page and para. Failure to do so is instant concession on this point.

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
But it has been redeployed in it.

Statement without rules support - assumption.

If a Transport hasn't been deployed, the unit can't be deployed in it.

Incorrect - Transports can be in Reserves with units deployed in them.

Not incorrect. Holding in Reserves is not being deployed. Neither the unit, nor the transport have been deployed if they are held in Reserve. Reserve rules allow for Combined Units.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

They deployed inside the vehicle. The vehicle deployed in the dz, then redeployed outside. At no point did the unit embarked ever redeploy because, and this has been pointed out repeatedly, no rule says they have.
So it's put up or shut up time, again. Find a rule stating they have redeployed. Page and para. Failure to do so is instant concession on this point.

Page 132.
Models must either deploy in their deployment zone, or be held back in reserve.
Models can be deployed 'inside' building, fortifications, or Transports vehicles in their deployment zone,...
When you are done with deployment and redeployment, is that unit in question deployed in a vehicle in your DZ as required by the deployment rules?
Did it deploy legally? Yes.
Is it deployed legally? Possibly not. This depends on when Deployment ends.

Then the question is, when does DEPLOYMENT end?
Page 132 has everything up to rolling for seize the initiative as part of "Standard Deployment Method".
Scout has it taking place after deployment, but before the roll to steal initiative, which is between steps 3 and 4 of the Standard Deployment.
Since scouting is redeployment and takes place before the end of the Standard Deployment Method, I'd argue that standard deployment isn't done and you're still required to follow deployment rules.

If deployment ends as soon as the model is on the table, then you would indeed be able to assault out of a scouting transport.
Now, I've given you a bit to read, please work on where in the rules deployment ends, and if Deploy does or doesn't equal Deployed.
Pages if possible.

I actually believe that RAW, it is possible to assault out, I'm just working through the whole process to eliminate any possibility of doubt.

Scout moves and rolling to seize the initiative happen at the same time frame of "after deployment but before turn 1"

This leads me to believe it happens after standard deployment.

You siad it yourself, really - "Scout has it taking place after deployment, but before the roll to steal initiative, which is between steps 3 and 4 of the Standard Deployment"

It is *after* deployment, meaning they *have* deployed (past tense) within a vehicle inside their deployment zone. That the vehicle, after deployment, moves outside f the DZ is irrelevant, as you are not required to re-evaluate the deployment-status of the unit inside - in fact you cannot, as no rule allows / compels you to.

It is clear ot me that, once deployED inside a vehicle, the unit has deployED unless another rule states otherwise. Scout does not state otherwise for an embarked unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You siad it yourself, really - "Scout has it taking place after deployment, but before the roll to steal initiative, which is between steps 3 and 4 of the Standard Deployment"

It is *after* deployment, meaning they *have* deployed (past tense) within a vehicle inside their deployment zone. That the vehicle, after deployment, moves outside f the DZ is irrelevant, as you are not required to re-evaluate the deployment-status of the unit inside - in fact you cannot, as no rule allows / compels you to.

It is clear ot me that, once deployED inside a vehicle, the unit has deployED unless another rule states otherwise. Scout does not state otherwise for an embarked unit.

So you're saying it's ok to break deployment rules before the end of "Standard Deployment", as long as the sequence that got you there is legal.
It's a "Don't go left" rule, and you just made 3 right turns.
To take this to an extreme... nevermind, that thought needs it's own thread.

-Matt

You gavent broken the rules though. You have indeed deployed legally. After deployment the vehicle scouts.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You gavent broken the rules though. You have indeed deployed legally. After deployment the vehicle scouts.

And redeployment is not Deployment, even if it happens during Standard Deployment.

Be advised that the Ghaz supplement provides us with a Formation that includes 5 battlewagons with the Scout special rule. They bother to specifically add, as a SPECIAL RULE, that models inside the Battlewagons cannot assault on the first turn if the Battlewagons used a scout redeployment.

I would take this as an implication that you CAN assault from a scouting vehicle (assuming assault vehicle, not out of reserves, etc), normally.

The Scouts special rule says that the unit with this special rule makes the scout redeployment. Any unit that makes a scout redeployment cannot charge on the first turn. The infantry models are not moving at all, themselves (although they counts-as moving FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOOTING, not for any other purpose, thanks to Combat/Crusing speed rules) - it's just the vehicle that's making the scout movement. Nor are they considered the same unit as the vehicle.

So, the natural conclusions to the above: the infantry models inside do NOT!! need the Scout special rule - the transport vehicle having it is sufficient. Assuming the infantry inside do not have the rule, they cannot make a scout redeployment themselves (they don't have the rule!). If they are somehow making this scout redeployment despite the findings above, then HOW are they moving more than 6" as per Infantry Scouting? It is very clear that infantry cannot scout more than 6". If they are doing so anyway, this is VERY CLEARLY against the rules.

Therefore, they are not scout redeploying, and can charge on the first turn. OR, The vehicle can only move 6" due to the infantry models inside counting-as scouting as well, despite not having the special rule themselves (and therefore being unable to make a scout move). OR. The vehicle cannot scout at all, as it's holding models inside who cannot make a scout move.

Dilt wrote: The infantry models are not moving at all, themselves (although they counts-as moving FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOOTING, not for any other purpose, thanks to Combat/Crusing speed rules) - it's just the vehicle that's making the scout movement. Nor are they considered the same unit as the vehicle..

This is not correct - a redeployment is not a move, and even if it were it would not matter as it is prior to the first turn, meaning that the embarked unit would not have been in a moving vehicle the phase before their shooting phase.

 Dilt wrote:


So, the natural conclusions to the above: the infantry models inside do NOT!! need the Scout special rule - the transport vehicle having it is sufficient. Assuming the infantry inside do not have the rule, they cannot make a scout redeployment themselves (they don't have the rule!). If they are somehow making this scout redeployment despite the findings above, then HOW are they moving more than 6" as per Infantry Scouting? It is very clear that infantry cannot scout more than 6". If they are doing so anyway, this is VERY CLEARLY against the rules.

Apply this same logic to a tac squad deep striking in a drop pod.

I think it was summed up earlier,

If a unit is in a DT, and they confer scout (and outflank if in reserve), then by your logic, if you held them in reserve and then outflank they could assault on the the turn they come in. By your logic they did not make the outflank move, the DT did and therefor there is no restriction on the unit.

I disagree with the interpretation of your rules sir.

taurising wrote:
I think it was summed up earlier,

If a unit is in a DT, and they confer scout (and outflank if in reserve), then by your logic, if you held them in reserve and then outflank they could assault on the the turn they come in. By your logic they did not make the outflank move, the DT did and therefor there is no restriction on the unit.

I disagree with the interpretation of your rules sir.

Not true at all.
The unit arrived from Reserve that turn. They're forbidden from assaulting the turn they arrive from Reserve.
It helps to know the rules before trying to craft an argument.

taurising wrote:
I think it was summed up earlier,

If a unit is in a DT, and they confer scout (and outflank if in reserve), then by your logic, if you held them in reserve and then outflank they could assault on the the turn they come in. By your logic they did not make the outflank move, the DT did and therefor there is no restriction on the unit.

I disagree with the interpretation of your rules sir.

How do you assault when you have arrived from reserve? Or are you making up other rules as well?

taurising wrote:
If a unit is in a DT, and they confer scout (and outflank if in reserve), then by your logic, if you held them in reserve and then outflank they could assault on the the turn they come in. By your logic they did not make the outflank move, the DT did and therefor there is no restriction on the unit.

Nearly, but not quite.

A unit is held in reserve, embarked on a transport, the unit confers scout and therefore outflank on the vehicle.
Both units come on from reserve (despite the passengers being off-table), even though it is the vehicle doing the moving, so no assault.

What their argument is claiming, is that both units arrive from reserve, but it is the vehicle that is scouting (so in this case, outflanking) which is why its wrong.
For their argument to remain consistent, this must be the case, which it clearly isn't.

So, still no rules support ? Just checking.

I think this discussion can be left at "Scout USR needs clearing up".

It repeats how units may not disembark from their DT (and so should also re-specify how they cannot charge) but as it does not specify, charging on turn 1 is allowed by RaW.

Intended? I highly doubt it. They must have wanted the wording to work like it does for infiltrate, but it just doesn't...

If they wanted it to work like infiltrate, they could have used the exact same wording. That they didnt can only be intentional (I dont assume they randomly write sentences down...despite some evidence of this...) and so claiming "RAI" on no-assault is also fairly tricky to do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, still no rules support ? Just checking.

Was that aimed at me?

In any case, I don't think you have proved in any way that the passengers have not been redeployed, where does it say that?
The simple reading of the rule certainly shows that both units' position has changed, because of the scout rule, therefore both units have redeployed via scout.
Nothing in the rules suggests that this is not true.

Is it true that if a scout unit in a dt, which is placed in reserves and the combination outflanks, the transport outflanks but not the unit? To remain consistent with your argument. that must be true.
If it is, then scout redeployment inside a vehicle would work the way you say.

Either both units scout and redeploy/scout and outflank or just the vehicle does, where do the rules state they are different?

No, youre wrong. You have to prove they HAVE been redeployed, as the RULES do not state that they have been

The plain, to the letter reading of the rule is that the vehicle redeploys. The unit inside NEVER changes its deployment - they remain DEPLOYED inside the vehicle, the new location they are still DEPLOYED inside the vehicle. Note, no redeployment there.

Again, your "argument" results in the transport only redeploying 6". The actual rules state 12", so your argument is unlikely to be correct.

Would you answer the questions I put or not?

Why is scout redeployment different to scout outflank in a dt?

I answered the relevant questions

WIll you answer why you are redeploying the vehicle 12", not 6" as yoru "argument" results in?

I would not say it is any different: The unit is deployed inside the transport, whether it's in reserves or outflanking.
Only the transport outflanks, and it can arrive empty or filled, which would make no difference RaW-wise

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I answered the relevant questions

Another refusal then.
Personally, I think you are bright enough to know where I am going with this, so you want to avoid it at all costs.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
WIll you answer why you are redeploying the vehicle 12", not 6" as yoru "argument" results in?

I will if you but do the same which you have refused to so far.
Care to redeem yourself?

 BlackTalos wrote:
I would not say it is any different: The unit is deployed inside the transport, whether it's in reserves or outflanking.
Only the transport outflanks, and it can arrive empty or filled, which would make no difference RaW-wise

Thankyou Black Talos.
I will reply, but would like to see what nos says first ... not holding breath.

Ah, so I answer your relevant questions - not all - but you refuse to answer one?

Classy!

So, can you prove they have been redeployed? The burden is on you. Do so, or concede.

Further refusal is concession, as the point is so far proven.

So you havent answered all relevant questions then, glad you admit that.

No, the burden is on you to prove that a unit that changes its position via the scout rule has not redeployed.

No concession.

This point can easily be moved beyond if you answer my question. You know what's coming so an impasse would be good for you.

No, I answered ALL RELEVANT questions, not ALL questions. Nice try attwisting words though!

I have done. The unit has remained in exactly the same deployment-state as it was before - Embarked. Can you please prove they HAVE redeployed, given the actual rules - you know, as youve been asked to?

Concession accepted.

 fuusa wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
I would not say it is any different: The unit is deployed inside the transport, whether it's in reserves or outflanking.
Only the transport outflanks, and it can arrive empty or filled, which would make no difference RaW-wise

Thankyou Black Talos.
I will reply, but would like to see what nos says first ... not holding breath.

But this defies your point (in a way):

The embarked unit is deployed inside the transport - the marines inside do not Scout redeploy, and they do not outflank either. Their DT does these things, and unless (like Infiltrate and possibly outflank, definitely "reserves") the rule states any restrictions about units embarked, they may assault / shoot / run / teleport as normal...?

Ie turn 1 charge fully legal, and so is charging from outflanking - IF the restriction from arriving from reserve did not exist.

Redacted.

 fuusa wrote:

taurising wrote:
If a unit is in a DT, and they confer scout (and outflank if in reserve), then by your logic, if you held them in reserve and then outflank they could assault on the the turn they come in. By your logic they did not make the outflank move, the DT did and therefor there is no restriction on the unit.

Nearly, but not quite.

A unit is held in reserve, embarked on a transport, the unit confers scout and therefore outflank on the vehicle.
Both units come on from reserve (despite the passengers being off-table), even though it is the vehicle doing the moving, so no assault.

What their argument is claiming, is that both units arrive from reserve, but it is the vehicle that is scouting (so in this case, outflanking) which is why its wrong.
For their argument to remain consistent, this must be the case, which it clearly isn't.

No, that's not the argument. You're obviously not willing to actually listen though so it's not worth explaining.

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

taurising wrote:
If a unit is in a DT, and they confer scout (and outflank if in reserve), then by your logic, if you held them in reserve and then outflank they could assault on the the turn they come in. By your logic they did not make the outflank move, the DT did and therefor there is no restriction on the unit.

Nearly, but not quite.

A unit is held in reserve, embarked on a transport, the unit confers scout and therefore outflank on the vehicle.
Both units come on from reserve (despite the passengers being off-table), even though it is the vehicle doing the moving, so no assault.

What their argument is claiming, is that both units arrive from reserve, but it is the vehicle that is scouting (so in this case, outflanking) which is why its wrong.
For their argument to remain consistent, this must be the case, which it clearly isn't.

No, that's not the argument. You're obviously not willing to actually listen though so it's not worth explaining.

Its also been explained exactly, perfectly well previously, but fuusa appears to be wanting to "trap" me and others who have not made rules up....

 BlackTalos wrote:


But this defies your point (in a way):

Yes, certainly.

 BlackTalos wrote:
The embarked unit is deployed inside the transport - the marines inside do not Scout redeploy, and they do not outflank either. Their DT does these things, and unless (like Infiltrate and possibly outflank, definitely "reserves") the rule states any restrictions about units embarked, they may assault / shoot / run / teleport as normal...?

See this is where things go wrong.

Either both the transport and the passenger unit are redeploying (together) AND both transport and the passenger unit are outflanking, or only the vehicle is redeploying/outflanking in both cases. Do you agree (you seem to)?
That's my point.

There is nothing in the rulebook that says the passenger unit is not redeployed if its transport is (page and sentence if it does).
There is nothing in the rulebook that says the passenger unit is not outflanking if its transport is, on the contrary, it says If a unit with scouts is deployed inside a dedicated transport, they may outflank along with their transport.

= the scout unit outflanks along with its transport.

The question I have asked nos repeatedly is why scout units don't redeploy when they scout in a transport, when they outflank in a transport even though his argument is that the transport does these things and not the passengers. Where is this difference pointed out in the rules?

Tac marines arriving in a drop pod deep strike because their transport deep strikes.
Where is the wording that shows a passenger unit doesn't redeploy/outflank because their transport does???

This the marines inside do not Scout redeploy, and they do not outflank either. Their DT does these things, is the bit nos is avoiding.

No, not avoiding. Finding it still irrelevant

WE have proven they have not redeployed. You have ,again, refused to follow the tenets of this forum and provide ANY support to your contention that they HAVE redeployed. As such your concession is accepted. Oh, no "impasse" - your argument has been debunked, meaning at this moment the case is proven.

Please mark your posts "HYWPI", as per the tenets of this forum.

rigeld2 wrote:

No, that's not the argument. You're obviously not willing to actually listen though so it's not worth explaining.

If I have missed the point, i am willing to listen.

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

No, that's not the argument. You're obviously not willing to actually listen though so it's not worth explaining.

If I have missed the point, i am willing to listen.

Support your argument with some rules, then.

Prove they HAVE redeployed, page and para. WE have proven their deployment has not changed, so the burden is on you.

Or you could refuse to answer these directly-to-the-point questions again. Thats a really good way to convince people.

 fuusa wrote:
There is nothing in the rulebook that says the passenger unit is not redeployed if its transport is (page and sentence if it does).
There is nothing in the rulebook that says the passenger unit is not outflanking if its transport is, on the contrary, it says If a unit with scouts is deployed inside a dedicated transport, they may outflank along with their transport.

= the scout unit outflanks along with its transport.

The question I have asked nos repeatedly is why scout units don't redeploy when they scout in a transport, when they outflank in a transport even though his argument is that the transport does these things and not the passengers. Where is this difference pointed out in the rules?

You quoted it. The embarked unit outflanks along with its transport. Have something similar for Scouting?

Tac marines arriving in a drop pod deep strike because their transport deep strikes.

As the rules say.

Where is the wording that shows a passenger unit doesn't redeploy/outflank because their transport does???

Every other example says that you do X because your transport does X. It's (conspicuously) missing for Scouting. Your assumption is that it's there but you lack evidence.

This the marines inside do not Scout redeploy, and they do not outflank either. Their DT does these things, is the bit nos is avoiding.

False. As the rule you quoted proves, the marines inside do in fact Outflank.
Perhaps you should read the rules you're quoting?

nosferatu1001 wrote:


WE have proven they have not redeployed.

Please mark your posts "HYWPI", as per the tenets of this forum.

You haven't proved anything AND you are trying to persuade me to lie.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

No, that's not the argument. You're obviously not willing to actually listen though so it's not worth explaining.

If I have missed the point, i am willing to listen.

Support your argument with some rules, then.

Prove they HAVE redeployed, page and para. WE have proven their deployment has not changed, so the burden is on you.

Or you could refuse to answer these directly-to-the-point questions again. Thats a really good way to convince people.

So, in order for me to listen, you advise me to talk, that's very you.
Their deployment clearly has changed as they have redeployed to a new location, the passengers are not where they were due to the scout rule, prove that wrong if you can you haven't yet and I don't think you will.

Refuse to answer questions, no. I don't avoid them by pretending they are irrelevant either.

rigeld2 wrote:

This the marines inside do not Scout redeploy, and they do not outflank either. Their DT does these things, is the bit nos is avoiding.

False. As the rule you quoted proves, the marines inside do in fact Outflank.
Perhaps you should read the rules you're quoting?

Perhaps you should read the posts you're quoting. That was quoted from dark talos.

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

This the marines inside do not Scout redeploy, and they do not outflank either. Their DT does these things, is the bit nos is avoiding.

False. As the rule you quoted proves, the marines inside do in fact Outflank.
Perhaps you should read the rules you're quoting?

Perhaps you should read the posts you're quoting. That was quoted from dark talos.

BlackTalos actually.
And he said this?

There is nothing in the rulebook that says the passenger unit is not outflanking if its transport is, on the contrary, it says If a unit with scouts is deployed inside a dedicated transport, they may outflank along with their transport.

If so then you heavily messed up your quotes. I underlined the part I was referencing.
Hell,

 fuusa wrote:
= the scout unit outflanks along with its transport.

Which is exactly what I said is correct. Which, in your conclusion, you said they didn't do. Please explain how this isn't contradicting yourself?

Fuusa - nope, they are still deployed exactly where they were previously - the vehicle. They have not redeployed

Proven.

Now, page and para showing they HAVE redeployed.

The question is irrelevant - as proven, There is specific mention in Outflank that the Scout unit has also outflanked. Ditto for Deepstriking units. Now, can you please, for once this thread, find an actual rule. with page and paragraph numbers, and exact quotes, proving that when a Transport vehicle redeploys via Scout, so does the unit inside?

Further refusal will again show the strength of your argument.

Lacking a rulebook at the moment, i will abstain from the debate until i can put context to the rules, but as far as i can see,

Either both the transport and the passenger unit are redeploying (together) AND both transport and the passenger unit are outflanking, or only the vehicle is redeploying/outflanking in both cases. Do you agree (you seem to)?
That's my point.

There is nothing in the rulebook that says the passenger unit is not redeployed if its transport is (page and sentence if it does).
There is nothing in the rulebook that says the passenger unit is not outflanking if its transport is, on the contrary, it says If a unit with scouts is deployed inside a dedicated transport, they may outflank along with their transport.

= the scout unit outflanks along with its transport.

If that rule is within Scouts, then it adds the condition: "they are outflanking too" and all that comes with it. Does the rules for scout redeployment have the same wording?

I thought, indeed that either both are true / untrue, but it seems i may be wrong.
I will simply have to go and check again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fuusa wrote:
Their deployment clearly has changed as they have redeployed to a new location, the passengers are not where they were due to the scout rule, prove that wrong if you can you haven't yet and I don't think you will.

This part should be worded differently with an important meaning change:

Their deployment has not changed, they are, and always were, embarked in their DT.
So is their deployment if they outflank or infiltrate.
The later 2 however have RaW letting you know that actually, the occupants of a DT have changed deployment "status". The Scout rule does not have that wording.

Calm down please folks.

Have I just had a post removed (last 20 mins or so)???

I am curious to hear why units that are not on the table (embarked on a transport) arrive from the reserves when their transport does so, as they are not on board. At the same time those same models could capture, how do they do that??

Who takes part in a scout redeployment? Certainly they don't need to specify that is is the redeploying vehicle.

Arguments like this are why I cannot wait for GW to fold.

Clearly we need a complete from the ground up redesign of the rules and the armies.

My reading of the rules is that the unit would be unable to assault first turn.

*didnt read the whole thread, so it might have been mentioned

In waagh Ghazghkull supplement there is a formation called blitz brigade. It gives scout to 5 battlewagons, but those battlewagons have an explicit rule called "know yer limits" that disallows units embarked on them to assault if the vehicle itself made a scout redeployment.

The question is of course: is it merely a friendly reminder of RAW? OR is it something apart from normal RAW and therefore written as a special rule?

Britneyfan12 wrote:
*didnt read the whole thread, so it might have been mentioned

In waagh Ghazghkull supplement there is a formation called blitz brigade. It gives scout to 5 battlewagons, but those battlewagons have an explicit rule called "know yer limits" that disallows units embarked on it to assault if the vehicel itself made a scout redeployment.

The question is of course: is it merely a friendly reminder of RAW? OR is it something apart from normal RAW and therefore written as a special rule?

Yes it was mentioned. And then I commented on how it is possible it is just a reminder.


While I agree RAW does allow it, personally the fact that GW tried to make first turn charges near impossible, what with needing a total move greater than 24", I don't think it is intended.

Naw wrote:
I am curious to hear why units that are not on the table (embarked on a transport) arrive from the reserves when their transport does so, as they are not on board. At the same time those same models could capture, how do they do that??

Who takes part in a scout redeployment? Certainly they don't need to specify that is is the redeploying vehicle.

Sorry, your first sentence doesnt really make any sense. The rules for measuring to embarked units covers the second.

The vehicle is performing the redeployment, the embarked unit never changes where it is deployed